Kavanaugh hearings, thoughts? And a poll.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Kavanaugh is woefully unqualified for the bench. Let’s set aside the matter of the sexual assaults (which, if we’re being honest, we know he did). He called out the Democrats by name. That should immediately disqualify him. A Supreme Court justice should not be a party operative, and Kavanaugh has clearly aligned himself with GOP legislators.

Then there’s the matter of his sketchy finances. The man had 200k in credit card debt that suddenly dissappeared. The documentation surround the purchase of his home is also sketchy as fuck. He made a down payment that was higher than his net worth, yet he only reported 20k of help from his family. The Federalist Society provided the White House with a list of nearly 40 qualified SCOTUS candidates with the same politics as Kavanaugh, yet Trump insists on pushing THIS one through, despite all the red flags. I reasonable man might suspect that Judge Kavanaugh is bought and paid for.

I understand a lot of people, especially older white men, look at sports like politics and don’t care what happens, as long as their team wins, but we’re looking at the potential end of America’s run as a functional democracy. A gerrymandered legislature, and partisan bench effectively removes all checks and balances from our government. It’s a coup.

First and foremost, your basic failure to understand that we are NOT a Democracy disqualifies your opinion on that alone.

Then, to claim that conservatives steal back our rights, again, is a total failure, Jerry Brown just signed a law removing the right to purchase a firearm to anyone 18 years of age, moving it to 21.

Alcohol, which is not protected is bad enough, but your right to self defense and to own firearms is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, noting, that its right after your freedom of speech, because it protects it.

You can be drafted at 18 and die long before you are 21, but, you can't buy the same rifle you will be issued? Insanity.

But, your liberal opinion, as usual, spins the facts 180 degrees, and makes them truth in your mind, not in reality.

Also, the "old white man" analogy shines further light on where you are coming from.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by obnoxiousram

The sad thing in all of this is how Kavanaugh's boss got screwed over and then passed over for his underling. Yes Merrick Garland is kavanaugh's boss.

I wouldn't call Merrick Garland his "boss". While Garland is the Chief Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he can't fire any of the other 10 judges. They are all appointed for life. Every boss I ever worked for had the authority to fire me.

Btw, I think Garland was well-qualified and would have made an excellent SCOTUS justice. Too bad the Democrats laid down that rule against confirming any nominees during the last year of a Presidential term (see post #27 above). That opened the door for the Repubs to block him. Bottom line is - be careful what you wish for!

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I wouldn't call Merrick Garland his "boss". While Garland is the Chief Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he can't fire any of the other 10 judges. They are all appointed for life. Every boss I ever worked for had the authority to fire me.

Btw, I think Garland was well-qualified and would have made an excellent SCOTUS justice. Too bad the Democrats laid down that rule against confirming any nominees during the last year of a Presidential term (see post #27 above). That opened the door for the Repubs to block him. Bottom line is - be careful what you wish for!

Yeah, the Democrats should change their symbol from a jackass to Wiley E Coyote. Everything they try blows up in their face.

[El-mo]

Originally Posted by lustylad

As for the "potential end of America's run as a functional democracy" - do you always resort to hyperbole to prop up a weak argument? The only attempted "coup" I am aware of is the one to oust Trump from office prior to the next Presidential election. The same un-democratic tactics are being deployed there as the ones used against Kavanaugh - who needs evidence? Impeach him anyway!

It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party. The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation. Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.

Originally Posted by Devo

First and foremost, your basic failure to understand that we are NOT a Democracy disqualifies your opinion on that alone.

Then, to claim that conservatives steal back our rights, again, is a total failure, Jerry Brown just signed a law removing the right to purchase a firearm to anyone 18 years of age, moving it to 21.

Alcohol, which is not protected is bad enough, but your right to self defense and to own firearms is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, noting, that its right after your freedom of speech, because it protects it.

You can be drafted at 18 and die long before you are 21, but, you can't buy the same rifle you will be issued? Insanity.

But, your liberal opinion, as usual, spins the facts 180 degrees, and makes them truth in your mind, not in reality.

