|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2018 13:22:27 GMT -6
So, they found a way to bring up Mueller’s witch hunt:
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2018 15:00:42 GMT -6
So, discussing theoretically impeaching Supreme Court Justices now. This is exactly why they will continue to lose. How about some ideas and solutions instead of constantly attacking? Maybe because that's all they got? Seems no ICE, no borders, no profits aren't getting it done.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2018 15:01:46 GMT -6
I was sorry I missed Chuck U on the Morning Joe today. That had to be one glorious head explosion.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2018 15:14:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2018 18:11:26 GMT -6
Hollywood meltdown: Joss Whedon ✔ @joss Even CONSIDERING this nomination will cement the first American dictatorship #KavaNO 11:15 PM - Jul 9, 2018 2,282 2,906 people are talking about this Ron Perlman ✔ @perlmutations OK Ladies and Gentlemen who care for and respect ladies, it is official. The move back to Medieval Values, Shariah Law even, where old, bitter men get to tell women what is best for their bodies, lives, and well being is as done a deal as this is Twitter. Unless we say NO! NO! 9:51 PM - Jul 9, 2018 11.6K 7,777 people are talking about this Julianne Moore ✔ @_juliannemoore PLEASE we must send the Senate a clear message: This country cannot afford a justice on the Supreme Court who is likely to support the gun lobby’s extreme, absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Message your Senators now: everytown.org/scotus @everytown @momsdemand 10:00 PM - Jul 9, 2018 Rob Reiner ✔ @robreiner It’s official. Trump, who is now under investigation for obstruction of justice and conspiring with an enemy to destroy Democracy, has selected the judges who could rule on whether he can be forced to testify, be indicted or pardon himself. Autocracy here we come. VOTE!!! 9:25 PM - Jul 9, 2018 Stephen Colbert ✔ @stephenathome A senator once called Brett Kavanaugh “the Forrest Gump of Republican politics.” Which I think makes Merrick Garland “the Cast Away of Democratic politics.” 11:06 PM - Jul 9, 2018 13.9K 1,926 people are talking about this Michael Moore ✔ @mmflint What else do you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh other than he worked with Ken Starr to impeach Clinton, worked to help W win Bush v Gore Supreme Court case, and worked in both Bush White Houses. Recommended to Bush to put Alito and Roberts on the Court. He must be stopped. 1:24 AM - Jul 10, 2018 9,081 3,272 people are talking about this John Cusack ✔ @johncusack Contradicting himself as a partisan lackey all by himself - just lay his job record against his legal positions - who you gonna believe -him or your lying eyes -worked for Ken star- but a president shouldn’t be indicted - Trump picked his very own Supreme con digby @digby56 Looks like Trump picked the former Ken Starr henchman who now says he doesn't believe a sitting president should even be investigated much less indicted. Whodathunk? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/6927057/images/yBQlRCvxlnN0gyGoBPnw.png) 1:10 AM - Jul 10, 2018 222 172 people are talking about this John Leguizamo ✔ @johnleguizamo NO VOTE until after midterms AND until after the Mueller investigation 10:11 PM - Jul 9, 2018 175 183 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2018 18:17:13 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/10/clinton-campaigns-brian-fallon-previews-metoo-strategy-take-down-brett-kavanaugh/Clinton Campaign’s Brian Fallon Previews #MeToo Strategy to Take Down Brett Kavanaugh NEW YORK — Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a new progressive activist group established to play a vital role in opposing President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, spelled out the group’s battle plan against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Fallon, who served as press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, took to CNN last night, where he gave Chris Cuomo a preview of his organization’s likely attacks on Kavanaugh. Fallon spelled out two tactics that he claimed were potential “wild card” issues in the nomination. One is to attempt to stall Kavanaugh’s confirmation pending the release and full review of the thousands of pages of the Starr