Talk Irvine

General => Water Cooler => Topic started by: Perspective on March 21, 2017, 09:00:04 AM

Title: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on March 21, 2017, 09:00:04 AM
The ‘Frozen Truck Driver’ Case Democratic Senators Are Hanging On Neil Gorsuch

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/the-frozen-truck-driver-case-democratic-senators-are-hanging-on-neil-gorsuch/

It’s opening day for the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings. Today is just opening statements from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a statement from the nominee. Which means all we’re getting is a bunch of Senators explaining how they’ll vote before the nominee says a damn thing.

Wonderful system we’ve got here.

The “point” of today, to the extent that it has one, is just to outline the various lines of attack/defense for tomorrow, and one case has come up multiple times from Democratic Senators. If you have just been casually paying attention to Twitter, you might have heard that Neil Gorsuch froze a truck driver to death… or something.

Let’s break that down (pun intended, as you’ll see). The Tenth Circuit decided a case called TransAm Trucking v. Dept. of Labor. Trucker Alphonse Maddin broke down on a freezing Illinois road, at night, out of gas. He called TransAm, they told him to wait with his load. He found that the brakes had frozen. The cab of the truck was unheated. He called TransAm again, who told him to wait again. Hours passed. He called TransAm again, explaining that he had symptoms that sound a lot like the early onset of hypothermia. TransAm told him, according to court records, “to either drag the trailer with its frozen brakes or stay where he was.”

After three hours in the cold, Maddin unhitched the trailer and went in search of gas. Eventually, the trailer was secured, and Maddin was fired for violating orders.

Maddin sued, and an arbitrator ruled that his termination was illegal under laws that protect employees from being compelled to operate vehicles in unsafe conditions. Appeals ensued, and the Tenth Circuit sided with Maddin, 2 – 1.
The one dissenter was Neil Gorsurch, and that is why TransAm Trucking was on the tips of Democratic tongues this morning. Gorsuch wrote:

It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that TransAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not. And there’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid. Maybe the Department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn’t there yet. And it isn’t our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write one in Congress’s place.

When describing Gorsuch’s dissent this morning, Dick Durbin (D-IL) said: “According to [Maddin’s] recollection, it was 14 degrees below. So cold, but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch.”

Gorsuch took heat (zing) on that dissent from Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Blumenthal, and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who spent half her time lighting up his argument. Gorsuch didn’t get a chance to defend himself today, but I’m sure he’s prepared to answer them tomorrow.

But, for the uninitiated, this is just kind of how conservative judges roll. His argument wasn’t that Maddin should have stayed there and froze to death, his argument is that the law provides no remedy for a trucker who needs to drive away to save his life. That’s a pretty standard conservative-jurist answer to, you know, problems in society.

Victim: I have a problem.
Conservative: Does Congress say I should care?
Victim: Kinda!
Conservative: Not good enough.

Obviously, I disagree with Gorsuch’s reasoning here. I think being forced to sit inside a truck is “operating it,” within the meaning of the statute. But I’m not a fan of this line of attack against his confirmation. The problem with textualists is not that their outcomes are bad (though, usually, they’re terrible), it’s that their reasoning limits the law to the dull reading of the text. Congress, to my mind, shouldn’t have to write a whole new law to specify “drivers cannot be ordered to get hypothermia.” The law is perfectly flexible enough to incorporate a “no-hypothermia” rule without additional acts of Congress.

But that’s my problem with CONSERVATIVES, not with Gorsuch specifically. It’s my problem with their thought process, not the outcome in a specific Gorsuch case where, in point of fact, he lost anyway. No truckers were frozen to death, under Neil Gorsuch’s watch.

There are better lines of attack against Gorsuch. Lines like: “Are you Merrick Garland? No? Then why the f**k are you here?” Or “Do you think women are people? Because your decisions don’t seem to support their fundamental humanity.” Or how about “Is there anything the guy who appointed you can do that will make you choose law over party? Feel free to answer in list form.”

Hanging the “bad outcome” on a judicial nominee is never the right way to go. Gorsuch thinks like a conservative. If that’s all the Dems have on him, they best move on.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on March 22, 2017, 10:37:53 PM
My understanding is that they tried to say that a law says "you can't be forced to operate a vehicle if you feel it's unsafe."  They tried to apply that law to a case where someone operated a vehicle for his safety.  As absurd as his termination sounds, I don't think the particular law referenced applies.

Now the author of the article states, doing nothing was also being forced to operate the vehicle.  I agree.  Unfortunately, in this predicament, so was the action that he took.  I can see this case going either way, but if it's the worst that the left can throw at him for his past decisions then good for him.

Whatever the case, this does make Trans Am look like a POS company to work for.

The author of that article states:
Quote
But I’m not a fan of this line of attack against his confirmation.
Hmm...  maybe this article wasn't worth writing then.  ;)

On a side note, I feel that most "wrongful termination" cases are crap.  Also, why would you want to work for a company that wants to terminate you?  Obviously, this case has to do with safety and perhaps we do need such laws for safety, but apparently there wasn't one that applied.  There was a similar one that didn't apply.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on March 23, 2017, 06:16:14 AM
This article is more about the judicial philosophy that triers of fact have the ability, insight, and are duty bound, to determine what the drafters of a particular statute intended at the time the language was written - e.g. "originalists" like Scalia. They believe no other interpretive efforts are valid.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on March 23, 2017, 06:22:10 AM
Jimho, if we are to have a justice system, we need judges that can reasonably apply the spirit of the laws and not reduce it to just a technical interpretation on wording minutiae.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: peppy on March 23, 2017, 09:53:41 AM
A good run down of the Franken/Gorsuch exchange during the confirmation hearings.

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/al-frankens-grilling-of-gorsuch-exposes-the-heartless-cruelty-behind-conservative-legal-philosophy/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/al-frankens-grilling-of-gorsuch-exposes-the-heartless-cruelty-behind-conservative-legal-philosophy/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 23, 2017, 10:02:06 AM
Lose slow or lose fast..you still lose.

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.51624af8ea50 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.51624af8ea50)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on March 23, 2017, 10:13:03 AM
This is shameful. At some point, someone in Congress will have to say enough is enough. This seems like the perfect political opportunity for Senate Democrats to highlight the Senate Republicans' treatment of the Garland nomination, while proving they're better than that.

Politics is both fascinating, and utterly frustrating.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on March 27, 2017, 09:35:07 AM
Delay is fine, if it provides sufficient political cover, but take this opportunity to rise above the obstructive juvenile behavior. Granted, this is easy to say, harder to implement. For instance, which eight Democrat Senators should rise above? Which eight Democrats can sell this to their state's base and their state generally, without serious repercussions?

Couldn't this be a political win for the Democrats in another way too? In the sense that if this nomination goes through quickly without much fanfare, the press doesn't talk about it much, and the issues remain focused on everything else goin' on?

Senate Judiciary Democrats Will Delay The Gorsuch Vote One Week
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/senate-judiciary-democrats-will-delay-the-gorsuch-vote-one-week/

I think we all know that a showdown is coming. I don’t see eight votes for Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster. The question is whether there are three Republican votes to defy Mitch McConnell and uphold the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on March 27, 2017, 11:59:01 PM
It's been a while but this is just a reminder that Democrats are at least just as bad when it comes to gaming the system.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: peppy on March 28, 2017, 09:54:57 AM
It's been a while but this is just a reminder that Democrats are at least just as bad when it comes to gaming the system.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. :P The minority party is always going to be the party of obstruction. If Garland was not deemed qualified, I'm pretty sure nobody else the Rs can put forward will be either (regardless of merit at this point). Rs probably will have to go nuclear on this one. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 28, 2017, 10:07:34 AM
It's stupid for them to blow their ammo on this one.  They will set the nuclear precedence on an unwinnable nomination when the next one is the nomination they will need to fight (probably Ginsburg). If the trigger is already pulled the Repubs will pull it again for her replacement in short order. You're done...end of story!!

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on March 28, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
Don't hate the player, hate the game. :P The minority party is always going to be the party of obstruction.
Oh I get that.  I've always had the stance "both sides do it."

It's just we've been bombarded over the years with people talking out of their asses.  In the past few months, we've found out that these people were just completely full of shit on about every criticism they had. 

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: peppy on March 28, 2017, 02:09:50 PM
Don't hate the player, hate the game. :P The minority party is always going to be the party of obstruction.
Oh I get that.  I've always had the stance "both sides do it."

It's just we've been bombarded over the years with people talking out of their asses.  In the past few months, we've found out that these people were just completely full of shit on about every criticism they had.

It's easy to oppose stuff. It is way harder being in the majority where you are expected to get stuff done. Even harder in the hyper-partisan environment we have these days.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on March 28, 2017, 02:49:34 PM
Don't hate the player, hate the game. :P The minority party is always going to be the party of obstruction.
Oh I get that.  I've always had the stance "both sides do it."

It's just we've been bombarded over the years with people talking out of their asses.  In the past few months, we've found out that these people were just completely full of shit on about every criticism they had.

It's easy to oppose stuff. It is way harder being in the majority where you are expected to get stuff done. Even harder in the hyper-partisan environment we have these days.



AFAICT, the Freedom Caucus wanted insurance to be like it was in 2010.  My guy tells me, eight years latter, many proponents of that would be in for a rude surprise, even if they were still covered by an employer plan.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on March 28, 2017, 03:51:24 PM
The Freedom Caucus appears to have one defector post-AHCA Failure, but the remaining members are as vocal as ever regarding their support for a limited government that controls its spending. Their mettle will be truly tested when a big tax cut bill is made public that ignores deficits and the debt.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on April 06, 2017, 08:35:33 AM
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on April 07, 2017, 09:10:56 AM
Congratulations Judge Gorsuch!!

Gorsuch wins approval from Senate panel on party-line vote, setting up historic filibuster

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-gorsuch-wins-approval-from-senate-panel-1491230152-htmlstory.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-gorsuch-wins-approval-from-senate-panel-1491230152-htmlstory.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Liar Loan on April 07, 2017, 11:12:16 AM
Here's a fun blast from the past:

Quote
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on June 28, 2018, 08:46:13 PM
It's stupid for them to blow their ammo on this one.  They will set the nuclear precedence on an unwinnable nomination when the next one is the nomination they will need to fight (probably Ginsburg). If the trigger is already pulled the Repubs will pull it again for her replacement in short order. You're done...end of story!!


I tried to warn that Schumer blew it trying to filibuster Gorsuch, now the fools have no amo when it might count...Trump will win without much of a fight now....soon to be winning, again!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on June 29, 2018, 06:43:23 AM
It's stupid for them to blow their ammo on this one.  They will set the nuclear precedence on an unwinnable nomination when the next one is the nomination they will need to fight (probably Ginsburg). If the trigger is already pulled the Repubs will pull it again for her replacement in short order. You're done...end of story!!


I tried to warn that Schumer blew it trying to filibuster Gorsuch, now the fools have no amo when it might count...Trump will win without much of a fight now....soon to be winning, again!

thank you harry reid!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on July 09, 2018, 06:29:49 PM
We will win this too...Dems blew their defense and can also blame Grandma Ginsberg for not retiring when Obama was in power, she’s next...idjuts!!

Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court


President Donald Trump has picked Brett M. Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge with extensive legal credentials and a lengthy political record, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh, 53, is an ideological conservative who is expected to push the court to the right on a number of issues including business regulation and national security.
But he is also considered a safer pick than some of the more partisan choices on the president’s shortlist.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 09, 2018, 06:47:37 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-trump-is-anticipating-choosing-up-to-five-supreme-court-justices

Dems better pray Trump doesn't get re-elected and get some senate seats to block even more conservative picks down the road.

Ginsberg shoulda retired years ago when Obama could have filled her seat.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on July 09, 2018, 07:02:06 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-trump-is-anticipating-choosing-up-to-five-supreme-court-justices

Dems better pray Trump doesn't get re-elected and get some senate seats to block even more conservative picks down the road.

Ginsberg shoulda retired years ago when Obama could have filled her seat.

What is the relationship between the Trumps and Justin Kennedy?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 09, 2018, 07:25:40 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-trump-is-anticipating-choosing-up-to-five-supreme-court-justices

Dems better pray Trump doesn't get re-elected and get some senate seats to block even more conservative picks down the road.

Ginsberg shoulda retired years ago when Obama could have filled her seat.

What is the relationship between the Trumps and Justin Kennedy?


Don't know, don't care. Election ain't now and the only news I see is a headline which I rarely click on because they are mostly opinions and not facts.

I rather spend my time on seeing new crafts to make and finding out when Better Call Saul is coming on again.

After not voting for years, I did vote last election and you bet I'll be voting again.

If you are interested in getting the dems out to vote, you can always get involved in the postcards to voters movement. I got no problem taking blue money.



Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on July 09, 2018, 07:39:46 PM
What’s the rush all of the sudden?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on July 09, 2018, 08:56:04 PM
kavanaugh is a great pick! can’t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman’s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn’t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on July 09, 2018, 09:08:25 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.salon.com/amp/did-anthony-kennedys-son-loan-donald-trump-1-billion

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on July 09, 2018, 09:16:33 PM
Fake news...

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that "can easily get confused and lumped together."

"While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context," she said. "A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked."

Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, "a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank...most of which was done after Justin left the bank."

"The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on July 09, 2018, 09:30:20 PM
Who knows? Justice Kennedy hasn’t made a statement regarding the relationship with Trump.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 10, 2018, 10:19:44 AM
kavanaugh is a great pick! can’t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman’s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn’t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)

LOL!

No matter who the Don picked, it wouldn't be any good and would be worthy of trashing and protests out the wazoo.

Dems better hope Ruth doesn't have to step down.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on July 10, 2018, 10:38:25 AM
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 10, 2018, 10:42:55 AM
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...

When the dems get back in power, they'll just add more seats to the supreme court and move it back to the left and they can legislate thru the supreme court instead of the legislature.......... basically back to two branches of the government.

FDR tried to do it when he couldn't get his New Deal bills passed but it didn't work, but since when is that a reason to not try again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

By then, I'll be a whining senior complaining social security needs to be raised and of course the dems will make sure that happens. Won't be especially good for those still working to give me my entitlements but oh well........ who cares, right? As long as the liberals are back in power.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on July 10, 2018, 11:24:18 AM
This is getting old, headlines at every confirmation hearing...13 years later, it's still here...boy who cried wolf...again.

Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe


Alito argued to overturn Roe v. Wade

Feinstein sees Judge Gorsuch as a threat to Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion

Yes, Susan Collins, Brett Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on July 10, 2018, 04:58:39 PM
kavanaugh is a great pick! can’t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman’s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn’t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)

LOL!

No matter who the Don picked, it wouldn't be any good and would be worthy of trashing and protests out the wazoo.

Dems better hope Ruth doesn't have to step down.

dems are going to have to pull a weekend at bernie's to keep good ol' ruth on the bench for the next 6 years of trump's presidency
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on July 10, 2018, 05:40:23 PM
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on July 10, 2018, 05:41:41 PM
For most conservatives, the US Constitution is a sacred text.

For most liberals, the US Constitution is a flawed document because it's framers possessed the original sins of being white, male, and slave owners. Therefore, liberals have no problem finding things that don't exist in the Constitution (Abortion Rights) and ignoring things that do exist in the Constitution (2nd Amendment).

Liberals take the Marxist view of constitutions: a document to empower the government to carry out its current policies rather than the conservative view of an eternal unchanging restraint on government power.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on July 10, 2018, 05:58:33 PM
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 10, 2018, 05:59:24 PM
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.

I hate the "read the Constitution" argument.  Constitution was written 237 years ago...Constitutional Law has been in existence of 237 years and SC rulings are just as "constitutional" as the Constitution. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 10, 2018, 06:00:02 PM
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Oh good...I guess women in the other 20+ states are just going to have to deal with it.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on July 10, 2018, 06:01:15 PM
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 10, 2018, 06:02:26 PM
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!

Sound conservative logic.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on July 10, 2018, 06:03:39 PM
Almost. Constitutional rulings are to interpret the Constitution, not add to intent, nor impress foreign law into their understanding of this unique American document. Recently some of the rulings used non-constitutional law in their findings - clearly not what is intended in the job description of a Supreme Court justice. Some Justices prefer to rule from the bench, not interpret law in rulings, which needs to stop.

Let the Congress do their job and make law. Let judges interpret said law. Pretty simple stuff here.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 10, 2018, 06:04:53 PM
Almost. Constitutional rulings are to interpret the Constitution, not add to intent, nor impress foreign law into their understanding of this unique American document. Recently some of the rulings used non-constitutional law in their findings - clearly not what is intended in the job description of a Supreme Court justice. Some Justices prefer to rule from the bench, not interpret law in rulings, which needs to stop.

Let the Congress do their job and make law. Let judges interpret said law. Pretty simple stuff here.

My .02c

Justice Marshall and most of the Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on July 10, 2018, 06:09:25 PM
Yes, but I'll say Jefferson's view on it's impact was pretty spot on.

In any case, it's perfectly fine if States want to allow it. Once the issue was "Federalized" you can see the problems it has spawned - not just Roe, but other rulings that were more "law creation" than "law interpretation".

No more on this issue for now from me. Soylent Red and Soylent Blue are going to watch "Network". (I'm trying to introduce Soylent Blue to movie classics that aren't often seen by SB's generation)  "Network" seems appropriate today. Watch it if you have time.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 10, 2018, 06:11:32 PM
Yes, but I'll say Jefferson's view on it's impact was pretty spot on.

In any case, it's perfectly fine if States want to allow it. Once the issue was "Federalized" you can see the problems it has spawned - not just Roe, but other rulings that were more "law creation" than "law interpretation".

My .02c

Of course you would...except that's not the viewpoint that the Republic has been operating under since 1803.   I don't have a problem with SC taking an active role to ensure people's rights are protected.  Courts  have been the best alternative for the common person to get their right vindicated, especially in the last 60 years.  Closing the door to that path just ensures that those in power stay in power. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on July 10, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!

Sound conservative logic.

Why not? Nevada heavily promotes their gambling, prostitution, full auto machine gun shooting, and open container street drinking to states where those things are illegal. Heck, we can even steal Nevada's slogan for our new California Abortion Tourism Bureau: "What Happens in California Stays in California!"
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on July 10, 2018, 08:56:17 PM
Yes , conservatives telling everyone just to “calm down now , nothing to see here” were perfectly happy w McConnell throwing tantrums to block merick garland   . See now it’s our guy who is throwing the constitution under the bus but don’t you worry if we get an airtight majority for the next few decades :)

I could care less — let each side fight as dirty as they want to , we are heading that way anyways

But it is interesting to note that people clamoring for this scotus will be able to escape the worst effects of its decisions by living a privileged life in a liberal state — can’t beat that now , can you . Have your cake and eat it too !
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on July 11, 2018, 07:49:36 AM
Yes , conservatives telling everyone just to “calm down now , nothing to see here” were perfectly happy w McConnell throwing tantrums to block merick garland   . See now it’s our guy who is throwing the constitution under the bus but don’t you worry if we get an airtight majority for the next few decades :)

I could care less — let each side fight as dirty as they want to , we are heading that way anyways

But it is interesting to note that people clamoring for this scotus will be able to escape the worst effects of its decisions by living a privileged life in a liberal state — can’t beat that now , can you . Have your cake and eat it too !

I am always amazed at the fact that Conservatives think that the Federal government is oppressive but the state government is not.  State governments are far more likely to be corrupt and inept.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on July 11, 2018, 08:00:22 AM
Yes , conservatives telling everyone just to “calm down now , nothing to see here” were perfectly happy w McConnell throwing tantrums to block merick garland   . See now it’s our guy who is throwing the constitution under the bus but don’t you worry if we get an airtight majority for the next few decades :)

I could care less — let each side fight as dirty as they want to , we are heading that way anyways

But it is interesting to note that people clamoring for this scotus will be able to escape the worst effects of its decisions by living a privileged life in a liberal state — can’t beat that now , can you . Have your cake and eat it too !

I am always amazed at the fact that Conservatives think that the Federal government is oppressive but the state government is not.  State governments are far more likely to be corrupt and inept.

the hypocrisy is amazing (I hope I spelled that word right)

but even liberals have to admit, with his stellar education and experience, there is no one more qualified than kavanaugh to make a teen mom carry a pregnancy against her will ...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on July 16, 2018, 11:33:17 AM
More made up, mythical public outrage..it doesn't work anymore.

Mystery as IDENTICAL letters appear in 21 newspapers across 12 states slamming Trump's Supreme Court pick – and they're all signed by different people

At least 21 U.S. newspapers ran identical letters to the editor opposing President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week
Each letter was published with the name of a different 'signer,' claiming Kavanaugh threatens 'everything that we hold dear as a nation'
Technique is known as 'astroturfing'; it's unclear who's behind it
One editor says the woman who appeared to have emailed him the letter now denies ever sending it
Three prominent liberal advocacy groups that oppose Kavanaugh's nomination have all denied involvement in the campaign.
The White House is shrugging off the technique, whose history includes similar campaigns from the Republican Party and the liberal MoveOn.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on July 16, 2018, 11:59:32 AM
More made up, mythical public outrage..it doesn't work anymore.

Mystery as IDENTICAL letters appear in 21 newspapers across 12 states slamming Trump's Supreme Court pick – and they're all signed by different people

At least 21 U.S. newspapers ran identical letters to the editor opposing President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week
Each letter was published with the name of a different 'signer,' claiming Kavanaugh threatens 'everything that we hold dear as a nation'
Technique is known as 'astroturfing'; it's unclear who's behind it
One editor says the woman who appeared to have emailed him the letter now denies ever sending it
Three prominent liberal advocacy groups that oppose Kavanaugh's nomination have all denied involvement in the campaign.
The White House is shrugging off the technique, whose history includes similar campaigns from the Republican Party and the liberal MoveOn.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html)

this image says all you need to know about newspapers.  btw, newspapers should report the news, not attempt to influence it.

(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/11/02/2016endorsements.png)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on July 24, 2018, 09:08:17 AM
Law School Students Just Saw A Radical Shift In The Pathway To Success
Conservatism has long offered the path of least resistance for law students. That may be changing.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/law-school-students-just-saw-a-radical-shift-in-the-pathway-to-success/

A number of law students, and perhaps more importantly, a number of pre-law students, just witnessed a major event that could drastically alter the course of their careers, and many aren’t savvy enough to have noticed it.

For decades, the most powerful affirmative action program in America has been the one aimed at identifying and promoting young conservatives in the law. With conservatives increasingly outnumbered in educated circles, the ranks of prestigious federal clerkships, legislative internships, and plum government lawyer jobs have to be filled from an ever-shrinking pool. Because despite the numbers shifting away from conservatives long ago, the number of legislative positions and judicial clerkships that they need to fill keeps going up. This path was never going to appeal to everyone, but if you were the sort of student who liked to play the numbers, joining up with the conservatives was always the right play for your career.

It’s how you get Regent Law grads in senior Justice Department jobs.

Long ago, a proper conservative could enter this track merely sporting their “Robert Bork was Robbed” button everywhere. But for the last two decades, earning one’s way into this professional express lane has increasingly required students be both contrarian and confrontational on college and law school campuses to publicly demonstrate the depth of their commitment. Embracing the fact that no one likes them as a badge of their “victimhood” while inviting race-baiting provocateurs to campus, pranking Take Back The Night marches, and, yes, writing op-eds mocking minority groups were just the first steps on the right-wing cursus honorum. The next crop of conservative judicial nominees is inviting Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro to campus as we speak.

This is what makes the withdrawal of Ryan Bounds such a profound moment for law students. The 45-year-old nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had done everything right. He’d served in the Justice Department and he’d held a prestigious clerkship. But in all of these jobs he carried his right-wing credentials with him, forged in part by his willingness to write those contrarian and confrontational op-eds as an undergraduate unleashing a litany of racially and sexually insensitive remarks.

Bounds apologized for his statements at his Senate hearing and pointed to diversity efforts he’d made throughout his professional life as evidence that he was no longer defined by his college essays mocking racial minorities for laughs. David Lat says Ryan Bounds is not a racist. That could be true. People do, mercifully, mature. But these essays Bounds wrote were definitely racist and it’s cynical, bone-headed, or both to argue otherwise.

Yet, tellingly, his right-wing supporters never fully endorsed his approach of confronting his past. Even Lat’s take on this tried to write off phrases like “feel-good ethnic hoedowns” as not even racist in the first place, which takes some wild gymnastics. Ed Whelan of the National Review took to social media to minimize the extent of Bounds’s college statements, ignoring most of the record to defend only the statements where Bounds listed slurs used within oppressed communities for each other — proving he can’t be as racist as the black people… apparently? Ilya Shaprio of the CATO Institute tweeted of the Bounds apology that “[t]here was nothing to apologize for but he had to do that because that’s the way the game is played.” It seems as though Shapiro felt the nominee was lying to the Senate, which would open a whole other can of worms.

But it’s worth noting that the withdrawal of the Ryan Bounds nomination stings conservatives more than an ordinary speedbump on their path to judicial dominance. After all, the White House will move on to the next young conservative to fill the seat. What really has conservatives worked up is the fact that the Bounds nomination was derailed by a plethora of racially and sexually inappropriate statements. Their protestations over the “injustice” of judging a nominee by his college days are so fierce because they know everyone else on their judicial wish list has a similar paper trail of offensive college works waiting to be discovered.

This, to borrow a phrase, is the way the game is played. Conservatives have spent decades encouraging and rewarding college and law students for the very trollish antics that landed Bounds in hot water. Then, as years go by, these young firebrands soften their public image. The childish hijinks to “own the libs” that earned them acclaim from their right-wing patrons as kids transition into disproportionately harsh sentencing recommendations and academic articles about the folly of the Fourteenth Amendment. They become pillars of the local legal community and bide their time until the day they get the call to serve as a federal judge. By the time the Senate confirmation hearing rolls around, they want George Will on the streets and Rush Limbaugh in the sheets.

The key to this whole system was the willingness of polite society to ignore the coarseness of youth. To sign on to the myth that what nominees wrote back then shouldn’t matter — even if what they wrote back then played an outsized influence on their professional career. Even if what they wrote back then could be the only unfiltered insight into the nominee’s brain after decades of professional nurturing from people who think faking apologies is acceptable Senate testimony.

Someone was finally held accountable for the playing the enfant terrible that the right-wing adored for years. The well-worn path looks less primrose today.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 24, 2018, 08:53:33 AM
Apparently there are other allegation(s). You can’t make this up. (I don’t know if it’s true or not)

In my opinion: It’s like hiring a person, sometime it doesn’t work out. The interview goes well, but when you comes to the final stages (such a background check or final approval). Either there are discrepancies in the info provided, or salary discussion (the candidate has other offers), etc..
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 24, 2018, 10:37:57 AM
Apparently there are other allegation(s). You can’t make this up. (I don’t know if it’s true or not)

In my opinion: It’s like hiring a person, sometime it doesn’t work out. The interview goes well, but when you comes to the final stages (such a background check or final approval). Either there are discrepancies in the info provided, or salary discussion (the candidate has other offers), etc..

i think you can make it up and when nobody corroborates your story it starts to sound like you are.  democrats new 2018 slogan: when in doubt, claim sexual assault
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on September 24, 2018, 11:07:42 AM
More made up, mythical public outrage..it doesn't work anymore.

Mystery as IDENTICAL letters appear in 21 newspapers across 12 states slamming Trump's Supreme Court pick – and they're all signed by different people

At least 21 U.S. newspapers ran identical letters to the editor opposing President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week
Each letter was published with the name of a different 'signer,' claiming Kavanaugh threatens 'everything that we hold dear as a nation'
Technique is known as 'astroturfing'; it's unclear who's behind it
One editor says the woman who appeared to have emailed him the letter now denies ever sending it
Three prominent liberal advocacy groups that oppose Kavanaugh's nomination have all denied involvement in the campaign.
The White House is shrugging off the technique, whose history includes similar campaigns from the Republican Party and the liberal MoveOn.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html)

This is eerie when you think about the amount of influence the media has on the way people think or what they believe in.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 24, 2018, 06:59:32 PM
Prediction (medium confidence):

 Fox News’ number one fan will be disappointed by the interview for being "weak" not "tough."
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 24, 2018, 07:24:27 PM
Prediction (medium confidence):

 Fox News’ number one fan will be disappointed by the interview for being "weak" not "tough."

Breaking News:

“Third Kavanaugh accuser, a former US Mint employee, '100 percent credible,' Avenatti says.
A third woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct will come forward in the next 48 hours, according to Michael Avenatt.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-avenatti-third-accuser-emerge-48-hours/1416699002/

Bring your headsets to work tomorrow and tune into msnbc on the internet for free.  ;)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 24, 2018, 10:07:12 PM
What type of high school student maintains a calendar detailing the underage drinking parties they attended

It’s almost like kavanuagh knew some things from his ugly past were bound to come up and was prepared w 65 women witnessses to character at the ready

So unlike Romney , this dude actually does have a “binder full of women”  :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 05:23:17 AM
Prediction (medium confidence):

 Fox News’ number one fan will be disappointed by the interview for being "weak" not "tough."

Breaking News:

“Third Kavanaugh accuser, a former US Mint employee, '100 percent credible,' Avenatti says.
A third woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct will come forward in the next 48 hours, according to Michael Avenatt.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-avenatti-third-accuser-emerge-48-hours/1416699002/

Bring your headsets to work tomorrow and tune into msnbc on the internet for free.  ;)

rich, coming from porno lawyer whose latest tweet thinks kavanaugh is a sexual deviant.  the guy was a virgin for most of his young life - this definitely sounds like something a virgin would do!

@MichaelAvenatti

Sep 23
Brett Kavanaugh must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: "FFFFFFFourth of July." We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them. As well as the term "Devil's Triangle." Perhaps Sen. Grassley can ask him. #Basta
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 05:28:01 AM
What type of high school student maintains a calendar detailing the underage drinking parties they attended

It’s almost like kavanuagh knew some things from his ugly past were bound to come up and was prepared w 65 women witnessses to character at the ready

So unlike Romney , this dude actually does have a “binder full of women”  :)

way to attack a kid for keeping a calendar in his youth.  and congratulations to the dems, whose latest smear campaign is against a literal nerd virgin who loves baseball, but probably never made it past second base until he was almost 30.  complete backfire!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 06:19:17 AM
What type of high school student maintains a calendar detailing the underage drinking parties they attended

It’s almost like kavanuagh knew some things from his ugly past were bound to come up and was prepared w 65 women witnessses to character at the ready

So unlike Romney , this dude actually does have a “binder full of women”  :)

way to attack a kid for keeping a calendar in his youth.  and congratulations to the dems, whose latest smear campaign is against a literal nerd virgin who loves baseball, but probably never made it past second base until he was almost 30.  complete backfire!

Just so we are clear - we are both referring to an over privileged white Middle Aged rich man here  right ?   I am sure these are the sorts of people Jesus would reserve his pity for

But looks like this scotus thread has touched a nerve with kings as he has gone all 100 percent serious and preachy here instead of atleast making a little bit of attempt at a funny / humor type comeback :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 07:46:31 AM
King: It all comes down to this. Would you rush to hire someone or would you want to make sure you are hiring the right person?



Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 08:01:19 AM
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 08:12:44 AM
 >:D
King: It all comes down to this. Would you rush to hire someone or would you want to make sure you are hiring the right person?

Especially when it’s an appointment for LIFE !!!!

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 08:19:48 AM
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 

Yes , tell that to all the minority inmates in prison who have been locked up for relatively insignificant Crimes in their youth and have been suffering ever since . Your beloved sex offender judge himself is on record while sentencing a 17 y old girl that “ teenagers are old enough to realize the consequences of their actions.

This standard of “boys will be boys “ only applies to privileged and prep school teenagers .

I have seen quite a few in my job and their arrogance lives true to the stereotype

But ultimately this is a single person and deserves to stand and fall on his own actions . Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on September 25, 2018, 08:23:26 AM
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 08:24:28 AM
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 

Google Mark Judge
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 08:28:32 AM
And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 08:30:21 AM
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 08:31:02 AM
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.

Here comes the preacher ... tsk tsk tsk

So are you happy (“hilarious “) ? Or sad ?  Or trying to make a wisecrack ?   Come on,  decide
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

I could care less about Judge.  He is not the one they are aiming at.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on September 25, 2018, 08:32:35 AM
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.

Here comes the preacher ... tsk tsk tsk

So are you happy (“hilarious “) ? Or sad ?  Or trying to make a wisecrack ?   Come on,  decide
Entertained
Right now i am watching a loser try to troll others and fail.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 08:34:20 AM
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

I could care less about Judge.  He is not the one they are aiming at.

You choose not to know the facts and about him and his friend. (Pick and choose the articles you read?)

I’m not going to read that article because it’s unfavorable.

Check out the yahoo article.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 08:41:23 AM
Which "facts" are you referring to? I found none in that article.  Again, just conjecture and second hand rumors. Anything coming out of the mouth of creepy porn lawyer should be flushed down the toilet.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 08:45:17 AM
Which "facts" are you referring to? I found none in that article.  Again, just conjecture and second hand rumors. Anything coming out of the mouth of creepy porn lawyer should be flushed down the toilet.

There’s many other articles about him. How come congress won’t suppena him to testify? (Really weak) Maybe because it doesn’t help Kavanaugh.

