PDA

View Full Version : All Things SCOTUS


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 07:17 PM
Creating a dedicated thread as folks are posting in multiple threads on the topic, and I was surprised we didn't have a SCOTUS thread....

Early odds...
Brett Kavanaugh at 34%
Thomas Hardiman 16%
Amy Coney Barrett ND GRAD 11%

List of potential nominees
Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida
Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator
Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah
Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa
Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)
Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas
Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32394/heres-list-trumps-potential-scotus-replacements-paul-bois

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kennedy-bets/online-bettors-see-kavanaugh-as-likely-u-s-supreme-court-nominee-idUSKBN1JN350

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 07:35 PM
Toobin... SMH

CNN legal analyst: Roe v. Wade is doomed
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/27/toobin-scotus-kennedy-retirement-roe-v-wade-trump-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy/

wizards8507
06-27-2018, 09:26 PM
Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz are both tweeting support for Mike Lee.

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 09:34 PM
Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz are both tweeting support for Mike Lee.

They should put their phones down.

I'm not a big fan. Too Tea Party for a smooth approval as well.

loomis41973
06-27-2018, 09:38 PM
51-49 or better.


Those on both sides better think carefully.

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 09:52 PM
51-49 or better.


Those on both sides better think carefully.

They will be fine so long as they keep fringe folks like Collins in line with a safe pick. If they go ultra right, they may have problems. A safe pick would also put pressure on moderate Dems in red states, which is yummy.

Sea Turtle
06-27-2018, 10:01 PM
I'd rather talk about FLOTUS but I suppose we can talk about this as well :)

loomis41973
06-27-2018, 10:04 PM
I'd rather talk about FLOTUS but I suppose we can talk about this as well :)

Didn't you hear?


She left DJT and left the Country.

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 10:06 PM
I'd rather talk about FLOTUS but I suppose we can talk about this as well :)

She deserves her own thread in the Gentlemen's Club...

wait a minute.. damn it.

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 10:07 PM
Didn't you hear?


She left DJT and left the Country.

did you hear him talk about that the other night in SC lol

IrishLax
06-27-2018, 10:10 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">McConnell in 2013: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6G7DiNM8aO">pic.twitter.com/6G7DiNM8aO</a></p>&mdash; Ben Goldey (@BenGoldey) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenGoldey/status/1012060790705278977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 10:30 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">McConnell in 2013: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6G7DiNM8aO">pic.twitter.com/6G7DiNM8aO</a></p>&mdash; Ben Goldey (@BenGoldey) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenGoldey/status/1012060790705278977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Thank you Mr Reid...

loomis41973
06-27-2018, 11:10 PM
Can't stop the Trump train.

Irish YJ
06-27-2018, 11:23 PM
The more I read about Amy Barrett, the more I like her. Too early for her though. Gonna be Hardiman IMO. Kavanaugh may be too hard to gain 100% support on.

ACamp1900
06-27-2018, 11:28 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">McConnell in 2013: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6G7DiNM8aO">pic.twitter.com/6G7DiNM8aO</a></p>&mdash; Ben Goldey (@BenGoldey) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenGoldey/status/1012060790705278977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wow... chickens sure as hell coming home to roost, aren’t they? This stuff can be applied to so much. Its not all schadenfreude, even tho I did loathe many of those democrats, it’d still be better without the gotcha back and forth bullshit the parties are surely to continue bringing us...

wizards8507
06-28-2018, 08:55 AM
The more I read about Amy Barrett, the more I like her. Too early for her though. Gonna be Hardiman IMO. Kavanaugh may be too hard to gain 100% support on.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180628/0bfedbd89b72a0db9c04035c309f0cc7.jpg

Irishize
06-28-2018, 11:20 AM
I’d hate to be the first name put up because they always seem to be the sacrificial lamb as the opposing party paints them as the second coming of Satan. This should be the most hateful nomination process of all time.

Legacy
06-28-2018, 03:25 PM
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/)

wizards8507
06-28-2018, 05:13 PM
Barrett is apparently a top five candidate. She got Shapiro's full endorsement on the podcast today.

Polish Leppy 22
06-28-2018, 06:40 PM
They should put their phones down.

I'm not a big fan. Too Tea Party for a smooth approval as well.

If Sotomayor got the green light, Mike Lee will look like a centrist.

connor_in
06-28-2018, 06:51 PM
https://twitter.com/CNNPoltics/status/1012343403697319937?s=19

ab2cmiller
06-28-2018, 07:21 PM
https://twitter.com/CNNPoltics/status/1012343403697319937?s=19

Just like the first comment under that tweet said, Maxine has jumped the shark.

Irish YJ
06-28-2018, 08:46 PM
I’d hate to be the first name put up because they always seem to be the sacrificial lamb as the opposing party paints them as the second coming of Satan. This should be the most hateful nomination process of all time.

It's gonna be fun to watch, that's for sure. I hope the right pushes it hard without lube. Reid did this to himself/party.

Barrett is apparently a top five candidate. She got Shapiro's full endorsement on the podcast today.

3rd in the odds I posted yesterday.

Here's the latest..

Brett Kavanaugh (2.5:1)
Amul Thapar (3.6:1)
Amy Coney Barrett (4.0:1)
Raymond Kethledge (5.0:1)
Kevin Newsom (6.0:1)
Patrick Wyrick (8.0:1)
Britt Grant (8.0:1)
Thomas Hardiman (9.5:1)
Mike Lee (9.5:1)
William Pryor (10.0:1)

If Sotomayor got the green light, Mike Lee will look like a centrist.

That was a pretty ugly one, but it cold have been uglier. 9 republicans supported her nomination. Lee getting some love above, I just don't see it. IMO, Trump needs to pick a young and healthy guy/girl that's not way too right. The farther right, the harder it will be to keep center Repubs like Collins in the fold, and harder it is to apply pressure on center Dems in red States.

loomis41973
06-28-2018, 09:56 PM
Not bad. Four Domers in the top 25.

Irish YJ
06-28-2018, 10:46 PM
Not bad. Four Domers in the top 25.

ND could keep america great. And it could be a 40 years decision.

loomis41973
06-28-2018, 11:38 PM
Why are the Libs already protesting ANY pick that the POTUS makes?

"We will fight the nominee until the end" says Cryin' Chuck.

SMH

Irish YJ
06-28-2018, 11:42 PM
Why are the Libs already protesting ANY pick that the POTUS makes?

"We will fight the nominee until the end" says Cryin' Chuck.

SMH

Because it's not fair if it's before the mid terms damn it. sniff sniff...
They just need to pick one to keep the fringe repubs happy. And then push it through hard and quick. Cryin' Chuck will keep crying till it happens.

ab2cmiller
06-29-2018, 10:15 AM
It will be interesting to see how Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly handles this nomination. He was one of only 3 Democratic Senators to vote for Gorsuch and he's up for reelection in the fall. He's tried to portray himself as middle of the road using the term "Hossier Common Sense Middle", whatever that means.

It will be specifically interesting to see what he would do if Trump nominates Barrett since he was also one of only 3 Senators to vote for her appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Irish YJ
06-29-2018, 12:05 PM
It will be interesting to see how Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly handles this nomination. He was one of only 3 Democratic Senators to vote for Gorsuch and he's up for reelection in the fall. He's tried to portray himself as middle of the road using the term "Hossier Common Sense Middle", whatever that means.

It will be specifically interesting to see what he would do if Trump nominates Barrett since he was also one of only 3 Senators to vote for her appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Braun is expected to give Donnelly a good battle regardless. Some say IN is the GOP's best shot at gaining a Senate seat.

I'm actually a fan of Donnelly. Roman Catholic (like Barrett), pro-life, middle on immigration, opposes unfair trade agreement, etc.. He's not that different from Braun and I think he's voted with DT more than 50% of the time.

I'd almost prefer to have a middle of the road Dem sitting on that side. If he screws with the SCOTUS nomination, it could definitely be the death of him as IN was a big 20pt win for DT.

Sea Turtle
06-29-2018, 01:20 PM
Why are the Libs already protesting ANY pick that the POTUS makes?

"We will fight the nominee until the end" says Cryin' Chuck.

SMH

Because they just can't believe that he is going to be able to get two SCOTUS picks on the bench before he is even in office for two years. It's mind blowingly bad to them.

I've never really liked rubbing people's faces in stuff or trolling but the left kind of deserves this after their behavior since the 2016 election imho.

loomis41973
06-29-2018, 09:58 PM
July 9th.

Irish YJ
06-29-2018, 10:04 PM
July 9th.

I'm guessing Trump feels confident after meetings with Collins and Murkowski if he's putting a quick date out there. MSNBC actually had a pretty good segment on the seats that could vote against party lines on both sides. With McCain potentially sidelined, it was an interesting take. I think Trump is smart enough to check his boxes with Collins and Murkowski, while also applying pressure to folks like Donnelly.

Irish YJ
06-29-2018, 10:39 PM
'We're Looking at the Destruction of the Constitution': Kamala Harris Rips Trump's Potential SCOTUS Picks | Fox News Insider (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/29/kamala-harris-rips-trump-supreme-court-destruction-constitution-coming)

TDS in high gear. Destructed because they are not picking.... They'd be doing a victory dance if they were in the same position....

Irish YJ
07-01-2018, 10:01 AM
Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Collins said when she met with President Donald Trump to discuss the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, she encouraged Trump "to broaden his list beyond" his standing list of 25 potential choices.

wizards8507
07-02-2018, 10:37 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He'll choose Kavanaugh if he goes the central-casting/Ivy Leaguer route, and Barrett if he wants to trigger the libs. Edge to Barrett. <a href="https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6">https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6</a></p>&mdash; Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013784798349987840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What would Barrett's confirmation mean for Notre Dame's law school?

ab2cmiller
07-02-2018, 10:46 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He'll choose Kavanaugh if he goes the central-casting/Ivy Leaguer route, and Barrett if he wants to trigger the libs. Edge to Barrett. <a href="https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6">https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6</a></p>&mdash; Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013784798349987840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What would Barrett's confirmation mean for Notre Dame's law school?

Probably all kinds of threats from Maxine Waters .... No Italics.

connor_in
07-02-2018, 12:10 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The group in question is <br>T H E<br>R O M A N <br>C A T H O L I C<br>C H U R CH <br><br>OMG <a href="https://t.co/IHo48cUgOL">pic.twitter.com/IHo48cUgOL</a></p>&mdash; ❤️ Jayvie ❤️ (@OneFineJay) <a href="https://twitter.com/OneFineJay/status/1013624785937489920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

domer13
07-02-2018, 12:33 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The group in question is <br>T H E<br>R O M A N <br>C A T H O L I C<br>C H U R CH <br><br>OMG <a href="https://t.co/IHo48cUgOL">pic.twitter.com/IHo48cUgOL</a></p>&mdash; ❤️ Jayvie ❤️ (@OneFineJay) <a href="https://twitter.com/OneFineJay/status/1013624785937489920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

From the article (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html) mentioned, the group in question is actually an ecumenical, charismatic Christian group called the People of Praise (http://https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/).

Irish YJ
07-03-2018, 07:33 AM
Donald Trump's dream casting for America's next SCOTUS justice: Amy Coney Barrett
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/scotus-amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump/index.html

For Donald Trump, image is everything.

How you look is a major marker for how you will do in Trump's world. You need to look the part for him to imagine you in the job. Your personal story has to stand out in the crowd.

"Presentation is very important because you're representing America not only on the national stage but also the international stage, depending on the position," Jason Milller, a spokesman for the Trump transition, told The Washington Post way back in December 2016. Wrote WaPo's Philip Rucker and Karen Tumulty:

"To lead the Pentagon, Trump chose a rugged combat general, whom he compares to a historic one. At the United Nations, his ambassador will be a poised and elegant Indian American with a compelling immigrant backstory. As secretary of state, Trump tapped a neophyte to international diplomacy, but one whose silvery hair and boardroom bearing project authority."

That "central casting" view of the world goes for reality TV contestants, Cabinet picks and, yes, likely even Supreme Court justices.

By that logic, Trump's pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy -- which he is set to announce July 9 -- is simple. It's Amy Coney Barrett.

Coney Barrett is, among other things:
A woman
A mother of seven
Young (in her mid-40s)
A person of faith
Reliably conservative, particularly on social issues

This, from CNN's Jeff Zeleny, speak to the casting-call nature of Trump's search:
"President Trump is increasingly intrigued about selecting the first female conservative Supreme Court justice, people familiar with the search say, repeatedly telling advisers that he likes the idea of making such a historic choice in a climate where women on the other side of the political aisle are playing such a pivotal role. ...'Can you imagine?' the president said with a smile during a conversation about the prospect of selecting a woman for the pivotal spot on the court."

If you combine Trump's love for making history (everything is record-setting or never been done before) with his emphasis on appearance (the next SCOTUS nominee has to have immaculate academic credentials, yes, but also, the robe simply has to look like she -- or he -- was born to wear it) then there is a big, flashing red arrow pointing at Coney Barrett.

Trump allies are insisting that he is poring over past decisions, judicial philosophies and the like in making the decision -- as this Bloomberg piece illustrates -- but if past is prologue, he will make a decision primarily on his gut, and his gut tends to be largely informed by the look of things.

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support. And a Coney Barrett nomination could also make life difficult for the likes of Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri), both of whom are running for reelection in states that Trump won by double digits in 2016.

In short: The Coney Barrett pick makes a whole lot of sense. (Maybe too much sense for someone who loves the expectation-upsetting swerve of a mid-season surprise...)

wizards8507
07-03-2018, 08:31 AM
Coney Barrett is, among other things:
A woman
A mother of seven
Young (in her mid-40s)
A person of faith
Reliably conservative, particularly on social issues
Nominating a charismatic, honorable, and eminently qualified justice... to own the libs.

wizards8507
07-03-2018, 08:37 AM
Justice Barrett Twitter is lit rn.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dragging Amy Barrett for her Christian faith is 1) unconstitutional if used as a religious test for office; 2) ignorant; and 3) often malicious and bigoted. She lives a life very similar to the lives of millions of her fellow citizens: <a href="https://t.co/p1Vu8Z3fvo">https://t.co/p1Vu8Z3fvo</a></p>&mdash; David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1013888289659654145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The attacks on Amy Barrett due to her Catholicism are ... going to get her nominated.</p>&mdash; Jack Goldsmith (@jacklgoldsmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1013874800832507905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Honestly I just want Trump to nominate Barrett because I've waited my whole career for my firsthand knowledge of charismatic Catholicism to be relevant to a Supreme Court nomination.</p>&mdash; Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013895580798652416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Amy Coney Barrett is a woman any normal human being would dive into a spray of bullets to save. She is noble, smart, and loving. Awesome scholar, devoted mother. The effort to paint her faith as outré is bizarre.</p>&mdash; William Dailey, CSC (@wrdcsc) <a href="https://twitter.com/wrdcsc/status/1013949224537518081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If the President nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the Democrats attack her religion, Cardinal Dolan will be saying &quot;I told you so&quot; : <a href="https://t.co/eOCzqZQp2X">https://t.co/eOCzqZQp2X</a></p>&mdash; Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1013587459496660992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Another suggestion for what Amy Coney Barrett should wear to her confirmation hearing. <a href="https://t.co/PgDFYxhfms">pic.twitter.com/PgDFYxhfms</a></p>&mdash; Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/rkylesmith/status/1013943702757298177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those who don’t look past the tweet, it also doesn’t hurt that Judge Barrett:<br><br>✅Edited ND Law Review<br>✅Clerked at appellate level <br>✅Clerked for Scalia<br>✅Taught ND Law<br>✅Serves on 7th Circ.<br>✅Weathered religious bigotry last confirmation masterfully <a href="https://t.co/PE1ZXLbmrw">https://t.co/PE1ZXLbmrw</a></p>&mdash; Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/status/1013926396295503872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you believe Trump makes decisions based on image and appearance (and he does), then here's the next Supreme Court Justice<a href="https://t.co/GRVrVkrmJF">https://t.co/GRVrVkrmJF</a></p>&mdash; Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/1013878863410155522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-03-2018, 08:43 AM
Nominating a charismatic, honorable, and eminently qualified justice... to own the libs.

