Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

[Leadeye]

Many thanks Indiucky.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A black child’s backpack brushed up against a woman. She called 911 to report a sexual assault

Video proved otherwise.

#BelieveAllWomen

 

[actaeon277]

A black child’s backpack brushed up against a woman. She called 911 to report a sexual assault

Video proved otherwise.

#BelieveAllWomen

Talk about morons.

 

[MCgrease08]

If you haven't had enough fun watching the left go ape-poo over Kavanaugh's confirmation, there's always Sean Spicier.

That's a parody account BTW.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A black child’s backpack brushed up against a woman. She called 911 to report a sexual assault

Video proved otherwise.

#BelieveAllWomen

Once again, this sort of thing does a disservice to actual victims of sexual abuse. This whole #MeToo movement is having unintended (or are they?) consequences. Unless you are prepared to come forth with concrete evidence (and not 30 or 40 years later), then shut the hell up. Sorry if that sounds callous but this has become a very "Boy who cried wolf" situation. The people that really should be believed (with evidence) are not going to be because of crazy *****es like this one and Dr. Ford.

 

[KLB]

Once again, this sort of thing does a disservice to actual victims of sexual abuse. This whole #MeToo movement is having unintended (or are they?) consequences. Unless you are prepared to come forth with concrete evidence (and not 30 or 40 years later), then shut the hell up. Sorry if that sounds callous but this has become a very "Boy who cried wolf" situation. The people that really should be believed (with evidence) are not going to be because of crazy *****es like this one and Dr. Ford.

So true. Sadly, the article tries to make it about race instead of #MeToo. Both subjects have become ridiculous in their applications.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Democracy Dies in Darkness", or something

 

[hoosierdoc]

A black child’s backpack brushed up against a woman. She called 911 to report a sexual assault

Video proved otherwise.

#BelieveAllWomen

She is a known lunatic in the area

 

[actaeon277]

Impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan?

Really?

Seems to me, ANY METHOD that one side is using exclusively to topple something/someone is "partisan".

 

[Alamo]

"Democracy Dies in Darkness", or something

The author states that a new Democrat President could nominate a sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Kavanaugh, to an appellate judge position, and if confirmed by a presumably Democrat majority Senate by a simple majority (rather than the 2/3s required for impeachment), Kavanaugh could be forced from his SCOTUS position and the President could than appoint someone else, presumably Garland or Hillary or Spartacus or whatever, to the now vacant SCOTUS position, again confirmed by the same party majority.

OK fine.

Then it follows that a current Republican President could nominate a [STRIKE]snoozing [/STRIKE], [STRIKE] sitting[/STRIKE] snoozing and sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Snorious RGB, to an appellate judge position (obviously the 9th), or who knows maybe even district trial judge position in the city of Backwater, State of Flyover, and if confirmed by a current or (increasingly likely) post-midterm election solid Republican majority Senate by a simple majority vote, and then appoint Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, or Ann Coulter, again confirmed by the same party majority. Bonus: When Ruth declines the nomination, Trump gets to fill the SCOTUS and the appellate/district positions anyway. Groovy.

I'm not sure if Trump should tweet this now, right before the election, or just after. I think I will defer to him, he seems to know how to extract maximum spasm from his enemies.

 

[actaeon277]

The author states that a new Democrat President could nominate a sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Kavanaugh, to an appellate judge position, and if confirmed by a presumably Democrat majority Senate by a simple majority (rather than the 2/3s required for impeachment), Kavanaugh could be forced from his SCOTUS position and the President could than appoint someone else, presumably Garland or Hillary or Spartacus or whatever, to the now vacant SCOTUS position, again confirmed by the same party majority.

OK fine.

Then it follows that a current Republican President could nominate a [STRIKE]snoozing [/STRIKE], [STRIKE] sitting[/STRIKE] snoozing and sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Snorious RGB, to an appellate judge position (obviously the 9th), or who knows maybe even district trial judge position in the city of Backwater, State of Flyover, and if confirmed by a current or (increasingly likely) post-midterm election solid Republican majority Senate by a simple majority vote, and then appoint Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, or Ann Coulter, again confirmed by the same party majority. Bonus: When Ruth declines the nomination, Trump gets to fill the SCOTUS and the appellate/district positions anyway. Groovy.

