The guy is a closet liberal, an Ivy League mafia member and will do great harm to the Constitution in the end. Rare fail by DJT
Kavanaugh will come back and bite us Roberts style
- Thread starter ArmyJerry
- Start date
you must know something the dems don't... otherwise they would be chomping at the bit to vote for him instead of stalling...........
I would actually like to see Napolitano get in, but there is no chance of that as he likes to talk a bit too straightforward and pays no regard to the sacred idols of the Democrats or Republicans. I doubt he would want the pay cut or putting up with the idiots anyways. However he might have fun totally going nuclear on everyone's asses during the confirmation hearings, that would be worth watching.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
The way the Left have acted during the hearing is inexcusable. Dems in Congress are spitting on civility. Civil People do not like that behaviour. I hope they keep it up they are cutting their own throats in public. Just proves The Left cannot be civil.
I think that's the fucked up deal. He probably wouldn't retire unless he was replaced with another spineless piece of crap that blows with the wind.
So the democrats are trying to tell us to our faces that in their fine august chambers that they are so proud of rules and decorum "the voice of democracy" is best served by letting random nutjobs scream and yell to try to drown out all debate. I wonder how they would like it if the roles were reversed... well they don't as they have shown time & again.
Perhaps just tell the democrats we are voting at xxx time like it or not, so if you want to have your nutjob hooligans block debate, that's fine since you don't actually plan to look at the record or give him a fair hearing & we'll go straight to the vote. Have fun..
Perhaps just tell the democrats we are voting at xxx time like it or not, so if you want to have your nutjob hooligans block debate, that's fine since you don't actually plan to look at the record or give him a fair hearing & we'll go straight to the vote. Have fun..
If SCOTUS wasn't being treated like an opportunity to legislate from the bench by the liberals, a left of center moderate with origionalist beliefs would be a an absolutely acceptable political leaning for a judge.
The way things are, I want conservative leaning origionalists but still a bit moderate.
From what I hear Kavanaugh is not a bad choice but if you have more dirt than what school he went to, let us know.
For example, the NRA's man in LA and his former law partner are both sleaze. They were the tools USC used to violate NCAA rules and delay criminal prosecutions for USC criminal athletes until they were no longer useful to their team. They almost torpedoed McDonald v. Chicago because some NRA idiots thought the P or I clause of the 14'th amendment would lead to legal gay marriage. Total stupidity and gay marriage is legal any way (instead of messing with that, they should have tried to get the government out of the marriage business and only provide civil unions for legal purposes).
The way things are, I want conservative leaning origionalists but still a bit moderate.
From what I hear Kavanaugh is not a bad choice but if you have more dirt than what school he went to, let us know.
For example, the NRA's man in LA and his former law partner are both sleaze. They were the tools USC used to violate NCAA rules and delay criminal prosecutions for USC criminal athletes until they were no longer useful to their team. They almost torpedoed McDonald v. Chicago because some NRA idiots thought the P or I clause of the 14'th amendment would lead to legal gay marriage. Total stupidity and gay marriage is legal any way (instead of messing with that, they should have tried to get the government out of the marriage business and only provide civil unions for legal purposes).
Did He stomp his feet and cry? Did He shout down the Dems? Avi you are not a serious person. You just want someone to go full apeshit on you. So you can show how racist and ignorant we are. Yet you think we are the ones with pitiful lives on posting on the net. Get a mirror girl.
Answer this actually without changing the subject:
Did Mitch (who most of us don't like actually) and the Republicans decide the best way to have hearings was to invite a bunch of nutjobs to scream out interruptions and then try to suggest that is the way "the voice of democracy" should go?....
Typical Communist re-direction. Communists behaving like a mob won't own up to their being a hateful mob so they try to misdirect the conversation by saying .... well the other guys properly used the rules all formal & peaceable like and we didn't like that they did that.. (while ignoring them also in years gone by using the same formal rules to exclude people they didn't want to give a vote on.)...
So if the guys on one side, follow the rules and protocol (That the Democrats themselves put in place long ago), that somehow justifies the communist democrats breaking all rules and decorum and inviting their own little mob in to disrupt things??
How very... Communist..
Last edited:
You mean when he cited the "Biden rule"?
If you don't like that quote, how about one directly from your chocolate Jesus....
Elections have consequences, you lost, get over it.
Still waiting for Avi to decide if he is going to give a straightforward answer and either defend or condemn the Communist Democrats for turning the hearing into a mob rule event by "inviting" all their nutjob supporters to yell out interruptions and heckles... then try to tell us that's the way the Senate does things.