Yup... I liked the last part of the article best, about those who already approved her once...

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support. And a Coney Barrett nomination could also make life difficult for the likes of Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri), both of whom are running for reelection in states that Trump won by double digits in 2016.

In short: The Coney Barrett pick makes a whole lot of sense. (Maybe too much sense for someone who loves the expectation-upsetting swerve of a mid-season surprise...)

Armyirish47
07-03-2018, 09:02 AM
Yup... I liked the last part of the article best, about those who already approved her once...

Just like Merrick Garland who breezed through!

Irish YJ
07-03-2018, 09:05 AM
Just like Merrick Garland who breezed through!

It will be interesting. It's going to be hard for those who already approved her, to not approve here. I'm sure some will. It will also be interesting how those female senators treat her. Never a dull moment.

wizards8507
07-03-2018, 10:06 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We're very likely to lose Roe Vs. Wade. Some men may think that doesn't concern them. Make it.<br><br>If you're single and dating, add a ��*⚖️ emoji to your dating profiles to show people you won't date/sleep with anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to choose.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Lysistrata2018?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Lysistrata2018</a></p>&mdash; Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) <a href="https://twitter.com/JenAshleyWright/status/1013805193547452417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

These people are so gross, but they may have stumbled into a winning formula here. Let's end abortion and casual sex in one fell swoop.

Irish YJ
07-03-2018, 10:15 AM
Koon, has the Pope weighed in on SCOTUS candidates yet?

Irish YJ
07-05-2018, 11:53 AM
fox reporting that the list is now cut to three finalist.

Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 08:35 AM
Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame
Liz Peek: Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/06/liz-peek-democrats-are-furious-about-trump-and-supreme-court-have-only-obama-to-blame.html)

Though they won’t admit it, Democrats are suffering continued fallout from the arrogance of the Obama White House. Liberals are furious that President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court, thus cementing a conservative majority for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, liberals are upset that the Trump administration may have convinced Justice Anthony Kennedy to recently announce his retirement, viewing that effort as dirty pool. That Kennedy, age 81, is nobody’s fool – and is unlikely to have been manipulated – appears irrelevant.

The real offense, which actually merits outrage from the left, is that President Obama did not convince liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire during the many years that Democrats controlled the Senate.

Ginsburg is 85. She will surely leave the bench in the next few years, opening up the possibility that the Supreme Court will have an even greater conservative cast – one that might indeed persist for a generation.

Why did President Obama not plan for such a possibility, which would at least have guaranteed four liberal votes on the court? The obvious answer is that he never anticipated that the opportunity would pass.

Even though he received what he called a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, and even though the GOP made unprecedented political gains during his tenure, President Obama was always convinced the country was behind him.

As Mara Liasson wrote for NPR in 2016: “During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.” She noted that the Obama legacy includes “one huge failure: a diminished Democratic Party.”

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the so-called “nuclear option,” discarding traditional filibuster protections for the minority party in favor of requiring only a simple majority to approve judicial and executive branch nominees. He carved out an exception for people put forward for the Supreme Court.

The next year – with CNN describing President Obama as an “unpopular president limping through his second term” – Republicans reclaimed control of the Senate. As a result of that achievement, President Obama’s chances of securing a liberal majority on the high court all but disappeared.

In the spring of 2016, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Republicans said the looming election should allow Americans to decide which party’s president could appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

Last year, with partisanship riding high in the Senate, Republicans extended Reid’s majority rule provision to include Supreme Court justices, clearing the path for confirming Judge Neil Gorsuch to become a Supreme Court justice. President Trump’s pick to take Justice Kennedy’s place will have to win a majority of Senate votes, which is no mean task.

Now liberals are anguishing about the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Three Republican senators – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine – have indicated they will not vote for a Supreme Court nominee who suggests he or she might not respect the precedent of earlier rulings allowing abortion. Moreover, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has not shown up in the Senate since last year because he is being treated for brain cancer, and cannot be counted on to be able to cast a vote.

With the GOP having but a two-vote advantage in the Senate, the path is narrow.

Still, there is little question that the court will likely soon move to the right, and there is little Democrats can do about it.

President Trump has said he will announced his Supreme Court pick Monday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made it clear he wants to vote on the new nominee this fall.

It was President Obama who left his party in this position. His anti-business agenda was unpopular, but was never revisited. Democrats’ losses over the past decade stemmed in large part from a slow-growth economy that never gained momentum of the sort we have witnessed since the election of President Trump.

Stagnant wages, sluggish job growth and lagging capital investment never prodded President Obama to reach out to the business community or to partner with it in reviving the economy.

The Obama White House could not have imagined President Trump’s plan to lower corporate taxes and ease up on regulations. Even through eight disappointing and costly years of economic underperformance, President Obama seems to have never doubted his policies.

In President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhode’s book “The World as It Is: a Memoir of the Obama White House,” President Obama asks his aides, after Donald Trump’s election: “What if we were wrong?” It was, as The New York Times noted, a moment of “rare self-doubt.”

President Obama’s destruction of his party has largely been overlooked by Democrats, but his indifference to the future of the Supreme Court is an act of political malpractice impossible to ignore.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have not gone well for Democrats. These include Janus v. AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), which could undermine the influence of public employee unions that generally support Democrats in elections; the upholding of President Trump’s travel ban on countries that pose a national security risk; and the ruling in favor of a baker who refused to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

These decisions and others hint at the influence of the new conservative Supreme Court, and the damage that will done to the progressive movement.

And the retirement of Justice Ginsburg could be next.

connor_in
07-06-2018, 10:31 AM
Justice Ginsburg bemoans partisan divide in Congress (https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ginsburg-bemoans-partisan-divide-congress-083735310.html)

JERUSALEM (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed hope the traditional "bipartisan spirit" of congressional hearings for judges will once again prevail in Washington, rather than the votes of recent years that have mostly divided along party lines.

Speaking at a Jerusalem cinema on Thursday after the screening of "RBG," the breakout hit documentary about her life and career, Ginsburg said she would not address past or present personnel changes on the court, in apparent reference to Justice Anthony Kennedy's upcoming retirement.

But the liberal icon did bemoan how partisan the process of picking a justice has become.

"I was considered by some a controversial person because of my affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union," she said about her 1993 confirmation hearings. "There wasn't a single question asked of me during the hearings about my ACLU connections. The vote was 96-3.

"When Justice Breyer was nominated the next year the vote for him was also in the 90s. Since then the Senate has tended to divide along party lines and I think that's unfortunate," she continued. "During my confirmation hearings, perhaps my biggest supporter was Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah. I hope someday we will get back to the bipartisan spirit prevailing with respect to the confirmation of judges."

Ginsburg is in Israel to receive a lifetime achievement award from the Genesis Prize Foundation, a prominent Jewish organization. The 85-year-old Ginsburg was just the second female Supreme Court justice and often cites her Jewish heritage as a source for her love of learning and sensitivity to the plight of minorities.

"RBG" has added to her unlikely status as pop culture icon, first created by the 2015 book, "Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

The documentary traces her legal work advancing rights for women leading up to her 1993 elevation to the top court, and her role as a justice since — and also touches on the cultural phenomenon that has ensued, including bobblehead dolls, tattoos, T-shirts and coffee mugs bearing her likeness that have become hipster staples. A Hollywood biopic is also slated for release later this year.

As the court's senior liberal justice, Ginsburg spoke warily about a Trump presidency before the 2016 election. "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs," she said.

She later also apologized for calling President Donald Trump a "faker."

In Jerusalem, she steered clear of any such references, focusing instead on how the court could bring even ideological opposites together. She spoke about her unlikely friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative stalwart.

"I miss him very much," she said.

Ginsburg appeared in her trademark glasses and ponytail, a blue-and-white shawl draped over her shoulders. With three retired Israeli Supreme Court judges in the audience she spoke about how much progress women have made in her lifetime and how her own Judaism has inspired her sense of justice.

The Genesis Prize Foundation sponsors the annual Genesis Prize, an award informally known as the Jewish Nobel that includes prize money, for which Ginsburg was initially a candidate. Pulling her "pocket constitution" from her bag, she said she could not accept it because it would amount to receiving something from a foreign state. Instead, the former winners of the prize, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, violinist Itzhak Perlman and sculptor Anish Kapoor nominated her for the foundation's first lifetime achievement award.

Ginsburg said she was driven by the Jewish values of pursuing justice and "Tikkun Olam," repairing the world.

"I am a judge, born, raised and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition," she said at her award ceremony. "I hope that in all the years I continue to have the good fortune to serving on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States I will have the strength and courage to remain steadfast in service of that demand."

RDU Irish
07-06-2018, 11:28 AM
Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame
Liz Peek: Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/06/liz-peek-democrats-are-furious-about-trump-and-supreme-court-have-only-obama-to-blame.html)

I think the Dems were overconfident Hillary was going to waltz in to the White House and didn't fight the Supreme Court slow play - expecting they would get a more liberal nomination after the election.

Obama isn't the only arrogant one in the party.

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 11:31 AM
Justice Ginsburg bemoans partisan divide in Congress (https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ginsburg-bemoans-partisan-divide-congress-083735310.html)

Didn't care for her views, but respect her life and service.
She refused to answer Qs on certain topics during confirmation, which I think we'll see a lot of this round as well.

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 11:43 AM
I think the Dems were overconfident Hillary was going to waltz in to the White House and didn't fight the Supreme Court slow play - expecting they would get a more liberal nomination after the election.

Obama isn't the only arrogant one in the party.

Yup on overconfidence, but not sure on their assumption of a more liberal nomination given the Senate makeup. Personally, if I'm the president, anytime a SCOTUS from my party hits 80, I'd be having a conversation.

I also think they should cap age at 80 or 85. And if I'm a SCOTUS and want my values to continue, I'm going to retire if I'm 80 or more if my party is in power just to ensure my views continue.

I'm just happy they misjudged. Hopefully if AB is nominated, they won't go on an anti-Catholic campaign.

Legacy
07-06-2018, 12:58 PM
Does anyone want to comment on the charismatic covenant community People of Praise?

NOT RELIABLE GUIDES
An analysis of some covenant community structures (https://www3.nd.edu/~areimers/Reliable.pdf) (nd.edu) (Warning - 152 pp)

Just an excerpt:
Most decisive is that to leave the covenant community is to leave the most real experience of Christian community one has ever known. But even worse, it is to separate oneself from the body of Christ. This is why people who leave these communities are often shunned by other members109 and are spoken of as no longer brothers and sisters in Christ or even no longer Christian. To leave what one has experienced as the body of Christ entails either a complete rethinking of what that body is or an admission of spiritual failure and a consequent acceptance of guilt.

In short, to leave a covenant community is emotionally and intellectually far more difficult than to change colleges or careers or to break a wedding engagement. It is more akin to divorce. The departing member knows that he is leaving not just an organization, but an entire way of life. Having invested himself totally in this life, he faces losing it all, and with it the most powerful experiences of religion he may ever have had.

While I'm at it,

Alumni Lawyers to Fr. Jenkins
DECEMBER 16, 2017

AN OPEN LETTER TO FATHER JENKINS
FROM NOTRE DAME ALUMNI ATTORNEYS (https://sycamoretrust.org/alumni-lawyers-fr-jenkins/) (Barrett was not one of a signatories)

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 01:26 PM
Christians supporting other Christians regardless of which flavor of Christian they are... Committing to a life of service, and in support of each other.

Meh.

Except the libs will label it as an evil anti abortion cult whom chooses to save life instead of sacrifice it... They will play up the Handmaiden label even though the group was created before the book.

should be another fun liberal shit show...

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 02:34 PM
Amy Coney Barrett criticized for ties to People of Praise: A look at the group

Amy Coney Barrett criticized for ties to People of Praise: A look at the group | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/06/amy-coney-barrett-criticized-for-ties-to-people-praise-look-at-group.html)

RDU Irish
07-06-2018, 03:23 PM
Yup on overconfidence, but not sure on their assumption of a more liberal nomination given the Senate makeup. Personally, if I'm the president, anytime a SCOTUS from my party hits 80, I'd be having a conversation.

I also think they should cap age at 80 or 85. And if I'm a SCOTUS and want my values to continue, I'm going to retire if I'm 80 or more if my party is in power just to ensure my views continue.

I'm just happy they misjudged. Hopefully if AB is nominated, they won't go on an anti-Catholic campaign.

But it would be a mandate from the people! Hillary would have had four years to nominate liberal after liberal - not to mention so many Rs would vote for a well credentialed liberal way before any D would break ranks for a more than deserving conservative. You can bet McCain would make the trip for Hillary but not The Don.

And this silly game of "liberal for liberal" and "conservative for conservative" is super weaksauce. Elections have consequences and Dems have been losing them all over the place.

Irish YJ
07-06-2018, 03:35 PM
But it would be a mandate from the people! Hillary would have had four years to nominate liberal after liberal - not to mention so many Rs would vote for a well credentialed liberal way before any D would break ranks for a more than deserving conservative. You can bet McCain would make the trip for Hillary but not The Don.

And this silly game of "liberal for liberal" and "conservative for conservative" is super weaksauce. Elections have consequences and Dems have been losing them all over the place.

The whole lib for lib and cons for cons is stupid. Perhaps the libs at some point will try and pull an FDR and attempt to increase the number of SCOTUSs to benefit their agenda.

I've seen no peep or comment from McCain's camp, nor any reports on him. That is in itself a little strange to me. Did I miss something?

loomis41973
07-07-2018, 12:13 AM
Kethledge and Barrett seem to be front runners. Don't count out Mike Lee.



I don't think Kavanaugh is the Trump type.

Sea Turtle
07-07-2018, 12:26 AM
Kethledge and Barrett seem to be front runners. Don't count out Mike Lee.



I don't think Kavanaugh is the Trump type.

Hopefully Barrett gets it.

loomis41973
07-07-2018, 01:20 AM
Hopefully Barrett gets it.

Would love to see it.

Irish YJ
07-07-2018, 01:35 PM
Kethledge and Barrett seem to be front runners. Don't count out Mike Lee.

I don't think Kavanaugh is the Trump type.

MSNBC repoting that Kavanaugh is the front runner.

Hatch however is insinuating it's a "her".

Sea Turtle
07-07-2018, 09:56 PM
Would love to see it.

If not her then I hope it's Kethledge.

loomis41973
07-07-2018, 11:19 PM
MSNBC repoting that Kavanaugh is the front runner.

Hatch however is insinuating it's a "her".

How many days since MSNBC was right about anything Trump? I'll take the field.

Irish YJ
07-08-2018, 06:31 AM
How many days since MSNBC was right about anything Trump? I'll take the field.

anonymous source... take it to the bank...

On Fox this AM, reporters interviewed college students about Trump's SCOTUS "pick" not realizing the pick hasn't happened yet...... Funny AF. The students were outraged at the "pick". Just goes to show it doesn't matter who is picked, there will be fake outrage.

Sea Turtle
07-08-2018, 12:17 PM
On Meet The Press this morning, they mentioned that Barretts interview didn't go very well. Doesn't mean she won't get it by I thought it was worth mentioning.

Irish YJ
07-08-2018, 12:34 PM
On Meet The Press this morning, they mentioned that Barretts interview didn't go very well. Doesn't mean she won't get it by I thought it was worth mentioning.

I'm not sure I even believe that. I read some article somewhere (I'll try and find it), about the "whisper" campaigns for and against the top 4 candidates. The narrative about her interview may have just been that....

I've seen different reports that claim three different candidates will be THE candidates per sources. They can't all be right lol. That's why I LOL every time the media says "sources".

Overall I'd love to see ACB get the nod, but I think she's too new, and would be an easy target for the dems to sway the fringe republicans. She is a woman so those 2 fringe republicans might have a hard time not voting for a woman.... IDK.