The fact that you previously mentioned that you can care less about Mark Judge shows that you don’t want to know.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 08:57:43 AM
Among the details alleged by Christine Blasey Ford regarding herself and Brett Kavanaugh, she names their classmate Mark Judge as the sole witness. Judge, through his attorney, submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding his recollections and his willingness to speak before a hearing.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge stated. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

That's good enough for me
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 25, 2018, 08:59:04 AM
Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?
Yes it would but that's not what the Libs want. The Libs want a lengthy FBI investigation. The Libs want to delay the nomination past the November election, not for a few days.

If the FBI did resolve this matter in a few days, the Libs would have to deploy their next pathetic delay tactic. Trust me, the Libs already have a stockpile of delay tactics ready for immediate deployment if Professor Ford fails.




Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 09:00:08 AM
Among the details alleged by Christine Blasey Ford regarding herself and Brett Kavanaugh, she names their classmate Mark Judge as the sole witness. Judge, through his attorney, submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding his recollections and his willingness to speak before a hearing.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge stated. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

That's good enough for me

Why not under oath? To get to the bottom of it.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 09:01:47 AM
Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?
Yes it would but that's not what the Libs want. The Libs want a lengthy FBI investigation. The Libs want to delay the nomination past the November election, not for a few days.

If the FBI did resolve this matter in a few days, the Libs would have to deploy their next pathetic delay tactic. Trust me, the Libs already have a stockpile of delay tactics ready for immediate deployment if Professor Ford fails.

Just say because the Senate might flip to the Democrats. So you have to rush.

Do yourself a favor and make some calls for Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 09:05:14 AM
 Kavanaugh has made some very strange choices in defending himself against allegations of sexual assault

Instead of simply maintaining his innocence, he has offered a series of wild and implausible explanations for his predicament

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Kavanaugh claimed the two women accusing him of sexual assault were coordinating with each other.

This is an outlandish claim and he offered no evidence to support it

In his Fox News interview, he repeated the theory that Ford may be confusing him with someone else who did assault her.

This echoes his friend Ed Whelan's irresponsible comments on Twitter. No explanation as to why he believes this

When the NYT reported Kavanaugh & his football teammates referenced the "Renate Alumni" on their yearbook pages, Kavanaugh said it was a reference to a "kiss" w/a girl from a nearby school.  It's implausible, but the woman also says she never kissed him.

In response to allegations by Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh told Fox.  ——  "The men I knew in college say it is inconceivable that I could have done such a thing"

His roommate that year says he believes Ramirez because Kavanaugh was often"incoherently drunk."

So again , given that this is a LIFETIME appointment , and there is already the GOP turd standard percent of waiting up to 1 year because , you know , “elections”  , conservatives can take  their (il) logic and shove it :)   

The midterm turnout will be interesting now - in a way , if kavanugh is not confirmed , stakes are much higher for republicans and may add to intensity . I actually think it is politically beneficial for dems  midterm prospects if  this preppy sex offender was confirmed and then more bad stuff comes out after that .



Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 09:06:31 AM
Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?
Yes it would but that's not what the Libs want. The Libs want a lengthy FBI investigation. The Libs want to delay the nomination past the November election, not for a few days.

If the FBI did resolve this matter in a few days, the Libs would have to deploy their next pathetic delay tactic. Trust me, the Libs already have a stockpile of delay tactics ready for immediate deployment if Professor Ford fails.

The Anita hill investigation took 3 days !! And this was before the tools the fbi has now

Excuses , excuses ...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 25, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?
Yes it would but that's not what the Libs want. The Libs want a lengthy FBI investigation. The Libs want to delay the nomination past the November election, not for a few days.

If the FBI did resolve this matter in a few days, the Libs would have to deploy their next pathetic delay tactic. Trust me, the Libs already have a stockpile of delay tactics ready for immediate deployment if Professor Ford fails.

The Anita hill investigation took 3 days !! And this was before the tools the fbi has now

Excuses , excuses ...

Professor Ford and those like her are just cannon fodder for the Liberal elite. Once the November Blue Wave crests and the GOP no longer has the votes to confirm Kavanaugh, the Libs will discard Ford like a week old newspaper.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 09:32:39 AM
Among the details alleged by Christine Blasey Ford regarding herself and Brett Kavanaugh, she names their classmate Mark Judge as the sole witness. Judge, through his attorney, submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding his recollections and his willingness to speak before a hearing.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge stated. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

That's good enough for me

Why not under oath? To get to the bottom of it.


Because he will say the exact same thing as his statement. Having him there will clear up nothing, but it will waste more time and accomplish the goal of delay.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 09:38:27 AM
Among the details alleged by Christine Blasey Ford regarding herself and Brett Kavanaugh, she names their classmate Mark Judge as the sole witness. Judge, through his attorney, submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding his recollections and his willingness to speak before a hearing.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge stated. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

That's good enough for me

Why not under oath? To get to the bottom of it.


Because he will say the exact same thing as his statement. Having him there will clear up nothing, but it will waste more time and accomplish the goal of delay.


We don’t know that
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 09:39:38 AM
Sure we do.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 25, 2018, 09:42:06 AM
What's the hurry?  why not just let him be confirmed after the midterms?
be brave my little elephants.  If you believe in democracy, waiting is just fine.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 09:42:37 AM
Sure we do.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/25/how-world-is-mark-judge-not-testifying/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 09:46:31 AM
What's the hurry?  why not just let him be confirmed after the midterms?
be brave my little elephants.  If you believe in democracy, waiting is just fine.

Well said ...

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 09:48:47 AM
“I have no recollection of that.” — Sept. 14 in the New Yorker (Judge was not named in the piece)
“It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” — Later on Sept. 14 to the Weekly Standard (which revealed his name)
“I never saw anything like what was described . . . Something like that would stick out, which is why I don’t think it would happen.” — also Sept. 14 to the New York Times
“Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy.” — Sept. 16 after The Post released an interview with Ford

Nitpicking BS. He is saying the same thing over and over. No new information nor will any be obtained..waste of time.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 09:52:35 AM
What's the hurry?  why not just let him be confirmed after the midterms?
be brave my little elephants.  If you believe in democracy, waiting is just fine.

Screw that, I want a clearly qualified Justice sitting on the court Day ONE in October.  I love to watch them squirm and the sooner the better, its my little entertainment. ;) ;D >:D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 09:56:30 AM
“Kavanaugh says it was legal for seniors to drink when he was in high school, but Maryland's drinking age was raised to 21 when he was 17.” According to business insider servile below.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/maryland-drinking-age-could-brett-kavanaugh-legally-drink-high-school-2018-9

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 10:12:46 AM
Good lord, who cares? I was drinking when I was 15.  If i was prosecuted for every fumbling teenage boob grab from my teen years I would be sitting with Papillon.  The way most of us lost our virginity would today be prosecuted as child molestation.(but i didn't think so).  My generation turned out OK anyway.  Let it go, I understand "different time" but this is ridiculous.  WE ALL have these skeletons, if you don't there something wrong. If this is the new standard then NO ONE will become a judge, cop, politician,  doctor everyone is disqualified, this will backfire
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 25, 2018, 10:16:59 AM
What's the hurry?  why not just let him be confirmed after the midterms?
be brave my little elephants.  If you believe in democracy, waiting is just fine.

We don't want another Merrick Garland situation:

1. GOP tries to stall Merrick Garland confirmation until after presidential election.
2. Dems don't push very hard to confirm Garland before the election because they are sure Hillary will win election.
3. Hillary loses.
4. Merrick Garland fucked.


Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 25, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Welcome to Steubenville.

As long as we 'win', who cares.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 25, 2018, 10:19:32 AM
Personally, I question the eminent qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice Nominee who is apparently the one and only person working in the Federal Circuit Court system who had no knowledge of the extreme egregious behavior of his boss.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 25, 2018, 10:31:31 AM
This man use to get drunk back @ yale and run a train on drunk girls with his drinking buddies.
The girls were so ashamed of being gang raped while drunk they stayed silent through the years.

Sounds plausible.

I wonder how he explains that to his 2 daughters.

"before I met your mother, daddy was a bad boy..."
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 25, 2018, 10:37:17 AM
Personally, I question the eminent qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice Nominee who is apparently the one and only person working in the Federal Circuit Court system who had no knowledge of the extreme egregious behavior of his boss.


The problem with the SCOTUS now is that we are too focused on "qualifications".  Because of that, we now have a SC that consists almost entirely of former Yale Law/Harvard Law/Federal appeals court judges. That is bad because we need justices of diverse backgrounds and life experiences. The court wasn't always like this.

Justice Earl Warren was a Berkeley grad who was the governor of Calfornia. He would not be "quaified" for the court by current standards because he was not Ivy League and had no prior judicial experience. If Earl Warren came up for confirmation today, the Liberals would never allow him on the bench because as governor of California, he was the one that signed the January 1942 order rounding up all Californians of Japanese descent for interment. And yet Warren's court made many landmark civil rights rulings including Brown vs. Board of Education.








Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 10:38:19 AM
This man use to get drunk back @ yale and run a train on drunk girls with his drinking buddies.
The girls were so ashamed of being gang raped while drunk they stayed silent through the years.

Sounds plausible.

I wonder how he explains that to his 2 daughters.

"before I met your mother, daddy was a bad boy..."

LOL nice fantasy
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 10:39:25 AM
No,it doesn't sound plausible.  Like the Russia Russia investigation.  No hard proof but tons of speculation, innuendo and rumor. I went to UCLA when one of these "gang rape" accusations occurred,  it as no secret and the three fraternities involved were sanctioned and shamed until further investigation exonerated them.  The damage was done though, one was closed for 2 years and the accused dropped out.  Was a lot like Duke LaCrosse.  Incidents like that do not go unnoticed, even in the '80's.  Yale would be no different.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 25, 2018, 10:45:28 AM
Obviously the democrats are doing all they can to stop this man from becoming a supreme court justice.  Personally I am more concerned about why I can't put this youtube video:

https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k (https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k)

straight into this TI forum.  It use to work so easily, and show up in front of you.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 25, 2018, 10:52:55 AM
I think this one is more appropriate.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 10:53:47 AM
You can but the viewers need to turn off the blocker button on the subject line.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 25, 2018, 11:07:36 AM
Obviously the democrats are doing all they can to stop this man from becoming a supreme court justice. 

That's what I'm worried about. This Ford thing obviously has no legs to stand on. I'm worried about what comes next when the Ford thing fails. Desperate people do desperate things. Never underestimate a Lib backed into a corner, they are capable of anything.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 11:25:34 AM
Obviously the democrats are doing all they can to stop this man from becoming a supreme court justice. 

That's what I'm worried about. This Ford thing obviously has no legs to stand on. I'm worried about what comes next when the Ford thing fails. Desperate people do desperate things. Never underestimate a Lib backed into a corner, they are capable of anything.

Ladies and gentlemen , this is how the mind of a Fox News addled conservative thinks — exhibit A
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
all the dems care about is pushing headlines.  it doesn't matter if it's true or not.  throw enough accusations, with no facts or witnesses to back them up, and all the public sees is that there are 3 accusations against this guy.  unfortunately, most of the american public doesn't read past the headlines or the 30 second spot on the evening news, so it will be enough to convict kavanaugh in the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 25, 2018, 12:04:51 PM
Personally I am more concerned about why I can't put this youtube video:

https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k (https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k)

straight into this TI forum.  It use to work so easily, and show up in front of you.



I've contacted the site owner to address this. They are aware of it and looking for a remedy.

#1stWorldProblems :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 12:10:35 PM
all the dems care about is pushing headlines.  it doesn't matter if it's true or not.  throw enough accusations, with no facts or witnesses to back them up, and all the public sees is that there are 3 accusations against this guy.  unfortunately, most of the american public doesn't read past the headlines or the 30 second spot on the evening news, so it will be enough to convict kavanaugh in the court of public opinion.

Why not address it? Trump or the judiciary committee can order an FBI investigation.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Dresden215 on September 25, 2018, 12:23:14 PM
Anyone read Ford's letter to Feinstein? Don't know if this letter is authentic. If it is, it sure has a lot of grammatical errors for someone with a PhD. Looks like a millennial wrote it and not a Gen X woman.

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 12:29:49 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

You can’t tell me. He was the best candidate that Trump had to choose from. (If it doesn’t go well for Judge K. I’m waiting for Trump to blame someone and say it’s not his fault.) lol
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Loco_local on September 25, 2018, 01:06:54 PM
All of this could have been avoided if McConnell would have held hearings for Garland. Personally, I'm more concerned how this nomination was just handed to Kavanaugh from Kennedy. It's like he was already groomed from birth to be Supreme Court Justice and would have become one no matter what.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 01:19:13 PM
All of this could have been avoided if McConnell would have held hearings for Garland. Personally, I'm more concerned how this nomination was just handed to Kavanaugh from Kennedy. It's like he was already groomed from birth to be Supreme Court Justice and would have become one no matter what.

The Trump family knows the Kennedy family very well. (Like very close)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 01:19:27 PM
Anyone read Ford's letter to Feinstein? Don't know if this letter is authentic. If it is, it sure has a lot of grammatical errors for someone with a PhD. Looks like a millennial wrote it and not a Gen X woman.

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html)

She must have a lot of miles on her car! She was vacationing in the mid atlantic in Aug (where her relatives are) so since she is afraid to fly (which is why she couldn't possibly get to DC by Monday) I guess she just drove to and from CA to the east coast and now has to unfortunately drive back for the hearing she wants to delay (again). She is the only person who has not made a statement under oath despite the fact that she was given the opportunity to speak by phone or have the committee come to her.

It looks like she never thought it would go this far and is doing everything she can to NOT testify.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 01:45:35 PM
The judiciary committee will not reveal the name of the outside council to question Ford.
(Top secret?)

Circus status
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 01:50:04 PM
There should be a dedicated camera to focus on Ted Cruz at the judiciary hearing since he is a good friend of Kavanaugh.

(Recusal from the committee?)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 01:56:49 PM
Anyone read Ford's letter to Feinstein? Don't know if this letter is authentic. If it is, it sure has a lot of grammatical errors for someone with a PhD. Looks like a millennial wrote it and not a Gen X woman.

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-feinstein-letter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html)

feinstein should be impeached (the left's favorite word) from the judiciary committee for withholding this information since july.  want to talk about obstruction of justice (the left's favorite phrase)? this is literally obstructing justice (kavanaugh).
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 02:06:01 PM
The GOP female senator from Alaska. “Take the Kavenaugh accusations seriously.”
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 02:47:56 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

Ha ha this is good

I guess trump makes you proud every day ? How do you explain him to your kids ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 03:03:19 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

Ha ha this is good

I guess trump makes you proud every day ? How do you explain him to your kids ?


My kids? LOL!!!! My baby is getting married in less than two weeks. She is almost the age I was when she was born...……………. I'm twice her age and she is my last kid. The others are even older!


My kids aren't stupid. They don't need their mommy to explain anything to them.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
There should be a dedicated camera to focus on Ted Cruz at the judiciary hearing since he is a good friend of Kavanaugh.

(Recusal from the committee?)

Dr. Ford doesn't want one. She specifically said ONLY ONE camera.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 25, 2018, 03:06:54 PM
There should be a dedicated camera to focus on Ted Cruz at the judiciary hearing since he is a good friend of Kavanaugh.

(Recusal from the committee?)

Dr. Ford doesn't want one. She specifically said ONLY ONE camera.

avenatti will gladly take all the other cameras
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 25, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
 Kavenaugh’s old roommate in college made a statement on Brett. (In my opinion it’s not positive)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 03:50:08 PM
Kavenaugh’s old roommate in college made a statement on Brett. (In my opinion it’s not positive)


I'm sure they will take his statement he made under oath under consideration.


Basically the committee  does have most of what is going to be said already.

They have the statement Dr. Ford will make along with the sworn statements of the other people she named denying they were there and denying all knowledge of said incident.

They have sworn statements from Judge Kavenaugh.

They are missing the crocodile tears.

They are missing the date or even month (or year) that this occurred.

They are missing the exact place (because of the five at the party, four are denying it happened and it couldn't have been at Dr. Ford's house because she escaped from it and went home.

They are missing how she heard of this party.

They are missing how she got there or got home.

They are missing how much Dr. Ford drank.

They are missing how it was so hard for Dr. Ford to party on the rest of her high school years.

They are missing why Dr. Ford left her lifelong friend at the party alone with these terrible boys and never thought maybe she should warn her or notify anyone she might be in danger.


They are missing how her lawyer isn't surprised her lifelong friend remembers nothing because she had nothing of substance happen to her. And she knows this how? Dr. Ford never mentioned it to her lifelong friend. Maybe she also had something happen but instead they know nothing happened to her, thank God since Dr. Ford left her alone with these drunk sexual predators to fend for herself.


So given that they know what the testimony is going to be because they already have sworn statements and dr. ford's prepared statement, unless something else is brought forth, they know what their conclusion is going to be.


I'd be not so happy if my friend left me alone without any warning or telling someone i might be in immiinent danger of being raped or inadvertantly killed.


It was pretty traumatic though. So much that Dr. Ford continued to go to drinking parties with boys from the same school.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 03:54:50 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

Ha ha this is good

I guess trump makes you proud every day ? How do you explain him to your kids ?


My kids? LOL!!!! My baby is getting married in less than two weeks. She is almost the age I was when she was born...……………. I'm twice her age and she is my last kid. The others are even older!


My kids aren't stupid. They don't need their mommy to explain anything to them.

Well , congratulations . Regardless of ideology , I were in your shoes , I’d stop paying attention to the circus and solely focus on enjoying the next few weeks re the occasion .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 03:56:41 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

Ha ha this is good

I guess trump makes you proud every day ? How do you explain him to your kids ?


My kids? LOL!!!! My baby is getting married in less than two weeks. She is almost the age I was when she was born...……………. I'm twice her age and she is my last kid. The others are even older!


My kids aren't stupid. They don't need their mommy to explain anything to them.

Well , congratulations . Regardless of ideology , I were in your shoes , I’d stop paying attention to the circus and solely focus on enjoying the next few weeks re the occasion .


Exactly...……… because it's too easy to punch holes and that can't happen.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 03:58:50 PM
But wait....…………. maybe she recalls calling the house after she got home to warn the friend and no one answered the phone...…... yeah...……. no one can prove it one way or the other because i'm sure there are no phone records of local calls that go that far back and wait for it...…………………..


she doesn't know what house it was at anyway but she's sure she called to warn her............ that's it.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 04:05:53 PM
Maybe that vacant seat will never be filled. We can just wait for judges to retire or die off and then we'll have no problems with ties.

Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are probably the first to go.

I can say this................ for the first time in my life I'm embarrased to be an American.

Ha ha this is good

I guess trump makes you proud every day ? How do you explain him to your kids ?


My kids? LOL!!!! My baby is getting married in less than two weeks. She is almost the age I was when she was born...……………. I'm twice her age and she is my last kid. The others are even older!


My kids aren't stupid. They don't need their mommy to explain anything to them.

Well , congratulations . Regardless of ideology , I were in your shoes , I’d stop paying attention to the circus and solely focus on enjoying the next few weeks re the occasion .


Exactly...……… because it's too easy to punch holes and that can't happen.

I was simply referring to the fact that your personal occasion takes priority over getting distressed by political stuff

Don’t believe what you read on drudge or fox . And don’t place too much faith in goody two shoes kavanugh either.  These things have a way of taking on a life of their own and if you are too attached to his fate , i am afraid there may be more discomfort ahead of you from this angle. 

The only thing McConnell cares about is preserving his majority . There are several others waiting in line. Don’t forget gorsuch got confirmed with zero drama and with dem votes too .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 25, 2018, 04:11:59 PM
Let's not forget Cristina King Miranda who said it happened and she heard about it with quite a bit of buzz at school for days.

Except...….…………. she contradicted Dr. Ford who said she told no one (and the other four say they weren't there and recall nothing) and it happened in summer, not during school.

After that was pointed out she said she knows nothing. lol!

I'm not saying nothing happened to Dr. Ford, ever in her life, but to say that it was a specific person...…….. you need some evidence to ruin their lives and careers.

All i see is someone who repeatedly is trying to NOT testify.



Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 25, 2018, 06:04:46 PM
JIMHO, the most problematic point of Dr. Ford's story for Kavanaugh is simple.  It's that Kavanaugh rebut of it keeps evolving.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: bones on September 25, 2018, 07:05:56 PM
Is it time for me to come in here and make a marriage analogy yet?  Maybe in Pantone’s color of the year - ultra violet?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 07:46:27 PM
So the Neanderthal party is bringing in a sex crimes prosecutor to question Ford

So it Looks like Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are treating the Thursday hearing like a criminal trial.

But one with a cruel twist  —- they are prosecuting the victim instead of the alleged preppy jock rapist
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 25, 2018, 07:55:14 PM
And lastly , for a nightcap , this link has all the answers you are looking for ... 

https://thenib.com/kavalcade-of-kavanaugh?utm_campaign=newsletter-links&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 25, 2018, 09:11:24 PM
So the Neanderthal party is bringing in a sex crimes prosecutor to question Ford

So it Looks like Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are treating the Thursday hearing like a criminal trial.

But one with a cruel twist  —- they are prosecuting the victim instead of the alleged preppy jock rapist

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 08:49:19 AM
Creepy porn lawyer surfaces... again, no specifics as to dates, eye witnesses, specific acts or locations.  More mud slinging without any substance or proof. Rumor, innuendo and third hand accounts.

Michael Avenatti Reveals Client Making ‘Gang Rape’ Allegation Against Kavanaugh

https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/ (https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2018, 09:06:15 AM
Creepy?  (Your the one typing in purple font. Now that’s creepy) ;)

Creepy porn lawyer surfaces... again, no specifics as to dates, eye witnesses, specific acts or locations.  More mud slinging without any substance or proof. Rumor, innuendo and third hand accounts.

Michael Avenatti Reveals Client Making ‘Gang Rape’ Allegation Against Kavanaugh

https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/ (https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 26, 2018, 09:19:38 AM
Creepy porn lawyer surfaces... again, no specifics as to dates, eye witnesses, specific acts or locations.  More mud slinging without any substance or proof. Rumor, innuendo and third hand accounts.

Michael Avenatti Reveals Client Making ‘Gang Rape’ Allegation Against Kavanaugh

https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/ (https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/)
Whoever is the Liberal in charge of derailing the Kavanaugh confirmation isn't doing his/her/its job very well. The obvious strategy is to level just enough allegations to get the nomination killed while not overdoing it in order to preserver Dr. Ford's credibility. Bringing in an attention hound to make off the wall accusations is a pretty poor strategy. If Dr. Ford had said she was drugged and gang raped by a line of people waiting their turn on her, a line of people who supposedley did this to many other people, I don't think Ford would have any credibility left.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
Creepy?  (Your the one typing in purple font. Now that’s creepy) ;)

Creepy porn lawyer surfaces... again, no specifics as to dates, eye witnesses, specific acts or locations.  More mud slinging without any substance or proof. Rumor, innuendo and third hand accounts.

Michael Avenatti Reveals Client Making ‘Gang Rape’ Allegation Against Kavanaugh

https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/ (https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/)

Ha ha , eyephone nails it

But again , do any of the Trump loving christian evangelicals here think walking into underage girls dressing room during a beauty pageant is creepy ? Like your cult leader — Huh ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
He's a witch!!!

https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g (https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 09:38:39 AM

I’m finally glad to see that under oath Kavanaugh has decided to stop lying about high school drinking but then why did he do it on Monday’s Fox interview?

Donald Trump lied constantly and blatantly and won, and the lesson Washington Republicans seemingly took was that there’s no political disadvantage to lying constantly and blatantly....

But looking not just at Kavanaugh but at Obamacare repeal and the tax cuts, the actual lesson is that —- You can lie and win if you are Donald Trump facing Hillary Clinton in a presidential election, otherwise, lying may backfire in predictably disastrous ways
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 10:03:14 AM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

Before he even said a word.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2018, 10:04:17 AM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

Are you sure? I heard a rumor that Trump was not impressed regarding Kavenaugh’s fox interview.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 10:06:30 AM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

That’s a prediction ? Duh , your party of sex offenders controls the senate , house and the presidency .

Like I said, the best midterm outcome for dems is kavanugh gets confirmed by a thin margin and then more , and seriously bad stuff comes out after .

If this sleazebag were not confirmed , stakes would be much higher for midterms for gop and would actually boost turnout
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 10:08:41 AM
This has already upped the turnout for the GOP.  No blue wave either, but I said that awhile ago.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 10:15:09 AM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

That’s a prediction ? Duh , your party of sex offenders controls the senate , house and the presidency .


Be real..the sex offenders (on both sides) control everything.

After Weinstein: 71 Men Accused of Sexual Misconduct and Their Fall From Power

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 26, 2018, 10:23:33 AM
There seems to be a pattern in elections.

Bush elected in 2001 and started wars which led to
Obama elected in 2008 which led to
Trump elected in 2016 which will probably lead to
2018 huge blue wave.

So if you go too far one way, the other side pushes back as hard or harder.  I think trump is going to have a massive effect on the reaction part of this equation.

We'll see if i'm right in 5 weeks.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 10:24:11 AM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

That’s a prediction ? Duh , your party of sex offenders controls the senate , house and the presidency .


Be real..the sex offenders (on both sides) control everything.

After Weinstein: 71 Men Accused of Sexual Misconduct and Their Fall From Power

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html)

Either you pretend not to understand my response or are trying to dodge it

The simple point is kavanagh gettin confirmed is in the gop hands , doesn’t take a genius to predict it

If you want to talk about which party actively supports sex offenders and which one weeds them out for even posing for a few comical pictures (like al Franken), the American public understands this v well .  And don’t bring everything back to 1990s bill clnton . That’s the only leg anyone on the right has to stand on .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 10:38:49 AM
Oh the public understnds this all too well.  No need to go that far back. Lets look back just a few days...

When he was in high school, Cory Booker, the New Jersey Democrat and possible White House contender, groped his classmate as they kissed. He reached for her breast, and when she swatted his hand away, he made another attempt.

The incident resurfaced this week as Booker joined calls for an FBI investigation into the allegation of high-school-era sexual assault leveled by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/21/in-1992-cory-booker-admitted-to-groping-a-high-school-classmate-and-issued-a-call-for-sexual-respect/?utm_term=.4462798ffd1f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/21/in-1992-cory-booker-admitted-to-groping-a-high-school-classmate-and-issued-a-call-for-sexual-respect/?utm_term=.4462798ffd1f)

The allegations of abuse against Keith Ellison aren't going away

Back in August, the son of a former girlfriend of Rep. Keith Ellison alleged that the Minnesota Democrat had abused his mother in the course of that relationship.

Austin Monahan said he found a video on his mother's computer showing that Ellison had forcefully tried to drag her off of a bed while swearing at her. Ellison denied the allegations and suggested they were politically motivated -- coming just days before Minnesota's Democratic primary for attorney general.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/keith-ellison-karen-monahan/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/keith-ellison-karen-monahan/index.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2018, 10:48:03 AM
Get ready for the Trump’s comment. (Maybe: Nice guy. But if he told me about this I wouldn’t have nominated him.)  ;)

(the rumor is there is not enough votes to push him through)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2018, 10:51:12 AM
Why is Mimi Walters silent regarding Kavenaugh? (No posting on her twitter account)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 26, 2018, 11:00:34 AM
There seems to be a pattern in elections.

Bush elected in 2001 and started wars which led to
Obama elected in 2008 which led to
Trump elected in 2016 which will probably lead to
2018 huge blue wave.

So if you go too far one way, the other side pushes back as hard or harder.  I think trump is going to have a massive effect on the reaction part of this equation.

We'll see if i'm right in 5 weeks.


I remember the dems coming out a week before Bush election with the shocking DUI conviction.


And I am shocked that after Obama left there have been zero beheadings.


So...…….. like I said yesterday, maybe no one will ever get that seat. What I meant is that anyone can be tainted with a smear like is happening now, from both parties.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 26, 2018, 11:04:10 AM
Why is Mimi Walters silent regarding Kavenaugh? (No posting on her twitter account)

Have you gotten the call from the Mimi call brigade yet?
I told them I would vote for her and hung up.
I'm probably not going to vote for her.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Loco_local on September 26, 2018, 11:19:54 AM
Quote
And I am shocked that after Obama left there have been zero beheadings

There was one(3) a few months ago
https://www.albawaba.com/news/isis-behead-3-people-afghanistan-1152814

and one in 2017
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/iranian-soldier-beheaded-by-isis-militants-in-syria-mourned-as-an-icon-1.3607946




Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Loco_local on September 26, 2018, 11:24:40 AM
Why is Mimi Walters silent regarding Kavenaugh? (No posting on her twitter account)

It's kind of strange because her tv advertisements focus on her strong commitment to women who are victims of violence. She should be speaking up if she's serious.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 11:28:02 AM
This thread is now the catch all political thread

I know “both Sideism” and “everyone is to blame” is the easy and polite answer ar social settings but at this moment in time ...  I think one party is clearly relying on thuggish tactics to stay in power and control power and does not care about Democracy anymore

Minority older white voters , evangelicals , and some other gun types and their dominance in the low population but high voting power states are what s forcing the agenda of 35 percent of the population on rest of the country .

The gap between popular vote and electoral college , and popular vote and representation in college will continue to widen

This is why the gop s best weapon in this fight is voter suppression and I am not just taking about minorities , it is also about suppressing the vote of Young people and college students
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 11:31:30 AM
Quote
And I am shocked that after Obama left there have been zero beheadings

There was one(3) a few months ago
https://www.albawaba.com/news/isis-behead-3-people-afghanistan-1152814

and one in 2017
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/iranian-soldier-beheaded-by-isis-militants-in-syria-mourned-as-an-icon-1.3607946

Evangelicals always have to focus on the terrorist / Muslim aspect of all things in the world .  Now what was the connection between that and Bush DUI ?

Or are evangelicals like ready2downsize typing these posts “under the influence” :) since our dear newly apponted judge has made it socially acceptable to get drunk and indulge in bad behavior  !
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
This thread is now the catch all political thread

I know “both Sideism” and “everyone is to blame” is the easy and polite answer ar social settings but at this moment in time ...  I think one party is clearly relying on thuggish tactics to stay in power and control power and does not care about Democracy anymore

Minority older white voters , evangelicals , and some other gun types and their dominance in the low population but high voting power states are what s forcing the agenda of 35 percent of the population on rest of the country .

The gap between popular vote and electoral college , and popular vote and representation in college will continue to widen

This is why the gop s best weapon in this fight is voter suppression and I am not just taking about minorities , it is also about suppressing the vote of Young people and college students

Agreed...im going to take this back over to the mid-terms thread...see ya there.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Loco_local on September 26, 2018, 11:44:49 AM
One if the things I don't understand about the Religious Right is how they villainize Muslims because of the Paris shootings but they make excuses for the Las Vegas shooter like it really makes a difference if someone yells allahu akbar before they kill you.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 26, 2018, 12:07:02 PM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

agreed.  creepy porn lawyer stuck his neck out way too far on this one (gotta stay in the limelight for his presidential run) and presented a woman with claims that completely undercut all of the other accusers.

woman #3 attends gang rape party, gets gang raped herself, keeps going to the same parties 10 times and doesn't tell or warn anyone, comes out over 35 years later with no evidence other than her word.

o k a y
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Mety on September 26, 2018, 01:16:02 PM
Who are the evangelicals you guys talking about?
Can someone please drop a clear definition?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Loco_local on September 26, 2018, 01:43:53 PM
Sorry for changing the subject. I get triggered whenever Obama is mentioned. Especially in a thread with people defending high school parties with (i can't even type it). Does anyone remember the case with the sherrif's son and pool sticks.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
Yes, it was Sheriff Heidel  in 2002 and there was an enormous amount of corroborating evidence and Eye witnesses.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 26, 2018, 04:36:29 PM
Go down to OC Family Court in the City of Orange and sit in on some child custody hearings. You will find that many litigants allege the other parent is abusing the subject minors. The vast majority of these allegations are ruled false by the court. I've sat in on dozens of these hearings and I have never seen one where the court ruled the allegations of child abuse are substantiated. Is it condoning child abuse to call out these false allegations?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 26, 2018, 06:13:36 PM
well, well, well!

Quote
Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser

Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”

"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexually assaulting her in the sworn statement. But she asserts Kavanaugh was present when she was the victim of a “gang rape” by multiple boys at one party.

Vinneccy made clear that he did not believe her story.

“I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348)

oh yeah, and

Quote
More Than 60 Georgetown Prep Alumni Defend Kavanaugh against Latest Charge in Letter to Judiciary Committee

Dozens of classmates of Brett Kavanaugh who say they knew him in high school rallied to his defense on Wednesday, objecting in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to the latest grievous sexual-assault accusation leveled against the Supreme Court nominee.

“We have seen reports today that Julie Swetnick, who says she graduated from Gaithersburg High School, submitted a declaration to the Committee alleging that Brett participated in horrific conduct during high school, including targeting girls for gang rape,” reads the letter addressed to Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein from 64 classmates.