It seems Avi is doing a bit of side stepping. How about we get a straight answer to that first. Then we can get on to the separate issue of which senate rules everybody is following in appointments & votes (Actual rules, not just we are not in power so it would be nice if you let us block you from getting anything done).
It seems Avi is doing a bit of side stepping. How about we get a straight answer to that first. Then we can get on to the separate issue of which senate rules everybody is following in appointments & votes (Actual rules, not just we are not in power so it would be nice if you let us block you from getting anything done).
There's a big difference between a Presidential election, and a mid-term election.
As to appointing something that is more acceptable to the Senate, the POTUS has, since the GOP controls the senate. Which if I recall correctly, was because the US citizens over the past 12 years have consistently tossed Democrats out of office (and also why Obama's SCOTUS replacement pick was stonewalled).
Sure sounds to me like the majority of the citizenry have spoken, and Congress and the POTUS are doing what is in line with the voice of the people. If not, you can always vote them out...but you'll have to wait until RBG keels over to take advantage of that...
Fear not, at some level, our Republic is functioning...in spite of the temper tantrums being thrown by those who were soundly and thoroughly beaten in the elections for the past decade.
I tell you, Harry Reid's underhanded changing of the Senate rules is coming back to haunt the Dems...in spades.
Poetic justice on many levels.
Don't hold your breath Brother. It's gonna take a while for "it" to get outta this.
And lol, you assumed "it's" gender.................
To defend the confirmation hearing spectacle, this was one of the most entertaining events CSPAN has ever covered. It's the American way to scream and shout in front of all Americans to see. Mitch did it when Scalia passed, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are doing it now.
On another note. The reason the Dems are hootin' and hollerin' is because they were robbed of their SCOTUS candidate because of Obama's weakness and Mitch's dirty handed tricks. The people of this country were ROBBED of a full Supreme Court for ~200 days, that is unprecedented.
Just because Kavanaugh went to Yale doesn't mean he's some libtard snake. There are plenty of hardened Conservative heroes that went to Ivy League, GWB comes to mind.
Kavanaugh will do great things on the court, one of the most important is securing our 2nd amendment rights. He says previous Supreme Court cases are precedent so Roe v Wade, ACA, and Heller v DC should not be overturned. But I'd rather see what he does rather than speculate (innocent until proven guilty amd whatnot).
This Supreme Court season is gonna be a gud un.
On another note. The reason the Dems are hootin' and hollerin' is because they were robbed of their SCOTUS candidate because of Obama's weakness and Mitch's dirty handed tricks. The people of this country were ROBBED of a full Supreme Court for ~200 days, that is unprecedented.
Just because Kavanaugh went to Yale doesn't mean he's some libtard snake. There are plenty of hardened Conservative heroes that went to Ivy League, GWB comes to mind.
Kavanaugh will do great things on the court, one of the most important is securing our 2nd amendment rights. He says previous Supreme Court cases are precedent so Roe v Wade, ACA, and Heller v DC should not be overturned. But I'd rather see what he does rather than speculate (innocent until proven guilty amd whatnot).
This Supreme Court season is gonna be a gud un.
Relative to our two "Dudley Dorights" on this thread, I have a solution to the SCOTUS situation.
How about this ? The present (Majority) Conservatives extend a gesture of good faith and let the Liberals nominate a SCOTUS candidate of their choosing. Anyone they would like and the Conservatives pledge to not obstruct confirmation in any way. In fact, with such a gesture of good faith, the confirmation vote should be unanimous.
In return, when the the Liberals return to power, they promise to extend the same courtesy to Conservatives when it is time to replace another SC Justice, most likely being RBG.
See how easy that is ? Simple. No fighting, no bickering, no shin kicking. Only bi-directional goodwill toward each other. Coombayah, if you will !
How about this ? The present (Majority) Conservatives extend a gesture of good faith and let the Liberals nominate a SCOTUS candidate of their choosing. Anyone they would like and the Conservatives pledge to not obstruct confirmation in any way. In fact, with such a gesture of good faith, the confirmation vote should be unanimous.
In return, when the the Liberals return to power, they promise to extend the same courtesy to Conservatives when it is time to replace another SC Justice, most likely being RBG.
See how easy that is ? Simple. No fighting, no bickering, no shin kicking. Only bi-directional goodwill toward each other. Coombayah, if you will !