Kavanaugh sounds to be the most predicted so far, but I'm not a big fan. I think Trump likes his views on prosecution of the POTUS and the fact he's a Yale dude, but Trump doesn't care for his tenure with Bush, or his time clerking for sometimes liberal leaning Kennedy. Rand Paul also is not a fan which makes a 3rd possible fringe republican. Kethledge and Hardiman would IMO be the safest picks, but what the hell do I know.

Irish YJ
07-08-2018, 02:52 PM
here's the story I posted about earlier... fake outrage over the pick, that isn't picked yet...

LOOK: Students Outraged Over Trump's Unannounced SCOTUS Nominee
LOOK: Students Outraged Over Trump's Unannounced SCOTUS Nominee | Fox News Insider (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/08/supreme-court-pick-president-trump-students-outraged-over-unannounced-selection)

Irish YJ
07-08-2018, 06:18 PM
Dick Durbin saying red state Senators should sacrifice their seats instead of supporting Trump's SCOTUS pick... Implied their futures with the party would be impacted if they supported. LOL.

EddytoNow
07-08-2018, 08:16 PM
Dick Durbin saying red state Senators should sacrifice their seats instead of supporting Trump's SCOTUS pick... Implied their futures with the party would be impacted if they supported. LOL.

Red state Democrats are in a lose-lose situation. Vote against Trump's pick and they risk increasing voter-turnout on the Right. Vote for Trump's pick and they risk alienating Democrats and reducing voter turnout on the Left.

The vote on the SCOTUS pick won't change a voter's mind. No Trump supporter will vote for a Democratic candidate that is pro-choice. And no Democratic voter will vote for a Republican desiring to change Roe-Wade. Both sides will show their approval with higher turnout and show their displeasure with lower turnout.

Both Republicans and Democrats need to stand behind their principles and take the consequences. Both sides need to stop the BS and be honest about where they stand.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 12:18 AM
Red state Democrats are in a lose-lose situation. Vote against Trump's pick and they risk increasing voter-turnout on the Right. Vote for Trump's pick and they risk alienating Democrats and reducing voter turnout on the Left.

The vote on the SCOTUS pick won't change a voter's mind. No Trump supporter will vote for a Democratic candidate that is pro-choice. And no Democratic voter will vote for a Republican desiring to change Roe-Wade. Both sides will show their approval with higher turnout and show their displeasure with lower turnout.

Both Republicans and Democrats need to stand behind their principles and take the consequences. Both sides need to stop the BS and be honest about where they stand.

I disagree. I'm pro-life from a purist and religious standpoint, but I also think there's a science side as well (at what stage is a life a life). While I typically vote pro-life, I'd vote for a Dem that is pro-choice who is also against late term abortion (assuming I agree with other platform items). I've liked a few Dems from Indy (my home town). I liked Evan Bayh, and I like Donnelly.

Donnelly is a Dem in a red state, and is also pro-life. If he's standing behind his principals, he will vote for Trump's pick (if the hot button is really abortion). Especially if it's ACB whom he already approved once. If he doesn't, he's just proving that the party line politics and the DC game take precedent over one's principal.

I'm not what Dem's would say is a typical Trump supporter though. But the Dem's have it wrong about a lot of Trump supporters.

connor_in
07-09-2018, 02:58 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Then Trump should announce tonight all 25 people on his list are nominated and McConnell should hold a vote by October 1st. <a href="https://t.co/owbTD9p89Y">https://t.co/owbTD9p89Y</a></p>&mdash; Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/derekahunter/status/1016395558095900673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 03:05 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Then Trump should announce tonight all 25 people on his list are nominated and McConnell should hold a vote by October 1st. <a href="https://t.co/owbTD9p89Y">https://t.co/owbTD9p89Y</a></p>&mdash; Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/derekahunter/status/1016395558095900673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

FDR tried to do it to get a more pro-FDR group. I think that was the last attempt to increase. I can see the next liberal majority doing so though.

connor_in
07-09-2018, 03:22 PM
FDR tried to do it to get a more pro-FDR group. I think that was the last attempt to increase. I can see the next liberal majority doing so though.

There were at least a couple of articles last week floating the idea that D's should increase/pack SCOTUS their next turn up. But you know if Trump threatened to, the fascist rhetoric thrown out there would increase ten-fold

ACamp1900
07-09-2018, 03:38 PM
There were at least a couple of articles last week floating the idea that D's should increase/pack SCOTUS their next turn up. But you know if Trump threatened to, the fascist rhetoric thrown out there would increase ten-fold

Will prob be a bit all over the place but... I listened to a so cal liberal radio show a week or so ago (I go back and forth from time to time and listen to both sides just to see what either side is blowing out their ass) and the entire show was the host and each caller talking about changing the court, changing the rules anything to 'win'. It's so sad it's come to this... also of note, everything was validated because 'nazis'... I just don't know how long this can go on with everything continuing to amp up and everyone insisting their is no inherent good in anyone who thinks different or has different experiences. Something has got to change with the tone/mood/team-sport stuff or we may just get to the divorce stage so many are predicting (which I typically think is fantasy... but is slowly moving to the 'plausible' zone).

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 03:51 PM
There were at least a couple of articles last week floating the idea that D's should increase/pack SCOTUS their next turn up. But you know if Trump threatened to, the fascist rhetoric thrown out there would increase ten-fold

That would just create an back and forth escalation each time another party came to power. But based on the Left's actions, it wound not shock me. Maybe a little surprise, but not shock lol. The dems already got burnt with the turnabout of Reids actions on Senate approval requirements, so perhaps they might have learned a bit. Probably not.

Perhaps it's an issue the SC should consider and rule on LOL.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 03:57 PM
Will prob be a bit all over the place but... I listened to a so cal liberal radio show a week or so ago (I go back and forth from time to time and listen to both sides just to see what either side is blowing out their ass) and the entire show was the host and each caller talking about changing the court, changing the rules anything to 'win'. It's so sad it's come to this... also of note, everything was validated because 'nazis'... I just don't know how long this can go on with everything continuing to amp up and everyone insisting their is no inherent good in anyone who thinks different or has different experiences. Something has got to change with the tone/mood/team-sport stuff or we may just get to the divorce stage so many are predicting (which I typically think is fantasy... but is slowly moving to the 'plausible' zone).

If you can't win, change the rules....

I don't have any optimism in DC (either side) coming to its senses. IMO, it will take politics/DC getting so bad that the people on both sides get tired of all the shit.

Hell, we've got enough technology, do we really need the House to represent us? Unfortunately taking politicians out of the equation is really the simplest answer.

connor_in
07-09-2018, 04:45 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/iYHgtjSdnd">pic.twitter.com/iYHgtjSdnd</a></p>&mdash; XpanseMaga (@2scooooops) <a href="https://twitter.com/2scooooops/status/1016420815850463232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 04:55 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/iYHgtjSdnd">pic.twitter.com/iYHgtjSdnd</a></p>&mdash; XpanseMaga (@2scooooops) <a href="https://twitter.com/2scooooops/status/1016420815850463232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

and already Pelosi has vowed to "avenge President Obama" lol.

Can't wait to tune in. I generally don't have any beers during the week, but I'm gonna drink a few cheap brews tonight.... It might have to be a two TV night so I can watch both CNN and MSNBC...

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 08:13 PM
LOL

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">*Flash Flood Warning Tonight at 9PM EST*<br><br>This is not a joke. Liberal tears will be flowing like Niagara Falls when <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/POTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#POTUS</a> announces his second <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> pick. <br><br>Please take all necessary precautions &amp; bring an inner tube or boogie board to ride this blue wave. ��������������<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/maga?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#maga</a></p>&mdash; Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1016450094940479488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 08:18 PM
ACB and Kethledge spotted in their homes states per twitter...
Guessing that's what Koon Wiz spotted.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 08:34 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Tactical Women’s Alert Team <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TWAT?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TWAT</a> is protesting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>’s nomination for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> outside the court &amp; he hasn’t even announced it yet!!!!!</p>&mdash; Confusionism (@Confusious_Say_) <a href="https://twitter.com/Confusious_Say_/status/1016479699021848576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 08:57 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ruth is sitting on pins and needles. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/FieQLel52w">pic.twitter.com/FieQLel52w</a></p>&mdash; KRenner (@KRenner2) <a href="https://twitter.com/KRenner2/status/1016485935557632000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

loomis41973
07-09-2018, 09:02 PM
Whoever DJT picks will be the worst choice ever.

Likely a stripper from Russia who spends time on weekends at Nazi and KKK meetings

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:17 PM
Whoever DJT picks will be the worst choice ever.

Likely a stripper from Russia who spends time on weekends at Nazi and KKK meetings

Nope, a server of the poor, and CYO coach. Turrrrible.

loomis41973
07-09-2018, 09:19 PM
Beautiful words about his family.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:25 PM
OMG Rachel Maddow on MSNBC goes immediately to full tilt immediately. He only nominated Kav because he will use him to get off Russia-gate charges. I'm sure they had a script for each candidate lol.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:25 PM
Beautiful words about his family.

That was awesome. The left will use it though, to say "evil Catholic"

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:27 PM
I can't wait till RBG retires.
Maddow will be 100x her current sky is falling outrage.

Sea Turtle
07-09-2018, 09:45 PM
I can't wait till RBG retires.
Maddow will be 100x her current sky is falling outrage.

She won't retire under Trump. She has stated that her goal now is to make it to 90.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:49 PM
She won't retire under Trump. She has stated that her goal now is to make it to 90.

She's not a picture of health. I think she'll try like hell, but I'd bet her desire might not be so strong if Trump wins in 2020.

loomis41973
07-09-2018, 09:50 PM
She won't retire under Trump. She has stated that her goal now is to make it to 90.

The grim reaper may have other ideas.



I do love her wardrobe choices though.

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 09:54 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/GOP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GOP</a> We have been good conservatives. We don't spend our days watching or creating fake news. We don't beat up liberals. We don't harass Dems at dinner. Good behavior is often rewarded. I feel like it is time to start a pool. When will the clock run out on RBG? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MAGA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MAGA</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/bvfuxJUNlN">pic.twitter.com/bvfuxJUNlN</a></p>&mdash; Princess &amp; The Wiz (@princessandwiz) <a href="https://twitter.com/princessandwiz/status/1016500336205418501?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Irish YJ
07-09-2018, 10:28 PM
Pocahontas on MSNBC calling Kav a "political animal" and dodging even some softball questions with sky is falling rhetoric.

Sea Turtle
07-09-2018, 10:51 PM
The grim reaper may have other ideas.



I do love her wardrobe choices though.

This is true. No one beats the reaper.

RDU Irish
07-10-2018, 11:13 AM
RBG won't retire but she may stroke out when Trumpers wins re-election.

I think Trump missed an opportunity by skipping Barrett this round. Replacing a man with a woman would have been a stellar political move for him, own the equal rights crowd while pre-empting a RBG replacement "needing" to be female. Plus she should be able to serve a full decade longer than Kavanaugh. Just wait for Trump to say something stupid like "I'm saving her to replace RBG" and get filleted.

Seeing some of these Bush and Clinton impeachment connnections makes me think Trump is trolling a bit though.

ACamp1900
07-10-2018, 12:00 PM
Seeing some of these Bush and Clinton impeachment connnections makes me think Trump is trolling a bit though.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4bee83011491242ead4c036374bdcd4e/tenor.gif?itemid=6082566

connor_in
07-10-2018, 12:49 PM
NBC pushing an admittedly anonymous one source story saying that retiring judge was in negotiations with administration for months on he would agree to retire if certain judge(s) were appointed to replace him. So of course its catching fire as fact on left wing twitter

EDIT: and down it goes after tons of retweets and being passed around:
AND DOWN IT GOES: NBC News reporter deletes tweet on Kennedy-WH deal to pick Kavanaugh (https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/07/10/and-down-it-goes-nbc-news-reporter-deletes-tweet-on-kennedy-wh-deal-to-pick-kavanaugh/)

Irish YJ
07-10-2018, 12:55 PM
NBC pushing an admittedly anonymous one source story saying that retiring judge was in negotiations with administration for months on he would agree to retire if certain judge(s) were appointed to replace him. So of course its catching fire as fact on left wing twitter

are we talking about Kennedy, or a new one?

connor_in
07-10-2018, 12:58 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In a troll of deeply epic proportions White House staff just walked all reporters &amp; journalists covering the SCOTUS pick by the dumpster &amp; a portrait of Hillary Clinton. When I asked <a href="https://twitter.com/hogangidley45?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@hogangidley45</a> if that was on purpose he said “absoloutely.” <a href="https://t.co/5g30dGjXu1">pic.twitter.com/5g30dGjXu1</a></p>&mdash; Benny (@bennyjohnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1016485381716496384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

connor_in
07-10-2018, 12:59 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CNN Legal Analyst: Framers Never Envisioned Supreme Court Justices Living Past Their 50s <a href="https://t.co/ZVvRoZNwQV">https://t.co/ZVvRoZNwQV</a></p>&mdash; Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) <a href="https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1016699560092225536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ickythump1225
07-10-2018, 01:08 PM
Ultimately, Fogo de Chao’s argument is that American chefs either can’t learn to cook or won’t cook Brazilian steaks… But the “Americans can’t learn to cook” proposition is a factually unsupported stereotype that finds no home in the specialized knowledge visa program. And the “Americans won’t cook” proposition in the end is just an economic argument.

Like other restaurants, Fogo de Chao must compete in the chef market by offering better wages or benefits to attract quality chefs. Fogo de Chao undoubtedly would save money if it could simply import experienced Brazilian chefs rather than hiring and training only American chefs to cook at its steakhouses here in the United States.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/04/america-first-scotus-choice-judge-brett-kavanaugh-applies-trumps-economic-patriotism-to-the-law/

connor_in
07-10-2018, 01:25 PM
are we talking about Kennedy, or a new one?

Kennedy .. I updated my original post with link to article that hit as I was posting

Irish YJ
07-10-2018, 01:29 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/04/america-first-scotus-choice-judge-brett-kavanaugh-applies-trumps-economic-patriotism-to-the-law/


Ultimately, Fogo de Chao’s argument is that American chefs either can’t learn to cook or won’t cook Brazilian steaks… But the “Americans can’t learn to cook” proposition is a factually unsupported stereotype that finds no home in the specialized knowledge visa program. And the “Americans won’t cook” proposition in the end is just an economic argument.

Like other restaurants, Fogo de Chao must compete in the chef market by offering better wages or benefits to attract quality chefs. Fogo de Chao undoubtedly would save money if it could simply import experienced Brazilian chefs rather than hiring and training only American chefs to cook at its steakhouses here in the United States.

That's racist....

wizards8507
07-10-2018, 02:51 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhv0n_QUYAAyx_w.jpg:large

ACamp1900
07-10-2018, 02:52 PM
Caution and compromise are bad things when it comes to tSCOTUS... 2018 everybody.

Irish YJ
07-10-2018, 03:11 PM
Caution and compromise are bad things when it comes to tSCOTUS... 2018 everybody.

Right establishment: "He's not Conservative enough"
Left establishment: "He's a political animal and ultra conservative"

GDIs and The Middle: Seems like a good family guy with the most experience out of all of the candidates.

Sea Turtle
07-10-2018, 04:24 PM
https://babylonbee.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-encased-in-carbonite-until-next-court-session/

Irish YJ
07-10-2018, 04:37 PM
https://babylonbee.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-encased-in-carbonite-until-next-court-session/

lol. reps

ACamp1900
07-10-2018, 04:44 PM
TO be clear I'm not wishing for it or anxiously awaiting it, I'm just honestly almost expecting it...

but is anyone else totally preparing for the news that one of the liberal leaning judges had a stroke or heart attack or something?? Not just RBG but any of them.

Irish YJ
07-10-2018, 05:03 PM
TO be clear I'm not wishing for it or anxiously awaiting it, I'm just honestly almost expecting it...

but is anyone else totally preparing for the news that one of the liberal leaning judges had a stroke or heart attack or something?? Not just RBG but any of them.

