It should be noted that the guy who wrote this editorial is the same author who was on Townhall lamenting that President Obama was “Controlling Children’s Minds” with the President’s Sept. 8 speech to school children.

Are the “facts” he quotes really facts, or is the only answer ad hominems against the person presenting them?

re: #2 EE

An article by Klukowski isn’t worth the time to do the investigation. This is what happens when one cries wolf too many times.

Running away from a challenge by resorting to ad hominems is not extremely convincing. It would be nice if you could show me, please, that the author is lying. Or at least please show me that he is spinning. Where is the truth? That’s more relevant than throwing ad hominems around.
For example, was this nominated guy a fund-raiser for ACORN or wasn’t he? Was he a big fundraiser, or just a nobody?
And what about his allegedly stating that Supreme Court justices should be creating footnotes to the Constitution? Did he say that or didn’t he? Is he the sort who would feel obligated to disregard the Constitution?

Oh well, regardless of whether you feel up to looking into it, the Republicans have promised a fight against this nomination, so things should get interesting. Just thought you might want to give readers a heads up on what the fight will be about. It won’t be about this one whistleblower, no matter how many ad hominems are piled on him.

re: #4 EE

If you wish to criticize Judge Hamilton the onus is on you to bring forward a sound arguments by a credible source, rather than link to someone of questionable reputation.

I am not for him nor against him. I am just citing a report that has been made concerning him. Why do you presume that I am against Judge Hamilton?
It’s nice for readers to know in advance the case that the Republicans are going to make against this nomination, and the Republicans have said that there is going to be a fight. What, I wonder, will be the arguments in his defense?