Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Will Kavanaugh be confirmed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Burn it all down

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
dviss1 said:
I don't support attackers. Plain and simple.

Also, If y'all would've ran Kasich against Clinton, I would've voted Republican last election.
Click to expand...

I would have been happy with Kasich
 
We should all take lie detectors whether we actually believe Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.

I'm guessing that they will pretty much show no one truly thinks it happened.
 
Where does the idea that SCJ should be unbiased politically? This is non sense!
This is the main issue of this point in time! What is the role of the Constitution and how it will be interpreted.
Weather we have a stable rule of law under the Constitution that will stand for what it says, and only modified by a super Majority, or
we pretty much ignore the Constitution and let a few appointed for their wisdom but un-elected, tell us what it means, with no concern whether a strong majority is in support.

Weather we have a Constitution constructed of text we can all read and understand in the places we live. Or will we rely on appointed people to tell us what the Constitutions means regardless of what we do read, or cannot find when we read. Weather we will have a Constitution that we can support with honor when we take the oath, or one that can change without a super majority with the next
grand idea and the piper of the day.

Probably most SCJ agree with Justice RBG, in that they agree far more often than they separate into the well know position of 5 to 4.
But the 5 to 4 is what it is all about, and that is damn near always political with respect to role of the Constitution and the influence it has on the question before the Court.

The major issue in the Last Presidential election was not the list of 10 various issues, it was, Who will nominate the Next 2 or 3 Justices
and the resulting make up of the court for the next 30 years.

Those that want Kavanaugh believe in the Constitution. Probably many of them have taken an oath to uphold and defend it, sometime in their life. They Probably voted Republican, perhaps libertarian.

Those that do not want Kavanaugh, do not want the Constitution to be tightly followed and would prefer justices that are not committed to the actual text today. Getting Justices that know what is right is easier that changing the minds of the majority.

So unbiased is not correct. We examine them excruciatingly to insure they are indeed, correctly biased.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Where does the idea that SCJ should be unbiased politically? This is non sense!
This is the main issue of this point in time! What is the role of the Constitution and how it will be interpreted.
Weather we have a stable rule of law under the Constitution that will stand for what it says, and only modified by a super Majority, or
we pretty much ignore the Constitution and let a few appointed for their wisdom but un-elected, tell us what it means, with no concern whether a strong majority is in support.

Weather we have a Constitution constructed of text we can all read and understand in the places we live. Or will we rely on appointed people to tell us what the Constitutions means regardless of what we do read, or cannot find when we read. Weather we will have a Constitution that we can support with honor when we take the oath, or one that can change without a super majority with the next
grand idea and the piper of the day.

Probably most SCJ agree with Justice RBG, in that they agree far more often than they separate into the well know position of 5 to 4.
But the 5 to 4 is what it is all about, and that is damn near always political with respect to role of the Constitution and the influence it has on the question before the Court.

The major issue in the Last Presidential election was not the list of 10 various issues, it was, Who will nominate the Next 2 or 3 Justices
and the resulting make up of the court for the next 30 years.

Those that want Kavanaugh believe in the Constitution. Probably many of them have taken an oath to uphold and defend it, sometime in their life. They Probably voted Republican, perhaps libertarian.

Those that do not want Kavanaugh, do not want the Constitution to be tightly followed and would prefer justices that are not committed to the actual text today. Getting Justices that know what is right is easier that changing the minds of the majority.

So unbiased is not correct. We examine them excruciatingly to insure they indeed, correctly biased.
Click to expand...

Now that's a bunch of horseshit. Nice try.
 
MarAzul said:
Ha!
Perhaps you even believe it.
But the conclusion is not the same as mine, and right in step with what seems to be your political lean.
Click to expand...


hypocrisy
hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
  1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
 
MarAzul said:
I not sure who is included in the "y'all" but the plain simple truth is, he could not win in the primary which was probably participated in
but most conservatives and libertarians, probably quite a few democrats too. At least where local voting rules allow.
So Trump rather badly whipped, what? 17 other primary candidates including Kasich.
Click to expand...

...which tells you how fucked up and bombastic the GOP has become.
 
...I think it's wrong to assume that certain SC judges will vote a certain way on certain issues.
 
The average Republican wanted Trump.[/QUOTE]

MarAzul said:
Where does the idea that SCJ should be unbiased politically? This is non sense!
This is the main issue of this point in time! What is the role of the Constitution and how it will be interpreted.
Weather we have a stable rule of law under the Constitution that will stand for what it says, and only modified by a super Majority, or
we pretty much ignore the Constitution and let a few appointed for their wisdom but un-elected, tell us what it means, with no concern whether a strong majority is in support.

Weather we have a Constitution constructed of text we can all read and understand in the places we live. Or will we rely on appointed people to tell us what the Constitutions means regardless of what we do read, or cannot find when we read. Weather we will have a Constitution that we can support with honor when we take the oath, or one that can change without a super majority with the next
grand idea and the piper of the day.