Report, which documented the case to impeach President Clinton and which was drafted in part by Kavanaugh. The second tactic is to raise questions, despite any current evidence, about whether Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment allegations related to former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski for which Kavanaugh clerked in 1991. Kozinski announced his retirement in December 2017 after numerous women claimed in Washington Post interviews that they were subjected to inappropriate sexual behavior. Kavanaugh was one of many lawyers who clerked for Kozinski, and Fallon presented no evidence that Kavanaugh would have known about any of those charges. Indeed, Cuomo took issue with Fallon’s strategy, and the activist made clear he had no actual evidence but still planned to raise questions. Stated Fallon: Two other issues that could be wild cards in this confirmation, number one, his work – there is a lot of papers related to his work on the Starr committee that have not been out yet. There is going to be a big effort to try to get the National Archives to release all those documents. They are going to have to go through them, peruse them, see what has to be redacted and then his e-mails from the time in the Bush White House. When it was Elena Kagan that was put forward, I think there was 170,000 some pages that required 6,000 man hours to go through all of that. So, Mitch McConnell himself indicated in a leaked story that came out in the “New York Times” that he was privately urging the Trump White House to look away from Brett Kavanaugh because he worried that the document production alone with would delay a hearing and potentially throw the schedule off. Cuomo interjected, pointing out, “But Grassley is in charge of what they are allowed to do and how long they can take.” Fallon replied, “But Grassley has been as aggressive as anybody in forcing past nominees to produce everything. So, he would be a hypocrite now if he didn’t insist on the same standard for Kavanaugh.” He then pointed to Kavanaugh’s clerkship with Kozinsky: One other thing that I think is going to be relevant, one of Brett Kavanaugh’s mentors in life and in his career as a judge is a guy by the name of Alex Kozinski who is a judge on the Ninth Circuit who had to resign in disgrace last year because of the #MeToo Movement. He was accused publicly on the record by a number of female clerks for having behaved inappropriately in chambers, and he had to resign in disgrace. Brett Kavanaugh is somebody that is friends and was a mentor and personally clerked for Alex Kozinski. I think there’s going to be a lot of senators in this hearing that want to know what he knew and when he knew it about Alex Kozinski’s behavior. Cuomo, however, took issue with some of this strategy. “What he knew if it were happening when he was there, fair line of questioning. Him being responsible for somebody else’s actions, not fair,” the host said. Fallon replied, again clearly relying on speculation: Not only was he a clerk for Alex Kozinski, I think in 1990, but Brett Kavanaugh was who was considered in the judicial world as a feeder judge for Anthony Kennedy, who he clerked for in the Supreme Court, as is Kozinski. And oftentimes, Kavanaugh would interview prospective clerks that Anthony Kennedy might have clerked for him on the Supreme Court. And Kozinski would send a lot of clerks to Brett Kavanaugh to interview for clerkships with Anthony Kennedy. So, the likelihood that Brett Kavanaugh knew what was an open secret in the Ninth Circuit about Alex Kozinski’s misbehavior is very high. I think he’s going to have to answer questions about that. “I agree there are legitimate questions, but we cannot impugn Kavanaugh with what Kozinski did unless we have knowledge of fact of what he knew at the time,” interjected Cuomo. Fallon relented, essentially conceding that he has no evidence, stating, “We will only know that if we ask the questions.”
|
|
|
Post by stinger1066 on Jul 11, 2018 4:43:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stinger1066 on Jul 11, 2018 4:52:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 11, 2018 7:27:06 GMT -6
I guess we'll see how he turns out. Hopefully not like Kennedy or Suter. I wouldn't have chosen him based on his agreement/help with the other Bush nominee Roberts to solidify Obamacare...he was the establishments choice for sure...