Pretty sure Reid and Pelosi poisoned that well a while ago. There was a day when Senators conducted business with a promise and a handshake (even across party lines). Reid/Pelosi took that trust and blew that out of the water. The House, well that place has always been a shit storm since it's inception; probably due to it's close resemblance to the "House of Commons" that is modeled after...
Relative to our two "Dudley Dorights" on this thread, I have a solution to the SCOTUS situation.
How about this ? The present (Majority) Conservatives extend a gesture of good faith and let the Liberals nominate a SCOTUS candidate of their choosing. Anyone they would like and the Conservatives pledge to not obstruct confirmation in any way. In fact, with such a gesture of good faith, the confirmation vote should be unanimous.
In return, when the the Liberals return to power, they promise to extend the same courtesy to Conservatives when it is time to replace another SC Justice, most likely being RBG.
See how easy that is ? Simple. No fighting, no bickering, no shin kicking. Only bi-directional goodwill toward each other. Coombayah, if you will !
/QUOTE]
You funny man
Garland would never have passed Senate approval. His nomination was tabled so it didn't waste the Senate's time.
Roberts was definitely a surprise to me, I was really hopeful for him when he was appointed to CJ-SCOTUS.
As for Kavanaugh, same will be said for time telling what will come, but his judicial history is far more conservative than Roberts ever claimed to be. I foresee a win for the Constitution on this one.
Roberts was definitely a surprise to me, I was really hopeful for him when he was appointed to CJ-SCOTUS.
As for Kavanaugh, same will be said for time telling what will come, but his judicial history is far more conservative than Roberts ever claimed to be. I foresee a win for the Constitution on this one.
I think AJ is right.
The guy clerked for Kennedy. He can’t be the Uber-conservative we all hope for.
I personally believe the string attached to Kennedy’s retirement was the appointment of Kavanaugh. Quid Pro Quo, as it were.
I have not seen any of the confirmation hearings, because it doesn’t really matter. However, I don’t see what the left fears. Kavanaugh is likely a “wash” with Kennedy.....perhaps even a Kennedy 2.0. The left is literally making noise just to make noise.
The guy clerked for Kennedy. He can’t be the Uber-conservative we all hope for.
I personally believe the string attached to Kennedy’s retirement was the appointment of Kavanaugh. Quid Pro Quo, as it were.
I have not seen any of the confirmation hearings, because it doesn’t really matter. However, I don’t see what the left fears. Kavanaugh is likely a “wash” with Kennedy.....perhaps even a Kennedy 2.0. The left is literally making noise just to make noise.
Avi and Blat is this the way you all protest...for profit?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...esters_in_the_line_for_kavanaugh_hearing.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...esters_in_the_line_for_kavanaugh_hearing.html
Great idea!. You find it on the shelf next to the magic beans or on the buried treasure map aisle?
Avi an originalist is what the founders wanted. That is why they made it amendable. So the People could decide if they wanted to change it or not. They did not want legislation made from the Bench. That is the Job of our worthless Congress.
Last edited:
You're an idiot and can't even see the contradiction in your own statement.
We don't need you to tell us what the writers of the Constitution intended it to mean or how they intended it be used/interpreted. They left their own writings on the subject, chief among them the Federalist Papers. Those writings happen to be a significant basis for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
I want you to post right here and right now your evidence from the period between 1789 and 1840 showing us how the founders of our government intended it to run.
George Washington was against political parties...he thought they were divisive and the congress would become beholden to the party not the people. So Prophetic. Jefferson wanted parties. Jefferson was smart but a coward.
I am SO enjoying watching the stupid ass democrats be hoisted on their own petard.
That motherfucker HAD to be thinking that dems would own the Senate forever. Such spectacular hubris is always followed with an even more spectacular fall and defeat.
Thanks Harry
Your "Living Constitution" is a farce, and is a direct leftist attack on the rule of law for all Americans. It is a direct threat to the Republic by domestic enemies; among which I count you. Just attack already. You bore me.
Proof positive of your "intellect". Words like "cruel" and "unusual" do indeed change meaning over time. Phrases like "shall not" do not do not change. Words either have meaning or they do not. Totalitarian collectivists don't want the rule of law, because they want philosopher kings, and equality of outcome. Rule of law creates inequality because people's decisions have consequences. "That's not fair"!
I was with one of my kid's friends and his father, and the friend asked his dad for something, and he said no. The friend said, "That's not fair." His Dad said, "What have we talked about? "Fair" is a stupid word, and we don't use it." He's a good dude!
