I hope so too.

It's not right. It shouldn't matter what the color of your skin is, what gender you associate with, or what your sexual orientation is because we are all human. No one is any better than anyone else.

Thank you.

He has often been the deciding vote that went in corporations favor. He has also subtly made comments that he would work to get Roe v Wade overturned. I'm sure he would do the bidding of the republican party to take away the new equality rights of the LGBTQ group.

What, you have not notice what he has been accused of, or you have not heard his aggressive whine.

@Captain747ex I hear you and appreciate you took the time to answer. If he have said sublte comments then my take on that is that it is up to interpretation. I guess it is now wait and see. Thanks

@Jolanta of course I heard the accusations and I did follow the process and the conclusion determined by the experts based on the evidence provided. As far as whining, I saw that as I saw the Spartacus moment, the "I didn't leak it", the whining from others on highschool notebook notes, beer and a creepy porn lawyer saying things like gang rape... A lot of those theatrical clownd should be prosevuted. That's what I saw. Not sure what did you see.

@IamNobody You're welcome. I really don't know what needs to be interpreted? How hard is it to guarantee that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion if she so chooses? You don't have to agree with her decision because it's not yours to make, it's her decision and no one else's.

@Captain747ex what it's up for interpretation is that you are taking as a fact that something will happen based on what you have already said it's subtle comments. I understand we can keep slicing this one for a while but the truth of the matter is that none of us will solve it here. I asked politely and you answer the same way. Let's leave it at that if possible.

@IamNobody My apologies, I thought you were referring to the interpretation of the law. Also, please forgive me if you thought I was attacking you in any way. I had no intention of doing that and apologize if I came off that way.

@Captain747ex oh no no no, I didn't take it that way. I was just trying to be cautious since everyone is so jumpy on this matters when in reality, we have to do what we are doing here, just talk about it. So, no you didn't came off that way, no worries.

@IamNobody Oh, good. You're right, we do need to do more constructive conversing and less attacking each other. You're also correct that time will tell if our fears are justified.

I can see that. This could be the end of checks and balances.

I agree. It certainly doesn't look good.

I don't understand what you mean, could you elaborate on that?

Oh, I didn't notice. I figured that someone probably posted something similar but I wasn't sure. I figured I'd see how other people felt about it now that he is official.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Agreed. I still say that any procedure in the Senate is unnecessary to confirming a Supreme Court nominee, as the Constitution specifies none, unlike in other cases. All that was necessary was for Senators to have officially gone on the record. Even so, the refusal of the Senate's Republican majority to open proceedings on Garland's nomination set a horrible precedent.

@bingst Yes there was a mention today that a filibuster could have been done. Now I'm wondering was no one opposed enough? Or did the Dems not want to set that precedent again?