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 12:14:50 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/07/10/democrats-dont-fear-brett-kavanaugh-they-fear-constitution/Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh, They Fear The Constitution Originalists will preserve the constitutional order. And that's a big problem for progressives. David Harsanyi By David Harsanyi JULY 10, 2018 The other day Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Israel to receive an award for her commitment to tikkun olam (“to heal the world” in Hebrew,) a spiritual concept that progressive Jews have long distorted so that their malleable religious views could better align with leftist orthodoxy. It’s the sort of convenient philosophy that allows traditions to be subsumed by the vagaries of contemporary politics. So it is with an increasing number of Democrats and the Constitution: a document they seem believe must bend to the will of their policy preferences rather than preserve legal continuity, limited government, individual liberty, or enlightenment ideals.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 12:24:05 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32917/yale-alumni-staff-denounce-law-school-praising-paul-boisYale Law School had the temerity to publish a press release praising Brett Kavanaugh for his career accomplishments, which then prompted a furious response from the school's alumni. According to HuffPo, "as of Tuesday night, more than 200 students, staff members and alumni of Yale Law School signed an open letter calling for the institution to rescind its apparent support of Kavanaugh." Addressed to the law school's leadership and Dean Heather Gerken, the letter said that Kavanaugh's "emergency" SCOTUS nomination puts American democracy in danger. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-law-school-open-letter-brett-kavanaugh_us_5b45753ee4b0c523e263ec91docs.google.com/forms/u/1/d/e/1FAIpQLScUrOBy5sPzw1VGusbYr2VqVqPiNmO5adNdo8mIcsryvgOfrw/viewform"The press release’s focus on the nominee’s professionalism, pedigree, and service to Yale Law School obscures the true stakes of his nomination and raises a disturbing question," the letter reads. "Is there nothing more important to Yale Law School than its proximity to power and prestige?" On top of arguing that Kavanaugh's conservative bias puts the court's future at risk, the letter claims that the potential SCOTUS justice will also act as a "rubber stamp for President Trump’s fraud and abuse." "At a time when the President and his associates are under investigation for various serious crimes, including colluding with the Russian government and obstructing justice, Judge Kavanaugh’s extreme deference to the Executive poses a direct threat to our democracy," the letter continues. Some of Kavanaugh's past decisions that the letter takes issue with are those pertaining to abortion and religious liberty, which give them "grave concern that he will consistently prioritize the beliefs of third-parties over the oppressed." The letter presses Yale Law School to find some "moral courage" and rescind its support for Kavanaugh, accusing the leaders of exploiting his nomination for future prestige. If the school does not condemn Kavanaugh, the letter hilariously claims that "people will die," even though the authors clearly support abortion.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2018 13:43:26 GMT -6
Hollywood meltdown: Joss Whedon ✔ @joss Even CONSIDERING this nomination will cement the first American dictatorship #KavaNO 11:15 PM - Jul 9, 2018 2,282 2,906 people are talking about this Ron Perlman ✔ @perlmutations OK Ladies and Gentlemen who care for and respect ladies, it is official. The move back to Medieval Values, Shariah Law even, where old, bitter men get to tell women what is best for their bodies, lives, and well being is as done a deal as this is Twitter. Unless we say NO! NO! 9:51 PM - Jul 9, 2018 11.6K 7,777 people are talking about this Julianne Moore ✔ @_juliannemoore PLEASE we must send the Senate a clear message: This country cannot afford a justice on the Supreme Court who is likely to support the gun lobby’s extreme, absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Message your Senators now: everytown.org/scotus @everytown @momsdemand 10:00 PM - Jul 9, 2018 Rob Reiner ✔ @robreiner It’s official. Trump, who is now under investigation for obstruction of justice and conspiring with an enemy to destroy Democracy, has selected the judges who could rule on whether he can be forced to testify, be indicted or pardon himself. Autocracy here we come. VOTE!!! 9:25 PM - Jul 9, 2018 Stephen Colbert ✔ @stephenathome A senator once called Brett Kavanaugh “the Forrest Gump of Republican politics.” Which I think makes Merrick Garland “the Cast Away of Democratic politics.” 11:06 PM - Jul 9, 2018 13.9K 1,926 people are talking about this Michael Moore ✔ @mmflint What else do you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh other than he worked with Ken Starr to impeach Clinton, worked to help W win Bush v Gore Supreme Court case, and worked in both Bush White Houses. Recommended to Bush to put Alito and Roberts on the Court. He must be stopped. 1:24 AM - Jul 10, 2018 9,081 3,272 people are talking about this John Cusack ✔ @johncusack Contradicting himself as a partisan lackey all by himself - just lay his job record against his legal positions - who you gonna believe -him or your lying eyes -worked for Ken star- but a president shouldn’t be indicted - Trump picked his very own Supreme con digby @digby56 Looks like Trump picked the former Ken Starr henchman who now says he doesn't believe a sitting president should even be investigated much less indicted. Whodathunk? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/6927057/images/yBQlRCvxlnN0gyGoBPnw.png) 1:10 AM - Jul 10, 2018 222 172 people are talking about this John Leguizamo ✔ @johnleguizamo NO VOTE until after midterms AND until after the Mueller investigation 10:11 PM - Jul 9, 2018 175 183 people are talking about this I'd say a collective IQ of about 100 in all that. What abot Cher, Madonna, Jennifer Lawrence, and Miss Milano?