I don't think that's right. Jefferson didn't "WANT" political parties. He just assumed we would have them whether they were good or not, and that somehow prohibiting them would be antithetical to liberty. He thought the actual virtue was in keeping free association, be it politics, labor, or whatever, beyond the purview of government and regulation...just like speech or freedom to worship.
When you're a libertarian you often believe in virtues that won't have the best conceivable outcomes. You have to accept there is no perfect solution for all people, so being free to fail and free to make bad choices is much more important than the individual outcome. In other words, you have to like and have faith in people rather than be a committed misanthrope (a requirement to be a leftist totalitarian).
Article III, and it says ZERO and has ZERO to do with trying to fit society into The Bill or Rights or vice versa. That is sooooo much bullshit!!!!
Jefferson warned that Article III was too vague, and that the enemies of liberal government would choose this as the weak point of attack. Sotomayor anyone? What a joke!
You're a retard , crack a book . The Founders saw that a court system to ensure that laws were both congruent with the Constitution and for the benefit of the People .
What we have today is polarly opposite what was intended . Read the writings of the Founders before you open your ballwasher a reaffirm your ignorance .
I would really like to know where your degree in Poly-Sci is from. Where you went to academy, and who taught you this tripe you spit as if you knew what you were talking about. You're not stupid. Someone did this to you. Someone has taught you a bunch of bullshit. It is so far twisted from the truth it's ridiculous. My guess is Rollins.
The core purpose of government is to create a stable framework for society to operate within. The whole idea of executive, legislative and judicial branches with checks and balances is to keep any one branch from fucking things up completely. Executive branch is an elected president who is elected to provide some direction for the entire government and make temporary executive orders for disaster relief and declaring war. Legislative is a battlefield where representatives of the states make law. Judicial is where appointed judges enforce the Constitution. That's enforce, not re-interpret.
Our constitution contains a mechanism for amendment, if the Constitution meant whatever some judge thought was appropriate for the times, there would be no need for amendment. What this should illustrate for you is that origionalists are key to the intended operation of our government. Also the fact that our supreme Court is a pannel of nine justices with permanent appointments shows you that the founders didn't want one judge or one administration to fuck things up.
That's an inconvenient truth for liberals who want to pander to morons by sticking us with a bunch of social welfare programs that we can't back out of and use the Constitution as toilet paper for their back hole.
Joe Biden made that rule and used it on Bush 1 giving Clinton a pick.
Edit/Add - Mitch McConnell ended quorum.
Communists willing to change the rules but cry when others follow them.
Last edited:
The Founding Fathers were against mob rule and provided us a Republic of laws.
If it was as you say slavery would not have ended in the 19th Century.
The FF gave us a means to change COTUS it should be used.
One senator yesterday was smart enough to say that an originalist judge is good because it forces Congress to do its work.
If someone is unhappy with the course of events as they are than it is Congress duty to make a law using the defined mechanism.
It is not for 9 unelected people to make law from the bench.
The Communists hate what is going on because in order to meet their goals it will require they work (work being a bad word to Communists) and it will require they sell their BS to an unaccepting public.
This shit really started with Ted Kennedy and Robert Bork. The previous 200 years these nominations were not contentious, and they've only even had hearings about them for the last 50 years. Before that it was only if the President nominated some criminal it would be a problem.
It all stems from Progressive use of the court to circumvent the popular will of the people and their elected representatives.
Lest you think any of this is new, the Democrats have ALLWAYS been in favor of activist judges. Read the dissenting opinion from the Dred Scott Case. It points to Democrat activist judges (outcome based regardless of what the law says) back to antebellum times.
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/US_Constitution/dscott4.html
History doesn't exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme!
It all stems from Progressive use of the court to circumvent the popular will of the people and their elected representatives.
Lest you think any of this is new, the Democrats have ALLWAYS been in favor of activist judges. Read the dissenting opinion from the Dred Scott Case. It points to Democrat activist judges (outcome based regardless of what the law says) back to antebellum times.
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/US_Constitution/dscott4.html
History doesn't exactly repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme!
What Kennedy did to Bork was a crime.
Kennedy has some balls to question anyones integrity.
Had same feelings watching "Vietnam Vet" stolen valor Blumenthal questioning Kavanaughs integrity.
True, but the legislation failed. The court shifted to socialist activism because of political pressure on it's own without his expansion and court packing.
Good point.
Good point.
Similar threads