I'm surprised a lot of libs in general haven't stroked out.
The fact that politicians haven't is just more support that it's all an act anyway.

RBG specifically has had her health challenges. Not wishing her ill, but it would not surprise me in the least. She's old AF, long history of health concerns, can't stay awake and admittedly dozes often.... I'm surprised the libs don't order health care specialists to escort her 24/7.

greyhammer90
07-11-2018, 09:02 AM
Caution and compromise are bad things when it comes to tSCOTUS... 2018 everybody.

If you're a traditional catholic like Wiz or Whiskey on the issue, then yes, caution and compromise are bad things when it comes to the current state of the law regarding abortion. There's nothing "2018" about that viewpoint, its pretty old.

Legacy
07-11-2018, 03:45 PM
Scalia's thinking of a judge's personal beliefs and decisions.

Antonin Scalia: Devout Christian, Worldly Judge (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/february-web-only/antonin-scalia-devout-christian-worldly-judge.html)

The author's bio: https://www.stthomas.edu/law/facultystaff/a-z-index/thomas-c-berg.html

Irish YJ
07-11-2018, 04:21 PM
If you're a traditional catholic like Wiz or Whiskey on the issue, then yes, caution and compromise are bad things when it comes to the current state of the law regarding abortion. There's nothing "2018" about that viewpoint, its pretty old.

An outright overturn of Roe would likely galvanize a lot of people on the Left, and possibly send the country Left-er than it has ever been on the topic. Caution and compromise, like limiting certain things without and outright overturn, is likely the best long term solution. I'm a pro-life guy, but this is the one issue that could kill any chance of improving the situation long term.

connor_in
07-11-2018, 04:40 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">REPORT: Brett Kavanaugh Has HandMaiden-esque History Of Putting Females In Unifroms And Bossing Them Around. <a href="https://t.co/EItdteqL46">pic.twitter.com/EItdteqL46</a></p>&mdash; Matt’s Idea Shop (@MattsIdeaShop) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattsIdeaShop/status/1017103265656258561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Yes, this is satire

connor_in
07-11-2018, 05:02 PM
BOLD: Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’ll sue — somebody — if SCOTUS moves to roll back Roe v. Wade (https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/07/11/bold-gov-andrew-cuomo-says-hell-sue-somebody-if-scotus-moves-to-roll-back-roe-v-wade/)

Irish YJ
07-11-2018, 05:10 PM
BOLD: Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’ll sue — somebody — if SCOTUS moves to roll back Roe v. Wade (https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/07/11/bold-gov-andrew-cuomo-says-hell-sue-somebody-if-scotus-moves-to-roll-back-roe-v-wade/)

OK... lol
https://media.reason.com/mc/ngillespie/2015_07/andrewcuomo428.jpg?h=263&w=350

Irish_Mickey
07-11-2018, 05:11 PM
I know Brett personally. He is an upstanding reasonable guy that will definitely put the law before his personal beliefs. I'm obviously biased, but I think he was the perfect choice.

Irish YJ
07-11-2018, 08:20 PM
I know Brett personally. He is an upstanding reasonable guy that will definitely put the law before his personal beliefs. I'm obviously biased, but I think he was the perfect choice.

He came across as you described. Hate to see a guy like him go through the mud slinging just because of politics.

ab2cmiller
07-12-2018, 08:55 AM
Woke up this morning to the headline of "Supreme Court nominee ran up his credit card bills by buying Nationals tickets and home improvements".

Where is my pitchfork

connor_in
07-12-2018, 11:40 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Surprising that article doesn't also mention that of Kavanaugh's 48 clerks, 6 have been Asian American, 5 African American, and 2 Hispanic.<br><br>Over her 13 years on D.C. Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had ZERO African American clerks. <a href="https://t.co/8cluZGTvES">https://t.co/8cluZGTvES</a></p>&mdash; Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) <a href="https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1017075527662923781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



EDIT: Per this guy, she has had one:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As of late 2017, RBG had hired one—ever—black law clerk at SCOTUS. Ed’s not cherry-picking; he’s just got a juicy target here. That’s the unfortunate reality. <a href="https://t.co/PPp6hfOP2p">https://t.co/PPp6hfOP2p</a></p>&mdash; Ian Samuel (@isamuel) <a href="https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/1017200513585172480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Legacy
07-16-2018, 06:06 AM
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Don’t Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade (https://www.kff.org/health-reform/press-release/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-dont-want-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/) (KFF)
Equal Pay and Fair Employment Practices are Voters’ Top Concerns among Women’s Issues

connor_in
07-16-2018, 08:32 AM
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Don’t Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade (https://www.kff.org/health-reform/press-release/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-dont-want-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/) (KFF)

Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

Legacy
07-16-2018, 01:52 PM
Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

The nominees for the Court have said that they would follow the law vs their beliefs - or have refused to answer the question. Without delving into the morality issues, a couple of cases decided before SCOTUS are worth considering and noted without comment - Planned Parenthood v Casey ( (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey)1993) and Stenberg vs Carhart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart) (2000). Other decisions by SCOTUS since have failed to overturn Roe, which is based constitutionally on the 14th Amendment's right to privacy.

If Roe were to be deemed unconstitutional, that would leave abortion up to each state, who may or may not legislate that the fetus is a person. State ballot initiatives, which would reflect popular opinion, have been initiated or voted upon. Even if those ballot initiatives result in opposition to changes in abortion protection, they are not binding, of course.

States can pass legislation - or prepare to - that affirms personhood or a women's right to choose into their constitutions. They could also legislate that abortions are murders, those performing abortions are murderers and that abortion cannot be performed even if the safety and health of a woman is threatened. Florida has an initiative that abortion is murder in the first degree. Their legislature could pass such a law though 39% of Floridians oppose abortion and 56% approve of abortion. Idaho has a similar murder in the first degree initiative with 45% in favor of keeping abortions legal and 49% opposed. Your point about how the question is asked is very valid, though this watershed issue is something most people have decided in their minds.

Abortion on the ballot (https://ballotpedia.org/Abortion_on_the_ballot)

Views about abortion by state
(http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)
Depending on state laws, their constitutional amendments may or may not be difficult to overturn. With Roe and Casey overturned, any legal challenges may switch from SCOTUS to being decided by state supreme courts. How justices are chosen differs by state, but, in general, that usually involves elections.

As you say, abortions will not go away.

Irish YJ
07-16-2018, 10:51 PM
Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

I'd say most of the public doesn't fully understand Roe, except that it makes abortion legal. So I'd assume that most polled want to keep access to abortion.

I'm a pro-life guy as I've said before, but I think there is a bit of science to the whole "when does life start". Regardless, we are where we are as a culture, and conservatives need to be careful what they wish for. This is the one issue that could galvanize a lot of people and move a lot of people to the Left permanently, with no hope for return on this, and many other issues.

EddytoNow
07-17-2018, 03:04 PM
The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

ab2cmiller
07-17-2018, 03:42 PM
The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

Someone could then argue that female justices should recuse themselves from deciding the issue on grounds that they can't be impartial. Both arguments are ludicrous.

wizards8507
07-17-2018, 04:02 PM
Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.
No, it's not ironic at all. Unless you're a literal anarchist, every person believes that the police/state/government should, to the extent of their ability, prevent and punish murder. If you recognize that an unborn child is a human being, the desire to ban abortion is no more a government overreach than the desire to ban shooting a kindergartner in the face.

Someone could then argue that female justices should recuse themselves from deciding the issue on grounds that they can't be impartial. Both arguments are ludicrous.
Or that black people shouldn't be on juries for white defendants, or that only CPAs should be allowed to vote on tax policy, or that children should dictate school curricula, or...

IrishLax
07-17-2018, 05:14 PM
The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

Can you figure out on your own why this is terrible logic or does someone have to walk you through it?

Irish YJ
08-10-2018, 09:55 PM
The circus starts Sep4

Kavanaugh confirmation hearings set to start on Sept. 4 | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/10/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-set-to-start-on-sept-4.html)

Irish YJ
08-20-2018, 08:38 PM
so she does this lol....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RiseUpForRoe?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RiseUpForRoe</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeAreNotProperty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WeAreNotProperty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopKavanaugh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopKavanaugh</a> <a href="https://t.co/dBvywg8ECm">pic.twitter.com/dBvywg8ECm</a></p>&mdash; Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1031329025300414466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And then the internet does this lol..

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/NGWbeRd3In">pic.twitter.com/NGWbeRd3In</a></p>&mdash; Khakis Richard from Boston (@Rossirwin11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rossirwin11/status/1031381493174755328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/fsOdKdXiVp">pic.twitter.com/fsOdKdXiVp</a></p>&mdash; Khakis Richard from Boston (@Rossirwin11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rossirwin11/status/1031381598850174976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">���������� the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/meme?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#meme</a> fun has begun. Gift that keeps on giving. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WalkAway?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WalkAway</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WalkAwayCampaign?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WalkAwayCampaign</a> <a href="https://t.co/FY1hu1QQkh">pic.twitter.com/FY1hu1QQkh</a></p>&mdash; Dan76 (@VoteOutLibs76) <a href="https://twitter.com/VoteOutLibs76/status/1031647618131218433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I was too sweaty to do this myself. <a href="https://t.co/UrDD1kcpCz">pic.twitter.com/UrDD1kcpCz</a></p>&mdash; Cupcake1004 (@Cupcake_1004) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cupcake_1004/status/1031408861545025536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">But......fuck <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>, right sweetheart? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Resist?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Resist</a> and all that shit? You don't even know how stupid you are. I suppose everyone has to do something during the day while not being paid to act or suck off <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Weinstein?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Weinstein</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JenniferLawrence?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JenniferLawrence</a> did it, too. Photos online... <a href="https://t.co/6DLeuww7fg">pic.twitter.com/6DLeuww7fg</a></p>&mdash; ❌ DassIt ❌ (@dassitmane) <a href="https://twitter.com/dassitmane/status/1031647159890796546?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/aFZyzVkBWX">pic.twitter.com/aFZyzVkBWX</a></p>&mdash; Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) <a href="https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/1031346426687758336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

connor_in
09-04-2018, 10:12 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Little known fact: under Article XLI’s “take backsies clause,” Democrats can undo the damage Harry Reid did by invoking the nuclear option on judicial nominees by crying and screaming.</p>&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1036976420868612097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

IrishLax
09-04-2018, 09:56 PM
You guys want to see some people being impossibly stupid? There was a Mexican, Jewish American lady sitting behind Kavanagh... that shit you not is descended from Holocaust survivors... and a bunch of deranged blue check marks are claiming she's a "nazi" making "white supremacist" hand gestures --
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This neo-nazi is Zina Bash. She’s intentionally throwin up White Power signs at a Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing. On national TV. She works for Kavanaugh &amp; is also one of the writers for Trump’s immigration policy. This is their new Amerikkka. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopKavanaugh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopKavanaugh</a> <a href="https://t.co/Dw3ZD2M5bk">https://t.co/Dw3ZD2M5bk</a></p>&mdash; Kelly Mantle (@thekellymantle) <a href="https://twitter.com/thekellymantle/status/1037060396589318144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The woman sitting behind Kavanaugh giving what appears to be a white supremacist &quot;Pepe&quot; salute has been identified as Zina Bash, member of Trump's transition, domestic policy, and now SCOTUS team <a href="https://t.co/1bJlzV3yLG">pic.twitter.com/1bJlzV3yLG</a></p>&mdash; Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) <a href="https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1037053649925627910?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Zina Bash, who worked for Kavanaugh was seated behind him making the &quot;white power&quot; symbol with her hand for the camera to catch, so every neo-Nazi knows this is their man.<a href="https://t.co/39RFUH6eIo">https://t.co/39RFUH6eIo</a></p>&mdash; Ellen Meister �� (@EllenMeister) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenMeister/status/1037044572990464000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is just Zina Bash, one of the writers of Trump's immigration policy, flashing a White Supremacist hand signal. Nothing racist to see here. <a href="https://t.co/8OwGYj4kt7">pic.twitter.com/8OwGYj4kt7</a></p>&mdash; Machine Pun Kelly (@KellyScaletta) <a href="https://twitter.com/KellyScaletta/status/1037051326843285504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump's day so far:<br><br>- Brett Kavanaugh snubs Parkland father Fred Guttenberg<br>- White House adviser Zina Bash flashes white power symbol<br>- Bob Woodward drops a house on Trump<br>- John Kelly says Trump is an &quot;idiot&quot;<br>- James Mattis says Trump is insane<br>- It's still only 5pm</p>&mdash; Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) <a href="https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1037087383357931520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What a time to be alive.

loomis41973
09-04-2018, 10:46 PM
The left has nothing left other than total stupidity, I would be ashamed to associate with any of these people.

NorthDakota
09-04-2018, 11:32 PM
A Mexican-Jewish immigrant trolls with a meme and now she's a white supremacist? Also Jesus is she a dime piece.

Dems lost their collective minds today. What a big win for the GOP today. Much needed too.

connor_in
09-04-2018, 11:45 PM
Such a circus today

The chair tries to open the hearing and was interupted 3 times welcoming people there.

The most documents ever presented for a scotus nominee. Even before the late release of tons of other non judicial decision documents on the guy.

Numerous democrats who are already on the record saying there is no way they will vote for him (before reading anything on him) claiming that they need to read more before they can make a decision.

Approximately 70 protesters arrested throughout the day.

Going into the break, Fred Guttenberg (father of a shooting victim from that FL school) rushes up from the opposite direction that Kavanaugh is already starting to head and sticks out his hand to shake, but security steps in between them and now Ds claim that Kavanaugh purposefully refused to shake his hand. Apparently he had tweeted he was going to be part of the story as a guest of Sen. Feinstein, you know they one with the Chinese spy as her driver for 20 yrs.

Then this thing with all these Ds and "journalists" claim the lady sitting behind him is throwing up white supremecist hand gestures. Only thing is the lady is Jewish on one side and from a Mexican immigrant mother on the other side.

Wild

EDIT... the idea that the ok hand sign is white supremecist is a hoax by a group of 4chan people but many people wont let it go

ACamp1900
09-04-2018, 11:50 PM
Connor hit it. Of all the things they could focus on today.... yet they wonder why so many fail to take them very serious when they bring valid issues up... everyone is literally Hitler, always... I’m frankly sick to death of it.

NorthDakota
09-05-2018, 12:53 AM
RBG - 96-3
Breyer - 87-9
Kagan(no previous time as a judge) - 63-37
Roberts - 78-22
Thomas - 52-48
Alito - 58-42
Sotomayor - 68-31
Gotsuch - 54-45

Is there any legit reason whatsoever Dems think this guy isn't fit? All I've seen is he's a devout Catholic who likes sports and beer... with what appears to be plenty of experience, the backing of the legal community, and was hired by Kagan to teach at Harvard. Who could hate this guy?

If RBG got 96, this dude deserves a clean 100.

Legacy
09-05-2018, 11:41 AM
Unlike every other American, does the President enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office? Can he obstruct justice with only impeachment as an alternative?

Nixon clearly committed illegal acts that led Congress to say he had obstructed justice. The first line in the Articles of Impeachment brought against Nixon in 1974 says he “has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” Nixon had said:
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Clinton's articles of impeachment based on the Starr report included both perjury and obstruction of justice.
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:

-encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
-encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
-concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
-attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
-permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
-attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
-making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Brett Kavanaugh worked with Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his report to Congress and served in the Bush White House, describing Clinton as being involved in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice", having "disgraced his office" and "lied to the American people".

In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration wrote a memo on this:
A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000 (https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download)

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution
of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked
to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to
reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion
reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation
of the Constitution.

The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal
contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive
memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers
are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not,
whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment
or criminal prosecution while in office.

That memo was composed by the OLC prior to Nixon's articles of impeachment.

Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009 an article - Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-89c2-d96d-a564-99c358430000)
I. PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY
DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House
for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly
three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to
travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that
the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian
position in government. It frankly makes being a member of
Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The
decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath,
the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions,
the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the
end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not
eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or
ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434
other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review
panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers.
The President alone makes the most important decisions.
It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to
exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The
job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency
in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is. At the end of the Clinton presidency,
John Harris wrote an excellent book about President
Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the
book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the
modern era.
Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferredwhile the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President
to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30
In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation,
including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving
around a President are inevitably politicized by both
their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney
General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility
to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether
in favor of the President or against him,
depending on the individual leading the investigation and its
results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President,
moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it
unable to function with credibility in either the international or
domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest,
especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—
including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—
are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal
investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her
responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned
about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably
going to do a worse job as PresidentOne might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not
ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The
point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate
checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations
until the President is out of office.32
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish
what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover,
an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes
a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we
should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal
investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is
difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s
focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or
criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36

That opinion by Kavanaugh and the Nixon OLC would approach an Imperial Presidency that only seems to be asserted during Republican presidencies. The Supreme Court has never ruled the constitutionality of this question, but Kavanaugh's position is clear.

connor_in
09-05-2018, 01:39 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmWJD0jU8AUDFg5.jpg

MJ12666
09-05-2018, 02:14 PM
Unlike every other American, does the President enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office? Can he obstruct justice with only impeachment as an alternative?

Nixon clearly committed illegal acts that led Congress to say he had obstructed justice. The first line in the Articles of Impeachment brought against Nixon in 1974 says he “has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” Nixon had said:
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Clinton's articles of impeachment based on the Starr report included both perjury and obstruction of justice.
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:



Brett Kavanaugh worked with Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his report to Congress and served in the Bush White House, describing Clinton as being involved in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice", having "disgraced his office" and "lied to the American people".

In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration wrote a memo on this:
A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000 (https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download)



That memo was composed by the OLC prior to Nixon's articles of impeachment.

Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009 an article - Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-89c2-d96d-a564-99c358430000)


That opinion by Kavanaugh and the Nixon OLC would approach an Imperial Presidency that only seems to be asserted during Republican presidencies. The Supreme Court has never ruled the constitutionality of this question, but Kavanaugh's position is clear.

I could not find any statement or inference that either Kavanaugh or the Nixon OLC to indicate that either believe that the president is not subject to impeachment; so I am not sure how you can conclude that their opinions, if correct and implemented, would lead to an "Imperial Presidency".

Legacy
09-05-2018, 02:46 PM
I could not find any statement or inference that either Kavanaugh or the Nixon OLC to indicate that either believe that the president is not subject to impeachment; so I am not sure how you can conclude that their opinions, if correct and implemented, would lead to an "Imperial Presidency".

I encourage you to reread the post and attachments closer in that the positions of the WHs in the Nixon, Bush and Trump admins as well as Kavanaugh have taken the position that a sitting President "enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office" as stated in my initial question and that impeachment is the Constitution's only alternative until the President leaves office and that, in my words, "would approach an Imperial Presidency".

Trump's lawyers have asserted that:
“the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.”

This does not have anything to do with whether the President can be impeached but has everything to do with the legality and extent of his actions. Nixon too said he was above the law despite committing illegal acts. As Kavanaugh asserted and quoted above,

Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation
offshoots.


He may be accurate when as Candidate Trump, and especially now that he is President, said:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

The implication in Kavanaugh's position, resonating on current events, is that if Clinton had not testified before a Grand Jury and, as President, he could not obstruct justice, the articles of impeachment against him would have no grounds in constitutional law but merely be a reflection of a highly politicized process.

RDU Irish
09-05-2018, 04:40 PM
That is sign language for "a-hole" - not to mention the punch game growing up. I never once have seen that equated to a white supremacy sign.

She now gets to punch every liberal - twice if they flinch which we all know they will do.

MJ12666
09-05-2018, 04:42 PM
I encourage you to reread the post and attachments closer in that the positions of the WHs in the Nixon, Bush and Trump admins as well as Kavanaugh have taken the position that a sitting President "enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office" as stated in my initial question and that impeachment is the Constitution's only alternative until the President leaves office and that, in my words, "would approach an Imperial Presidency".

Trump's lawyers have asserted that:


This does not have anything to do with whether the President can be impeached but has everything to do with the legality and extent of his actions. Nixon too said he was above the law despite committing illegal acts. As Kavanaugh asserted and quoted above,



He may be accurate when as Candidate Trump, and especially now that he is President, said:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

The implication in Kavanaugh's position, resonating on current events, is that if Clinton had not testified before a Grand Jury and, as President, he could not obstruct justice, the articles of impeachment against him would have no grounds in constitutional law but merely be a reflection of a highly politicized process.[/QUOTE]

First I believe that this is the majority view. Article 1, Sec 3, Par 7 reads:

[QUOTE]7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

One can conclude from the wording of this provision that impeachment and removal from office precedes any other criminal proceedings. This is pretty much in line with what Kavanaugh believes.

Second, I disagree with your conclusion regarding Clinton in that if Clinton had not lied in giving testimony in the civil lawsuit, then I believe that Kavanaugh was correct in that there would have not been any evidence that he obstructed justice. Consequently he most likely would not have be impeached for doing so.

Legacy
09-05-2018, 05:52 PM
First I believe that this is the majority view. Article 1, Sec 3, Par 7 reads:

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

One can conclude from the wording of this provision that impeachment and removal from office precedes any other criminal proceedings. This is pretty much in line with what Kavanaugh believes.

(FIFY) Second, I agree with your conclusion regarding Clinton in that if Clinton had not lied in giving testimony in the civil lawsuit, then I believe that Kavanaugh was correct in that there would have not been any evidence that he obstructed justice. Consequently he most likely would not have be impeached for doing so.

Kavanaugh's opinion changed from when he worked with Starr on Clinton to what is his current opinion immunizing a President from civil or criminal proceedings until he leaves office. SCOTUS decided in the Jones civil case against Clinton that actions prior to his Presidency were not immune from prosecution while he was President. So he had to appear to testify, though he did not have to lie. Kavanaugh would seem to consider those civil or criminal procedures premature to impeachment.

We're left with the civil cases by Daniels' and McDougal's moving forward and Trump named an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's bank and wire fraud federal crimes. That occurred prior to his Presidency. We're pretty close to an Imperial Presidency if Kavanaugh is the deciding vote that overturns Jones v Clinton and prevents anyone from suing during or prosecuting someone afterwards for acts prior to his Presidency. If impeached and if Pence were to pardon Trump as Ford did Nixon, he may never be held accountable for his actions as a citizen.

As Nixon's lawyers argued, the President is above the law but which Kavanaugh would hold during his Presidency for any acts prior or during. We could see Trump firing Mueller and any Justice Department official who refused to do so, claim he cannot obstruct justice as the chief executive, get reelected and only face any potential accountability after 2024.

MJ12666
09-05-2018, 06:47 PM
Kavanaugh's opinion changed from when he worked with Starr on Clinton to what is his current opinion immunizing a President from civil or criminal proceedings until he leaves office. SCOTUS decided in the Jones civil case against Clinton that actions prior to his Presidency were not immune from prosecution while he was President. So he had to appear to testify, though he did not have to lie. Kavanaugh would seem to consider those civil or criminal procedures premature to impeachment.

We're left with the civil cases by Daniels' and McDougal's moving forward and Trump named an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's bank and wire fraud federal crimes. That occurred prior to his Presidency. We're pretty close to an Imperial Presidency if Kavanaugh is the deciding vote that overturns Jones v Clinton and prevents anyone from suing during or prosecuting someone afterwards for acts prior to his Presidency. If impeached and if Pence were to pardon Trump as Ford did Nixon, he may never be held accountable for his actions as a citizen.

Finally, Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will only only get one vote out of nine. He will not be in control of the court.

As Nixon's lawyers argued, the President is above the law but which Kavanaugh would hold during his Presidency for any acts prior or during. We could see Trump firing Mueller and any Justice Department official who refused to do so, claim he cannot obstruct justice as the chief executive, get reelected and only face any potential accountability after 2024.

As Chief Executive it would be his right to fire Mueller. However, if he did, most likely he would be impeached and probably removed from office. I don't see this as even close to an imperial presidency. Additionally, if hypothetically he was impeached and removed from office, Pence would certainly have the constitutional authority to pardon him. The only way to prevent this from happening is the change the Constitution, which is not going to happen (at least not while Trump is president) so this is really not an issue.

loomis41973
09-05-2018, 08:23 PM
Not sure how anyone could vote for someone who votes against Kavanaugh.

Good luck lefties.

drayer54
09-07-2018, 10:00 AM
It does give me joy seeing the anti-2A Blumenthal and Feinstein have their panties in a wad with Kavanaugh.

I'm still waiting to see how people are going to die from this.

So far, I think he's a good pick.

IrishLax
09-14-2018, 04:28 PM
Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.

wizards8507
09-14-2018, 04:52 PM
Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.
From high school.

SonofOahu
09-15-2018, 11:20 PM
Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.

Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.

IrishLax
09-17-2018, 01:37 PM
Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.

I'm just saying they've had this shit since July.

It's an extremely credible allegation on its surface -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38d1f8d998ff -- and there is no reason to withhold the information except to say "haha gotcha."

Regardless, there is no way Kavanagh should be voted on this week... which was the point. They didn't want to leave enough time to actually have the claim vetted and have the Republicans replace him with a new nominee.

I really think this might backfire and drive Republicans to the polls in November if there's an open seat on the Supreme Court up for grabs.

Also, what are the odds this ends with Trump nominating Garland if the Democrats take control of the Senate?

Wild Bill
09-17-2018, 07:02 PM
Per several sources, Senate Judiciary Committee vote will be held on Thursday. No delay.

Irishize
09-17-2018, 07:56 PM
Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

Precisely. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT eliminate access to abortions. It would simply go to the state level where it should have been in the 1st place. Then some states will “choose” not to offer abortions & some states will “choose” to keep abortions available. I suspect Dyson sales will go up in the latter states as they now make attachments for such a procedure.

loomis41973
09-17-2018, 09:30 PM
Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Roy Moore?



Not even close to the same circumstances.


That a very desperate reach, even for a TDS patient.

If this was 1% credible we would have heard about it months ago.

SFD

stlnd01
09-17-2018, 10:31 PM
I'm just saying they've had this shit since July.

It's an extremely credible allegation on its surface -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38d1f8d998ff -- and there is no reason to withhold the information except to say "haha gotcha."

Regardless, there is no way Kavanagh should be voted on this week... which was the point. They didn't want to leave enough time to actually have the claim vetted and have the Republicans replace him with a new nominee.

I really think this might backfire and drive Republicans to the polls in November if there's an open seat on the Supreme Court up for grabs.


Of course the timing is opportunistic by Feinstein, but anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell wouldn't have done the same is deluding themselves. It's actually rare to see the Democrats play to win this way.

But I tend to agree, if this actually winds up derailing Kavanaugh, it might backfire on them. If the Senate elections in, say, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana become about the future of the Supreme Court, I'm not sure I like the Dems' odds. I get the sense they're actually banking on the Republicans ramming Kavanaugh through despite all this, and then getting to campaign on that.

It's certainly a gamble, politically.

stlnd01
09-17-2018, 10:34 PM
Precisely. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT eliminate access to abortions. It would simply go to the state level where it should have been in the 1st place. Then some states will “choose” not to offer abortions & some states will “choose” to keep abortions available. I suspect Dyson sales will go up in the latter states as they now make attachments for such a procedure.

For what it's worth, abortion was illegal under state law in Massachusetts until this summer, when, after Kavanaugh was nominated, they quickly cleaned up an old, pre-Roe, law that criminalized it.
That'll be harder to do in some states.

connor_in
09-18-2018, 08:40 AM
Of course the timing is opportunistic by Feinstein, but anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell wouldn't have done the same is deluding themselves. It's actually rare to see the Democrats play to win this way.


https://media.makeameme.org/created/really-bro.jpg

By the way, if Kavanaugh really did what she says, why do D's care so much considering they extol as heroes Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Wild Bill
09-18-2018, 09:20 AM
Of course the timing is opportunistic by Feinstein, but anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell wouldn't have done the same is deluding themselves. It's actually rare to see the Democrats play to win this way.

https://multifiles.pressherald.com/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/537805_RTR15S1A.jpg

Irishize
09-18-2018, 02:14 PM
For what it's worth, abortion was illegal under state law in Massachusetts until this summer, when, after Kavanaugh was nominated, they quickly cleaned up an old, pre-Roe, law that criminalized it.
That'll be harder to do in some states.

Not surprised as federal law trumps that but I see your point. I still think there will be plenty of states where abortion will be free & legal.

ACamp1900
09-18-2018, 02:18 PM
https://multifiles.pressherald.com/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/537805_RTR15S1A.jpg

exactly... I mean the Republicans have many things to dislike and i get why some would be turned off, I was too. This idea that they constantly play dirty and the dems hardly ever follow suit, is,... well,... comical.

connor_in
09-18-2018, 08:46 PM
Schumer’s FBI Ploy
The Democratic demand for a bureau probe is one more delaying tactic (https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumers-fbi-ploy-1537313532)

Feinstein blames GOP after Kavanaugh accuser stays mum, admits 'I can't say everything's truthful' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/feinstein-blames-gop-after-kavanaugh-accuser-stays-mum-admits-cant-say-everythings-truthful.html)

yankeehater
09-18-2018, 09:29 PM
Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.

You are always open to a healthy debate.

By the way is Moore in prison yet? How is the trial going? Oh, never mind....

loomis41973
09-18-2018, 09:33 PM
If people can't see through this, there is no hope for mankind.

What an absolute train wreck of a witch hunt. Pre-schoolers could have came up with a better fake news story.

Make the Dems wear this absolute BS on Election day.

yankeehater
09-18-2018, 09:33 PM
I keep hearing Ford wanted to remain anonymous. If this were the case, please explain to me why she hired an attorney and why did she take a lie detector test months ago?

ACamp1900
09-18-2018, 09:52 PM
My instincts already call BS... it’s also comical to see all these ‘appalled’ leftists screaming from the mountain tops who praised the Clintons for years and tossed their collectiv3 allegations away in a second when that was politically convenient for them. I get it’s all politics, it is, but please stop pretending otherwise.

loomis41973
09-18-2018, 10:36 PM
Loving the Dem meltdown.

#Winning

#Kavanaugh for


#GBDJT

NorthDakota
09-18-2018, 11:24 PM
Like others, I find it odd that she:

A.) Has very few identifying details in her story. (location, date, background info)
B.) Took a polygraph awhile back

I'd say lawyering up is a bad sign, but I don't think that's really fair. That's a safe thing to do. I also recall hearing she was eager to come talk to the Senate. Now she's making demands. I don't know that that is exactly a good look.

yankeehater
09-18-2018, 11:32 PM
Once the Democrats are done investigating Kavanaugh I am sure they will get on that Keith Ellison investigation.


Karen Monahan
‏ @KarenMonahan01
Replying to @rosiebudpisces

No, they don't. I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse

BGIF
09-19-2018, 01:38 AM
Precisely. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT eliminate access to abortions. It would simply go to the state level where it should have been in the 1st place. Then some states will “choose” not to offer abortions & some states will “choose” to keep abortions available. I suspect Dyson sales will go up in the latter states as they now make attachments for such a procedure.

For what it's worth, abortion was illegal under state law in Massachusetts until this summer, when, after Kavanaugh was nominated, they quickly cleaned up an old, pre-Roe, law that criminalized it.
That'll be harder to do in some states.


Irishize has it, "Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT eliminate access to abortions."

And for what it's worth, there were a number of laws recently repealed in Massachusetts some dating back to 1845 and not only included abortion statues but distribution of condoms, adultery, and fornication. Obviously those laws were not enforced or Teddy Kennedy would have been a lifer, as well as, his President brother to name a few.

More to the point the whole exercise was political to rally the base as

1) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 1981 in Moe vs. Secretary of Administration and Finance, that the high court in Roe determined “a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy by abortion falls within a constitutionally protected zone of privacy.”