The group said none of them recall meeting an individual named Julie Swetnick.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/classmates-defend-brett-kavanaugh-against-latest-charge/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/classmates-defend-brett-kavanaugh-against-latest-charge/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Go down to OC Family Court in the City of Orange and sit in on some child custody hearings. You will find that many litigants allege the other parent is abusing the subject minors. The vast majority of these allegations are ruled false by the court. I've sat in on dozens of these hearings and I have never seen one where the court ruled the allegations of child abuse are substantiated. Is it condoning child abuse to call out these false allegations?

You are biased by your experiences just as those other “hard right turn” immigrant conservatives on this forum that were permanently scarred by the early 90s riots and will never ever objectively look at the plight of black Americans again

Apples and oranges . Ultimately this can all be resolved by a quick fbi investigation

If gop stalled for 1+ year to kill Merrick garland , surely they can wait for a few weeks

Or is it because y’all are afraid of the midterms ?

Oh wait , isn’t everyone here assuming that there’s no blue wave and maga voters will prevail ?

Is it this or that ? Can you guys decide once and for all

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 07:09:03 PM
This is awesome. The more accusations to come out and more outlandish it becomes the more they under cut any truth out there if there was any to begin with. Bring on Justice Kavanaugh!!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 26, 2018, 07:29:57 PM
This is awesome. The more accusations to come out and more outlandish it becomes the more they under cut any truth out there if there was any to begin with. Bring on Justice Kavanaugh!!

you are getting  nervous aren't you - twitchy fingers :)

I actually think these latest ones may be planted by GOP operatives themselves -- many, weak , unsubstantited ones that can muddy up the other more credible stories . 

As eyephone said, get some MAGA popcorn ready for tomorrow's show
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2018, 08:07:01 PM
Not at all, I love this stuff, will have this blaring in the office at the opening tomorrow. Might even have some Irish with my coffee. >:D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 27, 2018, 06:18:09 AM
I actually think these latest ones may be planted by GOP operatives themselves -- many, weak , unsubstantited ones that can muddy up the other more credible stories . 


russia meddling in our supreme court elections!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 06:32:54 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/09/27/daily-202-tribalism-fuels-gop-embrace-of-kavanaugh/5bac1c5f1b326b7c8a8d16b8/?utm_term=.042fb750ae3a&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

Explains the reaction of right wingers here , predictably —
 The most remarkable number in the Marist poll: A 54 percent majority of Republicans said Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 08:33:23 AM
Everyone have excuses ready for when kavanaugh withdraws ?

That they already saw it coming ?  And hence maga geniuses

And so much #winning ?

“This is a disaster for the Republicans.” Chris Wallace on Fox News just now.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 09:02:33 AM
Wow Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley is raising his voice about Mark Judge!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 09:07:59 AM
Really lame the GOP attorney asking Dr. Ford about traveling by plane.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 09:15:28 AM
That is a seasoned prosecutor, methodically setting the base, the frustration is it comes in 5 minute spurts intermixed with political bloviation and self aggrandizement.  In the end this will change not one mind or opinion and  the vote will take place as scheduled.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 09:21:47 AM
That is a seasoned prosecutor, methodically setting the base, the frustration is it comes in 5 minute spurts intermixed with political bloviation and self aggrandizement.  In the end this will change not one mind or opinion and  the vote will take place as scheduled.

That’s not what Trump said. Didn’t he say something to the effect I will like to see what Dr Ford says.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 09:26:57 AM
Sure, take a look, make up your mind and then VOTE.  Sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 09:40:45 AM
This is Trump’s worst nightmare — a TV moment going badly for him that’s completely out of his control
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on September 27, 2018, 09:44:15 AM
Kennedy asked Trump to nominate Kavanaugh
He retired early so Kavanaugh could be pushed through.

He knows the blue wave is coming and needs the confirmation done asap.

Why does kennedy want kavanaugh?

Do you think supreme court justices line up their replacements?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 09:51:20 AM
Kennedy asked Trump to nominate Kavanaugh
He retired early so Kavanaugh could be pushed through.

He knows the blue wave is coming and needs the confirmation done asap.

Why does kennedy want kavanaugh?

Do you think supreme court justices line up their replacements?

2 words ... Deutsche Bank
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 09:59:51 AM
Like I previously said Brett should of withdrawn before the testimony.

It might be awkward when he returns to the DC court of appeals.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 11:34:17 AM
I have to admit, I'm a bit let down. She didn't corroborate or offer any evidence to bolster her story.  She couldn't establish where the house was, exactly when this whole thing supposedly occurred, why all the witnesses she named rebuffed her story, how she got home or why she left her "best friend" there to be raped by those terrible boys who just tried to rape her,  why she never warned or discussed it with her "best friend ".  No detail or proof. I expected more.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 11:49:29 AM
Nice lady
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 11:53:06 AM
Kavenaugh is a nice guy, but that is not the issue for either of them.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 12:02:57 PM
Don’t get drunk on your own b/s


Bret Baier on FOX — “We are covering the news.   No matter where it falls.   Thanks.  If you think that the first section of this hearing was a win for the GOP — then you saw a different hearing.  So far.”
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 12:41:38 PM
WTF

Which high school girl  wouldn’t be scared to be in the same room as him
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 12:41:48 PM
This guy is insanely credible.  Well organized, showing proof, specific to dates, people involved and places...and he's crying...this guy sounds like my son!! Bring on the vote!!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 12:48:01 PM
The good news for Kavanaugh is that being a Robert Bork style martyr is very lucrative.

He'll be swimming in wingnut welfare for life.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 12:52:27 PM
...after he retires from the Supreme Court!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 12:56:02 PM
...after he retires from the Supreme Court!

Do you have any idea who Robert Bork is
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 12:59:31 PM
Shorter Kav:

I'm a hard right partisan
You people hate me for it
I keep calendars
I like beer. I really like beer.
My yearbook was the editor's fault
I have women friends
I hire women
I am innocent
I am you
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 01:02:09 PM
...after he retires from the Supreme Court!

Do you have any idea who Robert Bork is

The last guy to get unfairly but successfully railroaded by the dems.  Ironically attacked by one of the biggest abusers of women at the time.


https://youtu.be/GvFLXFCJvJA (https://youtu.be/GvFLXFCJvJA)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 01:11:24 PM
So far , This guy doesn't even have the temperament to work behind the counter at Burger King
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 01:14:51 PM
He's pissed, and I don't blame him. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 01:35:07 PM
Privileged men who have never been questioned or challenged usually crumble and react this way when their power is threatened - even slightly
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 01:48:23 PM
Someone tell Lindsey Graham to call down.

(Only for the camera! He should win an award for theatrical senator of the year.)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 01:49:41 PM
Lindsey goin off
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 27, 2018, 01:51:09 PM
All BS. 

Just call the four others in and make them testify.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 01:52:14 PM
This is finally getting fun!!, Whod've thunk Lindsey Grahm would liven things up?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 01:53:08 PM
Lindsey Graham’s argument that the fact that a person is successful and powerful proves he didn’t do bad things in the past is really conservatism boiled down to its essence
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 01:55:24 PM
When we find out whatever's been going on with Lindsey Graham behind the scenes this past year, it's going to be AMAZING
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 03:04:13 PM
That guy has an attitude. (I don’t know)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 03:11:59 PM
For 12 years temperament should be considered for the job. (Except for today?)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 27, 2018, 03:45:01 PM
When we find out whatever's been going on with Lindsey Graham behind the scenes this past year, it's going to be AMAZING
Speaking of behind the scenes, I can't wait until Wikileaks' next email dump that shows us how much the Dems really care about Dr. Ford. Probably as much as they professed to care about Bernie Sanders.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on September 27, 2018, 04:26:11 PM

To quote another "This is not how I remember Rashomon"

If we want to make things interesting, why not FOIA the accused names (since they are employed by us) of those found in the $17m Congress has spent covering up abusers within the Capitol Rotunda - post Midterms so as to not seem political.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-congress-sexual-harassment-hush-money-20171128-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-congress-sexual-harassment-hush-money-20171128-story.html)

Would certainly lead to an interesting news cycle.

My .02c
 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 04:28:40 PM
When we find out whatever's been going on with Lindsey Graham behind the scenes this past year, it's going to be AMAZING
Speaking of behind the scenes, I can't wait until Wikileaks' next email dump that shows us how much the Dems really care about Dr. Ford. Probably as much as they professed to care about Bernie Sanders.

It’s likely that wiki leaks / Russia already has some compromising material on Lindsay graham . That’s the only logical explanation on his complete about turn from being McCain light to now full on trumpster


Ultimately the best thing here from a pure electoral perspective is for kavanuagh to get confirmed and then more genuinely bad stuff break about him , esp from the mark judge angle . That would hand the dems a dream midterm  sweep

They can always pack the courts later in 2020
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 04:49:01 PM
Mitch is currently talking to the GOP Senators in Capital Hill. Give me a break.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 27, 2018, 06:28:55 PM
Your beloved rapist judge is getting confirmed , yup

Now it will be more fireworks from now until November
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 08:49:23 PM
#winning
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 08:52:46 PM
#winning

Yeah he won the shouting match.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 09:22:12 PM
This has now officially spun onto nutbag land.  I will now proclaim that Kavenaugh will be voted on Friday, go to the full house and be sitting on the Court for this session.  This whole thing will backfire on the Dems.

Before he even said a word.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2018, 10:18:32 PM
Your beloved rapist judge is getting confirmed , yup

Now it will be more fireworks from now until November

Rapist? You know that huh? You were there in 1980 whatever at whatever house on the east coast with whoever’s might have been there and witnessed whatever may have happened to someone? Nice, call the fbi 33 years ago and report it.


https://youtu.be/bcYppAs6ZdI (https://youtu.be/bcYppAs6ZdI)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2018, 10:52:50 PM
American Bar Association requests to delay Brett Kavanaugh vote until FBI investigates


https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-requests-to-delay-brett-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.amp.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 04:48:07 AM
if the creepy purple font were personified , yesterday’s shouting match by Lindsay graham and rapist judge kavanugh is what it would look like  :)

Anyways quite possible that senate gop just traded the fate of the house in the midterms for a scotus seat
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 05:37:48 AM
American Bar Association requests to delay Brett Kavanaugh vote until FBI investigates


https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-requests-to-delay-brett-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.amp.html


For those who don’t know what the ABA organization is:

“The American Bar Association is one of the world’s largest voluntary professional organizations, with over 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities.  It is committed to doing what only a national association of attorneys can do: serving our members, improving the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, and advancing the rule of law throughout the United States and around the world.

Founded in 1878, the ABA is committed to supporting the legal profession with practical resources for legal professionals while improving the administration of justice, accrediting law schools, establishing model ethical codes, and more.  Membership is open to lawyers, law students, and others interested in the law and the legal profession.“

https://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 05:54:38 AM
to summarize, the democrats all called for an investigation by the fbi into an event over 35 years ago, that nobody knows where it happened, nobody knows when it happened, only one person thinks it happened, and nobody can corroborate their story.

they want to hire the fbi to find a crime even though there isn't one, just like they hired mueller to find russian collusion even though there wasn't any.

the gop is waking up and voters will see right through this.

feinstein was exposed as a political hack who held this allegation from the accused, held the allegation from the committee, while also recommending lawyers to the accuser so that they could swoop in at the 11th hour to smear this poor man.

graham stepped up and had a real "i am spartacus" moment and this hearing will be a turning point in history we will look back on and say we did the right thing by putting a good man on the supreme court.

#confirmkavanaugh
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 06:19:10 AM
to summarize, the democrats all called for an investigation by the fbi into an event over 35 years ago, that nobody knows where it happened, nobody knows when it happened, only one person thinks it happened, and nobody can corroborate their story.

they want to hire the fbi to find a crime even though there isn't one, just like they hired mueller to find russian collusion even though there wasn't any.

the gop is waking up and voters will see right through this.

feinstein was exposed as a political hack who held this allegation from the accused, held the allegation from the committee, while also recommending lawyers to the accuser so that they could swoop in at the 11th hour to smear this poor man.

graham stepped up and had a real "i am spartacus" moment and this hearing will be a turning point in history we will look back on and say we did the right thing by putting a good man on the supreme court.

#confirmkavanaugh

That’s why the ABA is calling for an investigation. The ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work.

(see my previous post for information regarding the ABA)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 06:43:54 AM
to summarize, the democrats all called for an investigation by the fbi into an event over 35 years ago, that nobody knows where it happened, nobody knows when it happened, only one person thinks it happened, and nobody can corroborate their story.

they want to hire the fbi to find a crime even though there isn't one, just like they hired mueller to find russian collusion even though there wasn't any.

the gop is waking up and voters will see right through this.

feinstein was exposed as a political hack who held this allegation from the accused, held the allegation from the committee, while also recommending lawyers to the accuser so that they could swoop in at the 11th hour to smear this poor man.

graham stepped up and had a real "i am spartacus" moment and this hearing will be a turning point in history we will look back on and say we did the right thing by putting a good man on the supreme court.

#confirmkavanaugh

If the screaming , conspiracy theory mongering bully yesterday is you guys definition of a “good man” then god help you .   Maybe we should pray for your souls  : )

Do you know he lied about Devil’s Triangle ?  Look it up

What else is he lying about
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 07:35:22 AM
to summarize, the democrats all called for an investigation by the fbi into an event over 35 years ago, that nobody knows where it happened, nobody knows when it happened, only one person thinks it happened, and nobody can corroborate their story.

they want to hire the fbi to find a crime even though there isn't one, just like they hired mueller to find russian collusion even though there wasn't any.

the gop is waking up and voters will see right through this.

feinstein was exposed as a political hack who held this allegation from the accused, held the allegation from the committee, while also recommending lawyers to the accuser so that they could swoop in at the 11th hour to smear this poor man.

graham stepped up and had a real "i am spartacus" moment and this hearing will be a turning point in history we will look back on and say we did the right thing by putting a good man on the supreme court.

#confirmkavanaugh

If the screaming , conspiracy theory mongering bully yesterday is you guys definition of a “good man” then god help you .   Maybe we should pray for your souls  : )

Do you know he lied about Devil’s Triangle ?  Look it up

What else is he lying about

About the drinking age
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2018, 07:39:49 AM
Collins and Murkowski can still do the right thing.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 08:03:50 AM
Collins and Murkowski can still do the right thing.

They will. In the end they will vote to confirm.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 08:28:11 AM
Republicans know their audience clearly, and Democrats –yesterday as always– think they're performing for a mythical, neutral scorekeeper.

I guess it got them that ABA letter and the Jesuit magazine endorsement rescission.

Republicans bullied the holdouts and rallied the base.

When the REAL crisis comes , Democrats are too meek to hold against it , yesterday was a good exhibition of that possibility .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 08:39:22 AM
Why do you think the ABA spoke out?
My theory: people might not trust legal proceedings

I’m sorry having a hearing some people might say it’s a trial. But not calling all witness. Also not addressing other allegations is an insult to common law.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 08:47:10 AM
if the creepy purple font were personified , yesterday’s shouting match by Lindsay graham and rapist judge kavanugh is what it would look like  :)

Anyways quite possible that senate gop just traded the fate of the house in the midterms for a scotus seat


It's not the Third Millennium...yet, and you are not Judge Dredd (rapist? really?) You don't like this? work the next election to change things, instead of screaming at the sky and calling names.


https://youtu.be/-7Lg1IkEqpw (https://youtu.be/-7Lg1IkEqpw)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 09:34:33 AM
Just a reminder why having a good SCOTUS matters:

1. Schools that take public money will not be able to keep Asians out.
2. Unions will not be able to force its members to subsidize causes the members don't support.
3. States will not be able to bar its residents from protecting themselves.
etc., etc.

Freedom itself is at stake here.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 10:38:40 AM

Do you know he lied about Devil’s Triangle ?  Look it up

What else is he lying about

oh yes, totally believable to write about having a threesome in your calendar

you're starting to sound like the pizzagate guys, give me a ffffffreakin break  >:D

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:42:19 AM
This is where i have the most fun...watching the left self destruct in a comical way...keep it coming warriors, please!!

Feminist warrior Jill Filipovic tells women to ‘divorce your Republican husbands’

Hats off to über-feminist Jill Filipovic. She may very well have found a way to dial the lefty Kavanaugh insanity up to eleventy:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/ (https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 10:45:07 AM
This is where i have the most fun...watching the left self destruct in a comical way...keep it coming warriors, please!!

Feminist warrior Jill Filipovic tells women to ‘divorce your Republican husbands’

Hats off to über-feminist Jill Filipovic. She may very well have found a way to dial the lefty Kavanaugh insanity up to eleventy:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/ (https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/)

I don't get my hopes up with promises like this.  All the people who promised to move to Canada after the 2016 election are apparently still here.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 10:49:18 AM
This is where i have the most fun...watching the left self destruct in a comical way...keep it coming warriors, please!!

Feminist warrior Jill Filipovic tells women to ‘divorce your Republican husbands’

Hats off to über-feminist Jill Filipovic. She may very well have found a way to dial the lefty Kavanaugh insanity up to eleventy:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/ (https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/28/any-takers-feminist-warrior-jill-filipovic-tells-women-to-divorce-your-republican-husbands/)

I don't get my hopes up with promises like this.  All the people who promised to move to Canada after the 2016 election are apparently still here.


Quote
@elisabethlehem
 Who would tell me who to vote for then?

LOL
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:57:58 AM
#winning, #sorelosers, #seeyaonthefloor
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: marmott on September 28, 2018, 11:08:26 AM
#inaweek?

Quote
There is an informal potential roadblock, however, which is that Flake has asked for the vote to be delayed for a week, though this is not something the committee can decide.

Flake is saying he will vote no unless an FBI investigation takes place, which would give McConnell reason to delay the vote.

It's getting confusing...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 11:10:42 AM
#inaweek?

Quote
There is an informal potential roadblock, however, which is that Flake has asked for the vote to be delayed for a week, though this is not something the committee can decide.

Flake is saying he will vote no unless an FBI investigation takes place, which would give McConnell reason to delay the vote.

It's getting confusing...

republicans also don't need flake's vote if they have the rest
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 11:13:22 AM
Not in the hands of Grassly to put a hold on it...now up to the Turtle to push it past the goal line.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
Not in the hands of Grassly to put a hold on it...now up to the Turtle to push it past the goal line.

turtle has actually been very vocal on pushing kav through.  trump is teaching these guys how to win and i'm loving every moment of it!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 11:24:58 AM
Kennedy asked Trump to nominate Kavanaugh
He retired early so Kavanaugh could be pushed through.

He knows the blue wave is coming and needs the confirmation done asap.

Why does kennedy want kavanaugh?

Do you think supreme court justices line up their replacements?

2 words ... Deutsche Bank

Really? we have already blown that one up, reaching back for tinfoil conspiracy theory's smells desperate.

Fake news...

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that "can easily get confused and lumped together."

"While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context," she said. "A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked."

Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, "a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank...most of which was done after Justin left the bank."

"The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 12:43:47 PM
Senate GOP agrees to one-week delay on Kavanaugh confirmation to allow for FBI probe

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/28/senate-gop-agrees-to-one-week-delay-on-kavanaugh-confirmation-to-allow-for-fbi-probe.html

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 12:49:34 PM
That's a mistake.  Dems will parade out a bunch of other new and interesting accusations and victims. (all baloney) The stall is on.  Now we will see if the Turtle will hold strong.  If he does, Kavenaugh will be seated for the new session.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 28, 2018, 01:40:20 PM
I haven’t commented on Kavanaugh’s nomination. SCOTUS nominations/appointments have become wholly political, and if you hold the Senate and Executive branch, the only constraint is political blowback. There was a treasure trove of fully expected political blowback with Kavanaugh, before any sexual misconduct allegations were revealed. He was a poor choice from the beginning. Most standard Federalist Society conservative options considered were more ideal (much less opposition). Look no further than Gorsuch’s nomination process for an example.

It appears our new normal is Federal judicial nominees will likely only reach the court when one party holds both the White House and Senate, with SCOTUS nominees certain not to reach the Supreme Court without holding both the White House and Senate.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 01:55:34 PM
That's a mistake.  Dems will parade out a bunch of other new and interesting accusations and victims. (all baloney) The stall is on.  Now we will see if the Turtle will hold strong.  If he does, Kavenaugh will be seated for the new session.

That’s not Alan Dershowitz said yesterday.

“Alan Dershowitz Urges Delay Of Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote For FBI Probe

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay its vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation until the FBI investigates the sexual misconduct claims against him.

Dershowitz echoed the widespread call for an investigation after the emotional testimony of Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, earlier in the day.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5badf163e4b0b4d308d1e411

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 02:02:14 PM
Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 02:07:58 PM
Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session


You just said that this morning and looked what happened...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on September 28, 2018, 02:12:44 PM
Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session

What is accomplished by a "stall tactic"? The vote will happen in a week. It is a fair compromise. As long as it happens before mid-term elections what difference does it make on the outcome? It allows time for thorough and compelling investigation to be completed.

This isn't your everyday appointment either. This is for a lifetime. Why wouldn't we want to get it right regardless of the side you're on?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on September 28, 2018, 02:18:03 PM
.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session

One little forensic interview of Mark Judge should take care of that. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 02:25:32 PM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2018, 02:30:26 PM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.

ROFLMAO, stall.

Go on, ram it through, make the tsunami.

The Repubs need this, need this bad to come off as a thorough but quick background check to vet the potential of the claims.

The riled base can't save you when you alienate the middle third.

I guess I'm just a RINO.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 28, 2018, 02:33:08 PM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.

i just looked into my crystal ball.  i see us at october 5th having not learned anything more than we know today.  kav gets a vote on the senate floor and he gets 54 votes - all R vote yes and 3 dems in R states vote to appeal to their voters.

quote me in 1 week.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 28, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.

ROFLMAO, stall.

Go on, ram it through, make the tsunami.

The Repubs need this, need this bad to come off as a thorough but quick background check to vet the potential of the claims.

The riled base can't save you when you alienate the middle third.

I guess I'm just a RINO.

Most politicians care little about consistency and hypocrisy, but commenters here care shockingly little too. Do Trump enthusiasts understand how incredibly ironic it is they're complaining about stall tactics after Garland's nomination?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 03:05:14 PM
Oh please, all you had to do was win that election and you would have had your boy.  Believe me, the last bonebrains who expected to win that election were congressional Republicans.if hillary had won like she was supposed to those knuckleheads would have caved in a nanomoment.  But it just didn’t work out that way.  That always makes me smile.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 28, 2018, 03:23:23 PM
Sorry, I was neither trying to win that election, nor was Garland my boy. I voted for the least worst candidate, as I do in every election. For the first time in my adult life, the least worst presidential candidate was Clinton in 2016.

Here’s what the FBI should ask Kavanaugh, that the Dems were too respectful (scared?) to ask:

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your statement that you never blacked-out? Never drank so much that you became drunk? Stuck only to beer? Always behaved respectfully while drinking?

If these people disagree with your characterizations of your drinking habits, would they be lying? All of them? Every single one is lying, and you’re the sole truth teller?

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your definitions of:

FFFFFourth of July
Devil’s Triangle
Boof
Renate Alum

If they disagree with your definitions, and universally agree these are all sexual terms, would they all be lying?

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your characterization of yourself as a virgin well beyond high school?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 03:31:56 PM
Who cares? He will be seated by 48:52 margin. End of circus
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on September 28, 2018, 03:40:55 PM
Who cares? He will be seated by 48:52 margin. End of circus

I'm Cares.  8)

Either way are you literally saying you don't care if he did or did not do anything? You don't care enough to want to know if there is any substance behind these women's accusations? If that's your belief/stance I honestly hope in the future something terrible happens to you and no one will care either.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 03:53:59 PM
As far as I’m concerned this didn’t happen. I listen to her testimony she did not put forward one piece of  corroborative evidence to back up her story. If she even had one person or witness I might give her the benefit of the doubt but her story is full of holes just not believable and it’s not enough to sink  someone’s entire career and ruin their life.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 05:00:06 PM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvine Dream on September 28, 2018, 05:24:25 PM
Well, why Ford and the countless other protestors, are not concerned about the collateral damages to the wife and daughters, who are really the innocent parties here?

Don't tell me that Ford waited till this time since she thought that his previous behavior is not suitable only for the Supreme Court Justice position.  By the way do anyone think his past behavior is the one that is going to govern his actions as Supreme Court Justice instead of his ideology? Will Democrats/Ford ready to accept a nominee with same ideologies as Kavanaugh but without a checkered past?

By not acting at the time of the incident or even a little later , don't they lose their right to bring it up this now?  After all, if they had brought it up before, may be his wife wouldn't have married him, may be his daughters wouldn't have been born.  Why should they be subjected to this revelation now?  Anyone concerned how this will affect the daughters life?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 06:34:34 PM
People can be very sincere in their belief about something that is completely untrue. I believe the Dems found such a person in Dr. Ford. If your job involves reviewing surveliance camera footage, for example if you are in the insurance or legal industry, you know about this common phenomenon.

I have seen dozens of cases where people will claim with 100% certainty (hours after the incident, not 36 years later) that the other car backed into them. But the surveliance camera footage shows they actually accellerated into the other car. The person making the claim is not a liar or uncredibe, on the contrary, they are very credible and sincere. However, they just believe something happened that didn't actually happen. Memory and pereception are not reliable so credibility is not evidence of anything.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 06:46:01 PM
Sorry, I was neither trying to win that election, nor was Garland my boy. I voted for the least worst candidate, as I do in every election. For the first time in my adult life, the least worst presidential candidate was Clinton in 2016.

Here’s what the FBI should ask Kavanaugh, that the Dems were too respectful (scared?) to ask:

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your statement that you never blacked-out? Never drank so much that you became drunk? Stuck only to beer? Always behaved respectfully while drinking?

If these people disagree with your characterizations of your drinking habits, would they be lying? All of them? Every single one is lying, and you’re the sole truth teller?

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your definitions of:

FFFFFourth of July
Devil’s Triangle
Boof
Renate Alum

If they disagree with your definitions, and universally agree these are all sexual terms, would they all be lying?

If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your characterization of yourself as a virgin well beyond high school?

So if the FBI finds no dirt does Kavanaugh have a libel and defamation claim against Dr. Ford?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 06:48:14 PM
People can be very sincere in their belief about something that is completely untrue. I believe the Dems found such a person in Dr. Ford. If your job involves reviewing surveliance camera footage, for example if you are in the insurance or legal industry, you know about this common phenomen.

I have seen dozens of cases where people will claim with 100% certainty (hours after the incident, not 36 years later) that the other car backed into them. But the surveliance camera footage shows they actually accellerated into the other car. The person making the claim is not a liar or uncredibe, on the contrary, they are very credible and sincere. However, they just believe something happened that didn't actually happen. Memory and pereception are not reliable so credibility is not evidence of anything.

Hack answer is “I believe the preppy douchbag who is screaming and insulting other women congresswomen while sober”

Objectivity would say “ you know she seems credible , but hasn’t no solid corroboration yet . He seems passionate but his background and friend circle indicates that this could certainly be a possibility . How about we investigate a little bit more before we give him the highest seat in the judicial system for life “

We live in the real world —  If you guys applied your logic in your daily jobs, you would be out of work by now.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 07:15:24 PM
Dems have a long history of care and sympathy towards rape and sexual assault victims:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/juanita-broaddrick-brett-kavanaugh_us_5bad86ffe4b0b4d308d17cd7
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 07:16:48 PM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one

She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 28, 2018, 07:24:18 PM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one

She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?

You're right, she didn't have to do this. So why did she? Who put her up to it? I'll wait for Julian Assange to provide the real answer (unless the Dems have switched to burner phones and disappearing ink to make themselves Wikileak proof).
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 07:32:28 PM

She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?

You're right, she didn't have to do this. So why did she? Who put her up to it? I'll wait for Julian Assange to provide the real answer (unless the Dems have switched to burner phones and disappearing ink to make themselves Wikileak proof).

Did you actually read what I said ?  Let me type it in purple to make it more clear :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2018, 08:32:36 PM
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Was he truthful and wholly truthful about drinking in school?
Was he truthful and wholly truthful about the alumni reference?
Was he truthful about their meaning of boof?
Was he truthful about their meaning of devil's triangle?
Was he truthful in claiming it was just the yearbook editors and some guys trying to make it semm like Animal house but not really...
Was he truthful about college drinking?
Was he truthful in his weak stomach, you know spaghetti, spicy food

He couldn't even own up to it being teenage misogynistic macho posturing.

Sure feels more like Falsus in Omnibus, Falsus in Uno...

No, instead we got whack job Clinton conspiracy.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 08:37:26 PM
Breaking news
According to the LA times the FBI has started to schedule interviews with accuser(s) as early as tonight.
(Source: Brian Williams on MSNBC)

Wow
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
Investigation will be done in just a few days, vote and confirmation by Tuesday...done and done.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 09:41:25 PM
Investigation will be done in just a few days, vote and confirmation by Tuesday...done and done.

That’s what you said this morning.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 09:43:54 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 09:46:33 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 09:50:00 PM
The vote this morning was to move the nomination to the floor. Do you understand the nomination process?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 09:52:30 PM
The vote this morning was to move the nomination to the floor. Do you understand the nomination process?

But it was delayed.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 09:55:44 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?

I can’t believe there are morons out there who still give him $$$ to manage 

The committee vote means zilch , nothing, that was always a foregone conclusion  - don’t hide behind that procedural to say “ I won” . You are not in a preppy high school here :)

The senate floor vote is where judge d bag will be confirmed - and that’s where they have difficulties with 3 senators saying no (in their own party) unless the one week delay w fbi investigation
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 09:57:10 PM
“Stalled” as I said. In the end he will be confirmed, probably on Tuesday.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:02:32 PM
Wow, always to the name calling. Maybe we are back in 1982.  My “morons” give me more money every day, and most of them are Hillary buddy’s. Know her myself, she stays with my biggest client whenever she is in town. They could care less bc I deliver the goods. Money talks and they know I call it right. >:D ;D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 28, 2018, 10:03:03 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?

I can’t believe there are morons out there who still give him $$$ to manage 

The committee vote means zilch , nothing, that was always a foregone conclusion  - don’t hide behind that procedural to say “ I won” . You are not in a preppy high school here :)

The senate floor vote is where judge d bag will be confirmed - and that’s where they have difficulties with 3 senators saying no (in their own party) unless the one week delay w fbi investigation

ROFLMAO, so the question now is, if FBI finds dirt on him, with the testimony from Dr. Ford to be true, what are they going to do? Move ahead with the nomination or something, or some one else??
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:04:34 PM
Or they find nothing and he gets confirmed Tuesday... more likely outcome.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 10:06:12 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?

I can’t believe there are morons out there who still give him $$$ to manage 

The committee vote means zilch , nothing, that was always a foregone conclusion  - don’t hide behind that procedural to say “ I won” . You are not in a preppy high school here :)

The senate floor vote is where judge d bag will be confirmed - and that’s where they have difficulties with 3 senators saying no (in their own party) unless the one week delay w fbi investigation

ROFLMAO, so the question now is, if FBI finds dirt on him, with the testimony from Dr. Ford to be true, what are they going to do? Move ahead with the nomination or something, or some one else??

Cv: not just Dr. Ford (wink wink)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 10:10:05 PM
Ok hang on —- Tuesday meaning October 2nd ? Let’s pin this down now so there is no more tricks with “winning”   :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 28, 2018, 10:11:06 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?

I can’t believe there are morons out there who still give him $$$ to manage 

The committee vote means zilch , nothing, that was always a foregone conclusion  - don’t hide behind that procedural to say “ I won” . You are not in a preppy high school here :)

The senate floor vote is where judge d bag will be confirmed - and that’s where they have difficulties with 3 senators saying no (in their own party) unless the one week delay w fbi investigation

ROFLMAO, so the question now is, if FBI finds dirt on him, with the testimony from Dr. Ford to be true, what are they going to do? Move ahead with the nomination or something, or some one else??

Cv: not just Dr. Ford (shhh)


Serial predator.....Wow, Trump always get the best people for the best post.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 28, 2018, 10:12:14 PM
I was right, they voted, we won.

Can someone tell this guy it got delayed after the investigation?

I can’t believe there are morons out there who still give him $$$ to manage 

The committee vote means zilch , nothing, that was always a foregone conclusion  - don’t hide behind that procedural to say “ I won” . You are not in a preppy high school here :)

The senate floor vote is where judge d bag will be confirmed - and that’s where they have difficulties with 3 senators saying no (in their own party) unless the one week delay w fbi investigation

ROFLMAO, so the question now is, if FBI finds dirt on him, with the testimony from Dr. Ford to be true, what are they going to do? Move ahead with the nomination or something, or some one else??

Cv: not just Dr. Ford (shhh)


Serial predator.....Wow, Trump always get the best people for the best post.

Look at my previous breaking news post.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:17:31 PM
Yup, by Tuesday, he will be seated for this session.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 28, 2018, 10:47:28 PM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one


She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?

So credibility is based on resume and not on evidence? Interesting.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 28, 2018, 11:24:32 PM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one


She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?

So credibility is based on resume and not on evidence? Interesting.

You are really having a hard time reading and understanding non purple font

“Used” and “discarded” are adjectives used by macho MAGA men like yourself who don’t think educated women have free will to make decisions like this of their own volition

This is why Party of Neanderthals is an apt description for the GOP of today.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: aquabliss on September 29, 2018, 05:27:46 AM
Dr. Fords testimony was compelling but the one thing that I can’t get past is that she can’t remember how she got home.  She was so focused on escaping, she ran from the house as quickly as possible.  She didn’t have a drivers license at the time, there were no cell phones at the time, the party house wasn’t in walking distance to her own home, and she can’t remember how she got home or how she left the area!?