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 19:19:13 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/katy-tur-questions-constitution/MSNBC host Katy Tur questioned whether or not the Constitution is an out-of-date document “given it’s 2018 and not 1776” Wednesday. “Americans have really moved in a progressive direction over the years,” Tur said. “Do you think it’s appropriate to take such a strict, originalist view of the Constitution given it’s 2018 and not 1776?” “I don’t know if Americans have become progressive on everything, certainly the times have changed since 1776. But, how you interpret the the Constitution is ultimately different from what policy preferences you want. This is a point that conservatives make pretty often about the Supreme Court, that whether you want to laws to move in a progressive or a conservative direction, the Supreme Court is a separate institution with a separate mandate under our Constitutional structure,” said J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy. Democrats and progressives have been up in arms following President Trump’s announcement that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is his nominee to replace Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy. (RELATED: Bernie Riles Up Crowd Following Trump’s Announcement For His SCOTUS Pick) While Tur mentioned the year 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was written, the Constitution was actually written in 1787.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 19:24:31 GMT -6
Ok, I hope a case comes up which allows the SCOTUS to set this in motion: www.dailywire.com/news/32940/beyond-hilarious-andrew-cuomo-threatens-sue-if-hank-berrien?ampBEYOND HILARIOUS: Andrew Cuomo Threatens To Sue If SCOTUS Overturns Roe by Hank Berrien July 11, 2018 On Wednesday, Jimmy Vielkind, Albany bureau chief for POLITICO, reported that New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who is reputedly an attorney, had a novel idea if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Jimmy Vielkind ✔ @jimmyvielkind .@nygovcuomo on abortion, at a rally in Poughkeepsie: “I will sue when the Supreme Court acts, and I want the New York State law in place." 10:25 AM - Jul 11, 2018 3 See Jimmy Vielkind's other Tweets Here is the text of what Cuomo said, in which he said he wanted to strengthen New York’s abortion protections. ![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh2CiwTXUBYQ-kl?format=jpg) Jon Campbell ✔ @joncampbellgan One of Cuomo's new favorite tricks is to say "We will sue IF..." In this case, the "if" is: 1) Kavanaugh is confirmed; 2) New York passes a law tightening its abortion laws; 3) the Supreme Court agrees to take up Roe v. Wade; 4) the court overturns Roe v. Wade 2:25 PM - Jul 11, 2018 11 24 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 19:39:10 GMT -6
To call this “troubling “ is being polite: www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-11/unprecedented-move-rosenstein-asks-100s-prosecutors-review-scotus-picks-recordsIn Unprecedented Move, Rosenstein Asks 100s Of Prosecutors To Review SCOTUS Pick's Records In a somewhat unprecedented move, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has asked the offices of all 93 U.S. attorneys to each provide up to three federal prosecutors to assist the Justice Department in reviewing government records of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Even The New York Times admits this move is "an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement."While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide. www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/politics/rosenstein-kavanaugh-document-review-prosecutors.htmlMr. Rosenstein’s email, which had the subject line “Personal Message to U.S. Attorneys From the Deputy A.G.,” included the sentence, “We need your help in connection with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.” Former law enforcement officials told the Times that Rosenstein's request is troubling. "It’s flat-out wrong to have career federal prosecutors engaged in a political process like the vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. It takes them away from the mission they’re supposed to be fulfilling, which is effective criminal justice enforcement," Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and federal prosecutor for almost 11 years, told the publication. But Michael Zubrensky, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the agency's Office of Legal Policy, said Kavanaugh's long paper trail could be the reason for Rosenstein's request. Sarah Isgur Flores, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, told the Times that prosecutors have been used in the past to vet Supreme Court nominees. "[T]he scope of the production of executive branch documents we’ve been asked for is many, many times as large," she said. Rosenstein also wrote that he would need the equivalent of 100 full-time attorneys to work on the nominee's confirmation hearing. As The Hill notes, Kavanaugh previously worked for President George W. Bush's administration, as well as for the investigation led by Kenneth Starr of former President Clinton. He left a lengthy paper trail that Democrats and outside groups opposed to his nomination are likely to search through for arguments against his confirmation. Rosenstein has faced pressure from congressional Republicans over his role in overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Democrats have raised the Mueller probe in the context of Kavanaugh's nomination, arguing that he should not be confirmed because he could end up making decisions on the probe itself.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2018 19:44:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 11, 2018 19:59:24 GMT -6
The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I think he was a bad choice...Obamacare and illegal immigration arguments are whack...seems to favor big federal government...he is completely a swamp pick...why would you pick someone that you were 80% sure instead of another on the list that's 100% sure...this guy was personally responsible for the argument that gave us obamacare...I'm calling my senators and telling them hell no...