2) Since 1973 (Roe v Wade), 45 years, the Massachusetts legislature never got around to eliminating the unenforceable statues noted above which did NOT make them legal. There are hundreds to thousands of antiquated, unenforceable statutes on the books in most states. When was the last time someone was criminally charged in MA for adultery or fornication?

3) The Massachusetts Senate in January 2018 unanimously passed a bill dubbed the NASTY (Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women) Women Act that included the the moot abortion, condom, and adultery/fornication statutes. Kavanaugh was officially announced as the nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 9, 2018, 6 months after the NASTY Women Act was passed by the Senate. The Legislature did NOT "quickly clean up" those measures after his nomination as noted in one of the posts. Nor did they act quickly after Justice Scalia died, 2 and a half years ago, February 13, 2016.

BGIF
09-19-2018, 03:14 AM
Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.

Just like the flag on the tower at sea you haven't a clue. The allegations didn't take down Moore. Twice he was kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court by his peers on the Supreme Court Ethics Committee. Twice he ran for governor and was rejected by the voters.

He is an arrogant, self-serving politician that fabricated 1st Amendment/Ten Commandment incidents to get himself elected to the ASC then repeatedly showed his disdain for The Law, be it state or federal. Moore repeatedly demonstrated he believed he was above the law.

Moore didn't win the primary election as neither he nor the Interim Senator Luther Strange nor the 8 other challengers got enough votes to win outright. Moore and Strange competed in a runoff election and it was really a contest of the lessor of two lessors. Strange was tainted by his investigation of the then governor on corruption charges being terminated when that governor, Bentley, appointed Strange to fill Sessions term on an interim basis. Bentley subsequently was forced to resign. Strange got tagged with quid pro quo allegations.

Neither Moore nor Strange ran an effective campaign. Nobody got 39% of the votes cast. Moore won by 11 points with under 500,000 cast votes in the runoff election.

The sexual innuendo about Moore asking teenagers for dates 30 years ago got air time for bombshell effect but like the current allegation there was a lack of substantiation and there were political affiliations involved. Timing of the allegations were suspect, as well as, 30 year memories of what was said or implied. They could have happened ... or not.

There were Republican voters and GOP officials that turned on Moore over the allegations but there were more that simply recognized his track record as a twice defrocked Supreme Court Chief Justice and as twice rejected candidate in gubernatorial campaigns. He was not suitable for election to the U.S. Senate even if the allegations were not true.


Many Republicans and Independents voted against Moore for Senate in the Special Election based on his track record. Many more did NOT vote in protest, defaulting the election to the Democrat Jones to sink Moore.

There were only 1.2 million votes cast in Jones/Moore election with Moore getting 650,000 votes and Jones winning with around 670,000. There were over 1.3 million votes cast for Trump alone two years earlier with Mrs Clinton getting around 730,000 votes. A total of over 2 million votes cast out of 3.3 million registered voters. Moore got less than half of Trump's vote count.

It was obvious to even the most casual observer that Moore was a dead man walking. Moore repeatedly refused to debate during the series of elections. Republicans that voted for Jones (or stayed at home) rationalized better a Democrat get elected in the Special Election for 3 years than the arrogant ex-judge. Mark it down, a Republican will be voted in at the next regular election in 2021 just as Democrat after Democrat was elected for decades in Alabama when they held control.


My wife is an arch conservative and she had a Doug Jones For Senate sign in our yard as did quite a few of the Republicans and Independents yards. Moore signs were sparse.

My hand painted sign was an international symbol, a red circle with a diagonal slash running through the single word, MOORE.



As for your comment about the GOP breaking the rules in an unethical effort to stack SCOTUS refresh your history of FDR's Court Packing ploy.

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was a legislative initiative proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.

stlnd01
09-19-2018, 03:58 PM
3) The Massachusetts Senate in January 2018 unanimously passed a bill dubbed the NASTY (Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women) Women Act that included the the moot abortion, condom, and adultery/fornication statutes. Kavanaugh was officially announced as the nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 9, 2018, 6 months after the NASTY Women Act was passed by the Senate. The Legislature did NOT "quickly clean up" those measures after his nomination as noted in one of the posts. Nor did they act quickly after Justice Scalia died, 2 and a half years ago, February 13, 2016.

The Massachusetts Senate passed it in January. The (more conservative) House passed it and Governor signed it in July, after Kennedy announced his retirement. Even the head of the Catholic Conference of Massachusetts agrees it was passed in response to the prospect of a Supreme Court that would vote to overturn Roe v Wade..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/massachusetts-passes-nasty-women-abortion-act-54411

Was this bill “political”? Of course it was. That’s what politicians do. But it also cleared up a legal gray area that would have existed in Massachusetts in the absence of Roe v Wade. It will exist in other states as well, states where there may be less consensus about what to do.

Either way, I’ve heard this argument from pro-life friends a lot lately - since Kennedy’s retirement made it a possibility - that overturning Roe is no big deal, won’t restrict access to abortion, etc.
I don’t get it. If Roe is no big deal, why has the pro-life and Christian Right been clamoring for as long as I can remember for it to be overturned?

irishog77
09-19-2018, 05:32 PM
It's times like this and issues like this when I really miss bogtrotter to explain this all to me.

ab2cmiller
09-21-2018, 11:26 AM
Ford wants Kavanaugh (the accused) to testify first. LOL

NorthDakota
09-21-2018, 11:42 AM
Ford wants Kavanaugh (the accused) to testify first. LOL

She doesn't want to testify at all. Thats why she is making such weird demands that make no sense.

Legacy
09-21-2018, 12:15 PM
Most of us understand this.

Why did Christine Blasey Ford wait so long? I'll tell you ... (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/20/why-did-christine-blasey-ford-wait-so-long-ill-tell.html) (Fox News)

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed all but certain a few days ago, until a woman named Christine Blasey Ford came forward accusing him of sexual assault when they were in high school. The alleged crime having taken place decades ago has prompted many to ask: Why did she wait so long?

I can tell you why.

In a word ... Fear

In my freshman year of college, I was the victim of something quite similar, on my 18th birthday. I understand why Dr. Ford remained silent. She was afraid. Afraid that no one would believe her – after all, she had been drinking. Fear if it went to court, her sex life would be revealed. Fear she would be judged. Fear her name would be dragged through the mud. And she’s not alone.

Rape and sexual assault are the most underreported crimes in our nation. Worldwide, one in three women experience some sexual violence in their lifetime, according to the World Health Organization. Yet it is fear that keeps them from coming forward.



Kellyanne Conway told reporters prior to the President's tweets:
"There's no reason to attack her. The president is defending his nomination to the United States Supreme Court as a man of character, integrity, impeccable academic and judicial qualification."

A few of us never will.

Trump calls on Kavanaugh accuser to provide a police report from alleged assault (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/trump-calls-on-kavanaugh-accuser-to-provide-police-report-from-alleged-assault.html) (Fox)

Trump's tweet this morning:
"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"

As he remakes the Republican Party and vents his anger at anyone he chooses, it's hard to see this Party standing for family values, understanding sexual assaults and unwanted sexual advances and which is simply comprised of old white men who don't belong in government.

Mitch McConnell at the Values Voter Summit:
“You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics. Here’s what I want to tell you: In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court. . . . Keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”



Jeff Flake in an address to Congress (http://time.com/5289380/jeff-flake-harvard-commencement-address-president-trump/):
And our Article I branch of government, the Congress (that’s me), is utterly supine in the face of the moral vandalism that flows from the White House daily. I do not think that the founders could have anticipated that the beauty of their invention might someday founder on the rocks of reality television, and that the Congress would be such willing accomplices to this calamity. Our most ardent enemies, doing their worst (and they are doing their worst), couldn’t hurt us more than we are hurting ourselves.

irishog77
09-21-2018, 01:59 PM
Most of us understand this.

Why did Christine Blasey Ford wait so long? I'll tell you ... (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/20/why-did-christine-blasey-ford-wait-so-long-ill-tell.html) (Fox News)



Kellyanne Conway told reporters prior to the President's tweets:

A few of us never will.

Trump calls on Kavanaugh accuser to provide a police report from alleged assault (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/trump-calls-on-kavanaugh-accuser-to-provide-police-report-from-alleged-assault.html) (Fox)

Trump's tweet this morning:


As he remakes the Republican Party and vents his anger at anyone he chooses, it's hard to see this Party standing for family values, understanding sexual assaults and unwanted sexual advances and which is simply comprised of old white men who don't belong in government.

Mitch McConnell at the Values Voter Summit:


Jeff Flake in an address to Congress (http://time.com/5289380/jeff-flake-harvard-commencement-address-president-trump/):

GTFO with that lame bull shit. This is either the most naive, or dumbest, comment I've probably ever read on this site.

We don't need liberal democrats, such as yourself, lecturing us on sexual assault, family values, nor the physical attributes of any group.

IrishLax
09-21-2018, 02:10 PM
Ford wants Kavanaugh (the accused) to testify first. LOL

It really makes no sense. How is he supposed to testify against something if the charges won't be level at him first?

In the history of criminal prosecution, this is not how defense works. "But this isn't a criminal hearing, it's..." ... umm, yeah, she is literally accusing him of a crime and asking him to testify against it under oath so the equivocations don't matter.

Polish Leppy 22
09-21-2018, 04:36 PM
GTFO with that lame bull shit. This is either the most naive, or dumbest, comment I've probably ever read on this site.

We don't need liberal democrats, such as yourself, lecturing us on sexual assault, family values, nor the physical attributes of any group.

Hear hear.

1) She can't remember anything about this "incident" and waited 36 years to tell the story.

2) Wake me up when leftists are appalled by Bill Clinton and Keith Ellison.

3) No matter who the Dem candidate is in 2020, I'm telling you he/ she fondled me several times when I was in 6th grade.

stlnd01
09-21-2018, 04:43 PM
It really makes no sense. How is he supposed to testify against something if the charges won't be level at him first?

In the history of criminal prosecution, this is not how defense works. "But this isn't a criminal hearing, it's..." ... umm, yeah, she is literally accusing him of a crime and asking him to testify against it under oath so the equivocations don't matter.

It won't happen that way. And surely her lawyer knows this. It's all a negotiation.
At some point next week she either will or won't testify, and we'll see what happens then.

IrishLax
09-21-2018, 05:19 PM
As he remakes the Republican Party and vents his anger at anyone he chooses, it's hard to see this Party standing for family values, understanding sexual assaults and unwanted sexual advances and which is simply comprised of old white men who don't belong in government.

So then what are your thoughts on this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BELIEVE WOMEN!* <a href="https://t.co/9NEWUSFTTX">https://t.co/9NEWUSFTTX</a></p>&mdash; Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1043172963112165377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Mind you, Keith Ellison's accuser has physical evidence, corroboration, and a timeline of reporting accusations that stand in stark contrast to the accusation against Kavanagh. How do you reconcile the above with pretending that this is a "Republican" problem?

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 06:38 PM
Hear hear.

1) She can't remember anything about this "incident" and waited 36 years to tell the story.

2) Wake me up when leftists are appalled by Bill Clinton and Keith Ellison.

3) No matter who the Dem candidate is in 2020, I'm telling you he/ she fondled me several times when I was in 6th grade.

She can’t remember when it happened, but can remember she was 15 years old... as far as these snobby, lying leftists... someone should trump up fake allegations on every one of them because, you know, ‘shut up and believe the accuser’ is standard stuff suddenly.

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 06:41 PM
Someone needs to step up and tell them openly to sit down and shut up:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/anti-kavanaugh-voices-hirono-feinstein-took-campaign-cash-from-dem-colleague-who-admitted-hitting-his-wife.amp.html

stlnd01
09-21-2018, 06:46 PM
Someone needs to step up and tell them openly to sit down and shut up:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/anti-kavanaugh-voices-hirono-feinstein-took-campaign-cash-from-dem-colleague-who-admitted-hitting-his-wife.amp.html

Yes, tell the shrill, snobby women to sit down and shut up. I'm sure that will go brilliantly for you.

Wild Bill
09-21-2018, 06:53 PM
She can’t remember when it happened, but can remember she was 15 years old... as far as these snobby, lying leftists... someone should trump up fake allegations on every one of them because, you know, ‘shut up and believe the accuser’ is standard stuff suddenly.

Feinstein drugged me and tried to steal my virginity at a party my sophomore year of high school.

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 06:53 PM
Yes, tell the shrill, snobby women to sit down and shut up. I'm sure that will go brilliantly for you.

Call them out, it’s so obvuious they’re just using this accuser... think about if she really did have something happen... but men are the problem. No it’s women leaders like you who don’t give two shits unless it’s useful to them. Call them out

stlnd01
09-21-2018, 07:08 PM
Call them out, it’s so obvuious they’re just using this accuser... think about if she really did have something happen... but men are the problem. No it’s women leaders like you who don’t give two shits unless it’s useful to them. Call them out

Call them out for what? Taking $1,000 from a fellow Senator who hit his wife 30 years ago? Big fucking deal.

I agree the Ford lady has been really badly handled, by all involved. And I'm not sure what to believe at this point, tbh. But telling her supporters to "sit down and shut up" over some trumped-up gotcha totally misunderstands how angry lots and lots of women are over the way this sort of thing has been ignored and dismissed (largely by men) for a very, very long time.

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 07:23 PM
Call them out for not really caring... I dont agree with your second paragraph at all but even if I did you don’t fix things by telling men “do what we say when it’s politically convienent or shut up”... women pretending to care and using potential victims as props is not solving a damned thing...

NorthDakota
09-21-2018, 07:39 PM
Call them out for what? Taking $1,000 from a fellow Senator who hit his wife 30 years ago? Big fucking deal.

I agree the Ford lady has been really badly handled, by all involved. And I'm not sure what to believe at this point, tbh. But telling her supporters to "sit down and shut up" over some trumped-up gotcha totally misunderstands how angry lots and lots of women are over the way this sort of thing has been ignored and dismissed (largely by men) for a very, very long time.

This blew up in the Dems face.

They cant defend sitting on the allegations.
They cant defend rhe woman constantly moving the goalposts and making OUTRAGEOUS demands.
Heck I'm pretty sure the average person can see through the media's attempts at straight up lying about Republican orders.

I think they counted on Don making a big fuss about it. He actually held it together pretty well and the GOP bent over backwards to give this lady a shot.

She doesnt want to testify. Anyone with a brain can see that.

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 07:50 PM
This blew up in the Dems face.

They cant defend sitting on the allegations.
They cant defend rhe woman constantly moving the goalposts and making OUTRAGEOUS demands.
Heck I'm pretty sure the average person can see through the media's attempts at straight up lying about Republican orders.

I think they counted on Don making a big fuss about it. He actually held it together pretty well and the GOP bent over backwards to give this lady a shot.

She doesnt want to testify. Anyone with a brain can see that.

Nah, it’s all men’s fault... all of them... except those named Ellison, Clinton etc...

stlnd01
09-21-2018, 08:09 PM
Call them out for not really caring... I dont agree with your second paragraph at all but even if I did you don’t fix things by telling men “do what we say when it’s politically convienent or shut up”... women pretending to care and using potential victims as props is not solving a damned thing...

I agree this all isn't solving much. But "tell them openly to sit down and shut up" - your words - is going to solve even less.

ACamp1900
09-21-2018, 08:18 PM
I agree this all isn't solving much. But "tell them openly to sit down and shut up" - your words - is going to solve even less.

Letting them run unchallenged on this shit is worse... push back is my point.

Sea Turtle
09-21-2018, 10:12 PM
Yes, tell the shrill, snobby women to sit down and shut up. I'm sure that will go brilliantly for you.

Ask them where their husbands are. They love that.

Legacy
09-22-2018, 12:40 PM
GTFO with that lame bull shit. This is either the most naive, or dumbest, comment I've probably ever read on this site.

We don't need liberal democrats, such as yourself, lecturing us on sexual assault, family values, nor the physical attributes of any group.