No way, not possible.  I don’t remember a lot of my High School minutae but I had a very traumatic experience at a party once and I remember the details very clearly.  This had nothing to do with sexual assault it was with some kids and a firearm of their fathers that they shouldn’t have had access to.  I feared for my life that night and felt the same “I have to do whatever it takes to escape the house” feeling.  I can tell you to this day exactly where I went and what I did as soon as I escaped the home, and I clearly remember how I made it back home.  The ride home is so clear because you can physically feel yourself getting further and further away from a place extreme trauma and the further away you get the more relief you feel.

There’s no way she doesn’t remember how she got home that night, and it’s odd that she’s not revealing that information.  Maybe because the driver of the car remembers something that would negatively impact her case or maybe some other reason but I’m sure she knows how she got home.  The actual escape is something you just don’t forget when you’re doing everything in your power to flee the scene.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 29, 2018, 05:41:45 AM
but guys, she definitely has no reason to come forward!  she even plugged the gofundme sites during her testimony and tried to play dumb about who was paying for everything!

Quote
GoFundMe campaigns to support Christine Blasey Ford raise more than $700K

"We are working directly with all campaign organizers and guarantee the funds raised will be transferred directly to the Ford family," Katherine Cichy, a spokeswoman for GoFundMe, told ABC News.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gofundme-campaigns-support-ford-raise-700k/story?id=58147904 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/gofundme-campaigns-support-ford-raise-700k/story?id=58147904)

oh, too scared to fly, but you frequently travel for island vacations?

and you claim to be a sexual assault victim when you were a teenager, but you host random google teenagers in your home?

let's get on with this dog and pony show so we can seat kav next week

Quote
Prosecutor who questioned Christine Ford says she wouldn't prosecute Brett Kavanaugh

Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee, privately told GOP senators she would not prosecute Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on the evidence she heard, according to the Washington Post.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/28/rachel-mitchell-says-she-wouldnt-prosecute-scots-nominee-kavanaugh/1453587002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/28/rachel-mitchell-says-she-wouldnt-prosecute-scots-nominee-kavanaugh/1453587002/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 07:15:29 AM
The amount of effort you guys have spent digging up links from breitbart, drudge etc and dissecting dr Ford story to discredit her

Have you even given 10 percent of that same effort to wonder if kavanagh May be lying ?

He is not being prosecuted and put in jail, rather , does he QUALIFY to be on the Supreme Court seat . The statue of limitations is way past the date he can be actually held liable anyways

Would you let a preppy teenager with the behavior kavanaugh has displayed anywhere near your own daughters ?

Is he entitled to a Supreme Court seat ? Is there no other candidate who doesn’t have a history or debauchery and bad partisan behavior on national tv , while he is sober ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 29, 2018, 08:16:27 AM
And on that angle, he is superbly qualified. Take away this whole circus and that point is true without question. As for would I let pubescent boys like that around my daughter? The answer is, I do every day. Most boys are a lot like that, my daughter is smart enough to handle herself around them.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2018, 09:04:30 AM
Well, why Ford and the countless other protestors, are not concerned about the collateral damages to the wife and daughters, who are really the innocent parties here?

Don't tell me that Ford waited till this time since she thought that his previous behavior is not suitable only for the Supreme Court Justice position.  By the way do anyone think his past behavior is the one that is going to govern his actions as Supreme Court Justice instead of his ideology? Will Democrats/Ford ready to accept a nominee with same ideologies as Kavanaugh but without a checkered past?

By not acting at the time of the incident or even a little later , don't they lose their right to bring it up this now?  After all, if they had brought it up before, may be his wife wouldn't have married him, may be his daughters wouldn't have been born.  Why should they be subjected to this revelation now?  Anyone concerned how this will affect the daughters life?

Irvine Dream: Sorry but the Kavenaugh investstion by the Senate pre 9/28/18 is a kangaroo court. Do you think the GOP judiciary committee members wanted an FBI investigation? (besides J Flake)

Look up kangaroo court.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on September 29, 2018, 09:33:42 AM
If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday’s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one


She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn’t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .

She does not need to be “used” and “discarded” . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?

So credibility is based on resume and not on evidence? Interesting.


To most jurors, selective amnesia is viewed with suspicion. Selective amnesia from a witness with a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC is simply beyond belief. Of course, unlike jurors, senate Dems already checked the boxes and signed their verdict forms before the witness even took the stand.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 10:25:54 AM


I hate posting links if I can avoid it but this is a good one on “qualifications “


The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvine Dream on September 29, 2018, 11:09:30 AM
So now we are going back to arguing whether he is qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge regardless of his sexual misconduct allegations?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 11:38:25 AM
So now we are going back to arguing whether he is qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge regardless of his sexual misconduct allegations?

No — we are trying to bring it back to the original discussion by not allowing MAGA duds to use “qualification “ as an excuse . Read the thread properly .

People here are used to claiming #winning all the time by moving goalposts as they please.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 29, 2018, 12:51:19 PM


I hate posting links if I can avoid it but this is a good one on “qualifications “


The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

why are you bringing up ratings from 12 years ago?  kavanaugh was nominated based on his qualifications today.

and today, he is unanimously well qualified.

it looks more like you're trying to move the goalposts here

Quote
American Bar Association gives Brett Kavanaugh a unanimous 'well-qualified' rating

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is “well qualified” to hold a seat on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association said Friday, giving President Trump’s nominee another boost heading into next week’s confirmation hearing.

The ABA’s federal judiciary committee gave its unanimous rating to Judge Kavanaugh, who has sat for a dozen years on the circuit court of appeals in Washington, earning high marks for his approach to judging.

Though conservatives don’t put as much stock in the rating from the liberal-leaning ABA, Democrats have called it the “gold standard” for evaluating whether a judge should be confirmed.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 29, 2018, 01:28:13 PM
pretty pose!

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 02:15:16 PM


Pretty incredible poll here —- If Ford's claims about Kavanaugh are true, Republicans say 54-32 he should be confirmed anyway. I suspect many just want to signal support.

Even so, history shows that democracy is difficult to sustain w/ this level of partisanship


http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-national-survey-results-and-analysis/#sthash.ty04IDoW.zEyx0wri.dpbs
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 29, 2018, 03:31:44 PM


Pretty incredible poll here —- If Ford's claims about Kavanaugh are true, Republicans say 54-32 he should be confirmed anyway. I suspect many just want to signal support.

Even so, history shows that democracy is difficult to sustain w/ this level of partisanship


http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-national-survey-results-and-analysis/#sthash.ty04IDoW.zEyx0wri.dpbs

That's the right question to ask though, at this point. Accepting everything Ford said as true, should this disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court? Remember, we're not discussing his liberty/freedom, nor losing his current job, just whether he's the best Federalist for SCOTUS. Due to the Reps shitting themselves in fear over the mid-terms, they've been unwilling to move on.

You can reasonably rationalize this. e.g. Despite Kavanaugh's insistence he just drank beer, never to excess, and only on Saturdays, because he was in church all day Sunday, every Sunday ... maybe he partied hard one night, happened to be really drunk that night, got too aggressive with a girl, and fortunately nothing advanced beyond what happened. He simply misread her signals and was too drunk to behave normally.

Of course, then you also have to get past the complete bull shit he was selling in his testimony. His real concern now, should be the FBI recommending perjury charges.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 06:27:15 PM
Well , now well — so much for the fbi investigation ...

The FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Mark Judge for records verifying when he was employed there . NBC reporting that the FBI will also not be able to examine Kavanaugh’s drinking at Yale.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 29, 2018, 06:34:09 PM


Pretty incredible poll here —- If Ford's claims about Kavanaugh are true, Republicans say 54-32 he should be confirmed anyway. I suspect many just want to signal support.

Even so, history shows that democracy is difficult to sustain w/ this level of partisanship


http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-national-survey-results-and-analysis/#sthash.ty04IDoW.zEyx0wri.dpbs

That's the right question to ask though, at this point. Accepting everything Ford said as true, should this disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court? Remember, we're not discussing his liberty/freedom, nor losing his current job, just whether he's the best Federalist for SCOTUS. Due to the Reps shitting themselves in fear over the mid-terms, they've been unwilling to move on.

You can reasonably rationalize this. e.g. Despite Kavanaugh's insistence he just drank beer, never to excess, and only on Saturdays, because he was in church all day Sunday, every Sunday ... maybe he partied hard one night, happened to be really drunk that night, got too aggressive with a girl, and fortunately nothing advanced beyond what happened. He simply misread her signals and was too drunk to behave normally.

Of course, then you also have to get past the complete bull shit he was selling in his testimony. His real concern now, should be the FBI recommending perjury charges.

Yes , fair enough . Beer , beer and more beer . I haven’t seen anyone love beer that much as he did in this hearing .

Also the opposite of the choir boy image he was trying to project in his Fox News interview earlier in the week

Ultimately , My personal view is he was “overacting “ a lot with all that hysterical sobbing and shouting. Psychologically this is typical of abusive men who play the victim , similar to people who claim that being called a racist (rightly or wrongly so) is the same level of hurt as those actually suffering the effects of actual racism .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2018, 07:23:04 PM
Well , now well — so much for the fbi investigation ...

The FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Mark Judge for records verifying when he was employed there . NBC reporting that the FBI will also not be able to examine Kavanaugh’s drinking at Yale.

Kangaroo court?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2018, 10:01:16 PM
So what is it? Limititation or no limitation on FBI investigation.

(The White House says limitation, but Trump’s says no limitation.)

Article:
A White House official had confirmed earlier Saturday that Swetnick's claims would not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh. Trump described that as incorrect in a tweet late Saturday. The Wall Street Journal had also reported that Swetnick's allegations would not be investigated.

Trump said the FBI had "free rein" in the investigation.

"They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing—things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 30, 2018, 06:18:39 AM
A very angry Matt Damon guest stars as Brett Kavanaugh on 'SNL' premiere
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/very-angry-matt-damon-guest-stars-brett-kavanaugh-041003656--abc-news-topstories.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: i1 on September 30, 2018, 08:32:13 AM
long but thought this was interesting.

HOW WE KNOW KAVANAUGH IS LYING
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on September 30, 2018, 09:16:42 AM
A very angry Matt Damon guest stars as Brett Kavanaugh on 'SNL' premiere
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/very-angry-matt-damon-guest-stars-brett-kavanaugh-041003656--abc-news-topstories.html

They should've added more when Kavanaugh talked about "working his butt off."

e.g. "I worked my butt off to get into Yale! I chose my parents VERY CAREFULLY! Did you? DID YOU? I worked my butt off to get into an elite private high school! You don't just get there by being born into a wealthy family of a lobbyist and attorney! Duh. Elite private preparatory high school, to Yale undergrad, to Yale Law School ... These aren't just typical steps on an elite ladder of success. I WORKED HARD! Maybe you should've chosen your parents more carefully! SAD!!!"
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 30, 2018, 10:24:30 AM
It’s a joke. I heard there’s a limit of type of questions to ask Mark Judge.

Conflict of interest!

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on September 30, 2018, 12:46:07 PM
long but thought this was interesting.

HOW WE KNOW KAVANAUGH IS LYING
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Very meticulous . Have to admire their effort in this era of quick soundbites and screaming matches that obfuscate the facts for a tv audience .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 01, 2018, 07:07:16 AM
where have i heard this before?  oh yeah, if comey was investigating this case we'd be closing up shop and confirming kavanaugh today!

Quote
Rachel Mitchell: 'No reasonable prosecutor' would take on Ford's case based on evidence

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh would not hold up in court.

In a letter sent Sunday night to the committee, Ms. Mitchell wrote, “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”

She explained that “he said, she said” cases are difficult to prove, but that Ms. Blasey Ford’s claims are “weaker than that.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/1/rachel-mitchell-no-reasonable-prosecutor-would-tak/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/1/rachel-mitchell-no-reasonable-prosecutor-would-tak/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 01, 2018, 08:52:43 AM
What do the following historical events have in common?:

1. Spanish Inquisition
2. Salem Witch Trials
3. McCarthy Hearings
4. Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
5. Cavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

They all involve wild accusations in a hysterical environment and powerful actors taking advantage of the situation to silence or destroy their political and economic competitors.


Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 08:57:04 AM
If the probe is really limited then why even have it?

Just let them confirm him and let let the chips fall.  ;)

I guess next up is put in jail your political opponents just like Russia?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 01, 2018, 09:20:36 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 09:29:24 AM
Any high school student knows exactly what the drinking age is. Kavanaugh knew. He just plain lies. And he seems not to care. 

Trump changed all understandings of what would be acceptable or disqualifying. Kavanaugh is doing the same.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 09:30:50 AM
Trump said FBI can investigate anything they want regarding Kavenaugh. But the White House is limiting the scope according to many articles. For example limiting the questions they can ask Mike Judge.

So this is just like the senate judiciary committee. People think it’s open investigation but it really is not.

(I will update my statement regarding the inquiry if I find more info in the news.)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 09:32:55 AM
His opening statement blaming the Clintons makes you raise your eyebrow. It has nothing to do with his character.

So do people expect to be yelled at if they go in front of the Supreme Court. (Maybe or maybe not)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 01, 2018, 09:58:24 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

He was under oath, and he blatantly lied multiple times. In his attempt to win ascension to SCOTUS, he may have sacrificed his Circuit Court seat. Not too big a deal though. He can return to more clearly partisan political activities.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 01, 2018, 09:59:21 AM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.

..and right on cue...

Brett Kavanaugh denies ANOTHER sex assault claim – this time by a 'Jane Doe' who accuses Supreme Court nominee of 'raping me several times' and hitting her after offering a ride home from a party and saying: 'No one will believe you'

Sixth sexual misconduct allegation leveled against Brett Kavanaugh
Latest claim is more violent than the others but sent to a senator anonymously
Kavanaugh flatly denied it during a conference call last Wednesday with Senate Judiciary Committee staff
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris had the accusation beforehand but didn't question Kavanaugh about it during a hearing one day later
Letter bore no return address, was signed only 'Jane Doe,' and provided nothing about when and where the attack was to have taken place

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6227585/Jane-Doe-accuses-Brett-Kavanaugh-raping-times-calls-B-S.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 01, 2018, 10:21:16 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

He was under oath, and he blatantly lied multiple times. In his attempt to win ascension to SCOTUS, he may have sacrificed his Circuit Court seat. Not too big a deal though. He can return to more clearly partisan political activities.

Since he lied multiple times under oath to congress(which FBI can probably prove), isn't he screwed?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 01, 2018, 10:35:49 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

He was under oath, and he blatantly lied multiple times. In his attempt to win ascension to SCOTUS, he may have sacrificed his Circuit Court seat. Not too big a deal though. He can return to more clearly partisan political activities.
Ollie North was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation (asking his secretary to shred documents that congress requested) but that didn't prevent him from getting a job later at Fox News and he is now president of the NRA.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 10:36:57 AM
Zubs: We don’t know. Since it’s a limited scope inquiry.

(Sorry for mentioning limited scope so many times, but that’s what it is.)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 01, 2018, 10:38:55 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

He was under oath, and he blatantly lied multiple times. In his attempt to win ascension to SCOTUS, he may have sacrificed his Circuit Court seat. Not too big a deal though. He can return to more clearly partisan political activities.

Since he lied multiple times under oath to congress(which FBI can probably prove), isn't he screwed?

We'll see. It's not even clear what the scope of the FBI's investigation is today. If the FBI report is damning, maybe Kavanaugh simply withdraws his nomination, the Reps keep the report sealed, and the DOJ does not pursue any FBI recommended charges.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 01, 2018, 10:42:26 AM
If the FBI discovers that Brett loved to drink a lot 30+ years ago and was black out drunk a lot of the times, does that mean he lied in his testimony?
Often times it's not that actual actions that gets you in trouble, it's the lying part 35 years later.
 
In his yearbook:
Devils Triangle (2 guys stuffing a girl end to end and high fiving) - not a drinking game (my friends called it making an eiffel tower, but u know different times different vocab)

Call Renate if you dont' have a date (Renate a girl that is like the town bicycle)

Does it matter he lied under oath about this stuff?

He was under oath, and he blatantly lied multiple times. In his attempt to win ascension to SCOTUS, he may have sacrificed his Circuit Court seat. Not too big a deal though. He can return to more clearly partisan political activities.

Since he lied multiple times under oath to congress(which FBI can probably prove), isn't he screwed?

We'll see. It's not even clear what the scope of the FBI's investigation is today. If the FBI report is damning, maybe Kavanaugh simply withdraws his nomination, the Reps keep the report sealed, and the DOJ does not pursue any FBI recommended charges.

1. The Reps cant order the FBI report sealed, only full judiciary committee can  do that.
2. Even if judicial committee orders it sealed, Dems on the committee will leak it to the NYT in a nanosecond.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 01, 2018, 10:50:29 AM
Americans evenly divided on believing Kavanaugh or Ford:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-10-believe-allegations-against-kavanaugh-three-10-214237381.html

But:

"When it came to the allegations of sexual misconduct, the poll found that Americans who are younger, more educated and single were more likely to believe the allegations than those who are older, less educated and married."

Getting married makes you dumber? Who knew.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
Long post but let’s lay this out —

The evidence that he’s a sexual assaulter is Ford’s testimony that he’s a sexual assaulter.

The fact that he offered deceptive testimony about yearbooks and drinking, is evidence that his denials aren’t credible.

If Ford had been caught up lying about “anything” they’d have said that impeached her credibility — that’s why there was all the fussing about fear of flying.  Instead, Kavanaugh was caught offering misleading testimony on a range of subjects and not for the first time.

“The victim says he did it” + “the accused is a huge liar” is not necessarily going to win you a criminal conviction, but it’s plenty to lose you a Supreme Court seat.

 the presumption of innocence serves two critical functions, neither of which are relevant here (IMPORTNT) — 

There is a strong and appropriate presumption that people shouldn’t be in jail — that’s one reason people get a presumption of innocence at a criminal trial.

But there’s obviously no presumption that you are entitled to a Supreme Court seat.

Second, the presumption is a counterweight to the overwhelming power of the state in a criminal trial. But Kavanaugh has the full weight of the White House and of senate leadership on his side with them controlling the pace and scope of investigation as eyephone pointed out .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 11:54:16 AM
Friendly advice to Trump:
Maybe pick someone else and most likely it will pass.


Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 01, 2018, 11:55:56 AM
The Ford accusation of sexual misconduct doesn't matter anymore.

Kavanaugh told outside counsel Rachel Mitchell during the hearing that he has never "passed out" from drinking. "I’ve gone to sleep," he said. "But I’ve never blacked out, that’s the allegation. And that’s, that’s wrong."

The FBI is going to find out Brett was a blackout drunk belligerent alcoholic 35 years ago and establish a pattern.
Lying to congress is sinking this boat.


Brett is very accomplished.  Probably goes by the motto work hard party harder.  It's great he got into Yale and was #1 student.  But he shouldn't lie about his drinking.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 12:37:12 PM
Brett is very accomplished.  Probably goes by the motto work hard party harder.  It's great he got into Yale and was #1 student.  But he shouldn't lie about his drinking.

Sound logic , Just pointing out a couple of things I don’t agree w — That Georgetown prep school is a pipeline of privilege into Yale . Also , Yale does not rank its students .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 12:41:23 PM
Brett is very accomplished.  Probably goes by the motto work hard party harder.  It's great he got into Yale and was #1 student.  But he shouldn't lie about his drinking.

Sound logic , Just pointing out a couple of things I don’t agree w — That Georgetown prep school is a pipeline of privilege into Yale . Also , Yale does not rank its students .

How about the legacy factor?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
Brett is very accomplished.  Probably goes by the motto work hard party harder.  It's great he got into Yale and was #1 student.  But he shouldn't lie about his drinking.

Sound logic , Just pointing out a couple of things I don’t agree w — That Georgetown prep school is a pipeline of privilege into Yale . Also , Yale does not rank its students .

How about the legacy factor?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2018/09/busted-brett-kavanaugh-lied-busting-tail-get-yale-no-connections-legacy/amp/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 01:06:42 PM
Brett is very accomplished.  Probably goes by the motto work hard party harder.  It's great he got into Yale and was #1 student.  But he shouldn't lie about his drinking.

Sound logic , Just pointing out a couple of things I don’t agree w — That Georgetown prep school is a pipeline of privilege into Yale . Also , Yale does not rank its students .

How about the legacy factor?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2018/09/busted-brett-kavanaugh-lied-busting-tail-get-yale-no-connections-legacy/amp/

Yes good point as well

Kavanugh is typical of people that were born near the third base and think they hit a home run
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 01, 2018, 01:13:47 PM
"I worked my ASS off! I WORKED HARD! Did you? Huh? Did you punk? I only had time to lift weights, read my Bible, and attend church services. Sure I had a beer or two, on some Saturdays. Didn't you in high school and college? DIDN'T YOU!?! My entrance into Yale had NOTHING to do with the family into which I was born. NOTHING! OKAY!?!"
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 01, 2018, 01:36:14 PM
"I worked my ASS off! I WORKED HARD! Did you? Huh? Did you punk? I only had time to lift weights, read my Bible, and attend church services. Sure I had a beer or two, on some Saturdays. Didn't you in high school and college? DIDN'T YOU!?! My entrance into Yale had NOTHING to do with the family into which I was born. NOTHING! OKAY!?!"

Did you mention that he liked beer? I wasn't sure but I think his drink of choice is beer. Do you like beer?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 01, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
It's funny how many yale "friends" are now coming out and saying how cray cray Brett was during his drunken college years.
He should have just told the truth when the world was watching his testimony.


Who wants a liar on the supreme court?


I don't have a problem with his
drinking
sexual molestation
devils triangle
35 years ago ....a man can change.


...but then he lied destroying his credibility.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 01, 2018, 02:07:44 PM
Flake appears to be laying the groundwork for his No vote, with the statement today that, "If Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Committee, I will vote No." He's signalling where he is after considering this over the weekend.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on October 01, 2018, 02:35:35 PM
It's funny how many yale "friends" are now coming out and saying how cray cray Brett was during his drunken college years.
He should have just told the truth when the world was watching his testimony.


Who wants a liar on the supreme court?


I don't have a problem with his
drinking
sexual molestation
devils triangle
35 years ago ....a man can change.


...but then he lied destroying his credibility.

Dang, a little white lies cost him the supreme job. Why, Trump still stay on? He lies every day of the week.  :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 01, 2018, 03:04:12 PM
The man has 2 daughters.  I'm sure he wouldn't let his daughters near someone like his younger self.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
has anyone looked into whether or not this guy even is an actual judge
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 01, 2018, 04:25:07 PM
has anyone looked into whether or not this guy even is an actual judge

Honestly I have no skin in the game. I'm not formulating my opinion on him because of partisan issues. I don't care where he stands on issues or how he would vote. I don't even care about the accusations despite red flags of him perjuring himself. I watched the entire confirmation hearing while at work and I just don't like the guy based on his "performance" during Thursday's hearing.

He's whiny, unpolished, evaded questions, clearly was not fit to be a judge on the highest court with a life-long appointment. Let's not forget him bringing up this random conspiracy theory of the Clintons trying to get revenge on him. What the hell is this guy smoking? There are plenty of other candidates that would clearly be a better fit that would be pushed through confirmation.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on October 01, 2018, 04:29:01 PM
has anyone looked into whether or not this guy even is an actual judge

His temperament displayed last week showed him hot headed and lack of empathy for the accuser. He blame Dems for the whole blown up situation.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: bones on October 01, 2018, 04:37:41 PM
So many Harvard and Yale law grads. Hard to believe he’s the best these two schools have to offer.  If they’re going to pick him, might as well pick a Trojan :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 04:38:56 PM
Did you guys here about the text messages?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on October 01, 2018, 04:42:51 PM
Did you guys here about the text messages?

Don't let us hang, man. Spill the beans already.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 04:46:09 PM
Did you guys here about the text messages?

Don't let us hang, man. Spill the beans already.

Article According to NBC:

“WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Compressed-Village on October 01, 2018, 04:53:45 PM
Did you guys here about the text messages?

Don't let us hang, man. Spill the beans already.

Article According to NBC:

“WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

It really do a lot of damage to his characters, the longer this goes on.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 01, 2018, 09:43:12 PM
This dude is everywhere in the 80s

When did he get time to study between bing drinking beer and bar fights

NYTIMES — Kavanaugh was questioned by police after a bar fight in 1985 that resulted in one person going to the hospital. Judge Kavanaugh was accused of throwing ice, according to a police report.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 01, 2018, 09:45:11 PM
This dude is everywhere in the 80s

When did he get time to study between bing drinking beer and bar fights

NYTIMES — Kavanaugh was questioned by police after a bar fight in 1985 that resulted in one person going to the hospital. Judge Kavanaugh was accused of throwing ice, according to a police report.

I don't see a problem with that. He busted his tail to get into Yale so it's alright.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 01, 2018, 09:59:26 PM
“Kavanaugh Will Not Return to Teach at Harvard Law School

Embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not return to teach at Harvard Law School in January, according to an email administrators sent to Law students Monday evening.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/2/kavanaugh-is-out/

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 02, 2018, 07:49:15 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.

Too many purple posts but is morekaos actually backing Kavanaugh?

And what if he is part of Atlas*.

*Anyone watch the "Shooter" TV series?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 08:14:38 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.


then the left has succeeded in the smear campaign.  if you take a closer look at the facts (and not feelings) then you'll see he went through 60 hours of interviews, background checks, and was universally lauded as a well qualified candidate.  the democrats from day one made it very public that they would do whatever it takes to stop the nomination.  and it wasn't until the 11th hour that multiple assault claims surfaced.  we even have claims that he was part of bar fights (the headline), but if you read closely he threw ice LOL.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 08:16:19 AM
“Kavanaugh Will Not Return to Teach at Harvard Law School

Embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not return to teach at Harvard Law School in January, according to an email administrators sent to Law students Monday evening.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/2/kavanaugh-is-out/

he won't return to teach at harvard law school because he'll be so busy sitting on the supreme court!

(https://i.imgflip.com/1iq23l.jpg)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 08:20:56 AM
“Kavanaugh Will Not Return to Teach at Harvard Law School

Embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not return to teach at Harvard Law School in January, according to an email administrators sent to Law students Monday evening.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/2/kavanaugh-is-out/

he won't return to teach at harvard law school because he'll be so busy sitting on the supreme court!

Are you sure?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 02, 2018, 08:25:28 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.


then the left has succeeded in the smear campaign.  if you take a closer look at the facts (and not feelings) then you'll see he went through 60 hours of interviews, background checks, and was universally lauded as a well qualified candidate.  the democrats from day one made it very public that they would do whatever it takes to stop the nomination.  and it wasn't until the 11th hour that multiple assault claims surfaced.  we even have claims that he was part of bar fights (the headline), but if you read closely he threw ice LOL.

Sorry, but the final check of power in the US is the Supreme Court. So those appointed need to be scrutinized very closely, Dem or Rep.

Just based on his denials, recants and excuses (his own words, not the Dems), my red flag goes up about him.

Sure, we all were young and stupid once... but we are all not going to sit in the highest court of the land.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 02, 2018, 09:51:33 AM
The Democrats character assassination is going splendidly.

Why didn't they do it to Gorsuch?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 10:02:15 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.


then the left has succeeded in the smear campaign.  if you take a closer look at the facts (and not feelings) then you'll see he went through 60 hours of interviews, background checks, and was universally lauded as a well qualified candidate.  the democrats from day one made it very public that they would do whatever it takes to stop the nomination.  and it wasn't until the 11th hour that multiple assault claims surfaced.  we even have claims that he was part of bar fights (the headline), but if you read closely he threw ice LOL.

Sorry, but the final check of power in the US is the Supreme Court. So those appointed need to be scrutinized very closely, Dem or Rep.

Just based on his denials, recants and excuses (his own words, not the Dems), my red flag goes up about him.

Sure, we all were young and stupid once... but we are all not going to sit in the highest court of the land.

what are your specific concerns?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 10:03:35 AM
The Democrats character assassination is going splendidly.

Why didn't they do it to Gorsuch?

gorsuch's nomination didn't "matter" as much as this one, in the left's eyes.  further, gorsuch was replacing scalia which was a "like for like" replacement.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on October 02, 2018, 10:28:43 AM
what are your specific concerns?

JIMHO:
He appears to hold partisans grudges. 
He appears to favor partisanship over justice.
He appears to support illegal activities for partisan reasons, i.e. the illegally obtained democrat memos.
He supports torture in an ends justify the means way
He is product of the cronyism of privilege.
He furthers the cronyism of the privilege, Kozinski's son clerked for him
Pretends to know nothing of Kozinski's abuse of power

IMHO, his adult life in power, is support of torture, stolen party documents for political gain, blind eye to those in power and cronyism.


So yea, you better keep people focused on their sons being wrecked by a false accusation and assumed guilty.  Because if people look at his testimony and wonder about truthfulness and then look back at his earlier answers they'll see a real problem.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 02, 2018, 10:31:56 AM
It seems to me that a lot of the people in Trumps circle have their lives ruined.  If they didn't work for Trump or get nominated by him, they would have been better off.
 
Manafort
Cohen
Some generals, etc.

And now Kavanaugh.



Saturday Night Live needs to do a skit on this where nominees are shaking in their boots hoping they don't get picked.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 02, 2018, 10:33:23 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.


then the left has succeeded in the smear campaign.  if you take a closer look at the facts (and not feelings) then you'll see he went through 60 hours of interviews, background checks, and was universally lauded as a well qualified candidate.  the democrats from day one made it very public that they would do whatever it takes to stop the nomination.  and it wasn't until the 11th hour that multiple assault claims surfaced.  we even have claims that he was part of bar fights (the headline), but if you read closely he threw ice LOL.

If he was universally lauded then there wouldn't be any resistance now would there?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 10:40:23 AM
It seems to me that a lot of the people in Trumps circle have their lives ruined.  If they didn't work for Trump or get nominated by him, they would have been better off.
 
Manafort
Cohen
Some generals, etc.

And now Kavanaugh.



Saturday Night Live needs to do a skit on this where nominees are shaking in their boots hoping they don't get picked.

Pruit (ex EPA chief) installed a sound proof room in his office, traveled to Europe, questionable policies regarding the environment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html


EPA chief Scott Pruitt took first-class, military, charter flights that cost taxpayers more than $163,000 in first year alone: Report

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/03/21/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-took-flights-costing-taxpayers-163000.html

Travel in style?   8)  :P  :)  :D ;D

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
I am not following this as closely as others but my 10,000 foot view says there's no way this guy should be on the Supreme Court.


then the left has succeeded in the smear campaign.  if you take a closer look at the facts (and not feelings) then you'll see he went through 60 hours of interviews, background checks, and was universally lauded as a well qualified candidate.  the democrats from day one made it very public that they would do whatever it takes to stop the nomination.  and it wasn't until the 11th hour that multiple assault claims surfaced.  we even have claims that he was part of bar fights (the headline), but if you read closely he threw ice LOL.

If he was universally lauded then there wouldn't be any resistance now would there?

the resistance is not based on his judicial record

in case you missed it

Quote
American Bar Association gives Brett Kavanaugh a unanimous 'well-qualified' rating

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is “well qualified” to hold a seat on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association said Friday, giving President Trump’s nominee another boost heading into next week’s confirmation hearing.

The ABA’s federal judiciary committee gave its unanimous rating to Judge Kavanaugh, who has sat for a dozen years on the circuit court of appeals in Washington, earning high marks for his approach to judging.

Though conservatives don’t put as much stock in the rating from the liberal-leaning ABA, Democrats have called it the “gold standard” for evaluating whether a judge should be confirmed.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 11:04:21 AM
what are your specific concerns?

JIMHO:
He appears to hold partisans grudges. 
He appears to favor partisanship over justice.
He appears to support illegal activities for partisan reasons, i.e. the illegally obtained democrat memos.
He supports torture in an ends justify the means way
He is product of the cronyism of privilege.
He furthers the cronyism of the privilege, Kozinski's son clerked for him
Pretends to know nothing of Kozinski's abuse of power

IMHO, his adult life in power, is support of torture, stolen party documents for political gain, blind eye to those in power and cronyism.


So yea, you better keep people focused on their sons being wrecked by a false accusation and assumed guilty.  Because if people look at his testimony and wonder about truthfulness and then look back at his earlier answers they'll see a real problem.

fair concerns.  most of these points will be overlooked because the left's (and the media's) primary focus is on the assault allegations.  if the fbi cannot corroborate or clears those charges, all of the points you raised will go to the wind.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 11:04:37 AM
It seems to me that a lot of the people in Trumps circle have their lives ruined.  If they didn't work for Trump or get nominated by him, they would have been better off.
 
Manafort
Cohen
Some generals, etc.

And now Kavanaugh.



Saturday Night Live needs to do a skit on this where nominees are shaking in their boots hoping they don't get picked.

Yep: Everything Trump Touches Dies
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538503426&sr=8-1&keywords=everything+trump+touches+dies
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 11:06:07 AM
what are your specific concerns?