Also, the "old white man" analogy shines further light on where you are coming from.

The bolded section is the argument of simpletons everywhere. Their grasp on government is so tenuous that they don't realize that a republic is a form of democracy. They memorized one talking point in seventh grade and think they're William F Buckley.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by El-mo

It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party. The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation. Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.



The bolded section is the argument of simpletons everywhere. Their grasp on government is so tenuous that they don't realize that a republic is a form of democracy. They memorized one talking point in seventh grade and think they're William F Buckley.

What “crime” was Mueller charged with investigating?

[El-mo]

Originally Posted by bambino

What “crime” was Mueller charged with investigating?

Notice that I listed the president's obvious crimes and the Mueller investigation as two separate things. I'm not privy to the findings of Muller's investigation into Russian tampering in our elections, and have made no claims about Trump's involvement. What I do know is that the GOP has been actively working to subvert the investigation.

It is abundantly and unambiguously clear that Trump is guilty of emoluments clause violations.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Notice that I listed the president's obvious crimes and the Mueller investigation as two separate things. I'm not privy to the findings of Muller's investigation into Russian tampering in our elections, and have made no claims about Trump's involvement. What I do know is that the GOP has been actively working to subvert the investigation.

It is abundantly and unambiguously clear that Trump is guilty of emoluments clause violations.

Again, you’re just spewing your opinion. A federal judge doesn’t agree with you:

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2...luments-312610

The GOP House is providing oversight over the DOJ which is their constitutional right and obligation to do so.The IG is also investigating the FBI and DOJ conduct. Which is his job. An OBama appointee. There’s lots of evidence that members of the FBI and DOJ were working to subvert the Trump administration. I suggest before you pound your keyboard you come with some facts.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by El-mo

It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party. The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation. Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.

Wrong. I'm a reasonably objective party and I can readily argue the contrary!

First, let's consider Merrick Garland. I would have castigated the Republicans if they blocked him for no apparent reason. But then I learned they were merely following the advice of their colleagues on the other side! This is the third time in this thread I have brought up the Biden/Schumer/Reid Rule. You won't address it. You want dems to be allowed to make their own bed, then refuse to sleep in it! And btw, McConnell didn't "usurp" any powers of the Executive by blocking Garland. Under the Constitution, the POTUS nominates and the Senates exercises its right to advise and consent. What part of that simple division of responsibilities don't you understand?

Second, you're upset about alleged violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. You call them "obvious crimes". Not potential ethics violations that might also be politically embarrassing, but obvious crimes. If the crimes are so obvious, convince me. Make the case. Cite the history of the emoluments clause. Cite the statutes or laws that have been so obviously violated.

Third, you claim the legislature is trying to subvert the Mueller investigation. I just want to know how the whole thing started. I find it nothing short of outrageous that the incumbent party in 2016 would actually spy on the opposing party's campaign! If there is/was a legitimate justification for that, I am still waiting to hear it. What I find even more outrageous is the fact that the dems keep pretending it ISN'T outrageous to enlist the machinery of the federal government to spy on an opponent's political campaign. The more we learn, the more the Mueller investigation discredits itself. I don't want the dems to regain control of Congress for one reason - I know if that happens they will keep us from ever learning the full truth.

Fourth, you call Kavanaugh a "blatantly partisan" judge. Why? Because he tried to defend himself against uncorroborated, nasty and vile, personal last-minute smears hurled at him by dimotards? Or because his opinions on the bench (he has written 307 of them for the DC District Court alone) are partisan? If the latter, please cite for me examples of those "blatantly partisan" opinions. Most judicial cases have nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. It seems to me the dems jumped into the sewer and turned to desperate personal attacks because they can't challenge or find fault in the substance of his numerous written legal opinions.