I'm not sure if Trump should tweet this now, right before the election, or just after. I think I will defer to him, he seems to know how to extract maximum spasm from his enemies.

Each side is guilty of not thinking that the other side can use the tactics or laws that they spearhead.

 

[actaeon277]

Kav made it, because of the Dems changing the rules when they were in power.

 

[printcraft]

Kav made it, because of the Dems changing the rules when they were in power.

2018 - "Abolish the electoral college, popular vote only!"

2020 - Trump wins popular vote.

2020 and a day - "Reinstate the electoral college, popular vote is flawed!"

 

[KG1]

They never stop brainstorming ways of trying to get around things that they can’t get accomplished thru long held conventional standards.

 

[2A_Tom]

2018 - "Abolish the electoral college, popular vote only!"

2020 - Trump wins popular vote.

2020 and a day - "Reinstate the electoral college, popular vote is flawed!"

LOL!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to printcraft again.

 

[Alpo]

They never stop brainstorming ways of trying to get around things that they can’t get accomplished thru long held conventional standards.

It's primarily because there is always someone or some group that isn't satisfied and the media love controversy.

There is no story here. Kavanaugh is in.

 

[two70]

The author states that a new Democrat President could nominate a sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Kavanaugh, to an appellate judge position, and if confirmed by a presumably Democrat majority Senate by a simple majority (rather than the 2/3s required for impeachment), Kavanaugh could be forced from his SCOTUS position and the President could than appoint someone else, presumably Garland or Hillary or Spartacus or whatever, to the now vacant SCOTUS position, again confirmed by the same party majority.

OK fine.

Then it follows that a current Republican President could nominate a [STRIKE]snoozing [/STRIKE], [STRIKE] sitting[/STRIKE] snoozing and sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Snorious RGB, to an appellate judge position (obviously the 9th), or who knows maybe even district trial judge position in the city of Backwater, State of Flyover, and if confirmed by a current or (increasingly likely) post-midterm election solid Republican majority Senate by a simple majority vote, and then appoint Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, or Ann Coulter, again confirmed by the same party majority. Bonus: When Ruth declines the nomination, Trump gets to fill the SCOTUS and the appellate/district positions anyway. Groovy.

I'm not sure if Trump should tweet this now, right before the election, or just after. I think I will defer to him, he seems to know how to extract maximum spasm from his enemies.

A. Garland was never, ever going to be on SC, he wouldn't have been nominated by Obama if there was a chance in hell of him being confirmed. If an appointment had been at all viable, a far more left leaning judge would have been nominated instead.

B. In no way shape or form would the involuntary appointment of a SC Justice to a lower court ever stand. Such an attempt would immediately face a legal challenge which would ultimately end up being decided by the SC and there's even less chance that the SC would allow another member(and thus eventually themselves) to be removed to a lower court.

 

[HoughMade]

The author states that a new Democrat President could nominate a sitting SCOTUS Justice, namely Kavanaugh, to an appellate judge position, and if confirmed by a presumably Democrat majority Senate by a simple majority (rather than the 2/3s required for impeachment), Kavanaugh could be forced from his SCOTUS position and the President could than appoint someone else, presumably Garland or Hillary or Spartacus or whatever, to the now vacant SCOTUS position, again confirmed by the same party majority.

The author is insane, ignorant, or both.

No one is forced to take a position if nominated and confirmed. 13th Amendment and all. No, seriously.

He has “tenure in good behavior” which means he can die, resign, or be impeached. End of story.

 

[actaeon277]

The author is insane, ignorant, or both.

No one is forced to take a position if nominated and confirmed. 13th Amendment and all. No, seriously.

He has “tenure in good behavior” which means he can die, resign, or be impeached. End of story.

There are people that think if Pres. Trump is impeached, that H Clinton will be in office.

 

[Trigger Time]

We need to go back to state legislations appointing senators and we need to lower the term of senators to 4 years and set a limit of 2 terms and 4 terms for congressmen.
Also eliminate lifetime healthcare and bennefits and free college for them and their kids too.
Also no more lifetime pay. **** that. These pieces of **** dont treat veterans even an eighth as good as they treat themselves .