JIMHO:
He appears to hold partisans grudges. 
He appears to favor partisanship over justice.
He appears to support illegal activities for partisan reasons, i.e. the illegally obtained democrat memos.
He supports torture in an ends justify the means way
He is product of the cronyism of privilege.
He furthers the cronyism of the privilege, Kozinski's son clerked for him
Pretends to know nothing of Kozinski's abuse of power

IMHO, his adult life in power, is support of torture, stolen party documents for political gain, blind eye to those in power and cronyism.


So yea, you better keep people focused on their sons being wrecked by a false accusation and assumed guilty.  Because if people look at his testimony and wonder about truthfulness and then look back at his earlier answers they'll see a real problem.

fair concerns.  most of these points will be overlooked because the left's (and the media's) primary focus is on the assault allegations.  if the fbi cannot corroborate or clears those charges, all of the points you raised will go to the wind.

There are multiple patently false statements he made in his testimony before the Senate Committee. These can be proved false beyond all reasonable doubt, if the FBI is investigating this.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 11:16:28 AM
what are your specific concerns?

JIMHO:
He appears to hold partisans grudges. 
He appears to favor partisanship over justice.
He appears to support illegal activities for partisan reasons, i.e. the illegally obtained democrat memos.
He supports torture in an ends justify the means way
He is product of the cronyism of privilege.
He furthers the cronyism of the privilege, Kozinski's son clerked for him
Pretends to know nothing of Kozinski's abuse of power

IMHO, his adult life in power, is support of torture, stolen party documents for political gain, blind eye to those in power and cronyism.


So yea, you better keep people focused on their sons being wrecked by a false accusation and assumed guilty.  Because if people look at his testimony and wonder about truthfulness and then look back at his earlier answers they'll see a real problem.

fair concerns.  most of these points will be overlooked because the left's (and the media's) primary focus is on the assault allegations.  if the fbi cannot corroborate or clears those charges, all of the points you raised will go to the wind.

There are multiple patently false statements he made in his testimony before the Senate Committee. These can be proved false beyond all reasonable doubt, if the FBI is investigating this.

Many Reps' ethics and morals allow them to ignore Kavanaugh's lies to the Senate Committee, but apparently even Trump finds this "unacceptable":

Amid Kavanaugh questions, Trump says it's not 'acceptable' to lie to Congress
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/donald-trump-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

This is Standard Trump - evasive, confusing, contradictory, long-winded and winding statements, so that he can deny ever having shared that opinion/thought.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 12:26:41 PM
Case in point:

“It is a very scary time for young men in America when you could be guilty of something you may not be guilty of,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn before boarding Marine One. “This is a very, very — this is a very difficult time.”

Is it really a "scary time" for young men in America? Really? How? Please explain. How can you be guilty of something you may not be guilt of? It's not just a "very difficult time" but a "very, very, very difficult time" right?

This is your learned President...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
Case in point:

“It is a very scary time for young men in America when you could be guilty of something you may not be guilty of,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn before boarding Marine One. “This is a very, very — this is a very difficult time.”

Is it really a "scary time" for young men in America? Really? How? Please explain. How can you be guilty of something you may not be guilt of? It's not just a "very difficult time" but a "very, very, very difficult time" right?

This is your learned President...

here's how.  mob mentality and feelings over reality.

reality is kav is not sexually harassing people, is not proven to have ever sexually harassed anyone, yet a bunch of butthurt students who feel like he's a serial rapist don't want to have their safe spaces invaded by a conservative thinker.  maybe they should go back to their crying rooms?

Quote
Students Filed Title IX Complaints Against Kavanaugh to Prevent Him From Teaching at Harvard Law

In the days before Harvard Law School announced embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not teach in Cambridge this January, undergraduates eager to block his return to campus struck on a new strategy: file Title IX complaints against the conservative judge.

Over the past week, several students filed formal complaints alleging Kavanaugh’s presence in Cambridge would violate Harvard’s policy prohibiting sexual and gender-based harassment — though several Title IX experts said this strategy was unlikely to succeed.

Jacqueline L. Kellogg ’19 — who said she has filed a complaint against Kavanaugh with the University’s Office for Dispute Resolution — came up with the idea several days ago. She began urging fellow students to follow suit over the weekend, at one point sending an email to a group of students at the College and the Law School that offered specific instructions on how to bring a formal complaint to ODR.

By the time The Crimson reported late Monday that Kavanaugh had left his teaching position at the Law School, at least 48 students had signed an online petition certifying they had filed a Title IX complaint against the nominee. But at least one signatory said that not all of those who signed the petition had actually filed complaints as of Monday evening.

Kellogg and Julia B. Wiener ’19 — who also signed the petition and filed a complaint against Kavanaugh — both argued the nominee’s presence on campus would create a “hostile environment” as defined in Harvard guidelines related to sexual harassment.

Some Harvard Law School professors were not sold on Kellogg and Wiener’s tactics.

Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at the Law School and a Title IX expert who has written extensively about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, said that — while she supports the students’ freedom to protest the nominee’s former teaching role at Harvard — the notion of filing Title IX complaints is “misplaced.”

“Such an abuse of process would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of complaints that the Title IX process is intended to deal with, as well as of the Title IX office to focus on its duties,” Suk Gersen wrote in an email. “It might be effective in drawing further attention to some students’ objection to Kavanaugh’s teaching appointment, but I don’t expect him to be found to have violated Harvard University’s Sexual & Gender-Based Harassment Policy based on the currently known public allegations against him.”

Janet Halley, another Law School professor with a background in Title IX law, also called the students’ strategy of filing formal complaints unlikely to succeed.

“I urge the students to divert their energy from this implausible claim that he’s going to create a sexually hostile environment by teaching at the Law School to the really grand issue of whether he’s fit to be in his current judgeship or promoted to the Supreme Court,” Halley said.

Had Kavanaugh not chosen to leave the Law School, administrators would have been forced to review students’ complaints under the school’s Title IX procedures. It is unclear what will become of the complaints now that the nominee has severed his ties to Harvard.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/2/students-file-title-ix-against-kavanaugh/ (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/2/students-file-title-ix-against-kavanaugh/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 02, 2018, 02:11:31 PM
@Kings:

Let me ask you from the other side, after hearing his own responses, are you comfortable with Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 02:35:18 PM
@Kings:

Let me ask you from the other side, after hearing his own responses, are you comfortable with Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court?

yes.  i watched the confirmation hearings and he presented himself as an extremely well-read scholar with a level head and a high level understanding of many prominent cases over the years.

it wasn't until the left paraded out these accusers, who have no corroboration in a clear political smear to "stop the nomination at all costs" - their words, that any question about his temperament came to the forefront.

so what about his temperament?  i don't blame kav one bit for his emotional and powerful response after ford's testimony.  let's say he is completely innocent to each and every claim and none of these accusations are true.  i think someone who worked to get to where he is and holds an image as an upstanding citizen would be very offended and even a little emotional if all of the sudden you are being painted as a serial rapist and blackout drunk.

now you tell me, how would you react if your good name was torn down and you were labeled a sex offender, your kids read baseless stories about how you drugged and gang raped women, and you received death threats for political purposes?  wouldn't feel good, would it?

if the fbi investigation comes back with nobody corroborating any of these sexual assault claims, and the presumption of innocence is upheld like we should in this country, would you change your views?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 02:50:36 PM
now, do we still believe all women?

Quote
Kavanaugh accuser has 'psychological' problems, likes group sex, says former Democratic candidate

A former Democratic candidate for Congress has raised new questions about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Julie Swetnick's credibility by saying she has "psychological" problems.

Dennis Ketterer, a former weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, sent a signed statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday claiming that Swetnick had psychological problems and liked to engage in sexual intercourse with more than one male partner at the same time.

Ketterer had a relationship with Swetnick in the early 1990s.

“During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time,” Ketterer told the committee in a letter. “She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.”

Ketterer said that Swetnick told him that the first time she engaged in sexual intercourse with multiple men at the same time was in high school.

Swetnick, the third women to come out with accusations against Kavanaugh, alleged that she was gang raped in high school at a party. She said Kavanaugh was present at the party and that she also saw Kavanaugh engaging in aggressive behavior toward girls at these parties. Kavanaugh has denied all allegations of sexual misconduct.

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will,” Ketterer said. “She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.”

He said that when he was running for Congress in 1996 he called Swetnick’s father to try and get back in contact with her to ask for her help with the campaign.

“When I talked to him about possibly bringing [Julie Swetnick] on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time,” Ketterer said.

Ketterer submitted his statement to the committee under penalty of felony if he is lying.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-has-psychological-problems-likes-group-sex-says-former-democratic-candidate (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-has-psychological-problems-likes-group-sex-says-former-democratic-candidate)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 02, 2018, 03:13:28 PM
This is not mutually exclusive to her accusations of Kavanaugh. Her accusations can still be true. Many times, sexual abuse victims are messed up psychologically. Just look at the history of most people who are porn stars - high percentage were sexually abused in the past. Based on this timeline it is indeed plausible that what she said about Kavanaugh could have happened.

I don't know much about her story but this article does nothing for me in terms of moving the needle.

I do like that you deliberately cut out a huge chunk of the article that does not support your narrative though that talks about a letter from someone that corroborates Ford and Swetnick's depiction of Kavanaugh.

Quote
The woman, whose name is blacked out in the statement, said she was friends with Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, and Swetnick in high school.

“The house parties I attended were a common occurrence in the area,” the statement said. “I know of many instances during these house parties where Brett and Mark would drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive towards girls.”

She also said she would witness Kavanaugh, and his friend Mark Judge, inappropriately touch girls and spike drinks at parties.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 03:33:50 PM
Mitch McConnell Says FBI's Kavanaugh Report Won’t Be Made Public

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325/amp

This is unbelievable! No transparency!!!!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 04:12:57 PM
Even People Who Like Kavanaugh Are Jumping Ship
Benjamin Wittes offers a detailed and regretful assessment of the nomination.

We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.

As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.

— Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare editor-in-chief and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute describing his assessment of the Kavanaugh confirmation at this point. Wittes describes his long, friendly relationship with Kavanaugh and his neutral feelings about Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence but concludes that he cannot support a nominee who behaved the way Kavanaugh behaved in last week’s hearing.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/even-people-who-like-kavanaugh-are-jumping-ship/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 04:24:58 PM
2 Of Brett Kavanaugh's Former Classmates Withdraw Support For Him
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-brett-kavanaugh-apos-former-224435051.html

There's a reason Mitch desperately wanted that vote on Friday, without delay.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 04:26:40 PM
If we can’t see the report or get a brief summary of the report. Get ready to protest! >:D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 02, 2018, 04:29:17 PM
I agree with Matt Damon...if someone falsely accused me of sexual misconduct I would be pissed too, Scorched earth time baby.

https://youtu.be/rbWfNi2GWaY (https://youtu.be/rbWfNi2GWaY)




Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 02, 2018, 04:30:53 PM
Are we still in America? Is this what we have become:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 04:33:51 PM
I thought the FBI report will clear Kavenaugh’s name?

I’m open to find out, but I guess we won’t know.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 02, 2018, 04:45:28 PM
@Kings:

I’m not even taking the allegations into consideration.

He is going to be a Supreme Court judge, in my opinion he needs to react better under pressure and duress.

Innocent or not, I’m not confident in who he is... and again, this is just a casual observation.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 02, 2018, 04:45:54 PM
On Benjamin Wittes, from a 2017 Buzzfeed article:

Three months later, in March of the following year, I elaborated on that post. And I wrote a long post identifying seven threats to national security posed by the Trump candidacy, let alone presidency. And that post was entitled, "Trump As National Security Threat."

Sorry, Wittes might say in fact that he likes BK, by words and deeds is no supporter of BK.

The only document that remains important is CBF's 2012 therapists notes - the originals, and nothing more. CBF said in testimony she mentioned BK to her therapist during that session. Odd that the WaPo, who was given a copy of the notes, hasn't leaked out confirmation of this as fact.

As for temperament, when CBF cries, that's called putting on a "brave face", if BK displays a tear it's being "unstable". Anyone put under this level of pressure would respond with righteous anger. I'd be more concerned if they didn't. If you've gone through a nationally spread campaign of condemnation like this, can you really tell me you wouldn't be pissed? Please. I so full I can't take another slice of baloney on this subject.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 02, 2018, 04:55:03 PM
On Benjamin Wittes, from a 2017 Buzzfeed article:

Three months later, in March of the following year, I elaborated on that post. And I wrote a long post identifying seven threats to national security posed by the Trump candidacy, let alone presidency. And that post was entitled, "Trump As National Security Threat."

Sorry, Wittes might say "in fact" that he likes BK, by words and deeds is no supporter of BK.

The only document that remains important is CBF's 2012 therapists notes - the originals, and nothing more. CBF said in testimony she mentioned BK to her therapist during that session. Odd that the WaPo, who was given a copy of the notes, hasn't leaked out confirmation of this as fact.

My .02c
Brookings Institute is liberal propaganda. If you want to follow an objective think tank, try Cato Institute.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 02, 2018, 05:37:16 PM
Brookings Institute is liberal propaganda. If you want to follow an objective think tank, try Cato Institute.

You realize the way you are stating this “fact” and using “objective “ in the same sentence makes it sound comical , to say the least

And ah yes , who funded and founded Cato ? Miracle ! It is the Koch brothers .

I have nothing against the Koch’s . And having gotten their tax cuts , looks like they may have gotten religion about trump

But let me use this opportunity to expose the scam , esp among some Orange County dyed in the wool Republicans , about the myth and allure of “libertarianism “ . Sounds pretty nice and cool at parties and barbecues right ? What could be wrong w “liberty “ and “leave me alone” ?

Bulls***

What libertarians want is all of the benefits of civilization and none of the responsibilities. Libertarians are simply conservatives boiled down to "I got mine, so F you."

Look here — Libertarianism ONLY works if you have large swaths of unclaimed territory. The disaffected can wander off into the mountains far from civilization, build a cabin, hunt for food, dump in a hole, and murder the indigenous people and invaders with impunity.

Free from the burden of having to be civilized, free from government, free from taxes and other social obligations, free from law and regulation, free from security, free from any neighbors.

But while that idea appeals to those who buy whole-hog into the legend of the American Mountain Man and the idea of Manifest Destiny, the truth of the matter is that in a world of 8 billion people , that time is long gone.

Eight Billion people cannot live together without civilization -- and even then, it's a dicey thing.

The fundamental flaw of libertarianism is that it always begins with "if people would just..."

Guess what?

They won't just. They won't. Will not.

I get the appeal of libertarianism, I do. But until there are empty worlds to conquer and an easy way to get there, or until the fundamental nature of humanity changes, libertarianism is utterly non-viable beyond a single selfish individual in the world we live in.

The likes of Cato have faith that business will always do good and therefore needs no regulation or checks whatsoever — But how many depressions/recessions, deaths, lawsuits, Ponzi schemes, bankruptcies do we have to have before we learn?  The system we have is socialism for the super rich, and rugged individualism for the poor
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 05:46:12 PM
I subscribed to Reason magazine for a few years. I realized it was time to cancel the subscription when I found myself throwing it away without bothering reading it.

I'm still searching for a socially liberal fiscally conservative party, that isn't full of cooks and idiots, like the Libertarian party.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2018, 07:00:44 PM
Limited scope investigation?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 07:19:56 PM
Limited scope investigation?

Of course, but we knew that.

Hook Kavanaugh up to a lie detector machine. He extolled the virtues of the probative value to police investigations of lie detector tests as a judge.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 07:54:16 PM
well, there goes the farm.  are we still talking about perjury?

Quote
Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

In a letter released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, seemingly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He also claimed Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a small, 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable travelling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote. On Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- travelling on planes for work and hobbies.

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 07:56:28 PM
@Kings:

I’m not even taking the allegations into consideration.

He is going to be a Supreme Court judge, in my opinion he needs to react better under pressure and duress.

Innocent or not, I’m not confident in who he is... and again, this is just a casual observation.

then it's a good thing you're not voting on his confirmation  :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 08:20:49 PM
Wait, I'm so confused. Do Trump enthusiasts care about perjury, or not?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 02, 2018, 08:38:25 PM
Wait, I'm so confused. Do Trump enthusiasts care about perjury, or not?

only when the entire basis of the assault accusation has now been rendered unreliable.  do you care?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 02, 2018, 08:42:48 PM
Wait, I'm so confused. Do Trump enthusiasts care about perjury, or not?

only when the entire basis of the assault accusation has now been rendered unreliable.  do you care?

Wait, is that true? You can presume Ford's story is false. Even then, there's plenty in Kavanaugh's testimony for reasonable prudent people to conclude he's completely unfit for SCOTUS.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 06:14:46 AM
The FBI isn't seriously considering not interviewing Kavanaugh, are they? Is the White House excluding this interview from the investigatory scope? Someone needs to corner Kavanaugh in his multiple under oath lies. The Dems on the Senate Committee proved inept at this.

It sounds like they've lost Flake. I don't know how he can vote Yes after the concerns he's sharing daily.

Trump was Trump last night, mocking alleged sexual assault victims. Supporting this President is a reflection of your character.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 03, 2018, 07:56:27 AM
There is just no such thing as a perfect person, memory or witness...get on with the vote.

Senate Judiciary Chairman hopping mad after ex-boyfriend of Christine Ford says she WASN'T afraid of flying or closed spaces – and once coached friend on how to take polygraph

An ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to contradict her testimony that she was claustrophobic and had trouble flying as a result
The mystery ex says he lived with Ford for a time, and dated her for a period of six years, and witnessed her coaching a friend on passing a lie detector test.
Ford denied under oath that she had ever done that at her Capitol Hill hearing
Also claimed that she has claustrophopia since she was assaulted in high school, allegedly by Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanuagh

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235637/Ex-boyfriend-Christine-Ford-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235637/Ex-boyfriend-Christine-Ford-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 08:50:32 AM
You're typically the Anecdote King, but today you're using a strawman. Who has argued the SCOTUS nominee must be a "perfect person"?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 03, 2018, 09:17:43 AM
The Dems knew that demanding a delay would eventually result in the revelation of Dr. Ford's lies. That's why they are already moving on to the "even if Dr. Ford is lying, BK does not have the temperament to be on the SC" argument. Do the Dems care that they induced their star witness to perjure herself and ruin her life in other ways? Hell no. To the Dems, Dr. Ford is just cannon fodder to be used and discarded to achieve their political goals.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2018, 09:21:43 AM
Limited scope investigation is a sham.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 09:24:26 AM
The Dems knew that demanding a delay would eventually result in the revelation of Dr. Ford's lies. That's why they are already moving on to the "even if Dr. Ford is lying, BK does not have the temperament to be on the SC" argument. Do the Dems care that they induced their star witness to perjure herself and ruin her life in other ways? Hell no. To the Dems, Dr. Ford is just cannon fodder to be used and discarded to achieve their political goals.

So, what you're saying is, the FBI should investigate this allegation further to determine if Ford perjured herself? I agree. You're also saying perjury is a very serious offense. I agree. The logical conclusion is, a SCOTUS nominee who perjures himself/herself, should not advance to SCOTUS. Agreed?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 03, 2018, 09:32:58 AM
The Dems knew that demanding a delay would eventually result in the revelation of Dr. Ford's lies. That's why they are already moving on to the "even if Dr. Ford is lying, BK does not have the temperament to be on the SC" argument. Do the Dems care that they induced their star witness to perjure herself and ruin her life in other ways? Hell no. To the Dems, Dr. Ford is just cannon fodder to be used and discarded to achieve their political goals.

So, what you're saying is, the FBI should investigate this allegation further to determine if Ford perjured herself? I agree. You're also saying perjury is a very serious offense. I agree. The logical conclusion is, a SCOTUS nominee who perjures himself/herself, should not advance to SCOTUS. Agreed?

Yes, I agree.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 03, 2018, 10:20:47 AM
Democrats and Republicans are party first country second.  You can see it by the way they vote.
Republicans obstructed obama as much as possible & now Democrats are going to do the same.

This is our new normal.  Bend over and take it.
...as Russia polarizes the two sides and giggle on the sidelines at all the funny headlines their troll farm creates.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on October 03, 2018, 11:10:23 AM
Kavanaugh is going under the bus in the name of the mid-terms. 

Blame the Dems, be scared for sons, they're over turning the presumption of innocence, false accusations,  she's lying, little white lies about drinking from 36 years ago, blah, blah, blah,

They'll keep the report sealed, use its leak to further blame the Dems and inflame the base.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 11:24:59 AM
Democrats and Republicans are party first country second.  You can see it by the way they vote.
Republicans obstructed obama as much as possible & now Democrats are going to do the same.

This is our new normal.  Bend over and take it.
...as Russia polarizes the two sides and giggle on the sidelines at all the funny headlines their troll farm creates.

Unfortunate, but true. This is politics.

Keep this in perspective though. During the Civil Rights Era, people were beaten and killed for expressing support.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
It’s more than politics. This is something they would do in a communist country or a puppet government.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 03, 2018, 11:42:28 AM
Democrats and Republicans are party first country second.  You can see it by the way they vote.
Republicans obstructed obama as much as possible & now Democrats are going to do the same.

This is our new normal.  Bend over and take it.
...as Russia polarizes the two sides and giggle on the sidelines at all the funny headlines their troll farm creates.

Unfortunate, but true. This is politics.

Keep this in perspective though. During the Civil Rights Era, people were beaten and killed for expressing support.
Think about the thousands who were beaten or killed under Chairman Mao based on uncorroborated allegations. Have you ever stepped on anyone's toes in your life? Exes, business partners, relatives, random acquaintances?  What if that person decides to lob a Dr. Ford caliber allegation at you? You will be doomed. "I believe women!", that's all the proof needed nowadays.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 12:02:22 PM
For those so angry about this, what exactly would you have wanted Ford to do differently? Please share.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 03, 2018, 12:09:26 PM
For those so angry about this, what exactly would you have wanted Ford to do differently? Please share.

not lie?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2018, 12:09:39 PM
As I previously stated if the report is no limitation. I would be inclined to accept Brett as Supreme Court Judge.

But if the report is limited. I would say this is rigged!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 03, 2018, 12:10:26 PM
File a complaint in 1982 when it happened.  That would have helped her case immensely.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 12:12:43 PM
More strawman arguments to support Kavanaugh - this time from Graham:

Sen. Graham booed at event while defending Kavanaugh
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-graham-booed-event-defending-160734183.html

Has anyone accused Kavanaugh of being a rapist, much less a serial rapist? Has anyone accused Kavanaugh of being a gang rapist?

The accusations are: 1) that he held a woman down, touched her against her will, placed his hand over her mouth, and she escaped; and 2) he attended at least one party where others were engaged in group sex with drunk women.

You're better than this Lindsey. What's goin' on?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 03, 2018, 12:15:22 PM
Democrats and Republicans are party first country second.  You can see it by the way they vote.
Republicans obstructed obama as much as possible & now Democrats are going to do the same.

This is our new normal.  Bend over and take it.
...as Russia polarizes the two sides and giggle on the sidelines at all the funny headlines their troll farm creates.

Unfortunate, but true. This is politics.

Keep this in perspective though. During the Civil Rights Era, people were beaten and killed for expressing support.
Think about the thousands who were beaten or killed under Chairman Mao based on uncorroborated allegations. Have you ever stepped on anyone's toes in your life? Exes, business partners, relatives, random acquaintances?  What if that person decides to lob a Dr. Ford caliber allegation at you? You will be doomed. "I believe women!", that's all the proof needed nowadays.

whether or not you thought there was gender inequality in the workplace before, there will certainly be inequality after this whole debacle because who in their right mind would want to hire women who could potentially take down a businesses with false claims of sexual assault?  the mentality moving forward will be that you can't even be in the same room with a woman in the workplace with the door closed to have a meeting without risking your job and your life.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 12:19:08 PM
Wow. Just... Wow.

You guys/gals confirm every stereotype of Trump's base. Congrats.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 03, 2018, 12:33:06 PM
It's falling apart right in front of our eyes.

'Christine Ford threw her under the bus.' Strained 'sex assault' witness Leland Keyser is seen for the first time as close family member confirms she did NOT corroborate schoolfriend Ford's story to FBI

A weary-looking Leland Keyser was seen for the first time since Christine Ford named her as a corroborating witness to claims Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her
Keyser, 52, whom Ford described as her 'best friend' at Holton-Arms preparatory school in Bethesda, Maryland, was her final hope for corroboration
However, the former pro golfer couldn't corroborate Ford's story when she was interviewed by the FBI on Saturday
Pictured in DailyMailTV exclusive photos for the first time since news Ford named her, Keyser showed the stress of being put into the national spotlight
The close relative expressed anger at Ford's suggestion that Keyser could not recall the party because of the 'significant health challenges'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235463/Christine-Fords-high-school-friend-blindsided-named-corroborating-witness.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235463/Christine-Fords-high-school-friend-blindsided-named-corroborating-witness.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2018, 12:34:58 PM
Trump rigged the Supreme Court pick? (To be determined) hehe
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 03, 2018, 12:45:22 PM
anyone else get this presidential alert this morning?

(https://i.imgur.com/UPDXfcW.jpg)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2018, 12:56:29 PM
anyone else get this presidential alert this morning?

(https://i.imgur.com/UPDXfcW.jpg)

I told you it’s rigged.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on October 03, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
The more dirt the dems can dig up on brett, the better they will look come NOV midterms.
If brett gets confirmed or not, the dems need to make sure he looks really bad.

That way if brett does get confirmed, the fence sitters will vote dem in the midterms for confirming such a crap candidate.
So expect a ton more shit to come out about this guy in the coming days.


Call it what you want...it's sound political strategy.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 03, 2018, 01:02:42 PM
Wow. Just... Wow.

You guys/gals confirm every stereotype of Trump's base. Congrats.

As I have said several times before , the political forum is the watering hole for select really hardened Orange County Republicans.  You can beat your head against the wall wrt logic , it only excites them ( “look ma, I am owning the libs again :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
A Classmate Has Told the FBI That Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath About Knowledge of Yale Assault, Report Says

A Yale classmate and friend of Brett Kavanaugh, the embattled Trump nomination for Anthony Kennedy’s former seat on the Supreme Court, has reportedly delivered text messages to the FBI that were exchanged among Kavanaugh’s friends related to an accusation of assault before the details became public.

If the texts were found to be accurate, they contradict sworn testimony by Kavanaugh.

The classmate, Kerry Berchem, prepared a memo about the text messages and attempted to submit them to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27 following Kavanaugh’s testimony and that of Christine Blasey Ford, according to NBC News, which obtained a copy of the memo. ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/classmate-told-fbi-kavanaugh-lied-235900502.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 03, 2018, 03:37:58 PM
The more dirt the dems can dig up on brett, the better they will look come NOV midterms.
If brett gets confirmed or not, the dems need to make sure he looks really bad.

That way if brett does get confirmed, the fence sitters will vote dem in the midterms for confirming such a crap candidate.
So expect a ton more shit to come out about this guy in the coming days.


Call it what you want...it's sound political strategy.

Agree . As I said here last week , best outcome from a pure midterm perspective is Kav naugh gets confirmed and THEN more bad stuff comes out right after .

Dems can always increase the size of Supreme Court in 2020 and beyond
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 04, 2018, 05:28:40 AM
good morning!

Quote
White House Finds No Support in FBI Report for Claims Against Kavanaugh

The White House has found no corroboration of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after examining interview reports from the FBI’s latest probe into the judge’s background, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-finds-no-corroboration-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-in-fbi-report-1538625927
 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-finds-no-corroboration-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-in-fbi-report-1538625927)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 04, 2018, 07:30:56 AM
I can't keep track with all these posts but who else other than Kings and morekaos supports Kavanaugh?

Is this really partisan/Trump support?

Again, I'm neither Dem/Rep but it just seems that a position that doesn't have term limits requires someone who is more balanced.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 07:45:17 AM
The report is limited in scope, but Trump said multiple times to the press that it wasn’t. (That says it al)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2018, 07:45:53 AM
Why can't the White House answer simple questions regarding the limited scope of the investigation? Pretty funny Kavanaugh isn't being questioned considering the patently false statements he made to the Senate Committee under oath.

If you're one of the fence-sitters on this Committee, or the Senate at large, you can easily argue that, "My No vote isn't a verdict on the sexual assault claim. My No vote is the result of Kavanaugh's conspiratorial rage, very InfoWars-like, demeanor and evasive/false testimony before the committee. We can do better. We have plenty of Federalists to choose from. Let's pick a different one."
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2018, 07:52:09 AM
Confirming what we already know:

FBI Lacks White House Approval to Talk to Kavanaugh and Ford, Sources Say
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-lacks-white-house-approval-171140648.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 08:46:05 AM
In general, this is why top talent out of college go to private industry. (the government is rigged)

Let’s have an investigation, but partial. Give me a break!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 08:52:44 AM
So the Dems demand an FBI investigation and now they say an FBI investigation is uncredible.

Boy, didn't see that one coming.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 08:57:06 AM
So the Dems demand an FBI investigation and now they say an FBI investigation is uncredible.

Boy, didn't see that one coming.

Dude if someone robbed your house. I think you expect the police to investigate who did it. But if they only look at your neighbor and not camera footage from your ring camera or witness that saw a car with people running from your house.

I think you might be appalled if that happens. But what do I know.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 09:06:03 AM
maybe going forward people should vote for Supreme Court associates

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 04, 2018, 09:48:01 AM
democrats this morning

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eRNFAA-CoA0/WaHDgT2hBQI/AAAAAAAAIeU/r7LcsfwkauYns9emL72q3yM0F20jctqxgCLcBGAs/s320/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 09:51:04 AM
democrats this morning

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eRNFAA-CoA0/WaHDgT2hBQI/AAAAAAAAIeU/r7LcsfwkauYns9emL72q3yM0F20jctqxgCLcBGAs/s320/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)

Unbelievable. Again Trump said multiple times open investigation, but now we found it’s not.

Is that moving the goal post?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 04, 2018, 09:54:21 AM
So the Dems demand an FBI investigation and now they say an FBI investigation is uncredible.

Boy, didn't see that one coming.

Dude if someone robbed your house. I think you expect the police to investigate who did it. But if they only look at your neighbor and not camera footage from your ring camera or witness that saw a car with people running from your house.

I think you might be appalled if that happens. But what do I know.

scenario: a guy from two blocks over was walking his dog near your home that evening was seen by one of your neighbors.  your neighbor accuses that guy of breaking into your home, but nobody can corroborate your neighbor's story.  the police do an investigation and can't prove the guy walking the dog broke in.  however, you and all your buddies presume that person is guilty because your neighbor says he did it even though your neighbor can't remember what time or how he broke in.  sound familiar?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: OCAgentGold on October 04, 2018, 10:00:17 AM
Pretty funny to watch this thread. Kavanaugh was well liked by all until Trump picked him. Clearly Swinestein just held on to Ford as a hail Mary. It took about two minutes of her testimony to determine the cheese had slid off that woman's crackers years ago and that her life probably moves from one crisis to the next. BUT, lets elect a blue wave in November so we can have an insta recession and 30 year olds can move back in their parents homes...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 10:02:28 AM
So the Dems demand an FBI investigation and now they say an FBI investigation is uncredible.

Boy, didn't see that one coming.

Dude if someone robbed your house. I think you expect the police to investigate who did it. But if they only look at your neighbor and not camera footage from your ring camera or witness that saw a car with people running from your house.

I think you might be appalled if that happens. But what do I know.

scenario: a guy from two blocks over was walking his dog near your home that evening was seen by one of your neighbors.  your neighbor accuses that guy of breaking into your home, but nobody can corroborate your neighbor's story.  the police do an investigation and can't prove the guy walking the dog broke in.  however, you and all your buddies presume that person is guilty because your neighbor says he did it even though your neighbor can't remember what time or how he broke in.  sound familiar?

But they didn’t look at the ring footage or investigate the car that left the scene. (License plate on the ring camera)

Like I previously stated, I would be okay with almost full FBI Report. (it may be good or bad)
Making this up: let’s say they said person 123 was part of insurance scams. Then I would say you know what put him on the court because I don’t believe the accuser.

According to the news (I don’t know if it’s true or not, so it’s hearsay). But they didn’t even interview his roommate in college, they didn’t even interview the people who can collaborate Ramirez allegation. (I saw a picture with Kavenaugh and Ramirez in a picture)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: OCAgentGold on October 04, 2018, 10:19:13 AM
They should have never listened to the woman, nor held a single hearing. You never validate underhandedness. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 10:21:31 AM
They should have never listened to the woman, nor held a single hearing. You never validate underhandedness.

That’s your opinion.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 10:28:44 AM
Pretty funny to watch this thread. Kavanaugh was well liked by all until Trump picked him. Clearly Swinestein just held on to Ford as a hail Mary. It took about two minutes of her testimony to determine the cheese had slid off that woman's crackers years ago and that her life probably moves from one crisis to the next. BUT, lets elect a blue wave in November so we can have an insta recession and 30 year olds can move back in their parents homes...

