RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:00 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11227
Location: Sunny South Florida
Protesters descend upon Trump Tower, Supreme Court in wake of Kavanaugh nomination
https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/protester ... omination/

Protesters decrying President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination blocked traffic outside of Trump Tower Monday night, leading to the arrest of seven people, law enforcement sources said.

Among those picked up was City Councilman Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn), who is running for lieutenant governor.

Williams tweeted pictures of himself being led away by cops in handcuffs, shortly after Trump named Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to the high court.

“Please continue the fight that has brought us here!” he told his fellow protesters, under a hand-painted sign “Reclaim SCOTUS.”

Meanwhile, US Sens. M Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) led a protests against Kavanaugh’s nomination on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington.

“Are you ready for a fight? Are you ready to defend Roe vs. Wade?” Sanders said.

“This is a tough fight but it is a fight that we can win . . . We have the American people on our side, now we have to go state by state by state to make sure senators do what their constituents want.”

[snip][end]

Loves ya, Bernie ... I do ... don't care what 4-Chan types erroneously love to think. (We do have to critique those we love. But I digress. :twisted: )

But man, oh man, you look you're about to emit a Dean Scream. Don't blow a gasket! :D

Image

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:18 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 15523

If we become that fractious as a nation, one might question why we even have a nation in the first place.


Just between us Chicagoans, will...it's already way beyond that fractious a nation. It's not a nation anymore. A nation is the people. And the people are split right down the middle, between decent folks who accept and celebrate the growing pluraility of the country (which, allegedly is the basis upon which the country was founded for christs sake), and deplorable white christians who have had all the advantages since the founding but still see themselves as oppressed and victimized, and who found Donald Trump to be the vehicle by which they could re-establish their white christian dominance.

Image



PS - regarding Kavanaugh...going back to the 1972 SCOTUS opinion on Roe v Wade, Blackmun was persuaded by Brennan, the only Catholic on the court, that the case had to be upheld...and for the reason we rarely hear promoted in any of the arguments:

Quote:
Brennan’s pivotal role in legalizing abortion — persuading Blackmun and other justices to view it as a privacy issue — might prove particularly instructive, given Trump’s campaign pledge to appoint justices who will overturn Roe. Given the current court makeup, one vote could flip the law on one of the country’s most divisive issues.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07/08/catholics-on-the-court-the-historic-struggle-between-canon-and-constitutional-law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1be345effa9b

I've been plastering my usual comment all over every forum on which I've participated for the past 20 years, that when the court upheld Roe the court was saying...it's nobody's fucking business. Decisions made by a woman and her physician are confidential and protected by law in every goddamn state in this country, and under federal law since HIPAA in 1996. It's nobody's business, not the husband's business, not the boyfriend's business, not the family's business, not the church's business, and certainly not any fucking politician's business. And every day in most states in this country, some woman's legal confidentiality rights are being violated by some asshole governor or some asshole filled state legislature.

The law is clear. If you don't like abortion, nobody's making you have one. Outside of that keep your nose out of it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8203
Take this for what you will at this point. It's from a source.

Image

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8203
Again not sure if true. But if it is, Justices do not get to negotiate their replacements. Especially whilst said Justice's kids hang around with the Trump family and work for Deutch bank, the Trump's primary lender.

Also, Kennedy's last bunch of rulings were favor to Trump, were they not?

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 3922



It is and I suspect that a lot of questions will be raised on his position. I would also ask if he would rule on a subpoena of the President who nominated him for the position. However, he could make a statement and do something else ... as John Roberts did in a number of cases.


This is a clear admission of guilt on the of 45. We now know that 45 was meeting with Kennedy, discussing his replacement. This kind of contact between a President and Justice is wrong.

We also know that Kennedy was tainted on several decisions before the court and refused recuse himself.

45 is loading the court in order secure a Not Guilty Verdict in the event he is Impeached. If Bill Clinton had done this, the Republicans would be howling right now.