Probably most SCJ agree with Justice RBG, in that they agree far more often than they separate into the well know position of 5 to 4.
But the 5 to 4 is what it is all about, and that is damn near always political with respect to role of the Constitution and the influence it has on the question before the Court.

The major issue in the Last Presidential election was not the list of 10 various issues, it was, Who will nominate the Next 2 or 3 Justices
and the resulting make up of the court for the next 30 years.

Those that want Kavanaugh believe in the Constitution. Probably many of them have taken an oath to uphold and defend it, sometime in their life. They Probably voted Republican, perhaps libertarian.

Those that do not want Kavanaugh, do not want the Constitution to be tightly followed and would prefer justices that are not committed to the actual text today. Getting Justices that know what is right is easier that changing the minds of the majority.

So unbiased is not correct. We examine them excruciatingly to insure they are indeed, correctly biased.
Click to expand...

But, this is only the case in about the last 40 years and then the exception during FDR's Presidency.

Before that SCJ where not questioned so closely, most were assumed to be worthy of the trust of the people.

So I would place the blame on FDR of beginning stacking the court to not strongly support the Constitution. But FDR did not actually succeed, it took time for the worm to grow. We quit putting forth Amendments to the Constitution, too hard was I think the view.
So here we are, stack the court with the correct philosophy.
 
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court, the Palm Beach Post reports.

Said Stevens: “At that time, I thought he had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected. I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”
Click to expand...

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Oh! I long for the event when one of these guys getting hassled, just drops one of these all mouths, right where they stand.
Click to expand...

Yes, a little more violence is exactly what the world needs, amiright?

barfo
 
dviss1 said:
Y'all = Republicans

And there's no disputing Trump's win. Y'all just chose the wrong guy.

Kasich is a stand up man. Trump tells 16+ lies a day.
Click to expand...

The same mistake was made by the Democrats with Hillary and why I think the system is broken. Currently, you can win either nomination without having a majority. You can have six qualified candidates in the primary that get 10% of the vote each and one person that most hate that wins 40%. You then have these two candidates that got the 40% battle each other and it does not result in someone winning that makes the most people happy. If Hillary had won, you would have probably just as many people unhappy.
 
Charcoal Filtered said:
The same mistake was made by the Democrats with Hillary and why I think the system is broken. Currently, you can win either nomination without having a majority. You can have six qualified candidates in the primary that get 10% of the vote each and one person that most hate that wins 40%. You then have these two candidates that got the 40% battle each other and it does not result in someone winning that makes the most people happy. If Hillary had won, you would have probably just as many people unhappy.
Click to expand...

Well, 3 million fewer, but I get what you are saying.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Those that do not want Kavanaugh, do not want the Constitution to be tightly followed and would prefer justices that are not committed to the actual text today. d.
Click to expand...

According to you, people who do not want Kavanaugh confirmed feel that way because it is "right in step with what seems to be your/their political lean."...that's a broad assumption and theory, and simply not always the case.
 
Before that SCJ where not questioned so closely, most were assumed to be worthy of the trust of the people.

So I would place the blame on FDR of beginning stacking the court to not strongly support the Constitution. But FDR did not actually succeed, it took time for the worm to grow. We quit putting forth Amendments to the Constitution, too hard was I think the view.
So here we are, stack the court with the correct philosophy.[/QUOTE]

Stop it @MarAzul please. Now go look into Anthony Kennedy's appointment. You'll see he was Vigorously vetted after they found out Ginsburg smoked weed. I'll wait

Don't forget about Robert Bork and the SHITSHOW that was the Clarence Thomas confirmation either.
 
Tolerant left going high once again.

According to Bell's statement, Cosko is alleged to have been confronted by the staffer and then walked out. The staffer then called police. Hours later the witness received an email from "livefreeorpwn@gmail.com" saying: “If you tell anyone I will leak it all. Emails signal conversations gmails. Senators children’s health information and socials.”

“Socials” apparently referred to social security numbers, while Signal is a secure messaging application. Bell said that there was probably cause to believe that Cosko published the information of senators, and then made threatening statements directed to the unnamed witness “with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent” the witness from reporting it to authorities.
Click to expand...



 
MarAzul said:
Stop it @MarAzul please. Now go look into Anthony Kennedy's appointment. You'll see he was Vigorously vetted after they found out Ginsburg smoked weed. I'll wait

Don't forget about Robert Bork and the SHITSHOW that was the Clarence Thomas confirmation either.
Click to expand...

@dviss1

um, Perhaps you are catching on.
Prior to Bork 31 years ago, Scalia was confirmed with a vote of 98 to 0, 32 years ago.

Even with a Republican President and Democrat Senate, John Paul Stevens was confirmed with a vote of 98 to 0 43 years ago.

Bork is about when the shit show began. With phony Ted Kennedy leading the shit parade.
Although Rehnquist a year earlier was not clean either with 65 33 vote.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top