As Chuck Schumer said months ago, the Dems were going to oppose anyone Trump picked (Merrick Garland payback) so there's no point for Trump to pick "someone else better."  The Dems were already locked and loaded even before the nomination and BK was just unfortunate enough to be the first one to present himself downrange. The Dems will not hold their fire until all targets are dead.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: OCAgentGold on October 04, 2018, 10:31:00 AM
It certainly is, and after watching her say she is not sure who paid for her polygraph, it is ANY sane persons opinion. I mean, uh, I took a polygraph and uh well I'm uh not sure  (giggle giggle ) who paid for it? uh... really? lol She is more messed up than a hillbillies front yard
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 10:31:58 AM
Why don’t respond to my comment? Is this a bot or what?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: OCAgentGold on October 04, 2018, 10:35:10 AM
I did, its right above your this post, the other guy just responded before me ... conspiracy theory ? I'm in Laguna Altura if you wanna come by....
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 04, 2018, 11:07:10 AM
...and its dejavu all over again.


Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 11:14:10 AM
I did, its right above your this post, the other guy just responded before me ... conspiracy theory ? I'm in Laguna Altura if you wanna come by....

Who wants to come by to see you? Come on
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 04, 2018, 11:14:41 AM
I already consider this one over.  The real fun is coming when Ruth Buzzy Ginzberg vacates and Trump puts up a qualified, Catholic, woman that Feinstein has already tried to muddy up.  They will be squirming to find dirt on a woman and still claim the #metoo high ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 04, 2018, 12:05:05 PM
Banana republic = A president who is under investigation for conspiring in the subversion of his own election and obstruction of justice —- apparently rigged the investigation of his Supreme Court nominee —- who lied to the senate under oath and who thinks presidents shouldn’t be investigated.

But now we own the libs , so yes #winning ! 

As I said before , this is the ideal outcome for midterms . Just because he is confirmed doesn’t mean you will stop hearing about him and the leaks from other FBI agents etc
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 12:13:37 PM
Banana republic = A president who is under investigation for conspiring in the subversion of his own election and obstruction of justice —- apparently rigged the investigation of his Supreme Court nominee —- who lied to the senate under oath and who thinks presidents shouldn’t be investigated.

But now we own the libs , so yes #winning ! 

As I said before , this is the ideal outcome for midterms . Just because he is confirmed doesn’t mean you will stop hearing about him and the leaks from other FBI agents etc

I demand the FBI interview all 100 million Facebook users who saw the alleged Russian placed ads, under oath with questions provided by Prospective, to see if their vote in 2016 was influenced by the ads. If the FBI does not respond to my demand, as far as I'm concerned, that will be conclusive evidence HRC lost because of the Russians.
 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
In the unlikely, but very possible, event the Dems take the Senate next month, Trump will have two years (presumably) remaining in his term. What if a liberal SCOTUS Justice dies or resigns in 2019? Will the Reps support the Dems' position that the next President should pick the Justice, especially considering the Dems' takeover of both houses of Congress in 2018?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 04, 2018, 02:12:26 PM
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a lifelong Republican, told a small crowd in Boca Raton that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s performance at confirmation hearings should disqualify him. “The Senators should pay attention to this.”

—-> being out of your powerful seat frees you up to speak your mind, a luxury many of these red state senators don’t have given how craven and rabid the base is — the biggest fear is getting primaried from the right

This is the trump loving base —- “ Doug Jones, who indicated last week he would vote no on Kavanaugh, says says his female staff have been threatened by Kavanaugh supporters.
“I’ve had callers telling the young women that answer my phones that they hope they are sexually assaulted."
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2018, 03:22:03 PM
FedSoc Is A Hosting A “I Still Like Beer” Event, Because Of Course They Are
The only thing FedSoc thinks was "too soon" was desegregation.


And now for a reminder that the Federalist Society thinks putting an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court is great fun. From Cornell Law School:

"The Federalist Society presents
'I still like beer.'
How big beer uses regulation
to harm craft breweries"

Get it? It’s about beer regulations. And their choice for the Supreme Court repeatedly lied under oath about how much beer he drank. So it’s funny.

Join the FedSoc next week when they host a gun regulation symposium titled: “The Unarmed Saps Of Sandy Hook.” I’ll bet they co-sponsor it with Fisher-Price who will offer a “My First AR-15” as a door prize.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/fedsoc-is-a-hosting-a-i-still-like-beer-event-because-of-course-they-are/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on October 04, 2018, 03:28:31 PM
That's the same problem the Dems are having, getting primaried from the left. 

Frankly, it's why I will vote for Katie Porter in the CA-45.  It's two years.  She help stifle Trump and she can be replaced in two years if Trump heads out.  If Trump doesn't then she may stay longer.  Or she'll just be completely ineffective making no difference.

Of course, now that I've said that, she'll get in, stick like a tick and we'll have Californiaesque one party super majority in 2020 at the Federal level...

I wonder who will get the coveted air resource board appointment at the newly created federal equivalent?  And who will be the $250K/yr orange county homeless czar?  Will it be a single Federal appoint or will be need twelve regional homeless resource boards?

BTW, you should vote on the gas tax, Prop 6.  Aka Eliminates certain road repair...

I know, you're thinking but a yes vote removes the tax, it does.  But that's winning just the battle losing the war mindset.  You'll get spanked down again as the legislature will pass more onerous taxes.

You really need to vote no.

That's right, vote no.

Make all the people in the State pay the ___ing taxes that they keep clamoring the legislature for by sending the people to the legislature.  Nothing makes people evaluate their government better than paying the bill.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 03:32:51 PM
That's the same problem the Dems are having, getting primaried from the left. 

Frankly, it's why I will vote for Katie Porter in the CA-45.  It's two years.  She help stifle Trump and she can be replaced in two years if Trump heads out.  If Trump doesn't then she may stay longer.  Or she'll just be completely ineffective making no difference.

Of course, now that I've said that, she'll get in, stick like a tick and we'll have Californiaesque one party super majority in 2020 at the Federal level...

I wonder who will get the coveted air resource board appointment at the newly created federal equivalent?  And who will be the $250K/yr orange county homeless czar?  Will it be a single Federal appoint or will be need twelve regional homeless resource boards?

BTW, you should vote on the gas tax, Prop 6.  Aka Eliminates certain road repair...

I know, you're thinking but a yes vote removes the tax, it does.  But that's winning just the battle losing the war mindset.  You'll get spanked down again as the legislature will pass more onerous taxes.

You really need to vote no.

That's right, vote no.

Make all the people in the State pay the ___ing taxes that they keep clamoring the legislature for by sending the people to the legislature.  Nothing makes people evaluate their government better than paying the bill.

You should of put this post in the Mimi thread.. ;D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 03:42:05 PM
FedSoc Is A Hosting A “I Still Like Beer” Event, Because Of Course They Are
The only thing FedSoc thinks was "too soon" was desegregation.


And now for a reminder that the Federalist Society thinks putting an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court is great fun. From Cornell Law School:

"The Federalist Society presents
'I still like beer.'
How big beer uses regulation
to harm craft breweries"

Get it? It’s about beer regulations. And their choice for the Supreme Court repeatedly lied under oath about how much beer he drank. So it’s funny.

Join the FedSoc next week when they host a gun regulation symposium titled: “The Unarmed Saps Of Sandy Hook.” I’ll bet they co-sponsor it with Fisher-Price who will offer a “My First AR-15” as a door prize.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/fedsoc-is-a-hosting-a-i-still-like-beer-event-because-of-course-they-are/


Wine coolers are the official drink of the resistence.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 04, 2018, 04:23:13 PM
FedSoc Is A Hosting A “I Still Like Beer” Event, Because Of Course They Are
The only thing FedSoc thinks was "too soon" was desegregation.


And now for a reminder that the Federalist Society thinks putting an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court is great fun. From Cornell Law School:

"The Federalist Society presents
'I still like beer.'
How big beer uses regulation
to harm craft breweries"

Get it? It’s about beer regulations. And their choice for the Supreme Court repeatedly lied under oath about how much beer he drank. So it’s funny.

Join the FedSoc next week when they host a gun regulation symposium titled: “The Unarmed Saps Of Sandy Hook.” I’ll bet they co-sponsor it with Fisher-Price who will offer a “My First AR-15” as a door prize.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/fedsoc-is-a-hosting-a-i-still-like-beer-event-because-of-course-they-are/


Wine coolers are the official drink of the resistence.

whine coolers
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 05:03:17 PM
In the unlikely, but very possible, event the Dems take the Senate next month, Trump will have two years (presumably) remaining in his term. What if a liberal SCOTUS Justice dies or resigns in 2019? Will the Reps support the Dems' position that the next President should pick the Justice, especially considering the Dems' takeover of both houses of Congress in 2018?

Unless the economy tanks next year, Trump will still be president in 2020 so a liberal SCOTUS judge should not resign under any circumstances in 2019 and if one dies....Weekend at Bernie's until 2024.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 04, 2018, 05:36:44 PM
This is an admission of a liberal “New York Times” writer at how off the reservation the Democrats attack has devolved, it is well worth reading as to what alcoholics refer to as , “a moment of clarity.”

For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump

For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.

We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey’s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.

https://outline.com/ft6meE (https://outline.com/ft6meE)


https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0 (https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2018, 05:45:53 PM
In the unlikely, but very possible, event the Dems take the Senate next month, Trump will have two years (presumably) remaining in his term. What if a liberal SCOTUS Justice dies or resigns in 2019? Will the Reps support the Dems' position that the next President should pick the Justice, especially considering the Dems' takeover of both houses of Congress in 2018?

Unless the economy tanks next year, Trump will still be president in 2020 so a liberal SCOTUS judge should not resign under any circumstances in 2019 and if one dies....Weekend at Bernie's until 2024.

Weekend at Bernie’s is Bernie Sanders
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 04, 2018, 06:02:52 PM
If you want any basic awareness of the world and culture , read the Sunday New York Times.  It is among the best investments in yourself that you can make.  You can always skip the opinion pages as I do . 

If anyone is still keeping score, the “liberal New York Times “ gifted you trump by breaking the email server story and focusing way too much on it .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2018, 06:05:52 PM
This is an admission of a liberal “New York Times” writer at how off the reservation the Democrats attack has devolved, it is well worth reading as to what alcoholics refer to as , “a moment of clarity.”

For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump

For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.

We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey’s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.

https://outline.com/ft6meE (https://outline.com/ft6meE)

Hell has frozen over. Seriously.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 08:07:18 AM
So, for those of you who think Kavenaugh will forever be dogged by a nasty asterisk you need to re-read the mirror image of Clarence Thomas's nomination process.  He seems to have done just fine but at the time of his hearings it looked quite similar and had the same partisan rancor and results.  Read this article written by Juan Williams (no friend of Kavenaugh).  It was written in 1991 but all you have to do is change a few names and presto!! Could have come out this morning,  and it will again.  It is all a game.

OPEN SEASON ON CLARENCE THOMAS

The phone calls came throughout September. Did Clarence Thomas ever take money from the South African government? Was he under orders from the Reagan White House when he criticized civil rights leaders? Did he beat his first wife? Did I know anything about expense account charges he filed for out-of-town speeches? Did he say that women don't want equal pay for equal work? And finally, one exasperated voice said: "Have you got anything on your tapes we can use to stop Thomas."

The calls came from staff members working for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were calling me because several articles written about Thomas have carried my byline. When I was working as a White House correspondent in the early '80s, I had gotten to know Thomas as a news source and later wrote a long profile of him.

The desperate search for ammunition to shoot down Thomas has turned the 102 days since President Bush nominated him for a seat on the Supreme Court into a liberal's nightmare. Here is indiscriminate, mean-spirited mudslinging supported by the so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations. They have been mindlessly led into mob action against one man by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Moderate and liberal senators, operating in the proud tradition of men such as Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy, have allowed themselves to become sponsors of smear tactics that have historically been associated with the gutter politics of a Lee Atwater or crazed right-wing self-promoters like Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Even the final vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on whether to recommend Thomas for confirmation turned into a shameless assault on Thomas by the leading lights of progressive Democratic politics. For example, in an incredibly bizarre act, Chairman Joseph Biden stood up after a full slate of testimony and said Thomas would make a "solid justice," but then voted against him anyway.

At the time of the vote, two of the committee's Democrats later explained to me, the members of the Judiciary Committee figured it would make no difference, since Thomas had the votes to gain confirmation from the full Senate. So, they decided, why not play along with the angry roar coming from the Leadership Conference? "Thomas will win, and the vote will embarrass Bush and leave {the Leadership Conference} feeling that they were heard," explained one senator on the committee.

Now the Senate has extended its attacks on fairness, decency and its own good name by averting its eyes while someone in a position to leak has corrupted the entire hearing process by releasing a sealed affidavit containing an allegation that had been investigated by the FBI, reviewed by Thomas's opponents and supporters on the Senate committee and put aside as inconclusive and insufficient to warrant further investigation or stop the committee's final vote.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley said on the Senate floor Tuesday that the smears heaped on Thomas amounted to the "worse treatment of a nominee I've seen in 11 years in the Senate." Sen. Dennis DeConcini said it "is inconceivable, it is unfair and I can't imagine anything more unfair to the man." And Sen. Orrin G. Hatch described the entire week's performance as a "last-ditch attempt to smear the judge."

Sadly, that's right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/10/10/open-season-on-clarence-thomas/1126ce5b-c63c-447b-b496-545b198d4dcd/?utm_term=.c37ae5b82acf (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/10/10/open-season-on-clarence-thomas/1126ce5b-c63c-447b-b496-545b198d4dcd/?utm_term=.c37ae5b82acf)

Sound Familiar?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 08:12:42 AM
Trust the process (not)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 08:24:06 AM
Amy Schumer, Emily Ratajkowski Arrested at Kavanaugh Protest on Capitol Hill


https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-schumer-emily-ratajkowski-arrested-at-kavanaugh-protest-on-capitol-hill

This says it all!  ;D

https://www.instagram.com/p/BohlM1nBk0_/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Is that really the best look when protesting sexual harassment? ;D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on October 05, 2018, 08:48:01 AM
Is that really the best look when protesting sexual harassment? ;D

What's her clothing have to do with sexual harassment??
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 09:06:51 AM
Is that really the best look when protesting sexual harassment? ;D

Once again, confirming everyone's stereotypes of Trump enthusiasts.

Would you make this joke at work? Would you make it among friends? Would you tell this joke to your wife and daughter (assuming you're male and straight married to a woman, and have a daughter)?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 09:12:08 AM
Yes. My wife thought it was funny, My Democrat friends thought it was funny, my daughter is very modest but she thought it was funny.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
Any corroborating evidence for Trump's lie today about Soros paying for Kavanaugh protesters? Or is he just taking more cues from Fox and getting in a globalist Jew innuendo?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 09:27:43 AM
Not that it matters now but these two sure are on the payroll...

Several women have also approached lawmakers to share their stories of surviving sexual assault, most notably two who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh.

One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, works for the Center for Popular Democracy, which is funded in part by Soros.

Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George  Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.


Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.”
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 09:39:40 AM
“CNBC article: Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, retired Justice Stevens says

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court because of "potential bias" he showed in his recent Senate confirmation hearing.

Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said he started out believing that Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed, "but his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind."

Stevens cited commentary by Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe and others suggesting Kavanaugh had raised doubts about his political impartiality when he asserted that sexual misconduct accusations he faced stemmed from an "orchestrated political hit" funded by left-wing groups seeking "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/05/kavanaugh-does-not-belong-on-supreme-court-retired-justice-stevens-says.html

My comment:
Ex Sumpreme Court Judge Stevens changed his mind on Kavenaugh. In other words, I liked him at first, but not any more.

I don’t know if this will change the GOP vote. K is likely to get confirmed.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 09:54:21 AM
Not that it matters now but these two sure are on the payroll...

Several women have also approached lawmakers to share their stories of surviving sexual assault, most notably two who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh.

One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, works for the Center for Popular Democracy, which is funded in part by Soros.

Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George  Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.


Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.”

So, what percentage of these activists' foundations' budgets, would need to be from Soros' funds, for this to be considered a truthful statement?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 09:59:03 AM
So if political impartiality (as Stevens cites) is a no no for any Supreme Court Justice should we then begin proceedings to impeach Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg?  She is clearly partisan and that brings into question her ability to impartially judge the cases before her...don't you think?

How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance

It began during the 2016 election campaign, when Ginsburg broke the politics-what-politics? stance usually favored by Supreme Court justices, speaking out bluntly about her concerns regarding Trump.
"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," Ginsburg told The New York Times in a July 2016 interview in her Supreme Court chambers. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don't even want to contemplate that." Ginsburg doubled down on those comments in a subsequent interview with CNN, calling Trump a "faker," and adding: ""He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 10:13:32 AM
Hah, I actually agree with morekaos on this. SCOTUS is a political institution. These judges have records that lean heavily in one political direction or the other, when they're nominated to SCOTUS. We know how Kavanaugh will vote. His threats in his testimony won't change that.

I think you'll have to hold both the Presidency and the Senate in order to get any SCOTUS nominee on the court going forward. That's just how it is.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 10:17:54 AM
It’s like recommending a person for a job. Stevens recommended him, and then said never mind.

Wash the hand, save the reputation.  ;D

We need more people like this.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 05, 2018, 10:18:39 AM
So if political impartiality (as Stevens cites) is a no no for any Supreme Court Justice should we then begin proceedings to impeach Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg?  She is clearly partisan and that brings into question her ability to impartially judge the cases before her...don't you think?

How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance

It began during the 2016 election campaign, when Ginsburg broke the politics-what-politics? stance usually favored by Supreme Court justices, speaking out bluntly about her concerns regarding Trump.
"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," Ginsburg told The New York Times in a July 2016 interview in her Supreme Court chambers. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don't even want to contemplate that." Ginsburg doubled down on those comments in a subsequent interview with CNN, calling Trump a "faker," and adding: ""He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html)

no need to impeach, she'll be gone within the next 2 years.  this whole kavanaugh debate has revealed the democrats' true colors and was just what the republicans needed to completely eliminate any chance of a "blue wave" next month.  the people are finally seeing the truth in that it was all a political hit job to take down a good man.  i predict republicans will gain 1-2 seats in the senate and when baby ruth taps out trump will nominate an even more conservative judge to the court who will be confirmed much easier than this shameful exhibition.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
It'll be Amy Coney Barrett for the coup de gras.


https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck (https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
Please explain how this is a political hit job?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 10:44:19 AM
Not that it matters now but these two sure are on the payroll...

Several women have also approached lawmakers to share their stories of surviving sexual assault, most notably two who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh.

One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, works for the Center for Popular Democracy, which is funded in part by Soros.

Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George  Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.


Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.”

So, what percentage of these activists' foundations' budgets, would need to be from Soros' funds, for this to be considered a truthful statement?

When over 50% of the 2015 total budget is from Soros then yah, thats on the payroll.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 11:04:30 AM
Hmm, not seeing the "50%" fact in your un-cited source. Just seeing "heavily funded."
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
Just stop the charade Trump enthusiasts. That's all I ask. Trump's sole purpose in mentioning Soros is because he's a big target of the Breitbart, Drudge, Fox, et al. crowd, and you know why. You're perpetuating this bigotry by defending it.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 11:17:41 AM
Just stop the charade Trump enthusiasts. That's all I ask. Trump's, sole purpose in mentioning Soros is because he's a big target of the Breitbard, Drudge, Fox, et al. crowd, and you know why. You're perpetuating this bigotry by defending it.

They are getting it from a website or something.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2018, 11:37:39 AM
And the Koch Brothers and Asher Adelson are bogymen for the left...so what?  Is it not bigoted because they're white or Gasp... Jewish?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 05, 2018, 12:54:14 PM
And the Koch Brothers and Asher Adelson are bogymen for the left...so what?  Is it not bigoted because they're white or Gasp... Jewish?

Adelsons contribution is documented by Bloomberg , and verified w election filings . He is the single biggest donor for the midterms . There are also various inside the who’re house sources detailing his influence on the state department  .

As opposed to the tinfoil hat theories about Soros every time the right wing swamp needs a monster  :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 01:31:34 PM
Collins' reasoning is fair, for the most part, but deeply disingenuous in many areas, if not purposely naive. Kavanaugh's on the Federalist list for a reason. They expect him to vote a certain way on many issues. To suggest otherwise, is deeply dishonest.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 01:41:19 PM
Collins' reasoning is fair, for the most part, but deeply disingenuous in many areas, if not purposely naive. Kavanaugh's on the Federalist list for a reason. They expect him to vote a certain way on many issues. To suggest otherwise, is being dishonest.

It what it is. But that no limit scope that Flake wanted never happened. Also, what about Ramirez? There’s a picture of Ramirez and Kavenaugh in the same picture at Yale.

A brief history comment. Nixon nominated 2 people for Supreme Court and they didn’t go through. I can also name Democrat presidents that nominated people and they didn’t go through. So the notion if the President nominates a person to the Supreme Court. The person should automatically be on the Supreme Court is false. The person should be fit and qualified for the position.

Another example is George W Bush nominated Miers to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact she withdrew her self.

“President Bush says Harriet Miers asked him to withdraw her Supreme Court nomination because of Senate pressure to release internal White House documents in which she offered him confidential advice. But the president's nomination of his White House counsel, who had no prior experience as a judge, faced opposition almost from the moment it was announced.”

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4976787
 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 02:01:10 PM
Collins' reasoning is fair, for the most part, but deeply disingenuous in many areas, if not purposely naive. Kavanaugh's on the Federalist list for a reason. They expect him to vote a certain way on many issues. To suggest otherwise, is being dishonest.

It what it is. But that no limit scope that Flake wanted never happened. Also, what about Ramirez? There’s a picture of Ramirez and Kavenaugh in the same picture at Yale.

A brief history comment. Nixon nominated 2 people for Supreme Court and they didn’t go through. I can also name Democrat presidents that nominated people and they didn’t go through. So the notion if the President nominates a person to the Supreme Court should be automatically go to the Supreme Court is false. The person should be fit and qualified for the position.

Another example is George W Bush nominated Miers to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact she withdrew her self.

“President Bush says Harriet Miers asked him to withdraw her Supreme Court nomination because of Senate pressure to release internal White House documents in which she offered him confidential advice. But the president's nomination of his White House counsel, who had no prior experience as a judge, faced opposition almost from the moment it was announced.”

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4976787

Right, but the sole limitation is political risk/blowback. The Reps are betting that getting this SCOTUS nominee in now, is worth any political negatives that may result. Make no mistake, they know the House is gone, and they're concerned about the Senate.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 05, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
Saw  a good observation that Collins through her speech , went out of her way to try to ingratiate herself to Republicans, in an effort to fend off a GOP primary challenge. She decided she'd rather have an easier primary battle and a more difficult general election one, rather than the other way around.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 05, 2018, 02:31:13 PM
Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim.  Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean.  This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.

i just looked into my crystal ball.  i see us at october 5th having not learned anything more than we know today.  kav gets a vote on the senate floor and he gets 54 votes - all R vote yes and 3 dems in R states vote to appeal to their voters.

quote me in 1 week.

my crystal ball needs a little calibration, but the result remains the same!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
Collins' reasoning is fair, for the most part, but deeply disingenuous in many areas, if not purposely naive. Kavanaugh's on the Federalist list for a reason. They expect him to vote a certain way on many issues. To suggest otherwise, is being dishonest.

It what it is. But that no limit scope that Flake wanted never happened. Also, what about Ramirez? There’s a picture of Ramirez and Kavenaugh in the same picture at Yale.

A brief history comment. Nixon nominated 2 people for Supreme Court and they didn’t go through. I can also name Democrat presidents that nominated people and they didn’t go through. So the notion if the President nominates a person to the Supreme Court should be automatically go to the Supreme Court is false. The person should be fit and qualified for the position.

Another example is George W Bush nominated Miers to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact she withdrew her self.

“President Bush says Harriet Miers asked him to withdraw her Supreme Court nomination because of Senate pressure to release internal White House documents in which she offered him confidential advice. But the president's nomination of his White House counsel, who had no prior experience as a judge, faced opposition almost from the moment it was announced.”

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4976787

Right, but the sole limitation is political risk/blowback. The Reps are betting that getting this SCOTUS nominee in now, is worth any political negatives that may result. Make no mistake, they know the House is gone, and they're concerned about the Senate.

Solution: have debates, and then make it a popular vote. Hehhe
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2018, 02:40:17 PM
Kavanaugh should be introduced now, as a Supreme Court Justice, Yale undergrad, Yale Law School, and Renate alumnist.

He can't object, right? This is a term of endearment, clearly. Get your sick minds out of your libtard gutter!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: WTTCHMN on October 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Kavanaugh should be introduced now, as a Supreme Court Justice, Yale undergrad, Yale Law School, and Renate alumnist.

Alumnius, alumnist...

Gee,your spelling is as shitty as Kavanaugh's.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 05, 2018, 03:23:59 PM
hope it was worth it.  he could be in jail longer than kavanaugh will be on the supreme court!

Quote
Staffer who 'doxed' GOP senators faces nearly 50 years in federal prison

The former Democratic congressional staffer who posted personal information about Republican senators online faces nearly 50 years in prison.

Jackson Cosko, a 27-year-old Washington, D.C., resident, was arrested Wednesday by U.S. Capitol Police when he was caught sneaking into the offices of Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., after 10 p.m. Tuesday and using an aide’s computer and log-in.

He was charged with five federal offenses: making public restricted personal information, making threats in interstate commerce, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, and witness tampering.

The criminal complaint against him also charges him with second-degree burglary and unlawful entry, which are both criminal offenses in D.C.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/staffer-who-doxed-republican-senators-faces-nearly-50-years-in-federal-prison (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/staffer-who-doxed-republican-senators-faces-nearly-50-years-in-federal-prison)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 05, 2018, 06:07:27 PM
And the Koch Brothers and Asher Adelson are bogymen for the left...so what?  Is it not bigoted because they're white or Gasp... Jewish?

Adelsons contribution is documented by Bloomberg , and verified w election filings . He is the single biggest donor for the midterms . There are also various inside the who’re house sources detailing his influence on the state department  .

As opposed to the tinfoil hat theories about Soros every time the right wing swamp needs a monster  :)

Not just right wing Americans dislike Mr. Soros. Soros is a global currency manipulator. Ask the families of the thousands of Thai and Malaysians who committed suicide in 1997 what they think of Mr. Soros. One of the reasons the RMB is not freely tradable is the PRC trying to protect itself from global manipulators like Soros.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1906325/how-beijing-and-hong-kong-sent-billionaire-george-soros-packing
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 05, 2018, 06:18:56 PM
Kavanaugh should be introduced now, as a Supreme Court Justice, Yale undergrad, Yale Law School, and Renate alumnist.

Alumnius, alumnist...

Gee,your spelling is as shitty as Kavanaugh's.
Don't be so hard on Perspective, he spells better that some people with a masters from Stanford and PhD from USC.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 05, 2018, 06:47:34 PM
And the Koch Brothers and Asher Adelson are bogymen for the left...so what?  Is it not bigoted because they're white or Gasp... Jewish?

Adelsons contribution is documented by Bloomberg , and verified w election filings . He is the single biggest donor for the midterms . There are also various inside the who’re house sources detailing his influence on the state department  .

As opposed to the tinfoil hat theories about Soros every time the right wing swamp needs a monster  :)

Not just right wing Americans dislike Mr. Soros. Soros is a global currency manipulator. Ask the families of the thousands of Thai and Malaysians who committed suicide in 1997 what they think of Mr. Soros. One of the reasons the RMB is not freely tradable is the PRC trying to protect itself from global manipulators like Soros.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1906325/how-beijing-and-hong-kong-sent-billionaire-george-soros-packing

Sorry but You have No damn clue how global currency markets work . I will leave it at that .  Do your self a favor and get out of this conspiracy mindset .

I would give a 101 tutorial on this at some time  , but this is the wrong thread . All I will say is , had Soros not shorted the sterling back when he made his first fortune , some other hedge fund would have, Soros was just early and quick .

The bass brothers , staunch republicans , got their clock cleaned shorting the yuan unsuccessfully 2 years ago. This is what rich guys who think they are smarter than everyone else , and with too much time and money on their hands,  do . 

On a macro level , Shorts are what keeps the markets , governments and central banks honest .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 05, 2018, 07:05:32 PM
And the Koch Brothers and Asher Adelson are bogymen for the left...so what?  Is it not bigoted because they're white or Gasp... Jewish?

Adelsons contribution is documented by Bloomberg , and verified w election filings . He is the single biggest donor for the midterms . There are also various inside the who’re house sources detailing his influence on the state department  .

As opposed to the tinfoil hat theories about Soros every time the right wing swamp needs a monster  :)

Not just right wing Americans dislike Mr. Soros. Soros is a global currency manipulator. Ask the families of the thousands of Thai and Malaysians who committed suicide in 1997 what they think of Mr. Soros. One of the reasons the RMB is not freely tradable is the PRC trying to protect itself from global manipulators like Soros.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1906325/how-beijing-and-hong-kong-sent-billionaire-george-soros-packing

 All I will say is , had Soros not shorted the sterling back when he made his first fortune , some other hedge fund would have, Soros was just early and quick .


There are some Jewish people to this day who will not ride Metrolink because it is operated by a subsidiary of the French railroad company SNCF. Back in WWII, SNCF has a contract with the German government to deport Jewish civilians from Western European cities to the camps in the east. SNCF sent over 76,000 Jewish men, women, and children to be murdered in the extermination camps. SNCF's reason why they did that?: if we didn't do it, there were plenty of other railroad companies in Europe who would have so it wouldn't have made any difference. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576833/French-railway-firm-finally-set-make-reparations-U-S-transporting-76-000-Jews-Nazi-death-camps-seeks-secure-billion-dollar-contract.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 05, 2018, 07:22:28 PM
OMG , we are really off the deep end now — and here I thought only liberals resorted to labeling w “nazi” comparisons when they were sore losers ...   guess nazi labeling is an equal opportunity profession

Are Republicans really going to compare short sellers —- the lifeblood of capitalism and free markets — to nazis enablers ?

Elon musk has a job waiting for you :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 06, 2018, 10:37:27 PM
Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all “witnesses ” will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session

missed Tuesday but ahhhhh....yah
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 06, 2018, 10:48:12 PM
"The sergeant at arms will bring order to the gallery"....Bahahahahahaahahaahah!!!! Oh #winning
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 08, 2018, 11:22:22 AM
you don't say?! isn't it funny how after losing, democrats now want to walk back the praise they had for creepy porn lawyer?  what happened to believing all women?  during the hearing process, the democrats were not the least bit afraid of using swetnick's claims to push their smear of kavanaugh.

Quote
Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh

A host of Democratic senators and senior aides told CNN that the allegations from Avenatti's client gave the GOP an opening to conflate -- and dismiss -- all the allegations in one broad brush.

"Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations," said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, when asked about the allegations raised by Avenatti and his client. "It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that's not where we should be."

Asked if Avenatti was helpful, Peters said: "I think we should have focused on the serious allegations that certainly appeared very credible to me that would be our best course of action."
Privately, the assessment was far more scathing.

"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

A Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said: "Not helpful at all. I think Susan was always yes, but Avenatti was a useful foil."

Reached for comment Saturday, Avenatti pushed back, criticizing anonymous Democrats as "cowards" and saying the assessment shows the "failed leadership" in the Democratic Party.
"It is outrageous that these so-called Democrats would attack a sexual assault victim from coming forward," Avenatti told CNN. "I guess their position is that she should have shut her mouth and remained silent? It is disgusting that these cowards blame my client and the other accusers from coming forward.""

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 12, 2018, 12:16:24 PM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 12, 2018, 12:39:32 PM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

Would you be surprised to learn that several cities here in Southern California have contracts with private law firms to act as the official city prosecutor? In other words, there is nothing unethical about a private attorney acting as a public prosecutor or a public prosecutor acting as a private attorney so long as there is no direct conflict of interest and there are ethical walls in place at the firms.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 12, 2018, 12:54:44 PM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

Would you be surprised to learn that several cities here in Southern California have contracts with private law firms to act as the official city prosecutor? In other words, there is nothing unethical about a private attorney acting as a public prosecutor or a public prosecutor acting as a private attorney so long as there is no direct conflict of interest and there are ethical walls in place at the firms.

Okay... Thanks for sharing. Now, care to share how this is remotely relevant to my comment?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 12, 2018, 03:22:00 PM
The new normal:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/corner-store-caroline-woman-calls-police-9-year-old-boy-sexual-assault-182833690.html

Hope this kid is never nominated for the SCOTUS.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 12, 2018, 03:26:45 PM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

this is an opinion piece likely written by someone who got their feelings hurt by the outcome. where does it say that mitchell might be facing professional misconduct inquiries?  i don't see anywhere in the article where it states anyone is even looking into this.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 12, 2018, 07:03:17 PM
Just abolish the damn supreme  court and move on ... it may eventually come to that .

If the backward portion of red states want to ban abortion , let them . They will lose industry and jobs and become even more parasitic on the federal government . Sometime you have to plumb the depths of moral and literal bankruptcy to be able to rise up from it.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 12, 2018, 07:16:41 PM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

this is an opinion piece likely written by someone who got their feelings hurt by the outcome. where does it say that mitchell might be facing professional misconduct inquiries?  i don't see anywhere in the article where it states anyone is even looking into this.

Read it again. Try harder.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 13, 2018, 06:29:50 AM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

this is an opinion piece likely written by someone who got their feelings hurt by the outcome. where does it say that mitchell might be facing professional misconduct inquiries?  i don't see anywhere in the article where it states anyone is even looking into this.

Read it again. Try harder.