Fifth, your claim that Kav's full record wasn't released for review is just another lame dimotard talking point and a transparent excuse to delay his confirmation vote until after the midterms. Grassley's committee released more documents than were released for the last 5 SCOTUS nominees combined. Most of the rest were withheld by the G.W. Bush Presidential Library, not the Senate Judiciary Committee. The dems asked to see literally everything they could think of, relevant or not, because they knew such an unreasonable request would slow down the confirmation process and give people like you a handy but lame talking point.

Lastly, I can't resist taking a swipe at your silly comment about "minority party rule". I assume that's a reference to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite receiving more popular votes than Trump. If you don't like the Electoral College, feel free to pursue any or all of the mechanisms identified in the Constitution for amending it. Our Constitution has already been amended 27 times in our history. Good luck. And how do you define "minority party" anyway? According to recent polls, only 31% of voting age Americans identify as Democrats. That sounds like a minority to me.

To sum up, I'm a reasonably objective person - and I just argued to the contrary against every single point you made in your post.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

What “crime” was Mueller charged with investigating?

To the dimotard members of the "resistance" that doesn't matter. Trump's "crime" was getting elected.

Every other special/independent counsel in the history of the DOJ was appointed to investigate a specific crime that had definitely taken place.

But not this one.

Mueller marches under the mantra of - "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime."

Who else said that? Oh yeah, it was Stalin's intelligence chief!

[Devo]

Originally Posted by El-mo

It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party. The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation. Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.



The bolded section is the argument of simpletons everywhere. Their grasp on government is so tenuous that they don't realize that a republic is a form of democracy. They memorized one talking point in seventh grade and think they're William F Buckley.

OK Schlo-Mo, read this.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Pay attention to the first section. Philosophy, and the definition that follows.


We have a constitution that guarantees inalienable rights, something that Liberals, tend to forget, again, I refer to gun control, any of which, is clearly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment.

You, think that any inalienable right can be removed, which, it could, in a DEMOCRACY.

Slavery, us, no, Democracy if 50 percent plus one vote, legal if thats what the people want.

A representative Democracy, has no Constitution, with a bill of rights, something you would like to see.

However, the talking point I received in 7th grade, appears to be given my someone who understood what he was talking about, instead of someone claiming to see what he wants to see.

[bambino]

And then there’s this. I’m sure the FBI has it!

https://eccie.net/attachment.php?att...1&d=1538267362

She’s been fucked so many times she’s crossed eyed.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

He called out the Democrats by name. That should immediately disqualify him.

Oh, I am sorry - you have someone call you a gang rapist, evil, will result in deaths of people, destroy your name, reputation, and give death threats to your family and children and how the fuck are you supposed to react

If it was me, I would have done a hell of a lot more than just call these vile, despicable assholes out by name

[tannana]

Originally Posted by El-mo

It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party.

Do yourself a favor, and read the fucking the Constitution before you opine upon it. Neither withholding advice/consent nor doing it on the Senate's timeframe are anything except 100% Constitutional.

Originally Posted by El-mo

The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation.

Subverting the Mueller investigation isn't hard. Trump could end it tomorrow and that's absolutely Constitutional.


Failure to impeach the executive isn't a lack of a "check." It's a political outcome.

Originally Posted by El-mo

Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.

Sure I can, as I've read the Constitution. You don't know what the fuck you are on about.

Originally Posted by El-mo

They memorized one talking point in seventh grade and think they're William F Buckley.

LMAO. It's better than being of no Constitutional acumen at all.

Originally Posted by El-mo

It is abundantly and unambiguously clear that Trump is guilty of emoluments clause violations.

It is. Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy, since there isn't a statutory violation and he can pardon himself of federal crimes.

[tannana]

Originally Posted by fstballsrus

You can say what you want about Dr. Ford but I find it remarkable that she gave her therapist Kavanaughs name 6 yrs ago. Conspiracy? Really? I just don't think she's that prescient. If she is, I want to take her to the race track

This is a myth. Her husband is the one who "remembers" her telling the therapist. The therapist's note don't support a couple of key details of her accusation.

[sexymaid_69]

Did anyone else watch SNL and Michael Che's commentary on this whole debacle?
Funny shit.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-n...licans-731194/