"A president has a right to nominate judges as he sees fit"

[question everything]

Or something like that, I remember Graham's comment during the Sotomayor confirmation hearing.

Just watched RBG on CNN - what an unusual person she is - when she clearly stated, during her confirmation, her pro-choice stand. And then Orrin Hatch said something similar: a liberal president nominates a liberal judge. I disagree with your stand, he said, but I accept that this is the president's choice.

I have recently thought that, I suppose, the same thing can be said about Kavanaugh. But then I remember the way they behaved with the Garland nomination and all bets are off. Or should be.

Already communicated to my senators that they should vote NO. I think that the will.

[RockRaven]

1. I don't believe, though, that RBG had opined upon a statute/law that Clinton was at the time facing,

in a manner which explicitly favored him avoiding the consequences of his misdeeds. That Kavanaugh has done. So even absent the GOP's behavior vis-a-vis Garland, we are already in a totally different position than Graham's position on Clinton/RBG.

Not that it is going to matter, but we ought not concede points which then allow Repukes to claim false equivalencies.

[question everything]

2. She was confirmed in 1993

If you are talking about Lewinski, this took place in 1995, during Newt's shutting down of the government.