10/10
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 13, 2018, 07:37:04 AM
The attorney, behind whom the Reps hid in cowardice, might be facing professional misconduct incquiries:

Rachel Mitchell Violated National Prosecutorial Standards
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rachel-mitchell-violated-national-prosecutorial-143739791.html

Her State Bar should be interested in that letter she wrote too, suggesting "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a crime in this case. She came to this conclusion having barely asked the alleged perp any questions.

Job well done prosecutor! Not sure why you accepted this request. Hope you were paid well.

this is an opinion piece likely written by someone who got their feelings hurt by the outcome. where does it say that mitchell might be facing professional misconduct inquiries?  i don't see anywhere in the article where it states anyone is even looking into this.

Read it again. Try harder.

You mean i actually have to read something as opposed to pasting a gif or video to own the libs ? 

Naaah
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on October 13, 2018, 10:58:56 AM
Oh please, Rachel Mitchell was pawn, used and discarded, she didn't even make thru the 2nd half before the Senate Republicans discarded her.  She willingly participated in a political pony show and she knew it.  She was clear.

Crystal clear when she, the seasoned prosecutor questioned the witness as to why  didn't insist on an appropriate forensic interview.

Sorry Ms. Prosecutor, why didn't you?  You're the professional prosecutor stepping up to the National stage?

And if her attorney's railroaded it, why did you play along?

I'm tired of this shit.

I'm tired of the shit I keep seeing in my media feeds.  They're really fucking clear.

(https://www.kansas.com/latest-news/nx43uq/picture219638800/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/ford.JPG)

That's about as tame as the many versions of that I've seen get.  Let that sink in. Birds of a feather.





Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 14, 2018, 07:30:14 AM
this thread is yesterday's news.  let me know when mitchell actually faces any consequences, when kavanaugh is actually impeached, or when your precious roe v wade is overturned (spoiler: none of those will happen).  till then, see you back in this thread when trump is ready to nominate his 3rd scotus justice.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 14, 2018, 02:53:45 PM
this thread is yesterday's news.  let me know when mitchell actually faces any consequences, when kavanaugh is actually impeached, or when your precious roe v wade is overturned (spoiler: none of those will happen).  till then, see you back in this thread when trump is ready to nominate his 3rd scotus justice.

Going by your logic , you should continue ignoring everything on the political threads — since when has even  trump faced any consequences for his actions ? So why bother

But you pop up every now and then to show everyone how “smart “ you are by pretending to ignore the very topic that you are responding to

And let me add a smiley face to the end of my post , to enhance the coolness factor - :)  there . Now I am ignoring everything , fellas — Don’t you see it
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 16, 2018, 01:32:40 PM
Further education for anyone sufficiently misinformed, to kindly phrase it, to use the term "Originalist" when defining their view of the Constitution. It's complete nonsense. It always has been.

America Has Always Been A Colorblind Society Says Dolt Who Unfortunately Picks All Our Federal Judges
Who wants to tell Leonard Leo?

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/america-has-always-been-a-colorblind-society-says-dolt-who-unfortunately-picks-all-our-federal-judges/
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 16, 2018, 03:53:30 PM
Further education for anyone sufficiently misinformed, to kindly phrase it, to use the term "Originalist" when defining their view of the Constitution. It's complete nonsense. It always has been.

America Has Always Been A Colorblind Society Says Dolt Who Unfortunately Picks All Our Federal Judges
Who wants to tell Leonard Leo?

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/america-has-always-been-a-colorblind-society-says-dolt-who-unfortunately-picks-all-our-federal-judges/


Let's cut the crap. The reason the libs favor the "living document" view of the Constitution is because it favors current liberal positions. The reason the conservatives favor the "textualist" view of the Constitution is because it favors current conservative positions. It's that simple, all other rationales are BS.

The libs favor the living document view because gun control and affirmative action are contrary to the text of the 2nd and 14th Amendments respectively and the right to privacy, the basis for abortion rights, is nowhere to be found within the four corners of the Constitution. That's why libs are not textualists, no other reason.

Why do libs hate the Electoral College? Because it gives rural states, which currently trend conservative, a disportionate say in who is president. If someday rural states became liberal and urban areas became conservative, the libs woudl love the Electoral College. Politics is all about power, not principle.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 16, 2018, 04:58:49 PM
Long post , but you can just reply with “this is why trump won” in large font and that will be fine . For others , read on ...

Rural areas are never liberal are they ? People living in cities live in proximity to diversity - of thought , religious persuasion, color , ethnic backgrounds . It is no secret even in red states, cities vote liberal .

I will extend this further —  Instead of asking "who's the real America," let's ask — Who, today, reflects values that were once the bedrock of American virtue?  No one has that monopoly now.  But I'll gladly defend the cities as more tolerant and generally less dumb than sparser rural areas.

Who's more out of touch withe majority of their fellow citizens? That's not even close — most people in this country are not evangelical or small town or rural or uneducated. And you don't need field trips to go ask them to be more tolerant and informed.

For a long time - I have been fed up with the idea that "we" have to understand "them," even as the "them" dwindles in numbers and hardens in dopey and intentional aversion to facts and knowledge. 

I'm all for outreach - to people of good will with whom You might disagree, and who are willing to learn new things even if those new things make them uncomfortable. But I am tired of people calling for “coastal elites” to go find the dejected "forgotten" people.

America's cities, for one thing, are full of dejected, forgotten people who wrestle with drugs and crime and unemployment. They're just not the right color for the sympathy the new MAGA duds declare we're supposed to deploy in the heartland.

This is why for dems  it’s important to harp on the popular vote point to counter the notion that gop represents a movement of “the people” versus “elites”

There are lots of potential non-majoritarian sources of political legitimacy that one could claim (constitution etc) —- but Republicans are deeply invested in the argument that they are the authentic voice of real Americans while relying exclusively on non-majoritarian institutions for power.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 16, 2018, 05:19:19 PM
Long post , but you can just reply with “this is why trump won” in large font and that will be fine . For others , read on ...


Not just Trump, but George W. Bush also won the presidential election despite Al Gore getting more popular votes. The EC was designed by the founding fathers to protect sparsely populated states from heavily populated ones. It's doing what its supposed to do.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 16, 2018, 05:27:07 PM
Long post , but you can just reply with “this is why trump won” in large font and that will be fine . For others , read on ...


Not just Trump, but George W. Bush also won the presidential election despite Al Gore getting more popular votes. The EC was designed by the founding fathers to protect sparsely populated states from heavily populated ones. It's doing what its supposed to do.

Don’t even try to put lipstick on this pig — electoral college was a sop to slave owning states   

The constitution is not some law of gravity that cannot be changed. Slavery was legal at one time , now it is not . Segregation was legal and now it is not (although some republicans wish it were) .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 17, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Long post , but you can just reply with “this is why trump won” in large font and that will be fine . For others , read on ...


Not just Trump, but George W. Bush also won the presidential election despite Al Gore getting more popular votes. The EC was designed by the founding fathers to protect sparsely populated states from heavily populated ones. It's doing what its supposed to do.

Don’t even try to put lipstick on this pig — electoral college was a sop to slave owning states   

The constitution is not some law of gravity that cannot be changed. Slavery was legal at one time , now it is not . Segregation was legal and now it is not (although some republicans wish it were) .

There you people go again, making everything about race, and facts, and truth. Stop it!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 17, 2018, 12:54:59 PM
Long post , but you can just reply with “this is why trump won” in large font and that will be fine . For others , read on ...


Not just Trump, but George W. Bush also won the presidential election despite Al Gore getting more popular votes. The EC was designed by the founding fathers to protect sparsely populated states from heavily populated ones. It's doing what its supposed to do.

Don’t even try to put lipstick on this pig — electoral college was a sop to slave owning states   

The constitution is not some law of gravity that cannot be changed. Slavery was legal at one time , now it is not . Segregation was legal and now it is not (although some republicans wish it were) .

There you people go again, making everything about race, and facts, and truth. Stop it!

Ha ha

Another way of putting it — Congratulations liberals, by being against the bad thing you have made good people like me support the bad thing. This should teach you not to be against bad things in the future if you want good people like me on your side.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 17, 2018, 04:30:34 PM
Making structural changes to the Constitution, such as get rid of the Electoral College, based on the current situation is a dangerous game. How do you know that in the future Wyoming will always be rep and California will always be dem? Was California always dem in the past? Libs always get burned when they do shit like this. The Libs thought they were so clever with Roe v. Wade by creating a new Constitutional right outside of the text of the Constitution. However, by freeing judges from the text of laws, they opened the door to judicial activism that conservatives have used with gusto against the liberals. Without Roe, there would be no Citizens United.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 17, 2018, 04:43:09 PM
Witches to hex Justice Kavanaugh:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/witches-plan-multiple-mass-hexes-163449284.html

Unfortunately: "In the past, witches across the country have hexed President Donald Trump. None of these hexes stopped Trump from being president or Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court judge"
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 17, 2018, 05:04:42 PM
Yawns who thinks of these things. Another conspiracy
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 18, 2018, 01:47:11 PM
Making structural changes to the Constitution, such as get rid of the Electoral College, based on the current situation is a dangerous game. How do you know that in the future Wyoming will always be rep and California will always be dem? Was California always dem in the past? Libs always get burned when they do shit like this. The Libs thought they were so clever with Roe v. Wade by creating a new Constitutional right outside of the text of the Constitution. However, by freeing judges from the text of laws, they opened the door to judicial activism that conservatives have used with gusto against the liberals. Without Roe, there would be no Citizens United.

Good to see the acknowledgement that conservative justices deviate from the text of the Constitution. In 2018, corporations are persons for First Amendment purposes, in conservative justices' eyes. Gotta follow tortured logic to arrive there.

There's a very fair and reasonable argument to be made against the "privacy" right liberal justices created.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 25, 2018, 11:17:07 AM
Couldn't happen to a Creepier guy!

Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnik Referred for Criminal Prosecution Over Bogus Kavanaugh Claims

nfamous porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnik have been referred for criminal prosecution after making a series of false claims to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client’s allegations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s," Chairman Chuck Grassley's office released in a statement Thursday. "The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice Department."

Avenatti and Swetnik are being referred for the federal criminal offenses of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress. The recommended charges are detailed in a 29-page letter issued by the Committee.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/10/25/breaking-avanatti-n2531943 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/10/25/breaking-avanatti-n2531943)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Cares on October 25, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
Couldn't happen to a Creepier guy!

Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnik Referred for Criminal Prosecution Over Bogus Kavanaugh Claims

nfamous porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnik have been referred for criminal prosecution after making a series of false claims to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client’s allegations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s," Chairman Chuck Grassley's office released in a statement Thursday. "The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice Department."

Avenatti and Swetnik are being referred for the federal criminal offenses of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress. The recommended charges are detailed in a 29-page letter issued by the Committee.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/10/25/breaking-avanatti-n2531943 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/10/25/breaking-avanatti-n2531943)

THE IRONY. Grassley referring for a criminal investigation AFTER he pushed someone through to a lifelong appointment. He certainly didn't seem to care for investigations during the hearings.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 25, 2018, 01:19:14 PM
What’s more loathsome - legally representing a porn actress, or f’ing a porn star while married to your third wife 30 years younger home with your newborn?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on October 25, 2018, 11:07:52 PM
What’s more loathsome - legally representing a porn actress, or f’ing a porn star while married to your third wife 30 years younger home with your newborn?
f'ing a porn star while married, if the wife doesn't approve, would be more loathsome.  That's a deflection, however, as the "cheater" isn't really part of this topic.

That deflection doesn't nullify the fact that the lawyer is pretty sleazy. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 26, 2018, 04:58:39 AM
This is very clarifying isn’t it ?

WP — What happens if Democrats subpoena Trump's tax returns? Newt Gingrich says it will have to go to the Supreme Court, and "we'll see if the Kavanaugh fight was worth it."


Evangelicals — God wants you to overturn abortion and at the same time protect the sanctity of marriage — , uh no , I meant sanctity of trump tax fraud

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 26, 2018, 06:18:27 AM
What’s more loathsome - legally representing a porn actress, or f’ing a porn star while married to your third wife 30 years younger home with your newborn?
f'ing a porn star while married, if the wife doesn't approve, would be more loathsome.  That's a deflection, however, as the "cheater" isn't really part of this topic.

That deflection doesn't nullify the fact that the lawyer is pretty sleazy.

“Deflection”? Why is this lawyer famous? Why are Trump enthusiasts here talking about him? Why are they attacking his character? Look in a mirror.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: spootieho on October 27, 2018, 12:27:36 AM
What’s more loathsome - legally representing a porn actress, or f’ing a porn star while married to your third wife 30 years younger home with your newborn?
f'ing a porn star while married, if the wife doesn't approve, would be more loathsome.  That's a deflection, however, as the "cheater" isn't really part of this topic.

That deflection doesn't nullify the fact that the lawyer is pretty sleazy.

“Deflection”? Why is this lawyer famous? Why are Trump enthusiasts here talking about him? Why are they attacking his character? Look in a mirror.
They attack his character, because he is an annoying clown.  He makes himself a target for that.  Certain people deserve it.

Yeah.  What you did was textbook deflection.  Its something people do when they have nothing valid to contribute. 

Mirror? Lol.  Im not the brainwashed one with his head stuck so far up his party’s ass that he cant accept the guy is clown.  Btw, i gave you the courtesy of answering your question. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2018, 06:46:14 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 27, 2018, 06:59:54 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...

Ha, you'll get nowhere arguing w spotiho --  he complains a lot about civility while using words like a__h__ (full word not the bleeped out version)

Others Trump supporters at least get the insanity of it all and play along at times, this dude is wound up way too tight about how self important he is  --  needs some serious therapy to chill once in a while     
 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 27, 2018, 09:36:14 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...

You mean like complaining about Russian hackers but maintain total silence about what the hackers revealed abut the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on October 27, 2018, 09:50:15 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...

You mean like complaining about Russian hackers but maintain total silence about what the hackers revealed abut the DNC and the Clinton campaign?

With all that’s going on and all that has transpired wrt the trump admin , you guys will never win a game of  whataboutism.

Let’s just leave it at that and spare all those forum readers who may be using “recent posts “ link to read
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2018, 10:34:59 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...

You mean like complaining about Russian hackers but maintain total silence about what the hackers revealed abut the DNC and the Clinton campaign?

Who here’s done this?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on October 27, 2018, 10:55:36 AM
He’s famous because he represents a porn star whom Trump f’d & paid to keep quiet. So, complaining about his morality or mere existence in the press, & ignoring why he’s there in the first place, is idiotic. But, that’s Trump enthusiasts for you...

You mean like complaining about Russian hackers but maintain total silence about what the hackers revealed abut the DNC and the Clinton campaign?

Who here’s done this?
There's a whole thread on this board called "The Investigation" where people here on this very board rant ceaselessly about the Russians.

No one on the liberal side recognizes the tremendous service that the hackers, Wikileaks, and Julian Assange did for the American people in revealing the depth of corruption and dishonesty the Dems.

Although Obama was apparently ok with Wikileaks reveaing stuff about Repubicans (George W. Bush administration) with his pardon of Chelsea Manning.

To American political leaders of all parties, you'd better behave because:

WIKILEAKS IS WATCHING YOU!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2018, 11:49:32 AM
There’s no complaining in that thread about Russians. 99% of the complaints are likely related to Trump’s despicable daily behavior regarding the investigation.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 27, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
There’s no complaining in that thread about Russians. 99% of the complaints are likely related to Trump’s despicable daily behavior regarding the investigation.

because it's a hoax, began under false pretenses and undermining to your duly elected president
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2018, 02:20:55 PM
There’s no complaining in that thread about Russians. 99% of the complaints are likely related to Trump’s despicable daily behavior regarding the investigation.

because it's a hoax, began under false pretenses and undermining to your duly elected president

I’ll assume, for the sake of your credibility, that this is attempted humor.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on October 27, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
There’s no complaining in that thread about Russians. 99% of the complaints are likely related to Trump’s despicable daily behavior regarding the investigation.

because it's a hoax, began under false pretenses and undermining to your duly elected president

I’ll assume, for the sake of your credibility, that this is attempted humor.

i'll assume, for the sake of our country, that trump will be cleared of any collusion or wrongdoing by the end of the year
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on October 27, 2018, 04:44:34 PM
Boys and girls wait until after the midterms. A big announcement will be made regarding the investigation. (according to different public reports)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on November 02, 2018, 05:02:45 PM
great read.  good luck to this woman in prison #believeallwomen

Quote
I am once again writing regarding fabricated allegations the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recently received. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee processed the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, leading to his eventual confirmation on October 6, 2018. As part of that process, the Committee has investigated various allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh. The Committee’s investigation has involved communicating with numerous individuals claiming to have relevant information. While many of those individuals have provided the Committee information in good faith, it unfortunately appears some have not. As explained below, I am writing to refer Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for materially false statements she made to the Committee during the course of the Committee’s investigation.

On September 25, 2018, staffers for Senator Harris, a Committee member, referred an undated handwritten letter to Committee investigators that her California office had received signed under the alias “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California.  The letter contained highly graphic sexual-assault accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. The anonymous accuser alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her “several times each” in the backseat of a car. In addition to being from an anonymous accuser, the letter listed no return address, failed to provide any timeframe, and failed to provide any location -- beyond an automobile -- in which these alleged incidents took place.

...

Then, on October 3, 2018, Committee staff received an email from a Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton with a subject line claiming: “I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA -- Kavanaugh raped me.”

Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote that she was “sharing with you the story of the night that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car” and referred to “the letter that I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19 with details of this vicious assault.” She continued: “I know that [‘]Jane Doe[’] will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of revealing any information about myself or my family.” She then included a typed version of the Jane Doe letter.

Committee investigators began investigating Ms. Munro-Leighton’s allegations. Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky. In order to investigate her sexual-assault claims, Committee investigators first attempted to reach her by phone on October 3, 2018, but were unsuccessful. On October 29, Committee investigators again attempted contact, leaving a voicemail. In response, Ms. Munro-Leighton left Committee investigators a voicemail on November 1, 2018.

Eventually, on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. MunroLeighton by phone and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter. When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”

She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”; (2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.” When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said:“Oh Lord, no.”

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Munro-Leighton%20Referral)%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Munro-Leighton%20Referral)%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2018, 06:42:44 AM
Next...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractures 3 ribs in fall

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs after a fall at her office Wednesday evening, the court said in a news release.

Ginsburg, 85, later experienced discomfort and was admitted to George Washington University Hospital "for observation and treatment."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fractures-3-ribs-in-fall (https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fractures-3-ribs-in-fall)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2018, 08:59:09 AM
It'll be Amy Coney Barrett for the coup de gras.


https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck (https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck)

She is next.  This woman is spectacularly qualified.  Can't wait to see what they dig up on her...seduced a priest when she was in St Marys Dominican High?...Rumored female encounter at Notre Dame?...I am sure the mud will fly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on November 08, 2018, 10:24:29 AM
Next...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractures 3 ribs in fall

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs after a fall at her office Wednesday evening, the court said in a news release.

Ginsburg, 85, later experienced discomfort and was admitted to George Washington University Hospital "for observation and treatment."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fractures-3-ribs-in-fall (https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fractures-3-ribs-in-fall)

very sad to hear, but father time catches up with everyone eventually
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on December 03, 2018, 11:47:12 AM
Democrats and Republicans are party first country second.  You can see it by the way they vote.
Republicans obstructed obama as much as possible & now Democrats are going to do the same.

This is our new normal.  Bend over and take it.
...as Russia polarizes the two sides and giggle on the sidelines at all the funny headlines their troll farm creates.

Unfortunate, but true. This is politics.

Keep this in perspective though. During the Civil Rights Era, people were beaten and killed for expressing support.
Think about the thousands who were beaten or killed under Chairman Mao based on uncorroborated allegations. Have you ever stepped on anyone's toes in your life? Exes, business partners, relatives, random acquaintances?  What if that person decides to lob a Dr. Ford caliber allegation at you? You will be doomed. "I believe women!", that's all the proof needed nowadays.

whether or not you thought there was gender inequality in the workplace before, there will certainly be inequality after this whole debacle because who in their right mind would want to hire women who could potentially take down a businesses with false claims of sexual assault?  the mentality moving forward will be that you can't even be in the same room with a woman in the workplace with the door closed to have a meeting without risking your job and your life.

like i said

Quote
Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.

Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.

Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than $1.5 billion.

This is hardly a single-industry phenomenon, as men across the country check their behavior at work, to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness -- or to simply do the right thing. The upshot is forceful on Wall Street, where women are scarce in the upper ranks. The industry has also long nurtured a culture that keeps harassment complaints out of the courts and public eye, and has so far avoided a mega-scandal like the one that has engulfed Harvey Weinstein.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on December 21, 2018, 09:32:33 AM
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg undergoes surgery

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on December 21, 2018, 10:09:18 AM
"I felt a great disturbance in The Force.... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened".


All politics aside - Wishing a speedy recovery to RBG. Tough thing to go through what with broken ribs and all the other medical issues she's had to deal with.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on December 21, 2018, 12:40:46 PM
If you're over 80yrs old, the treatment for cancer will probably be more lethal to you than the cancer.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on January 08, 2019, 01:35:55 PM
the end is nigh

Quote
Ginsburg misses second day in a row at Supreme Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent from the Supreme Court bench for the second day in a row on Tuesday.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted Ginsburg’s absence when the justices took their seats for the second time in the new year.

Repeating what he said Monday, Roberts said Ginsburg is “unable to be present” for the court’s sitting, but will participate in the decisions using transcripts of the arguments and court briefs.

Ginsburg, who was forced to miss her first oral argument in more than 25 years on Monday, is still recuperating at home after surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from the lower lobe of her left lung on Dec. 21.

The spots were found incidentally in an X-ray she had at George Washington University Hospital while being treated for fractured ribs, an injury she sustained after falling in her office on Nov. 7.

If Ginsburg is forced to step down from the court, President Trump will have the opportunity to nominate a third justice, likely cementing the court’s conservative majority and pushing its ideological balance even farther to the right for generations to come.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/424287-ginsburg-misses-second-day-in-a-row-at-supreme-court (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/424287-ginsburg-misses-second-day-in-a-row-at-supreme-court)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on January 08, 2019, 01:51:59 PM
Hopefully RBG will be able to retire with dignity and not pass before her appointed time. I'm amazed at how much ghoulish stuff about RBG being posted on the intarwebs right now. Besides RBG and her present suffering, the person I'd feel sorry for is whomever will be nominated to replace RBG or any other SCOTUS Justice for that matter. It will be an utter crucifixion, live streamed for all to witness every gory detail.

Nice to see the following regarding Kavanaugh's 1st written opinion from the bench:

"....and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President.... We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals".

That's what I wanted in a SCOTUS appointee - the refusal to legislate from the bench. (PS - this was a 9-0 decision - so good all around)

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on January 08, 2019, 03:45:14 PM
Hopefully RBG will be able to retire with dignity and not pass before her appointed time. I'm amazed at how much ghoulish stuff about RBG being posted on the intarwebs right now. Besides RBG and her present suffering, the person I'd feel sorry for is whomever will be nominated to replace RBG or any other SCOTUS Justice for that matter. It will be an utter crucifixion, live streamed for all to witness every gory detail.

Nice to see the following regarding Kavanaugh's 1st written opinion from the bench:

"....and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President.... We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals".

That's what I wanted in a SCOTUS appointee - the refusal to legislate from the bench. (PS - this was a 9-0 decision - so good all around)

My .02c

Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on January 08, 2019, 04:08:49 PM
Hopefully RBG will be able to retire with dignity and not pass before her appointed time. I'm amazed at how much ghoulish stuff about RBG being posted on the intarwebs right now. Besides RBG and her present suffering, the person I'd feel sorry for is whomever will be nominated to replace RBG or any other SCOTUS Justice for that matter. It will be an utter crucifixion, live streamed for all to witness every gory detail.

Nice to see the following regarding Kavanaugh's 1st written opinion from the bench:

"....and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President.... We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals".

That's what I wanted in a SCOTUS appointee - the refusal to legislate from the bench. (PS - this was a 9-0 decision - so good all around)

My .02c

Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government.

is that why we have so many congress members offering their legal opinions on everything trump? co-equal!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on January 08, 2019, 04:54:42 PM
Hopefully RBG will be able to retire with dignity and not pass before her appointed time. I'm amazed at how much ghoulish stuff about RBG being posted on the intarwebs right now. Besides RBG and her present suffering, the person I'd feel sorry for is whomever will be nominated to replace RBG or any other SCOTUS Justice for that matter. It will be an utter crucifixion, live streamed for all to witness every gory detail.

Nice to see the following regarding Kavanaugh's 1st written opinion from the bench:

"....and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President.... We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals".

That's what I wanted in a SCOTUS appointee - the refusal to legislate from the bench. (PS - this was a 9-0 decision - so good all around)

My .02c

Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government.

is that why we have so many congress members offering their legal opinions on everything trump? co-equal!

I will respond once that sentence makes sense.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on January 08, 2019, 06:03:57 PM
"Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government"

It seems like you're saying this is Schrödinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.

I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Irvinecommuter on January 09, 2019, 08:49:37 AM
"Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government"

It seems like you're saying this is Schrödinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.

I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.

all three branches of government have multiple roles...it's a feature...not a defect.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 10, 2019, 01:22:00 PM
Here we go again...

Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure
After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.

"It would be a brutal confirmation,” said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.”

“But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,” Malcolm added. “It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on January 14, 2019, 02:27:20 PM
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on January 17, 2019, 06:00:27 PM
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3
The Kavanaugh victory and Trump's conservative RGB replacement is entirely the result of the spectacular arrogance of the dems.

The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.


Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 17, 2019, 06:07:32 PM
In addition to notorious RBG getting replaced there are now rumblings that Clarence Thomas will voluntarily retire in the coming year so Trump can safely replace him with a conservative jurist. Something RBG should have done while Obama was President, another miscalculation on the Dems part.  #winning Nice
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on January 17, 2019, 07:31:52 PM
this thread is now a bonafide circle jerk among the same few republicans -- all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away and be replaced by another  "guy who likes beer, a lot of beer " :)

what happened to "not legislating from the bench" ?

seems like after losing popular votes , the house , being out of step with a vast majority of the country's mood and values and now likely the presidency in 2020, all they have left is nursing the fantasy of "owning " the supreme court forever -- as if it is going to make a twit of a difference in their lives .
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 17, 2019, 07:35:28 PM
No the gloating is on other threads too but this one is a specific SCOTUS gloat in keeping with its topic.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on January 17, 2019, 09:25:29 PM
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3
The Kavanaugh victory and Trump's conservative RGB replacement is entirely the result of the spectacular arrogance of the dems.

The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.


Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.

Now, now...… the dems are going to be in control after Trump is gone. They will inherit quite a mess, lots of debt, an even larger divide between the haves and have nots. I anticipate that the bear market will be over (no I think the ultimate low is not in) and we'll have new highs.

What is the fed supposed to do in that case? They can't keep the not raise rate thing going forever and the debt is going to be a real problem for the dems who will of course try to redistribute that wealth and means test everything.

I got my plan in place though...…. been offloading my wealth so they can't take it from me.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on January 18, 2019, 04:44:55 AM
Everyone else — Enjoy the MAGA circle jerk spectacle from a distance

But don’t take investment advice or advice on what the Fed will do from people who thought the equity sell off was because the markets were scared about democrats taking over the house ...   enough said :)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 18, 2019, 08:07:55 AM
You're the only one who presumes to give investment advice on this site (maybe Panda) ;), but you are right, anyone who would take investment advice from an anonymous web site posting is a fool.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on January 18, 2019, 09:07:37 AM
You're the only one who presumes to give investment advice on this site (maybe Panda) ;), but you are right, anyone who would take investment advice from an anonymous web site posting is a fool.

Really ?

Then what are all these MAGA circle jerk pronouncements about

The (Trumps) economy ?
Trade Policy ?
Why is the market up or down ?
Bond bubble ?
Housing market ?

The only thing I have done is exposed the hucksterism of people who claim to know it all but aren’t held accountable

And yes , my advice is pretty simple and free of financial advisor comissions. That’s the whole point — to expose the scam of the so called “experts “

And those who have followed my advice have made a nice chunk of change on every front — be it interest rates , stock market , or bonds .  You can hold me accountable :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 18, 2019, 09:18:15 AM
Worth every penny someone pays for it...until and as soon as you guess wrong.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on January 18, 2019, 10:53:04 AM
we can rebuild her!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qro_wQXuYvQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qro_wQXuYvQ)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Happiness on January 18, 2019, 11:04:40 AM
all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away

Says the person who wishes millions of older American voters would just hurry up and die.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 18, 2019, 11:10:32 AM
all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away

Says the person who wishes millions of older American voters would just hurry up and die.

...and NRA gun owners.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: fortune11 on January 18, 2019, 11:28:18 AM
all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away

Says the person who wishes millions of older American voters would just hurry up and die.

...and NRA gun owners.

This is called projection ... imagining onto others what you are thinking yourself ... trump does it ALL the time .. I expect nothing less from the MAGA circle jerk here

Now hurry up and scan through all my prior posts to find that “gotcha”  ..  :)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on January 29, 2019, 11:34:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AaawUrh.jpg)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on March 19, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
#winning!  thank you 9th circus, try again next time (we know you will)

Quote
Supreme Court sides with Trump on detention of immigrants

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of the Trump administration by deciding federal officials can detain immigrants at any time for possible deportation after they have served their time in the U.S. for other crimes.

The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said officials have to detain these immigrants immediately or they are exempt from ever being detained.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion for the court, and he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-on-detention-of-illegal-immigrants (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-on-detention-of-illegal-immigrants)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 20, 2019, 12:43:22 PM
Wow, just cant let this go? or just too in love with the word impeachment lately? Either way this is derangment syndrome times ten...let it go.

The Time Has Come for Democrats to Impeach Brett Kavanaugh
And no, ‘he’s just not worth it’ is not an acceptable excuse.

Donald Trump is up for reelection in about 18 months. Even if he wins, he is term-limited out of office after 2024. Even if he declares a national emergency and appoints himself dictator for life, Trump is a 72-year-old man with the diet of the Hamburglar. Most people reading this will outlive Donald Trump.

Many of us will not outlive Brett Kavanaugh. And the Constitution vests him with power for the rest of his natural life. If Democrats are going to make a move against any federal official, it should be against the Supreme Court justice who is under the cloud of 83 ethics violations.

State and federal prosecutors might someday hold Trump and his associates accountable in court for their apparent wrongdoing. Not so with Kavanaugh. Those 83 ethics complaints, all inspired by his conduct at his nomination hearings, were dismissed in December by 10th Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected 20 appeals to reinstate the complaints. No ruling has been made about the validity of any of the allegations. The court dismissed the claims because it believes it has no authority to hold a sitting Supreme Court Justice accountable.

https://www.thenation.com/article/impeach-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/impeach-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on May 13, 2019, 11:33:50 AM
Kavanaugh Sides With Liberal Justices In Ruling iPhone Users Can Sue Apple Over App Prices

https://news.yahoo.com/kavanaugh-sides-liberal-justices-ruling-162741748.html

 ;)

In my opinion, Steve Jobs would have never let this happened. I am shocked or surprised that under Tim’s leadership this has happened.
On a different note, since I am talking about Apple. I don’t even go to Apple store. It’s like the same thing and over priced. (If it wasn’t for the promotions by the carriers I wouldn’t have upgrade my phone.)

Another point. Where’s the innovative products besides the iPhone? (Don’t get me started with the apple homepod)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 05, 2019, 09:30:07 AM
Stating something we all knew from the start...politically motivated to lie and slander...typical.

Christine Blasey Ford's Lawyer: Okay Fine, Protecting Abortion Was Part of Why She Accused Kavanaugh


"In the aftermath of these hearings I believe that Christine's testimony brought about more good than the harm the misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanuagh on the court," Katz said during an event in Baltimore. "He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade we will know who he is, we know his character and we know what motivates him. It's important that we know and that's part of what motivated Christine."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/04/christine-blasey-fords-lawyer-okay-fine-abortion-was-part-of-why-she-accused-kavanaugh-n2552611 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/04/christine-blasey-fords-lawyer-okay-fine-abortion-was-part-of-why-she-accused-kavanaugh-n2552611)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 09:41:23 AM
We kinda don’t care. But we care about how you ducked out of JolleyyB conversation.

I get it run and hide.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 05, 2019, 10:12:58 AM
We kinda don’t care. But we care about how you ducked out of JolleyyB conversation.

I get it run and hide.

Of course you don't care now, because it failed.  Like I said, Christine Blazey Ford who?   You'll find her with the old newspapers under the bus.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 10:14:57 AM
We kinda don’t care. But we care about how you ducked out of JolleyyB conversation.

I get it run and hide.

Of course you don't care now, because it failed.  Like I said, Christine Blazey Ford who?   You'll find her with the old newspapers under the bus.

Not a big deal. But your running away from your JollieyBee story is hilarious. (Misspelled on purpose)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 05, 2019, 10:27:02 AM
I didn't know we were having an argument about that.  What was it over?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 05, 2019, 10:37:40 AM
I didn't know we were having an argument about that.  What was it over?

jollibee is important business you cakist!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
I didn't know we were having an argument about that.  What was it over?

The conversation was over because you got caked with the fast food data.