I am crushed by your "oh, yeah" comment. Perhaps you want to comment on the point made, starting with the Fox News article. When did Trumpublicans lose their moral compass?

Not great optics:
Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/spokesman-gop-kavanaugh-nomination-resigns-has-been-accused-harassment-past-n912156)

I realize I'm in the minority in not accepting:
"And I can tell you this, there's nobody — nobody — that has more respect for women than I do."

The Reps quickly responded then:
Leaked tape captures Trump in crude rant with TV host (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/07/leaked-tape-captures-trump-in-crude-rant-with-tv-host.html) (Fox)

irishog77
09-22-2018, 02:00 PM
I am crushed by your "oh, yeah" comment. Perhaps you want to comment on the point made, starting with the Fox News article. When did Trumpublicans lose their moral compass?

Not great optics:
Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/spokesman-gop-kavanaugh-nomination-resigns-has-been-accused-harassment-past-n912156)

I realize I'm in the minority in not accepting:
"And I can tell you this, there's nobody — nobody — that has more respect for women than I do."

The Reps quickly responded then:
Leaked tape captures Trump in crude rant with TV host (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/07/leaked-tape-captures-trump-in-crude-rant-with-tv-host.html) (Fox)

No, I just wanted to comment on how stupid your comment was.

NorthDakota
09-22-2018, 06:22 PM
No, I just wanted to comment on how stupid your comment was.

Legacy just posts links...you cant ezpect any of his actual posts to have any valuable insight.

Legacy
09-23-2018, 01:10 PM
Legacy just posts links...you cant ezpect any of his actual posts to have any valuable insight.

With the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that Trumpublicans would be whining that a nominee's accuser should be heard and outraged that a one vote majority on the Committee and in the Senate where the rules were changed to allow a tie vote to lead to a confirmation by a VP affirmation. She should be heard. We should also appreciate the kind of backlash she has endured prior to her testimony and the difficult decision she had to make, especially if her husband, parents, and, of course, her children as well as her students were unaware of her secret. That took guts, which many of us may not have had. The questions that posters here and those who have already attacked her in the media politicizing such an intimate, life-altering experience is shameful. I want to see how credible she is in her testimony before any final conclusion. But she should be heard as well as Kavanaugh. She may well be regretting coming forward but I imagine she expected the pushback and even some threats to her and her family. The degree that social media and some mainstream conservative media like Fox and big monied interests who are slamming her prior to any testimony may have been expected but is symptomatic of decay of any political morality (if those words can be used together) and a semblance of ethical standards. I saw my first commercial touting Kavanaugh's character and experience. Have we ever seen any commercials for a SCOTUS nominee before? I can't remember one. She should be heard. I posted McConnell's remarks. I posted a Fox News article by a woman explaining why she did not report her rape. I posted a link to Jeff Flake's call to Republicans to step back from the party it is becoming since the election. That's also been addressed in many posts and reservations about Trump's character others on the board from both political sides. Article links with excerpts allow anyone on the thread to choose to read them or not. Perhaps I shall choose one in the future and post the entire content as Whiskey does. But for now, like the issues raised in my original post often have multiple aspects. I don't regret posting comments that may engender any negative responses. These are political threads after all. To watch the level of discourse become two dimensional or see personal attacks as has driven some to abandon this thread is not only anathema to intelligent exchanges and a loss to all of us.

Irishize
09-23-2018, 02:38 PM
With the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that Trumpublicans would be whining that a nominee's accuser should be heard and outraged that a one vote majority on the Committee and in the Senate where the rules were changed to allow a tie vote to lead to a confirmation by a VP affirmation. She should be heard. We should also appreciate the kind of backlash she has endured prior to her testimony and the difficult decision she had to make, especially if her husband, parents, and, of course, her children as well as her students were unaware of her secret. That took guts, which many of us may not have had. The questions that posters here and those who have already attacked her in the media politicizing such an intimate, life-altering experience is shameful. I want to see how credible she is in her testimony before any final conclusion. But she should be heard as well as Kavanaugh. She may well be regretting coming forward but I imagine she expected the pushback and even some threats to her and her family. The degree that social media and some mainstream conservative media like Fox and big monied interests who are slamming her prior to any testimony may have been expected but is symptomatic of decay of any political morality (if those words can be used together) and a semblance of ethical standards. I saw my first commercial touting Kavanaugh's character and experience. Have we ever seen any commercials for a SCOTUS nominee before? I can't remember one. She should be heard. I posted McConnell's remarks. I posted a Fox News article by a woman explaining why she did not report her rape. I posted a link to Jeff Flake's call to Republicans to step back from the party it is becoming since the election. That's also been addressed in many posts and reservations about Trump's character others on the board from both political sides. Article links with excerpts allow anyone on the thread to choose to read them or not. Perhaps I shall choose one in the future and post the entire content as Whiskey does. But for now, like the issues raised in my original post often have multiple aspects. I don't regret posting comments that may engender any negative responses. These are political threads after all. To watch the level of discourse become two dimensional or see personal attacks as has driven some to abandon this thread is not only anathema to intelligent exchanges and a loss to all of us.

The shoe has been on the other foot....numerous times over multiple decades. Just ask the family of Mary Jo Kopechne. Ask Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey & now Karen Monahan.

One of the aforementioned victims actually lost her life but the person responsible was hailed as a hero of the Left. The others had their lives & reputations ruined. While Keith Ellison has said Monahan’s allegations are “made up”.

Everyone of those women has more credibility & proof than Kavanaugh’s accuser. Yet nothing happened and those pols went on to enjoy power & glory the remainder of their lives.

Irishize
09-23-2018, 04:01 PM
So then what are your thoughts on this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BELIEVE WOMEN!* <a href="https://t.co/9NEWUSFTTX">https://t.co/9NEWUSFTTX</a></p>&mdash; Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1043172963112165377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Mind you, Keith Ellison's accuser has physical evidence, corroboration, and a timeline of reporting accusations that stand in stark contrast to the accusation against Kavanagh. How do you reconcile the above with pretending that this is a "Republican" problem?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-s-e-cupp-compares-brett-kavanaugh-and-keith-ellison-very-obvious-double-standard-in-outrage/

Irish YJ
09-23-2018, 08:26 PM
and a new accusation

College classmate says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale party | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/college-classmate-says-kavanaugh-exposed-himself-to-her-at-yale-party.html)

drayer54
09-23-2018, 08:41 PM
Nobody really believes this loon. Only people who are desperate for a lib victory or enjoy chipping away at an honest judge for political gain are buying this.

Confirm him and move on. He should get the same vote count Scalia, Ginsburg. And Breyer got.

Irish YJ
09-23-2018, 08:46 PM
supposedly a third accusation coming as well

loomis41973
09-23-2018, 09:05 PM
Maybe we can reach a bakers dozen by Thursday.

Irish YJ
09-23-2018, 11:10 PM
I guess the third is, per Stormy's creepy lawyer (who said he may run for prez), Kavvy likes to find women for training...

Kavanaugh denies 2nd accuser's sexual misconduct allegation as Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-denies-2nd-accusers-sexual-misconduct-allegation-as-avenatti-claims-evidence-targeting-women-for-gang-rape.html)

NorthDakota
09-23-2018, 11:46 PM
This is all so transparent lmao. I cant take any of it remotely seriously. They are trying to destroy a dude entirely because of his views on Roe v. Wade.

Irish YJ
09-24-2018, 12:09 AM
This is all so transparent lmao. I cant take any of it remotely seriously. They are trying to destroy a dude entirely because of his views on Roe v. Wade.

I don't even think it's that. I think it's just politics in 2018, and Trump hate.

There's a reason the first sent a letter to a Dem. And a reason it was held for months. If something did happen, the accuser is getting used so bad by the left. And a reason the 2nd story was broke by far Left paper (allegations her supposed best friend at the time has no recollection of). Avenatti is simply in it for his own personal gain and fame. I'm sure he will have some allegations in his back pocket to play off the letter he wrote. Have to wait and see if those have any corroboration. Likely those too, just like the first two, will be fuzzy and almost impossible to prove or disprove.

Irish#1
09-24-2018, 07:46 AM
It's times like this and issues like this when I really miss bogtrotter to explain this all to me.

I miss Bogs, but not for his political rantings. Hope he's doing well.

Irish#1
09-24-2018, 08:01 AM
Call them out for what? Taking $1,000 from a fellow Senator who hit his wife 30 years ago? Big fucking deal.

I agree the Ford lady has been really badly handled, by all involved. And I'm not sure what to believe at this point, tbh. But telling her supporters to "sit down and shut up" over some trumped-up gotcha totally misunderstands how angry lots and lots of women are over the way this sort of thing has been ignored and dismissed (largely by men) for a very, very long time.

It's not largely by men. My wife couldn't give a crap about politics. When she heard how long ago this allegation was supposed to have occured, she said there needs to be a statute of limitations on these type of allegations as this has gotten out of hand. Two ladies that work for me are questioning the validity and timing of Ford's allegation.

IrishLax
09-24-2018, 10:32 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;Could find no one with firsthand knowledge.&quot; <br><br>So this sham story couldn't even meet the low standards of The NY Times. Journalism is largely dead in America, very damaging to our Republic. <a href="https://t.co/uMWUDJc731">https://t.co/uMWUDJc731</a></p>&mdash; Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) <a href="https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1044216268994347008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I mean....... what are we even doing at this point?

Irishize
09-24-2018, 11:00 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;Could find no one with firsthand knowledge.&quot; <br><br>So this sham story couldn't even meet the low standards of The NY Times. Journalism is largely dead in America, very damaging to our Republic. <a href="https://t.co/uMWUDJc731">https://t.co/uMWUDJc731</a></p>&mdash; Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) <a href="https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1044216268994347008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I mean....... what are we even doing at this point?

The NYTimes refused to run it b/c there was no story...which is saying something. The New Yorker didn’t let that stop them.

NorthDakota
09-24-2018, 11:14 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;Could find no one with firsthand knowledge.&quot; <br><br>So this sham story couldn't even meet the low standards of The NY Times. Journalism is largely dead in America, very damaging to our Republic. <a href="https://t.co/uMWUDJc731">https://t.co/uMWUDJc731</a></p>&mdash; Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) <a href="https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1044216268994347008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I mean....... what are we even doing at this point?

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

They wonder why people call them Fake News. This is a great opportunity for NBC, CNN, Post, etc. to roast one of their own. Get some credibility back.

Legacy
09-24-2018, 11:37 AM
Pithy comments and tweets are fine with me. As far as the tweet above, Peter Baker seems to be a reputable journalist working previously for a number of media including the NYT and Washington Post and others. Steve Cortes is a political operative who worked for the Trump Campaign. One can easily research for the Statute of limitations for civil suits and criminal prosecution of alleged perps of minors and of adults for D.C. and for Connecticut. Conn, after the Catholic priest abuses of minors reported by the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, is considering extending that statute of limitations.

K has been treated so unfairly, even though this time the woman is not a minor. Let them whither under the light of scrutiny for sake of fairness to K and his family of women. Why the rush? Get them all (alleged witnesses too) to testify. Let's see what they say under oath with the threat of prosecution should they lie to the FBI or to the Committee. The accusers (or victims) came out and told their stories to the public via the media. K can sue them in civil court anytime he wishes. Trump threatened that in the past for accusations of adultery.

Not...
“Let her testify, or not, and TAKE THE VOTE!” (Trump prior to the second accuser)

That way the optics are not sleezy and typical of Washington politics. An Iowa poll (Grassley's state) prior to the second accuser has 37% firmly for, 31% firmly against. The rest have not made up their minds (almost a third).

Over the past three decades, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing an average of 45 days after a Supreme Court nomination and a final confirmation vote occurred an average of 26 days after that.
. (Heritage Foundation)

I assume Amy Coney Barrett would not have had these type of problems. I also assume that the righteous would still back K if a third or fourth accuser came forward. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" cuts both ways.

ACamp1900
09-24-2018, 11:38 AM
Trump Derangement Syndrome.

They wonder why people call them Fake News. This is a great opportunity for NBC, CNN, Post, etc. to roast one of their own. Get some credibility back.

It works for who it's supposed to work with... I work with a couple of hard lined Linda Sarsour types who went to the Women's March and have a bunch of that stuff hanging in their offices.

Their narrative (and don't even bother chiming in otherwise you evil bigoted man) is as follows: Trump Kavanaugh and the right, as always, hate women and want to control our private parts. Kavanaugh is an evil rapist and these new allegations prove it. Get the vote out, women are not slaves, despite what these grotesque right wingers think....

it's,... interesting,... to watch.

RDU Irish
09-24-2018, 12:50 PM
Diane Feinstein and Maxine Waters gang raped Bigfoot. Its why he is in hiding and so hard to find - ruined his life totally. I mean do you blame the guy for going completely off the grid?

I swear it's true - I'll even testify under oath. But they have to quit politics forever before I will testify. Loads of people were there and saw it but they don't remember b/c aliens abducted them later that same night so Elvis could wipe their memories. And thank God, b/c who deserves to live with that image in their mind.

connor_in
09-24-2018, 03:19 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;I can't tell you how important I think it is for the future of the press in this country, if he's going to be brought down — we don't know that, but if he's going to be brought down — that the press isn't seen as complicit in that effort.&quot; —<a href="https://twitter.com/David_Gergen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@David_Gergen</a> <a href="https://t.co/GgMbj06zqK">https://t.co/GgMbj06zqK</a></p>&mdash; Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1044216170403037185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Also, too late. <a href="https://t.co/Ud4OFGZTWZ">pic.twitter.com/Ud4OFGZTWZ</a></p>&mdash; Karol Markowicz (@karol) <a href="https://twitter.com/karol/status/1044083927290433537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

connor_in
09-24-2018, 03:45 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kavanaugh's letter to the Judiciary Committee is here: <a href="https://t.co/Egc0cGGysz">https://t.co/Egc0cGGysz</a></p>&mdash; Jennifer Haberkorn (@jenhab) <a href="https://twitter.com/jenhab/status/1044283266176569345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Text:

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is
foundational to justice and to our democracy.

At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered
questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following
week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all
previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36-year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.

Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a
frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my
confirmation from occurring.

These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a
threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious
character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.

As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated
into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last minute character assassination will not succeed.

I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to
promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come
forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to
defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on
Thursday.

Sincerely,
Brett M. Kavanaugh

NorthDakota
09-24-2018, 11:50 PM
Keg City Kav says he was a virgin through high school and college. Is that true? No idea. I'm inclined to think so. Got a bit emotional towards the end. I think he's going to get confirmed.

SonofOahu
09-25-2018, 12:59 AM
Kava-nah is done. Once it was clear that this guy was/is a fucking DKE, it was over. The GOP knew this guy had a shady past, but Trump is only looking out for his own interests.

Should have put up Amy Barrett.

NorthDakota
09-25-2018, 01:41 AM
Kava-nah is done. Once it was clear that this guy was/is a fucking DKE, it was over. The GOP knew this guy had a shady past, but Trump is only looking out for his own interests.

Should have put up Amy Barrett.

Someone is mad his girlfriend in college smashed a DKE. The frat guys at my school were harmless. I think he's getting confirmed.

Ford has cold feet, her lawyers are pissed about outside counsel(Aka....a woman) questioning her. Her own friend didn't have her back.

Barrett would have undergone borderline criminal character assassination too. Dems are terrified of 5 Conservatives on the Court. If RBG and/or Breyer kick the bucket/retire..I can only imagine the chaos. Rumor is if the GOP holds the Senate, Thomas will retire. We might get a clean line change lmao.

Irish#1
09-25-2018, 07:47 AM
So one one the accusers admitted she was drunk and can't remember what year it happened because she's a little fuzzy on the details, but definitely remembers Kavanaugh standing next to her pulling up his pants?

To quote and old college drinking buddy of mine from about 400 years ago, "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark".

https://i.imgur.com/NJi9UTd.jpg

wizards8507
09-25-2018, 08:33 AM
Someone is mad his girlfriend in college smashed a DKE. The frat guys at my school were harmless. I think he's getting confirmed.