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 11, 2018 20:16:26 GMT -6
Supported by W, rove, collins of maine and Murkowski of alaska which really bothers me...
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2018 20:51:19 GMT -6
To call this “troubling “ is being polite: www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-11/unprecedented-move-rosenstein-asks-100s-prosecutors-review-scotus-picks-recordsIn Unprecedented Move, Rosenstein Asks 100s Of Prosecutors To Review SCOTUS Pick's Records In a somewhat unprecedented move, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has asked the offices of all 93 U.S. attorneys to each provide up to three federal prosecutors to assist the Justice Department in reviewing government records of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Even The New York Times admits this move is "an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement."While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide. www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/politics/rosenstein-kavanaugh-document-review-prosecutors.htmlMr. Rosenstein’s email, which had the subject line “Personal Message to U.S. Attorneys From the Deputy A.G.,” included the sentence, “We need your help in connection with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.” Former law enforcement officials told the Times that Rosenstein's request is troubling. "It’s flat-out wrong to have career federal prosecutors engaged in a political process like the vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. It takes them away from the mission they’re supposed to be fulfilling, which is effective criminal justice enforcement," Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and federal prosecutor for almost 11 years, told the publication. But Michael Zubrensky, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the agency's Office of Legal Policy, said Kavanaugh's long paper trail could be the reason for Rosenstein's request. Sarah Isgur Flores, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, told the Times that prosecutors have been used in the past to vet Supreme Court nominees. "[T]he scope of the production of executive branch documents we’ve been asked for is many, many times as large," she said. Rosenstein also wrote that he would need the equivalent of 100 full-time attorneys to work on the nominee's confirmation hearing. As The Hill notes, Kavanaugh previously worked for President George W. Bush's administration, as well as for the investigation led by Kenneth Starr of former President Clinton. He left a lengthy paper trail that Democrats and outside groups opposed to his nomination are likely to search through for arguments against his confirmation. Rosenstein has faced pressure from congressional Republicans over his role in overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Democrats have raised the Mueller probe in the context of Kavanaugh's nomination, arguing that he should not be confirmed because he could end up making decisions on the probe itself. Just another example of looking for a crime where there isn't one. Nothing new for this hack.
|
|
|
Post by stinger1066 on Jul 12, 2018 3:59:54 GMT -6
The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I think he was a bad choice...Obamacare and illegal immigration arguments are whack...seems to favor big federal government...he is completely a swamp pick...why would you pick someone that you were 80% sure instead of another on the list that's 100% sure...this guy was personally responsible for the argument that gave us obamacare...I'm calling my senators and telling them hell no... Good luck with that. Inhofe is a cheerleader. Inhofe Praises Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh
Monday, July 9, 2018 U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) applauded President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court today: “Brett Kavanaugh is an outstanding choice for the Supreme Court. Throughout his experience on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh has shown a commitment to upholding the Constitution and respecting judicial restraint. He has a strong history of decisions that respect religious liberty and the Second Amendment and has been a leader in ensuring the court respects the limit of executive authority, especially as it relates to environmental regulations. I applaud the president on selecting yet another well-qualified, respected judicial nominee and look forward to Judge Kavanaugh receiving a fair, thorough nominations process and then a swift up-or-down vote.” www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/inhofe-praises-nomination-of-judge-kavanaughLankford remains open minded: “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an impressive and qualified nominee to be considered for the Supreme Court and it is vitally important that he receives a fair impartial nomination process in the Senate. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to meeting Judge Kavanaugh and evaluating his judicial philosophy. The Supreme Court has an obligation to protect the Constitution and to stand for the rule of law. A jurist who acts within the bounds of the Constitution and interprets the law as written protects the rights of all Americans to live in liberty.” www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-lankford-statement-on-presidents-supreme-court-nominee
|
|
|
Post by heff on Jul 12, 2018 6:33:49 GMT -6
The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I think he was a bad choice...Obamacare and illegal immigration arguments are whack...seems to favor big federal government...he is completely a swamp pick...why would you pick someone that you were 80% sure instead of another on the list that's 100% sure...this guy was personally responsible for the argument that gave us obamacare...I'm calling my senators and telling them hell no... I see this pick as one of internal strategic politics.