This is too easy. I think you need help. Go ask King for help.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 11:06:45 AM
Maybe I should stop talking to you. This is too easy.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 11:13:09 AM
Think of something to say or look up something.
It’s a bunch of puke anyways. Bunch of garbage.

I’m still waiting for you to make LB great again.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 05, 2019, 11:22:21 AM
You really want to argue about that?  Tony is a friend of mine.  When Jollibe was negotiating their first store in Daly City the Mayor of that fair town, Mike Guingona, negotiated it.  I sat in on all the dinners, here and in Makati. Mike is my cousin and was my best man at my wedding.  Think I know a bit more about that company and the family then you ever will. Start another thread if you think anyone is interested but I doubt it.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 05, 2019, 11:27:23 AM
You really want to argue about that?  Tony is a friend of mine.  When Jollibe was negotiating their first store in Daly City the Mayor of that fair town, Mike Guingona, negotiated it.  I sat in on all the dinners, here and in Makati. Mike is my cousin and was my best man at my wedding.  Think I know a bit more about that company and the family then you ever will. Start another thread if you think anyone is interested but I doubt it.

You can drop names and nobody cares. But im looking at the global sales and it kind of falls short to the competition.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 05, 2019, 11:33:06 AM
They don't expect to be Mc Donalds all over the world. They are happy to occupy a niche market mostly nested in the Filipino community.  In that market they are wildly succesful.  nuf said.


Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 08:49:12 AM
Why? just why?  This does so much to credibility damage for the Dems, why machine gun what's left of your foot?

New York Times is forced to revise 'bombshell' story detailing sexual misconduct claims against Brett Kavanaugh to say the accuser has NO memory of alleged assault at a dorm party in the 1980s and REFUSED to be interviewed

Early on Sunday, the New York Times published a 'bombshell' report describing a new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh
It came from a book by two of the paper's journalists about his college years
In the 1980s, he was allegedly seen thrusting his penis in an unnamed woman's face at a party
The incident was reported to the FBI by Max Stier, a male classmate of Kavanaugh's but no action was ever taken
The NYT journalists found out about Stier's report but he declined to be interviewed by them
The woman at the center of the claim also declined to speak to them
Her friends told the newspaper's journalists that she did not remember the alleged assault
But the NYT first version of the story left those two crucial details out

Democrats cited the report as reason for Kavanaugh to be impeached 
Now, President Trump is encouraging the Supreme Court justice to sue
The Washington Post has revealed it passed on the story last year after two people working 'on behalf' of Stier contacted them with it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468275/New-York-Times-updates-Brett-Kavanaugh-piece-add-accuser-did-not-recall-alleged-assault.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468275/New-York-Times-updates-Brett-Kavanaugh-piece-add-accuser-did-not-recall-alleged-assault.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
I’m over the Kavanaugh stuff. But the senator from Maine is facing a tough re-election. This is real news. (Real Real) (Don’t message me and blame me on pm like someone did after the midterms lol)

I just want to say. Maybe people should vote on behalf of their constituents.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:03:43 AM
You really want to argue about that?  Tony is a friend of mine.  When Jollibe was negotiating their first store in Daly City the Mayor of that fair town, Mike Guingona, negotiated it.  I sat in on all the dinners, here and in Makati. Mike is my cousin and was my best man at my wedding.  Think I know a bit more about that company and the family then you ever will. Start another thread if you think anyone is interested but I doubt it.

You say you know a lot about the company. But how come you didn’t know about the global sales compared to other companies?  The financial guru at its best.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 10:14:26 AM
Knowing that global sales of Jolibee is less than McDonalds?...Yah, that takes a degree in business to surmise.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Knowing that global sales of Jolibee is less than McDonalds?...Yah, that takes a degree in business to surmise.

You talked about the lines and the wait time. You made it seem like the demand was like Popeyes chicken sandwich. (Big demad for Popeyes chicken sandwich) But after I shared the sales info, your hype story vanished.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Liar Loan on September 16, 2019, 10:18:07 AM
It's weird how all of these accusers seem to have political connections to DC.  From the Yale Daily News:   
Quote
In 1994, Kavanaugh joined the legal team, led by Kenneth Starr, that was looking into President Bill Clinton’s real estate dealings as part of the Whitewater investigation. Later that decade, Kavanaugh co-wrote the Starr Report, which established broad grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

Those proceedings pitted Kavanaugh against a former Yale classmate, Max Stier ’87, a fellow member of Stiles College who was one of several attorneys representing Clinton during the investigation.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 10:25:49 AM
Knowing that global sales of Jolibee is less than McDonalds?...Yah, that takes a degree in business to surmise.

You talked about the lines and the wait time. You made it seem like the demand was like Popeyes chicken sandwich. (Big demad for Popeyes chicken sandwich) But after I shared the sales info, your hype story vanished.

Lines in heavily Phillipino Daly City were around the block.  Same with the Carson opening.  Popeyes was a brilliant marketing strategy nothing more.  Flips will still stand in line for Jollibee but not you haole's.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:28:05 AM
Knowing that global sales of Jolibee is less than McDonalds?...Yah, that takes a degree in business to surmise.

You talked about the lines and the wait time. You made it seem like the demand was like Popeyes chicken sandwich. (Big demad for Popeyes chicken sandwich) But after I shared the sales info, your hype story vanished.

Lines in heavily Phillipino Daly City were around the block.  Same with the Carson opening.  Popeyes was a brilliant marketing strategy nothing more.  Flips will still stand in line for Jollibee but not you haole's.

Hmm: Isn’t Flips kind of racist or derogatory term to use ? (I know you and your family is from the Philippines)

Just asking.?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:29:28 AM
Knowing that global sales of Jolibee is less than McDonalds?...Yah, that takes a degree in business to surmise.

You talked about the lines and the wait time. You made it seem like the demand was like Popeyes chicken sandwich. (Big demad for Popeyes chicken sandwich) But after I shared the sales info, your hype story vanished.

Lines in heavily Phillipino Daly City were around the block.  Same with the Carson opening.  Popeyes was a brilliant marketing strategy nothing more.  Flips will still stand in line for Jollibee but not you haole's.

This is unbelievable! Are you bringing down Popeyes? Do you honestly think Americans will choose Jollibeeee over Popeyes? (give me a break)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 10:34:44 AM
It's not cakeist if a flip calls flips flips. You know how that goes.  As for Popeyes I wasn't making a comparison just an observation of a brilliantly conceived and executed marketing plan that generated millions in free publicity for an OK sandwich..I admire their savvy manipulation of the useful idiots.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:52:10 AM
It's not cakeist if a flip calls flips flips. You know how that goes.  As for Popeyes I wasn't making a comparison just an observation of a brilliantly conceived and executed marketing plan that generated millions in free publicity for an OK sandwich..I admire their savvy manipulation of the useful idiots.

He put his hand on the Bible and lies. This is unbelievable...
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 10:56:45 AM
It's not cakeist if a flip calls flips flips. You know how that goes.  As for Popeyes I wasn't making a comparison just an observation of a brilliantly conceived and executed marketing plan that generated millions in free publicity for an OK sandwich..I admire their savvy manipulation of the useful idiots.

This is unbelievable. You are calling people that you don’t know idiots. It was not manipulation. It’s called pure genius to come up with a good tasting sandwich that is cheaper than the big time chicken fast food competitor. (I’m not going to say the name, but you know who I’m talking about) Then you have the odocity to say it’s an ok sandwich.

I have to ask. Since you say the founder/owner/whatever his title of Jolli went to your wedding. Maybe you should tell him to create a better chicken sandwich than Popeyes. Also, tell him to create a bigger demad for the chicken sandwich than Popeyes.
(Wait pause, we all know that won’t happen)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 11:00:36 AM
Yah, OK...anyways, back on topic....

From Kavanaugh to 9/11, from slavery to offensive tweets: How recent New York Times reporting controversies and embarrassing apologies have called into question the credibility of the 'newspaper of record'

The New York Times has repeatedly come under fire in recent weeks for both its coverage and a number of inappropriate social media posts
On Saturday the paper apologized for a tweet that described claims Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh thrust his penis in a girl's face at Yale as 'harmless fun'
It later revised the story about those allegations to say one of Kavanaugh's alleged victims has no memory of the incident and refused to be interviewed
Last week the Times apologized for a tweet that described airplanes taking aim at the Twin Towers on 9/11, not terrorists
In August, two senior Times staff members were accused of racism on Twitter
The outlet faced more direct scrutiny in late August after it published its '1619 Project' analyzing the history of slavery and institutional racism in the US
A number of conservatives lambasted the project, accusing the Times of dredging up racial tensions that have long been laid to rest

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 11:01:54 AM
Yay, I won. I guess he doesn’t want to talk about chicken. Sounds like a chicken. (Bad joke I know, but I couldn’t resist)

Yah, OK...anyways, back on topic....

From Kavanaugh to 9/11, from slavery to offensive tweets: How recent New York Times reporting controversies and embarrassing apologies have called into question the credibility of the 'newspaper of record'

The New York Times has repeatedly come under fire in recent weeks for both its coverage and a number of inappropriate social media posts
On Saturday the paper apologized for a tweet that described claims Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh thrust his penis in a girl's face at Yale as 'harmless fun'
It later revised the story about those allegations to say one of Kavanaugh's alleged victims has no memory of the incident and refused to be interviewed
Last week the Times apologized for a tweet that described airplanes taking aim at the Twin Towers on 9/11, not terrorists
In August, two senior Times staff members were accused of racism on Twitter
The outlet faced more direct scrutiny in late August after it published its '1619 Project' analyzing the history of slavery and institutional racism in the US
A number of conservatives lambasted the project, accusing the Times of dredging up racial tensions that have long been laid to rest

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 16, 2019, 11:06:02 AM
even better - blasey ford's father supported kavanuagh...why would the father of an esteemed doctor support the man who raped her, hmmmmmm?

Quote
'I’m glad Brett was confirmed': Blasey Ford's father supported Kavanaugh confirmation

Christine Blasey Ford's father supported the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even while his daughter testified under oath that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her as a teen.

Blasey Ford's father, Ralph Blasey had privately expressed strong support for Kavanaugh throughout his arduous confirmation process, according to the Federalist.

The report, conducted by Justice on Trial authors Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino, notes the absence of commentary on Blasey Ford's behalf from her close family as she accused Kavanaugh of pinning her down at a high school house party in the 1980s.

The report recalls that Blasey Ford's accusations were never corroborated by any of the witnesses she claimed were present at the time of the alleged attack and that her own memory failed to provide concrete details of the events in question. An investigation conducted by the FBI in light of the accusations also failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by then-nominee Kavanaugh.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/im-glad-brett-was-confirmed-blasey-fords-father-supported-kavanaugh-confirmation (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/im-glad-brett-was-confirmed-blasey-fords-father-supported-kavanaugh-confirmation)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 16, 2019, 11:24:09 AM
It's weird how all of these accusers seem to have political connections to DC.  From the Yale Daily News:   
Quote
In 1994, Kavanaugh joined the legal team, led by Kenneth Starr, that was looking into President Bill Clinton’s real estate dealings as part of the Whitewater investigation. Later that decade, Kavanaugh co-wrote the Starr Report, which established broad grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

Those proceedings pitted Kavanaugh against a former Yale classmate, Max Stier ’87, a fellow member of Stiles College who was one of several attorneys representing Clinton during the investigation.

the left is getting increasingly desperate to delegitimize the supreme court because there are some high profile cases upcoming re: gun control, illegals voting, and the wall that they cannot afford to lose.  further, rbg is not well, continuously fighting cancer, and past the avg. lifespan of a woman in the usa.  expect 2020 to be a big year for the future of the ussc as it goes 6-3 conservative for many years to come.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 11:30:41 AM
I don’t know how it goes. That’s why I asked. If I remember correctly you never been to the Philippines. How do you know that they like to be called?

It's not cakeist if a flip calls flips flips. You know how that goes.  As for Popeyes I wasn't making a comparison just an observation of a brilliantly conceived and executed marketing plan that generated millions in free publicity for an OK sandwich..I admire their savvy manipulation of the useful idiots.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 16, 2019, 11:45:01 AM
Been there a million times. used to go quarterly, managed offshore funds for PNB and several Tai Pans.  I can call them whatever I want. Right to their faces...they laugh, unlike haole snowflakes.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: MTalltheway on September 16, 2019, 03:01:25 PM
Yah, OK...anyways, back on topic....

From Kavanaugh to 9/11, from slavery to offensive tweets: How recent New York Times reporting controversies and embarrassing apologies have called into question the credibility of the 'newspaper of record'

The New York Times has repeatedly come under fire in recent weeks for both its coverage and a number of inappropriate social media posts
On Saturday the paper apologized for a tweet that described claims Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh thrust his penis in a girl's face at Yale as 'harmless fun'
It later revised the story about those allegations to say one of Kavanaugh's alleged victims has no memory of the incident and refused to be interviewed
Last week the Times apologized for a tweet that described airplanes taking aim at the Twin Towers on 9/11, not terrorists
In August, two senior Times staff members were accused of racism on Twitter
The outlet faced more direct scrutiny in late August after it published its '1619 Project' analyzing the history of slavery and institutional racism in the US
A number of conservatives lambasted the project, accusing the Times of dredging up racial tensions that have long been laid to rest

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468933/New-York-Times-reporting-controversies-embarrassing-apologies-call-credibility-question.html)

Fake news strikes again?  :D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 03:12:28 PM
No one is saying fake news.
It is what it is. No one responded to my comment about the senator from Maine is having a tough re-election due to her vote.

Pick and choose? (I don’t want to talk about this, but I’ll talk about that)
Give me a big break.



Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 03:13:19 PM
It's not cakeist if a flip calls flips flips. You know how that goes.  As for Popeyes I wasn't making a comparison just an observation of a brilliantly conceived and executed marketing plan that generated millions in free publicity for an OK sandwich..I admire their savvy manipulation of the useful idiots.

If you say Popeyes has an ok sandwhich how about Jollywe? (even though Popeyes sandwhich is sold out, and people are acting crazy about the chicken sandwhich) real news
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 16, 2019, 03:17:55 PM
.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Kings on September 16, 2019, 03:25:13 PM
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0Iyau7QcKtKUYIda/source.gif)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 18, 2020, 05:51:33 PM
It'll be Amy Coney Barrett for the coup de gras.


https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck (https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck)

She is next.  This woman is spectacularly qualified.  Can't wait to see what they dig up on her...seduced a priest when she was in St Marys Dominican High?...Rumored female encounter at Notre Dame?...I am sure the mud will fly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett)

$hit...meet fan!!
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on September 18, 2020, 06:40:17 PM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 18, 2020, 07:35:46 PM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c

Trump the anti christ?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on September 18, 2020, 07:58:43 PM
No one knows..... So many to choose from....

Anyway, if The Tang Menace really wanted to make everyone's head spin he should nominate Merrick Garland.

The nominee will be female. The hearings will take place in late October with one party doing their best to "Kavenaugh" the new Justice. A vote is likely in Mid-November post election. We'll see soon enough.

There isn't enough popcorn on the planet to sustain this kind of event watching.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 18, 2020, 09:34:34 PM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c

Trump the anti christ?

The Anti Christ is a likeable and very trustworthy character. Does that sound like Trump?

My money is on Bezos.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 18, 2020, 10:03:54 PM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c

Trump the anti christ?

The Anti Christ is a likeable and very trustworthy character. Does that sound like Trump?

My money is on Bezos.

Very trustworthy? Covid is a joke. No need to worry. Someone sneezes during WH meeting. Make a dash and everybody leaves the room. He calls US soldiers and his supporters losers. Lol
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Ready2Downsize on September 18, 2020, 10:24:18 PM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c

Trump the anti christ?

The Anti Christ is a likeable and very trustworthy character. Does that sound like Trump?

My money is on Bezos.

Very trustworthy? Covid is a joke. No need to worry. Someone sneezes during WH meeting. Make a dash and everybody leaves the room. He calls US soldiers and his supporters losers. Lol

Then why do you think he's the anti christ? The anti christ has everyone's SUPPORT. Everyone trusts the anti christ.

That does not sound like Trump to me.

Bezos otoh knows what you read, who you know, who your friends are, what movies you watch. He controls a national newspaper, wants to be your bank, wants to have you buy groceries with no need for actual money to change hands, wants to be your pharmacy etc etc.

Obviously most "trust" bezos. They freely give him lots of data every day.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on September 19, 2020, 01:07:44 AM
Great...Now we have wildfires on both coasts......


Many Christians have asked "Why isn't America found in Revelations?"  - because we've likely torn ourselves apart as a nation. That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

My .02c

Trump the anti christ?

The Anti Christ is a likeable and very trustworthy character. Does that sound like Trump?

My money is on Bezos.

Very trustworthy? Covid is a joke. No need to worry. Someone sneezes during WH meeting. Make a dash and everybody leaves the room. He calls US soldiers and his supporters losers. Lol

Then why do you think he's the anti christ? The anti christ has everyone's SUPPORT. Everyone trusts the anti christ.

That does not sound like Trump to me.

Bezos otoh knows what you read, who you know, who your friends are, what movies you watch. He controls a national newspaper, wants to be your bank, wants to have you buy groceries with no need for actual money to change hands, wants to be your pharmacy etc etc.

Obviously most "trust" bezos. They freely give him lots of data every day.

But Trump hates Latinos...
Isn%u2019t Donald Jr. girlfriend LatinX. I guess she needs to leave according to Trump.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on September 19, 2020, 06:02:00 AM
Bezos seems more like The Anti-Santa at this point unless he starts wading into religion at some future point in time.

"He knows when you are sleeping... He knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes...."

Better watch out, indeed!

I've seen more tears flow over secular saint Ginsburg in the last 24 hours than those shed over any Pope who has died in the last 50 years. Crazy times.

My .02c
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 22, 2020, 08:51:29 AM
Didn't expect that but a pleasant surprise...

Donald Trump sets SATURDAY as day he'll name Supreme Court pick as Mitt Romney joins Republican senators in backing president, ensuring an election-year vote on nomination
President Donald Trump said he will announce his nominee to the Supreme Court on Saturday at the White House
Trump has enough Republican support to get his pick confirmed this year
Senator Mitt Romney - the last remaining Republican holdout - said he would back the president and vote for a Supreme Court nominee in an election year
South Carolina Sen Lindsey Graham expressed confidence in Trump's chances of rushing through a Supreme Court pick in an interview Monday
It came after Iowa Sen Chuck Grassley and Colorado Sen Cory Gardner confirmed that they will back a hearing for Trump's nominee
Trump has said he is 'strongly considering' four or five women to take over Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat following her death last week 
Amy Coney Barrett is said to be the frontrunner after she met with the president at the White House on Monday

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8760277/Trump-sets-SATURDAY-Supreme-Court-pick-Mitt-Romney-joins-GOP-senators-backing-president.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8760277/Trump-sets-SATURDAY-Supreme-Court-pick-Mitt-Romney-joins-GOP-senators-backing-president.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on September 22, 2020, 09:51:31 AM
Willard Mittens got the message.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 22, 2020, 12:04:05 PM
Willard Mittens got the message.

Willard's constituents would tear him apart!!...

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2020, 01:06:45 PM
It'll be Amy Coney Barrett for the coup de gras.


https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck (https://youtu.be/f14qNOyemck)

She is next.  This woman is spectacularly qualified.  Can't wait to see what they dig up on her...seduced a priest when she was in St Marys Dominican High?...Rumored female encounter at Notre Dame?...I am sure the mud will fly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: DrTravel on September 26, 2020, 01:36:59 PM
I “heard” she worked her way through college by selling drugs but then none of her customers can remember the transactions.

Although she is religious she had an abortion as a teenager under an alias - so says an acquaintance who was sworn to secrecy under a death threat.

A “reliable” BLM supporter claims she shot an unarmed black lady and her child but was able to pin the charge and conviction on a black man.

I’m being sick and sarcastic on purpose but have a feeling what the dems will attempt will far exceed any of the above.

Thank you Harry Reid and his nuclear option.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 14, 2020, 08:37:51 AM
#Winning...that number will be over 50% by the time they vote her in...promises made..promises kept.

Poll boost for Amy Coney Barrett as 48% now say she should be confirmed with support even up among Democrats as she begins second day of SCOTUS confirmation questions
A new poll released Wednesday shows 48 per cent of registered voters believe Amy Coney Barrett should be confirmed to the Supreme Court
This is a rise from previous polls, where a vast majority of Democrats felt her nomination should be blocked s close to the election
But Democratic support for the confirmation jumped by 13 points Wednesday
The new numbers come as Barrett faced a full day of questions on Tuesday from the 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, each getting 30 minutes
She will face her second and final day of grilling on Wednesday as senators are given an additional 20 minutes to interact with Barrett

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8839147/48-say-ACB-confirmed-begins-second-day-confirmation-questions.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8839147/48-say-ACB-confirmed-begins-second-day-confirmation-questions.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on October 26, 2020, 01:02:21 PM
...and #WINNING!!! ;D >:D

Senate on track to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court in final vote this eve - and White House is planning outdoor gathering to celebrate
Mike Pence will not go to the Capitol for the Senate vote on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation Monday evening after five of his aides contracted coronavirus
'Vice President Pence is campaigning in Minnesota today. The VP is not planning to be at the Senate tonight unless his vote is needed,' an aide to Pence said
The Republican-majority Senate is expected to easily confirm Barrett, a 7th Circuit appellate judge, without needing Pence's tie-breaking vote
The vote will follow the Sunday 51-48 nearly party-line vote to advance Barrett's nomination and commence 30 hours of debate in the Senate
The White House is planning a Rose Garden celebration of her confirmation

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8880081/Senate-vote-ACB-nomination-Pence-presiding-despite-exposure-COVID-multiple-aides.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8880081/Senate-vote-ACB-nomination-Pence-presiding-despite-exposure-COVID-multiple-aides.html)
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: StarmanMBA on November 21, 2020, 11:53:52 AM
No one knows..... So many to choose from....


"We'll see soon enough."

There isn't enough popcorn on the planet to sustain this kind of event watching.

My .02c (sic)

1.  We saw, didn't we!
2.  There's still lots of popcorn available, everywhere.  You're zero for two and going down hard and fast.
3.  You indicated two one-hundredths of a cent, not two cents.

Ignorance breeds hatred as Leftists demonstrate constantly.

http://DemocratInsanity.blogspot.com
 (http://DemocratInsanity.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on November 21, 2020, 12:00:23 PM
How is liar loan doing? You and liar are the only who use the word sic and both have far right extreme views.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 21, 2020, 12:36:19 PM
Yes @StarmanMBA

It's not two cents, but .02c is to me more visibly pleasing than 0.2c. Besides, my internet opinions also are worth about two hundredths of two cents anyway, yes?

SGIP
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: eyephone on November 21, 2020, 01:08:15 PM
How is liar loan doing? You and liar are the only who use the word sic and both have far right extreme views.

How many times have I comment about this? But you never respond.
It is all good. You tend to run away just like Liar. (Too easy)

#burneraccount
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 26, 2022, 01:18:35 PM
Here we go...He can nominate a black woman and keep his campaign promise, and dump his crappy VP and kill three birds with one stone.  I just don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process.  In leu of that threefer...here are a few of his other choices.   Any way you cut it, it's going to be a push for the court.

Biden WILL nominate first black woman to SCOTUS to replace judge Stephen Breyer, 83, this summer: Choices include judge who provoked Republicans with 'Presidents aren't Kings' ruling and sister of Stacey Abrams
Justice Stephen Breyer will step down from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term
At 83, Breyer is the court's oldest member
Breyer had been under pressure from liberal activists to retire
Biden promised during campaign to nominate a black woman to the high court
'The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,' Jen Psaki said
Among likely contenders are federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Leondra Kruger, a justice on California's Supreme Court
Another contender is Judge J. Michelle Childs, of the Federal District Court in S.C., who is being pushed as a non-Ivy candidate who has diverse experience
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Biden's pick would be confirmed with 'all deliberate speed'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10444619/Stephen-Breyer-83-retire-SCOTUS-27-years.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: akula1488 on January 26, 2022, 01:39:53 PM
Disappointed. If he is going down this route, he needs a trans Asian judge. Several birds in one stone.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on January 26, 2022, 05:19:23 PM
Isn’t excluding people because of the color of their skin racist? Isn’t excluding someone because of their gender wrong?…thought so.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 21, 2022, 12:36:02 PM
How boring...this used to be fun. ;D ;D >:D
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 21, 2022, 01:48:49 PM
I just don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process.

What are you saying here? How do you know this?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 21, 2022, 02:05:33 PM
I just don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process.

What are you saying here? How do you know this?

I met her once, long ago...have several friends in California government...one at the assembly level and one at the congressional level.  The word that all of them use to describe Kamala?...."Vapid".  Turn off the lights and the teleprompter and she has nothing to say..It's scary she is in the position she's in but to go through a public Senate confirmation hearing would be truly embarrassing. Not our best and brightest.

Kamala loses her TENTH staffer since June: VP's National Security Adviser Nancy McEldowney joins staff exodus after widely-criticized trip to Poland and Romania
McEldowney will be succeeded by her deputy Philip Gordon, according to an internal email
She said that she is stepping down to 'focus on some pressing personal matters'
McEldowney is a 31-year veteran of Foreign Service, having served as ambassador to Bulgaria, and deputy chief of mission in both Azerbaijan and Turkey
Last week Harris' deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh revealed she is moving to the Defense Department
It marks the latest departure as Harris looks to recover from poor poll ratings
Last year Harris was rocked by reports of unhappiness in her office

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10635957/VPs-National-Security-Adviser-Nancy-McEldowney-stepping-10th-staffer-June.html
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 21, 2022, 02:11:33 PM
You're talking about Kamala... I thought you were talking about Kentaji Brown Jackson.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: zubs on March 21, 2022, 03:30:04 PM
I heard negative things from a friend about kamala as well.
But it could be just boys hating on ambitious women syndrome...

If dems wanna win more they need to run more white males.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: akula1488 on March 21, 2022, 03:40:07 PM
KBJ does seem pretty qualified. Just the optic is bad that she is chosen based on skin color.


Kamala on the other hand...

When the reporter asked her about US inflation, she wanted the Poland president to answer first? Lol. Then she completely gave an answer on the wrong subject, talking about the regional stability, and even that she just wants us to look at the map without giving anything of substance???

So we can look at the map because duh, Poland is bordering to Ukraine?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: nosuchreality on March 21, 2022, 03:59:22 PM
KBJ does seem pretty qualified. Just the optic is bad that she is chosen based on skin color.

Hold on folks, I'm going to agree with Akula.

Biden half tanked the nomination and gave cannon fodder to the GOP by throwing bones to the base.

He should have just said he would nominate the person he thinks can best fulfill the duties of Supreme Court Justice for the country.  And then nominate her at the appropriate time.


Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: akula1488 on March 21, 2022, 04:05:56 PM
I am a moderate...I am also pro Ukraine and I can agree with some of the points from Bernie and Young...

KBJ does seem pretty qualified. Just the optic is bad that she is chosen based on skin color.

Hold on folks, I'm going to agree with Akula.

Biden half tanked the nomination and gave cannon fodder to the GOP by throwing bones to the base.

He should have just said he would nominate the person he thinks can best fulfill the duties of Supreme Court Justice for the country.  And then nominate her at the appropriate time.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 23, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
You're talking about Kamala... I thought you were talking about Kentaji Brown Jackson.

@morekaos: So is Kentaji bright enough or not? You keep mixing your people up... you are Bidening.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 23, 2022, 01:29:10 PM
Already answered that…

You're talking about Kamala... I thought you were talking about Kentaji Brown Jackson.

@morekaos: So is Kentaji bright enough or not? You keep mixing your people up... you are Bidening.

I didn't mix anyone up, you did (better reading comprehension). ;D ;D >:D  I actually liked her acceptance speech but if you can't define what a woman is, that's pretty basic.  I am not a veterinarian but I know what a dog is.

Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Liar Loan on March 23, 2022, 01:38:19 PM
You're talking about Kamala... I thought you were talking about Kentaji Brown Jackson.

@morekaos: So is Kentaji bright enough or not? You keep mixing your people up... you are Bidening.

I didn't mix anyone up, you did (better reading comprehension). ;D ;D >:D 

This is classic.  IHO is showing his age for sure.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 23, 2022, 06:17:58 PM
You're talking about Kamala... I thought you were talking about Kentaji Brown Jackson.

@morekaos: So is Kentaji bright enough or not? You keep mixing your people up... you are Bidening.

I didn't mix anyone up, you did (better reading comprehension). ;D ;D >:D 

This is classic.  IHO is showing his age for sure.
Liar Loan stalking me because he still can't get over being wrong about Irvine pain... showing his pettiness... classic.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 23, 2022, 06:23:08 PM
Here we go...He can nominate a black woman and keep his campaign promise, and dump his crappy VP and kill three birds with one stone.  I just don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process.  In leu of that threefer...here are a few of his other choices.   Any way you cut it, it's going to be a push for the court.

@morekaos: Here is your quote. When you say "you don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process"... who are you talking about?

And then when I asked you, this was your answer:

I met her once, long ago...have several friends in California government...one at the assembly level and one at the congressional level.  The word that all of them use to describe Kamala?...."Vapid".  Turn off the lights and the teleprompter and she has nothing to say..It's scary she is in the position she's in but to go through a public Senate confirmation hearing would be truly embarrassing. Not our best and brightest.

I'm asking about Kantaji and you are answering with some situation with Kamala.

It's not my reading comprehension, it's your sentence structure which is why I'm asking for clarification.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 23, 2022, 06:43:54 PM
I just don't think she is bright enough to get through the confirmation process.

What are you saying here? How do you know this?

I was talking about Kamala the whole time…re read the original post. You then ask how I know this…(you think I’m talking about Kantaji, she hadn’t even been nominated yet.) I answer about Kamala. …you read it wrong. I was consistent.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 24, 2022, 12:21:16 AM
On Jan 26, we already knew 4 possible candidates and Kantaji was one of them. When you talk about the confirmation process, it seems like you are referring to the candidates (why would Kamala be going through a confirmation process?).

Not even sure why you are talking about Kamala in a SCOTUS thread but I think you can understand my confusion here.

So let's level set... are you okay with Kantaji?
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 24, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
On Jan 26, we already knew 4 possible candidates and Kantaji was one of them. When you talk about the confirmation process, it seems like you are referring to the candidates (why would Kamala be going through a confirmation process?).

Not even sure why you are talking about Kamala in a SCOTUS thread but I think you can understand my confusion here.

So let's level set... are you okay with Kantaji?

It was more of an observation that the opening gave Brandon the opportunity to dump his vapid VP and nominate a successor in one easy shot but she probably was too stupid to make it through the confirmation process...could kill a bunch of birds with one stone.  As for this confirmation it is a push for the court so it is not surprising to me that Brandon nominated a partisan who can't even answer simple questions about what a woman is or whether a fetus is racist...instead she evaded the obvious answers to hide a future agenda.  Is she qualified?...probably...do I support her nomination..NO. 
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: OCtoSV on March 24, 2022, 08:23:59 AM
Cruz was on fire yesterday. This nominee's testimony will be juicy fodder for the GOP in the midterms. I'm getting a copy of Anti Racist Baby.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 24, 2022, 09:02:09 AM
On Jan 26, we already knew 4 possible candidates and Kantaji was one of them. When you talk about the confirmation process, it seems like you are referring to the candidates (why would Kamala be going through a confirmation process?).

Not even sure why you are talking about Kamala in a SCOTUS thread but I think you can understand my confusion here.

So let's level set... are you okay with Kantaji?

It was more of an observation that the opening gave Brandon the opportunity to dump his vapid VP and nominate a successor in one easy shot but she probably was too stupid to make it through the confirmation process...could kill a bunch of birds with one stone.  As for this confirmation it is a push for the court so it is not surprising to me that Brandon nominated a partisan who can't even answer simple questions about what a woman is or whether a fetus is racist...instead she evaded the obvious answers to hide a future agenda.  Is she qualified?...probably...do I support her nomination..NO. 

@morekaos: Thanks for clearing that up... sort of. Who is "too stupid" here? Sounds like you're talking about someone else now. :)

Just trying to understand your position. I don't usually take someone's assessment of intelligence without context and sounds like you're just making a statement of opinion rather than fact.

I will agree that Kamala's reputation seems... mean? Much like Hillary... but I have no proof or knowledge of that like you would.
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: morekaos on March 24, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
Omg he was so funny….


CRUZ: "I’m a Hispanic man, could I decide if I was an Asian man. Would I have the ability to be an Asian man and challenge Harvard’s discrimination because I made that decision?”
Title: Re: SCOTUS
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on March 24, 2022, 06:36:35 PM
Cruz went about this the wrong way. I'd ask it in this manner to get an answer of legal substance.

"I am a man. I've committed a crime. I'm in your present courtroom - not the Supreme Court, as you are assigned to judge my case. This morning, I now identify as female... a 10 year old female. My view of reality is my truth, and truth is what the law is there to protect. Are you now required to re-assign my case to Juvenile Court, and also remand me to a female only youth facility?

If not, why not?

The candidate for SCOTUS cannot comment on a future issue before the court. A candidate can comment on a case that would be brought to their own court.

This will be another 51/50 vote and all the bread and circus machinations we've seen over the past few days is not going to move the needle. 51/50... appropriate for the crazy times we're in, no?
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2022, SimplePortal