Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Sep 6, 2018.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    It's so self-righteous. I was explaining this to my dad the other day. Wokeness has replaced Christianity as their religion, and it functions just as religion does.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  3. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    Big tech = big abortion
     
  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Them Dems really like their dead babies I guess. They are willing to vilify anyone with even a suspicion of wanting to reduce the number of dead babies.
     
  7. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    Unless the baby is killed with an AR15. They seem to be against that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Keyser says she was threatened with a ‘Smear Campaign’ if she didn’t back Ford's Kavanaugh story

     
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Just as we suspected all along -- these are horrible human beings

     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Of course, it's also remarkable to read and hear Left-wing commentators claim this (even though "this" is nothing) means he lied under oath and that this would be an impeachable offense. Twenty years ago, these same people righteously and defiantly claimed and set the precedent that lying under oath isn't that big of a deal and definitely isn't an impeachable offense. If you blow your wad arguing that perjury is a parking ticket to save your own guy's ***, it's kinda hard to later argue that it's capital murder.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    What's really astounding is that the New York Times viewed the Max Stier claim (WHICH IS NOT EVEN SUPPORTED BY THE FRIGGIN VICTIM) as a huge story, but they didn't view Leland Keyser's claim that she was threatened by Ford's people if she didn't lie as a big story. That actually is a story and should be investigated. It is a crime - blackmail and potentially subornation of perjury.

    This is why people don't freak out when Trump calls the press the "enemy of the people" or otherwise bashes them. They seek a level of respect that comes with being an independent pursuer of truth and vehicle of accountability, and they've simply blown the credibility to get that respect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    or unless it dies while the mother is trying to sneak across the U.S. border.
     
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts


    "Not only did Christine Blasey Ford’s key witness and friend — Leland Keyser — state that she didn’t recall the party where Ford claimed she was assaulted, she also says she doesn’t remember 'any others like it."

    Brett Kavanaugh Case: New York Times Prints Ludicrous Smear | National Review
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    From the WAPO (of all peoples) --

    "In whiplash moment, Democrats are now backing away from Kavanaugh allegations"

    " .... Schumer never mentioned the latest Kavanaugh imbroglio in Tuesday’s opening comments and appeared exhausted when the topic came up as the very first question.

    “Look, I’ve said this before, very simply. I never thought Kavanaugh should be on the bench, and I still don’t today,” he told reporters.

    In Senate floor speeches Monday and Tuesday, Schumer covered the waterfront of pending issues: President Trump’s ongoing demands for more money to build a barrier at the border, the overall government funding deadline of Sept. 30, potential gun-control legislation and even a federal regulatory review of Chinese telecom firms.

    No Kavanaugh.
    * * * *
    Some Democrats acknowledged that the ground had completely shifted. The Post’s Seung Min Kim asked Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in leadership, if Republicans were enjoying this story.

    “Well, they are,” he said.

    At that moment on Tuesday, a GOP senator was holding the floor blasting those Democrats who were calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment over the issue, including two senators running for the 2020 presidential nomination, Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)....."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html?noredirect=on
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  15. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    Wow, what an albatross that Dems continue to hang around their necks. Even when completely discredited, they continue to go after an innocent man. They are fascists that want to destroy an innocent man for having differing political views. I truly wonder how any thoughtful person with a conscience can call themselves a Democrat.
     
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    It explains a lot of the otherwise unnecessary delays or any other action by Trump and the other Rs on this, as well as impeachment talk. They think it helps them politically in the next election, so they are willing to just let Dems keep tripping over themselves. It's rope-a-dope.
     
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I will never understand how people this dishonest can fall asleep at night

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  18. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    It has become abundantly clear that the Dems and anyone that goes like lemmings to their nonsense are the new McCarthyists...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    Um, no. McCarthy was right, Hollywood was and is full of commies.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Schumer is avoiding the issue, because he isn't a dumbass. Had the Democrats not **** the bed last year, he might be Senate Majority Leader now. Instead, they pissed away seats.
     
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This is what they do.

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    Don’t forget they want to increase the number of Supremes. All part of it maybe?
     
  23. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    The electoral map gives Republicans an advantage in shaping the SCOTUS. I would actually not mind more SCOTUS justices to make it easier for Republicans to continually assert this advantage.

    So I would actually be willing to increase the number of SCOTUS justices with a caveat that any future SCOTUS appointments will only occur after a POTUS election (i.e. retiring / deceased SCOTUS justices will be replaced by the winner of the next POTUS election). Voters should know exactly what they are voting for in the POTUS election (1 POTUS and ?? SCOTUS appointments). New seats would be filled 1 at a time successively at each future POTUS election.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not a fan of expanding the Supreme Court. It has been 9 justices since 1837 (with the exception of some shady dealings by the Reconstruction-era Congress to deny Andrew Johnson appointments). I don't see a reason to expand it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    So did FDR
     
  26. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    Agreed. I was just pontificating about how to (IMHO) correct an oversight by the Founders regarding appointment of Justices. It's not right that ideological Justices have so much influence over which POTUS will replace them. New SCOTUS Justices should only be appointed after a Presidential election so the voters can decide the POTUS to make the appointment.
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    There was no oversight by the Founders. We took a good system and screwed it up.

    The original Supreme Court wasn't a very powerful place. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court (and all federal courts) only has jurisdiction over cases between parties of different states (diversity of citizenship jurisdiction), cases decided under federal laws (federal question jurisdiction), cases in international waters (maritime jurisdiction), and cases in which the United States is a party. Well, the Constitution imposed huge limitations on federal power, so there just weren't very many federal laws under which federal question jurisdiction could be invoked. Furthermore, it was a much smaller and more localized nation back then, so there weren't many cases between citizens of different states. The last two areas that trigger federal jurisdiction are even narrower and still are pretty narrow.

    For some perspective, the first Chief Justice (John Jay) presided for six years, and the Court heard a grand total of four cases, only one of which was particularly important, and that case was overturned by the 11th Amendment. Chief Justice Jay quit the Court to run for governor of New York. (Can you imagine John Roberts quitting the Supreme Court to run for something else? Of course not.) The point is that the Court just wasn't that big of deal, so giving a federal judge a lifetime appointment wasn't the end of the world, even if he ended up not being a particularly good judge.

    Since 1789, we've amended the Constitution and almost always in the direction of expanding federal power and therefore federal question jurisdiction. Hell, the 14th Amendment virtually gives the federal courts veto power over any law passed by a state if they choose to apply it broadly enough. That's ridiculous.

    We also had a different view of what a judge was supposed to do. His personal integrity and commitment to following the written law mattered a lot more, so it mattered a lot less what a judge's political agenda was. Now, all we care about is the policy agenda, and we let and encourage judges to make that the focus of their rulings. Think about it. If Sonia Sotomayor was truly going to follow the law to the letter of the law and leave her "wise Latina" ******** at the door where it belongs, would we care if she got on the Court? I wouldn't. She's an intelligent, well-reasoned, and well-qualified person to be on the Court. The only reason I didn't want her on the Court and would celebrate if she quit is that I know she won't leave it at the door. In fact, she wouldn't even care to be a justice if she had to leave it at the door.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  29. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    It's interesting that none of resident progressives seem to be chiming in on this thread. I hope that means they have enough integrity to not defend the disgusting antics of the Dems. I'm not that old but I simply have not seen a more outrageous display in Washington than the Kavanaugh hearings.
     
  30. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    UTChe96, they will swing back to it once the Trump colluded with Ukraine story is over.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page