It's a placating move. The Neo-Cons/Karl Rove'ites of the GOPe still control the party, plus they have the Senate by the balls right now - after the midterms, you can have retards like Murkowski and Collins who would have 100% opposed Barrett completely de-nutted in the Senate.
Ginsburg is when/where he will shift the court. I'd save Barrett for that, too. A woman for a woman - the Identity Politic obsessed Neo-Marxists will have to eat their own tail.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 12, 2018 8:06:32 GMT -6
The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I think he was a bad choice...Obamacare and illegal immigration arguments are whack...seems to favor big federal government...he is completely a swamp pick...why would you pick someone that you were 80% sure instead of another on the list that's 100% sure...this guy was personally responsible for the argument that gave us obamacare...I'm calling my senators and telling them hell no... I see this pick as one of internal strategic politics.
It's a placating move. The Neo-Cons/Karl Rove'ites of the GOPe still control the party, plus they have the Senate by the balls right now - after the midterms, you can have retards like Murkowski and Collins who would have 100% opposed Barrett completely de-nutted in the Senate.
Ginsburg is when/where he will shift the court. I'd save Barrett for that, too. A woman for a woman - the Identity Politic obsessed Neo-Marxists will have to eat their own tail.
You never know what is going on behind the scenes. Trump may simply have not had the votes for Barrett. If the GOP can expand their Senate majority to say, 54-46, then Trump can tell Collins and Murkowski to go screw themselves for future confirmation votes, and nominate whoever the hell he wants to.
|
|
|
Post by heff on Jul 12, 2018 8:35:42 GMT -6
I see this pick as one of internal strategic politics.
It's a placating move. The Neo-Cons/Karl Rove'ites of the GOPe still control the party, plus they have the Senate by the balls right now - after the midterms, you can have retards like Murkowski and Collins who would have 100% opposed Barrett completely de-nutted in the Senate.
Ginsburg is when/where he will shift the court. I'd save Barrett for that, too. A woman for a woman - the Identity Politic obsessed Neo-Marxists will have to eat their own tail.
You never know what is going on behind the scenes. Trump may simply have not had the votes for Barrett. If the GOP can expand their Senate majority to say, 54-46, then Trump can tell Collins and Murkowski to go screw themselves for future confirmation votes, and nominate whoever the hell he wants to. Precisely! This also slightly hamstrings the Democrats. If the Dems are able to get Murkowski, Collins and whoever else to vote against, Kavanaugh, well, all that would do is probably lead to an Amy Coney Barrett nomination, with voting taking place after the Republicans gain Senate seats in the Midterms.
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 12, 2018 16:31:38 GMT -6
The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I think he was a bad choice...Obamacare and illegal immigration arguments are whack...seems to favor big federal government...he is completely a swamp pick...why would you pick someone that you were 80% sure instead of another on the list that's 100% sure...this guy was personally responsible for the argument that gave us obamacare...I'm calling my senators and telling them hell no... Good luck with that. Inhofe is a cheerleader. Inhofe Praises Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh
Monday, July 9, 2018 U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) applauded President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court today: “Brett Kavanaugh is an outstanding choice for the Supreme Court. Throughout his experience on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh has shown a commitment to upholding the Constitution and respecting judicial restraint. He has a strong history of decisions that respect religious liberty and the Second Amendment and has been a leader in ensuring the court respects the limit of executive authority, especially as it relates to environmental regulations. I applaud the president on selecting yet another well-qualified, respected judicial nominee and look forward to Judge Kavanaugh receiving a fair, thorough nominations process and then a swift up-or-down vote.” www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/inhofe-praises-nomination-of-judge-kavanaughLankford remains open minded: “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an impressive and qualified nominee to be considered for the Supreme Court and it is vitally important that he receives a fair impartial nomination process in the Senate. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to meeting Judge Kavanaugh and evaluating his judicial philosophy. The Supreme Court has an obligation to protect the Constitution and to stand for the rule of law. A jurist who acts within the bounds of the Constitution and interprets the law as written protects the rights of all Americans to live in liberty.” www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-lankford-statement-on-presidents-supreme-court-nomineeI guess the trumpers like Obamacare...Inhofe has certainly been in the Senate far too long
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 12, 2018 16:34:19 GMT -6
I see this pick as one of internal strategic politics.