Ford has cold feet, her lawyers are pissed about outside counsel(Aka....a woman) questioning her. Her own friend didn't have her back.

Barrett would have undergone borderline criminal character assassination too. Dems are terrified of 5 Conservatives on the Court. If RBG and/or Breyer kick the bucket/retire..I can only imagine the chaos. Rumor is if the GOP holds the Senate, Thomas will retire. We might get a clean line change lmao.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180925/e661859cf0f24495189f87c1dbc433f4.jpg

zelezo vlk
09-25-2018, 09:04 AM
Kava-nah is done. Once it was clear that this guy was/is a fucking DKE, it was over. The GOP knew this guy had a shady past, but Trump is only looking out for his own interests.

Should have put up Amy Barrett.

Holy sh*t is this true? How'd he get this far??

IrishLax
09-25-2018, 10:36 AM
Amy Barrett would already be confirmed. Should just nominate nothing but women from now on.

NorthDakota
09-25-2018, 10:48 AM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180925/e661859cf0f24495189f87c1dbc433f4.jpg

Pretty much. Lmaooo

Irishize
09-25-2018, 11:02 AM
Someone is mad his girlfriend in college smashed a DKE. The frat guys at my school were harmless. I think he's getting confirmed.

Ford has cold feet, her lawyers are pissed about outside counsel(Aka....a woman) questioning her. Her own friend didn't have her back.

Barrett would have undergone borderline criminal character assassination too. Dems are terrified of 5 Conservatives on the Court. If RBG and/or Breyer kick the bucket/retire..I can only imagine the chaos. Rumor is if the GOP holds the Senate, Thomas will retire. We might get a clean line change lmao.

Exactly, they could put Jesus Christ up and He would be crucified again. They should troll the Left and put up an imaginary candidate.

ACamp1900
09-25-2018, 11:03 AM
Exactly, they could put Jesus Christ up and He would be crucified again. They should troll the Left and put up an imaginary candidate.

https://media.rbl.ms/image?u=%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2F23%2F63612798762620 6337-490568244_giphy.gif&ho=https%3A%2F%2Faz616578.vo.msecnd.net&s=924&h=6c87255ef712f3eeeb8efb402dd63a92c2235a048b389dda 7c355cd9be450586&size=980x&c=2787562726

Legacy
09-25-2018, 12:35 PM
For those interested in SCOTUS history and the importance of investigating prior allegations, they can Google Abe Fortas and/or Samuel Chase. Fortas resigned from SCOTUS and Chase's impeachment trial in the Senate who found him not guilty.

The impeachment process is the same for any federal employee. Both Fortas and Chase were impeached after a change in power of Congress and revelations subsequent to their confirmations which were done with a vote of sixty or more Senators. Impeachment articles have reportedly been drawn up by conservative Reps in the House against Rothenstein.

In more recent history, Solicitor General Robert Bork nominated by Reagan withdrew his nomination. Bork, as SG, had fired Archibald Cox after Nixon in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre fired the AG and Assistant AG. Trump, at least, is not repeating the Massacre until after Kavanaugh's confirmation, but should he do so and there is a similar change in power in the Congress after no real investigation of allegations and a confirmation of 50 or 51 Senators we shall see if West Virginia's recent impeachment/dismissals of all their state Supreme Court justices adds to such history.

IrishLax
09-25-2018, 02:04 PM
Pithy comments and tweets are fine with me. As far as the tweet above, Peter Baker seems to be a reputable journalist working previously for a number of media including the NYT and Washington Post and others. Steve Cortes is a political operative who worked for the Trump Campaign. One can easily research for the Statute of limitations for civil suits and criminal prosecution of alleged perps of minors and of adults for D.C. and for Connecticut. Conn, after the Catholic priest abuses of minors reported by the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, is considering extending that statute of limitations.

K has been treated so unfairly, even though this time the woman is not a minor. Let them whither under the light of scrutiny for sake of fairness to K and his family of women. Why the rush? Get them all (alleged witnesses too) to testify. Let's see what they say under oath with the threat of prosecution should they lie to the FBI or to the Committee. The accusers (or victims) came out and told their stories to the public via the media. K can sue them in civil court anytime he wishes. Trump threatened that in the past for accusations of adultery.

I've got two comments on the bolded:

To the first bolded, I don't understand the obsession in this day and age with *who* is saying what unless it's conspiracy/policy. I grabbed that tweet because it was in my feed from some ND fan that I follow. It's weird how I follow strictly sports and fan accounts yet my feed tens to be mostly politics because Twitter gonna Twitter... but I digress. I think the Tweets do a good job of illustrating the absurdity of the jump-to-conclusion in both directions. "BELIEVE SURVIVORS!" ... but we don't know yet that anyone survived anything, and we've routinely seen the danger of a rush to judgment with that mentality (see: Duke lacrosse, etc.). "IT'S A 35 YEAR OLD ALLEGATION! WHAT BS!"... we've also seen the danger of this mentality, with things like the Catholic Church scandals. So what the hell is up with taking "allegations" as true/false or even having merit worth reporting until due diligence has been done?

To the second bolded, I think the "let's investigate everything" viewpoint is fine but it's also incredibly transparent why that angle is being pushed how it is. Virtually all of my friends are left-of-center, as am I on most issues. We were at a brewery this weekend talking about this, and I was surprised that there was consensus on how no one could defend the timing of everything. Yes, there SHOULD be an investigation to get all the facts. But this was all sprung in the most calculated fashion possible to drag out the process through the midterms. The emphasis is not noble and it is not on truth, the emphasis is on making damn sure there is no vote until after November. It was a politically savvy move to save a Supreme Court seat, and people need to treat it as such. None of these Democrats give a single f*ck about "defending women" or "believing survivors"... if they did, where is the public outcry about Keith Ellison? Because whataboutism actually works in this situation when evaluating their motives.

Wild Bill
09-25-2018, 02:41 PM
Amy Barrett would already be confirmed. Should just nominate nothing but women from now on.

Barrett, to my knowledge, has written nothing on the 2A. The GOP has been burned far too many times with SC appointments to take that risk, especially when they have Kavanaugh, a Judge with far more experience, who has made his position on the 2A very clear.

Barrett, assuming she is who we think she is, will be a perfect replacement for Ruth bad girl Ginsburg. She will be destroyed by the media, though. No doubt in my mind. It's going to be worse than this.

drayer54
09-25-2018, 03:08 PM
Amy Barrett would already be confirmed. Should just nominate nothing but women from now on.

I saw some tits at a concert in 1994. I think they may have been hers. I’m not sure. Also, I was drunk.

Details are fuzzy. None of my friends can corroborate the story.

Disqualify her now. Get the media onboard.

BGIF
09-25-2018, 03:15 PM
Exactly, they could put Jesus Christ up and He would be crucified again. ...


Well, he did embrace a woman of ill repute when he was a young man ... 2000 years ago.

And then there was that explosive anger issue at the temple.

Plus, the guy was prone to wandering off into the desert by himself and staying incommunicado.

And then, there was that penchant to imbibe. The man liked his wine.

Hey, did you hear the one about him walking on water ... and speaking to Satan ... on a first name basis.


But no, He would not be crucified again. Legacy would list a dozen articles about the inhumanity of crucifixation quoting Booker that Spartacus was the last great crucifixation. The gladiator slave died to end slavery. Jesus merely wanted to die for the salvation of mankind.

The Left would just smear Jesus and leave him to live thus defeating his purpose in life and guaranteeing eternal damnation for all whether they wanted it or not. If that didn't work they'd threaten impeachment from the carpenter's union.

connor_in
09-25-2018, 03:39 PM
Well, he did embrace a woman of ill repute when he was a young man ... 2000 years ago.

And then there was that explosive anger issue at the temple.

Plus, the guy was prone to wandering off into the desert by himself and staying incommunicado.

And then, there was that penchant to imbibe. The man liked his wine.

Hey, did you hear the one about him walking on water ... and speaking to Satan ... on a first name basis.


But no, He would not be crucified again. Legacy would list a dozen articles about the inhumanity of crucifixation quoting Booker that Spartacus was the last great crucifixation. The gladiator slave died to end slavery. Jesus merely wanted to die for the salvation of mankind.

The Left would just smear Jesus and leave him to live thus defeating his purpose in life and guaranteeing eternal damnation for all whether they wanted it or not. If that didn't work they'd threaten impeachment from the carpenter's union.

You can't use these...unlike with Brent, these items have been corroborated

connor_in
09-25-2018, 03:57 PM
THIS IS JUST A RUMOR RIGHT NOW, NOT CONFIRMED.

There seems to be rumors swirling in social media circles last hour or two. Avenatti, aka creepy porn lawyer, who claimed to have a third woman ready to come forward to allege rape trains and drugs and alcohol on Kavanaugh was actually punked by 4chan users and disabled his twitter.

Will continue to follow to see if it is true or not

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If Avenatti actually got pranked by 4Chan, my entire year has been made<a href="https://t.co/ZNwADUaCQJ">https://t.co/ZNwADUaCQJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/4gku9vtZ82">pic.twitter.com/4gku9vtZ82</a></p>&mdash; Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) <a href="https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1044654371030650880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


others says 99% chance it is NOT true, but it'd be funnier if it was


Apparently Avenatti denying he was 4chan prankedand is claiming his twitter is down due to too many bots attacking him...his statement is here along with some guys ironic comment

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Avenatti officially denies 4Chan prank but...I believe the accuser! Isn't that how this works now? <a href="https://t.co/CNaBKTLCNW">https://t.co/CNaBKTLCNW</a></p>&mdash; Shadowed Shinobi (@BrandonHathaw12) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrandonHathaw12/status/1044679298668359680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

wizards8507
09-25-2018, 04:23 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2nd Kavanaugh accuser Ramirez won't speak to committee. GOP Sen. Kennedy says her lawyer told Rs, &quot;if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.” <a href="https://t.co/JSFGNvDsOU">https://t.co/JSFGNvDsOU</a> Via <a href="https://twitter.com/susanferrechio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@susanferrechio</a></p>&mdash; Philip Klein (@philipaklein) <a href="https://twitter.com/philipaklein/status/1044680065869651968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

BGIF
09-25-2018, 07:26 PM
You can't use these...unlike with Brent, these items have been corroborated

Actually they haven't been corroborated; they been believed as The Word of God. They were oral stories written down centuries to millennia later in the case of the Old Testament. And perhaps, 50 to 100 years later in the case of the New Testament by anonymous authors who were subsequently assigned pen names.

The actual Bible was compiled several hundred years to a millennia later depending upon which tribe of Christianity one chose to belong. Thus there are more than one hundred varieties of corroboration ... or not ... depending upon which spin doctor one chooses to by faith, or by narrative from an accident of birth.

Like the accusers (and the defenders) in this situation, many believe without actual proof as it fits their belief system or their desired outcome. But none of the claims were corroborated by those in attendance at the high school party, the college party, or the wedding at Cana nor is the time, date, or place of such events known.

loomis41973
09-25-2018, 08:24 PM
Vote on Friday for confirmation.

Done

connor_in
09-25-2018, 08:27 PM
Vote on Friday for confirmation.

Done

Isnt the Friday vote the committee vote and not the full Senate?

loomis41973
09-25-2018, 08:48 PM
Every circus must eventually come to an end...
The animals get tired.

BGIF
09-25-2018, 09:59 PM
Isnt the Friday vote the committee vote and not the full Senate?

That's how I read it. There was talk about holding the Senate over the weekend to possibly have a Senate vote.

loomis41973
09-25-2018, 10:05 PM
Isnt the Friday vote the committee vote and not the full Senate?

You are correct.

Senate will follow.

Sea Turtle
09-25-2018, 11:38 PM
Every circus must eventually come to an end...
The animals get tired.

Leave Hillary out of this

Irish#1
09-26-2018, 09:20 AM
Well, he did embrace a woman of ill repute when he was a young man ... 2000 years ago.

And then there was that explosive anger issue at the temple.

Plus, the guy was prone to wandering off into the desert by himself and staying incommunicado.

And then, there was that penchant to imbibe. The man liked his wine.

Hey, did you hear the one about him walking on water ... and speaking to Satan ... on a first name basis.


But no, He would not be crucified again. Legacy would list a dozen articles about the inhumanity of crucifixation quoting Booker that Spartacus was the last great crucifixation. The gladiator slave died to end slavery. Jesus merely wanted to die for the salvation of mankind.

The Left would just smear Jesus and leave him to live thus defeating his purpose in life and guaranteeing eternal damnation for all whether they wanted it or not. If that didn't work they'd threaten impeachment from the carpenter's union.

Reps

wizards8507
09-26-2018, 11:43 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If I tell 100 people that I was born in 2000 BC, and they swear that I told them that in affidavits- <br><br>The media headline should not be <br><br>“100 people corroborate account of 4000 year old man”</p>&mdash; Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) <a href="https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1044959696451522565?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

NorthDakota
09-26-2018, 12:48 PM
Latest allegations getting #rekt on twitter by everyone.

Greenore
09-26-2018, 12:54 PM
I've looked it up but could not find an answer.

Does anyone know what time the hearing/interview begins? I am not a lawyer but have studied and followed the law and legal proceedings most of my life.

I have no dog in this fight but, as an outsider, this entire process has really confused me.

Cheers and Go Irish!!

wizards8507
09-26-2018, 01:12 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Congressional sources say new Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick can offer no eyewitness or other evidence to show the SCOTUS nominee participated in any alleged &quot;gang rape&quot; or forced himself on girls, and that she only personally witnessed him drinking &quot;excessively&quot; at parties</p>&mdash; Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1044996791207440384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

wizards8507
09-26-2018, 01:19 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What?!? <br><br>&quot;Ms. Swetnick grew up in Montgomery County, Md., graduating from Gaithersburg High School in 1980 before attending college&quot;<br><br>She was attending high-school parties where gang rapes occurred while a college student? <a href="https://t.co/7mSt80OR2Z">https://t.co/7mSt80OR2Z</a></p>&mdash; John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1044997880384245761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

NorthDakota
09-26-2018, 01:34 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What?!? <br><br>&quot;Ms. Swetnick grew up in Montgomery County, Md., graduating from Gaithersburg High School in 1980 before attending college&quot;<br><br>She was attending high-school parties where gang rapes occurred while a college student? <a href="https://t.co/7mSt80OR2Z">https://t.co/7mSt80OR2Z</a></p>&mdash; John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1044997880384245761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This was more believable when there was only 1 allegation. Allegations #2 and #3 are just silly.

IrishLax
09-26-2018, 02:05 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Congressional sources say new Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick can offer no eyewitness or other evidence to show the SCOTUS nominee participated in any alleged &quot;gang rape&quot; or forced himself on girls, and that she only personally witnessed him drinking &quot;excessively&quot; at parties</p>&mdash; Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1044996791207440384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is getting absolutely beyond the pale....

Dr. Ford's claim is worth looking into. These other two don't even pass the sniff test.

NDLightning35
09-26-2018, 02:39 PM
This is just getting absolutely ridiculous at this point. I was sympathetic to listening Ford out and giving her her day in the Senate but the way that these last two accusations have come out as well as how the Senate Dems have thrown their ass around (Ford should have a hearing -> It's absurd to have Ford testify/ I can't believe these old white men are going to ask her questions -> How dare you get a woman from the outside to ask her questions) I just want Grassley and Cocaine Mitch to get this over with.

Legacy
09-26-2018, 02:52 PM
As relevant as the metaphor of Jesus to Kavanaugh is, stopping short of casting the roles of God the Father, the Pharisees and Philistines, Judas and Mary Magdalene does a disservice to our community of worshippers in this Passion Play. For blasphemers, stoning is the appropriate punishment. I visited a local abbey yesterday. Beautiful place. While replete with a quiet splendor, I could walk the Stations of the Cross outdoors under the canopy of age old trees, seeking forgiveness and insight with the greatest gift being humility and a recommitment to listening to others.