It's a placating move. The Neo-Cons/Karl Rove'ites of the GOPe still control the party, plus they have the Senate by the balls right now - after the midterms, you can have retards like Murkowski and Collins who would have 100% opposed Barrett completely de-nutted in the Senate.
Ginsburg is when/where he will shift the court. I'd save Barrett for that, too. A woman for a woman - the Identity Politic obsessed Neo-Marxists will have to eat their own tail.
You never know what is going on behind the scenes. Trump may simply have not had the votes for Barrett. If the GOP can expand their Senate majority to say, 54-46, then Trump can tell Collins and Murkowski to go screw themselves for future confirmation votes, and nominate whoever the hell he wants to. Lipstick on a pig is still Lipstick on a pig no matter how you spin it...he gave us obamacare
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 13, 2018 4:41:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 13, 2018 4:50:53 GMT -6
Why would we want another Roberts or worse? Levin: Re Kavanaugh, as I said on the air last night, I’ll keep an open mind. But the conservative senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee must use the confirmation hearing to ask him legitimate questions to verify his backers’ claims that he’s a textualist and originalist. There are certain gaps in and concerns about his record despite all the cheerleading. therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-and-mark-levin-weigh-in-on-judge-kavanaugh/
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 31, 2018 8:29:05 GMT -6
Not surprising, but she would be 90 then: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/opinions/why-we-still-need-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sears/index.htmlRuth Bader Ginsburg says she'll stay on the Supreme Court for 5 more years. That's terrific news By Leah Ward Sears (CNN) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an interviewer last weekend that she'd like to spend "at least" five more years on the bench before stepping down -- that is, she'll stay till she's 90. Wow! Good for her. And good for us. The debate has raged for decades now about whether there is something unique about having women serve as judges on our highest courts. As a woman who served for many years as a jurist on the Georgia Supreme Court, including as chief justice, I can answer that question with a resounding, Yes! Women like Justice Ginsburg have proven invaluable to the development of a fair and just jurisprudence in this country. It was, after all, only after women started becoming judges that the judicial boys' club began to erode. This was an enduring club infested with bigoted, sexist attitudes that, for the most part, protected the interests of men -- and often at the expense of women. ....... It goes on from there.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 31, 2018 9:36:18 GMT -6
Not surprising, but she would be 90 then: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/opinions/why-we-still-need-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sears/index.htmlRuth Bader Ginsburg says she'll stay on the Supreme Court for 5 more years. That's terrific news By Leah Ward Sears (CNN) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an interviewer last weekend that she'd like to spend "at least" five more years on the bench before stepping down -- that is, she'll stay till she's 90. Wow! Good for her. And good for us. The debate has raged for decades now about whether there is something unique about having women serve as judges on our highest courts. As a woman who served for many years as a jurist on the Georgia Supreme Court, including as chief justice, I can answer that question with a resounding, Yes! Women like Justice Ginsburg have proven invaluable to the development of a fair and just jurisprudence in this country. It was, after all, only after women started becoming judges that the judicial boys' club began to erode. This was an enduring club infested with bigoted, sexist attitudes that, for the most part, protected the interests of men -- and often at the expense of women. ....... It goes on from there. I heard someone discussing that the court artist - no photos allowed - drew a picture of RBG with her head down on the desk.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 31, 2018 9:53:19 GMT -6
Not surprising, but she would be 90 then: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/opinions/why-we-still-need-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sears/index.htmlRuth Bader Ginsburg says she'll stay on the Supreme Court for 5 more years. That's terrific news By Leah Ward Sears (CNN) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an interviewer last weekend that she'd like to spend "at least" five more years on the bench before stepping down -- that is, she'll stay till she's 90. Wow! Good for her. And good for us. The debate has raged for decades now about whether there is something unique about having women serve as judges on our highest courts. As a woman who served for many years as a jurist on the Georgia Supreme Court, including as chief justice, I can answer that question with a resounding, Yes! Women like Justice Ginsburg have proven invaluable to the development of a fair and just jurisprudence in this country. It was, after all, only after women started becoming judges that the judicial boys' club began to erode. This was an enduring club infested with bigoted, sexist attitudes that, for the most part, protected the interests of men -- and often at the expense of women. ....... It goes on from there. I heard someone discussing that the court artist - no photos allowed - drew a picture of RBG with her head down on the desk. Not going to lie, I chuckled. Well played.
|
|