Face it folks, 45 has been a Russian Asset since the 1980's. He owned and managed Russia and Putin is his handler.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Last edited by marindem on Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 230
As I stated:
In 1993 Biden defined it. Fact.
The pundits, press, and politicians labeled it. Fact.
Justice Gorsuch made it ironclad conservative boiler plate. Fact.
The Ginsburg Rule is very real and no amount of gas bag bloviating is going to neutralize it or make it go away. Fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12205
Again not sure if true. But if it is, Justices do not get to negotiate their replacements. Especially whilst said Justice's kids hang around with the Trump family and work for Deutch bank, the Trump's primary lender.

Also, Kennedy's last bunch of rulings were favor to Trump, were they not?

Kennedy was blackmailed, obviously.

Anyone who supports this SC pick is a traitor to the nation and needs to be called that and screamed at anytime they show their face in public whether that be a politician, car mechanic or househusband.

I have recently always defended the mainstream democratic politicians for reasons that should be obvious, and now I hope they repay me and others like me and show that they are willing to do

ANYTHING to stop this madness. I need to see Schumer and others doing EVERYTHING humanly possible.

This illegal pick is the GOP dream, they will now reverse ALL progress since 1940. Social Security...Medicare...All workplace protections...All consumer protections...All tort access to the courts...All minority rights and voting rights to include all rights for Women...Environment will be destroyed so this wont last long, most will die soon or be moved and they will not have as much time to discriminate or kill non whites for being non white.

Infrastructure? No, fuck you, if you can afford a highway, you have a highway, if not, fuck you. Hey cons, thanks for being traitors.

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8203
Image

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12205
Image

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12205
Image


Need to ask police in your town will they support the constitution or the traitor working for Putin. I plan on doing that myself.

Our discussion needs to be about what will we do when, not if, the GOP violates the constitution yet again and allows a traitor to take over the courts. They will do that, they are traitors.

The question is can we fight this and if so how.

So far nobody is addressing that beyond saying to vote.

The president has been documented to have told over 3000 lies since taking office. Has been documented to have obstructed justice multiple times, if the GOP still support him and they do, they are him. While we discuss what to do they are waging a war against our constitution and country and they are winning.

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300









Not only that but also in a paper he wrote, gave congress a blueprint how to put 666 above the law. He in essence says that a president is not above the law and can be questioned or subpoenaed unless congress passes a law saying they can't. This from a man who worked with Kenneth Starr to attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, but suddenly now is worried about the effect this will have on the federal government. My guess is that if congress passes a law that no sitting president can be sued or charged with ANY crime, is that 666 will NEVER STEP DOWN AS PRESIDENT, no matter what!!!


As a rule, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Presidents don’t “step down”. Their term of office
expires and their legal authority to act as President expires right along with it. Anything else would require an amendment of the constitution which requires super majorities in both houses of Congress as well as approval at the state level. Highly unlikely. When it is Trumps time to go, he will go whether he likes it or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6500
Democratic senator leaves door slightly open to voting for Kavanaugh

Washington (CNN) A Democratic senator from Hawaii is leaving open the possibility of voting for President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee despite widespread calls for an automatic "no" vote from her party.

In an interview with CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day" Tuesday morning, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, discussed whether she would vote against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, the President's nominee to the high court to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:17 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11227
Location: Sunny South Florida
As I stated:
In 1993 Biden defined it. Fact.


You know, you guys seem to hang on Joe Biden's every word. It's weird, I don't think you like him, but if he muses about something judicial, it suddenly becomes a "rule".

You seem to desperately crave Biden's views on stuff. So here's another Biden rule for you: I understand he says after you're done taking a whiz, shake it only twice.

Congrats. That's Biden's "Rule" #3. :roll:

Quote:
The pundits, press, and politicians labeled it. Fact.


Uh huh. They have also labeled your Momma a fat ugly pig. I heard it on the internet. "Fact".

Quote:
Justice Gorsuch made it ironclad conservative boiler plate. Fact.


Well, we know you cons don't like thinking for yourself, so you need boiler plate. Keeps your tiny minds from boiling over.

Look homey, we know you believe in the right to deceive people. You're looking for justifications for Kavanaugh to be able to deceive the committee, just like your pal Gorsuch did. Just be honest with us and yourself and say it, stop trying to make up phony "rules".

Quote:
The Ginsburg Rule is very real and no amount of gas bag bloviating is going to neutralize it or make it go away. Fact.


Huh, a librarian who hates and distrusts experts.

Say, where was that library you say you worked at? I suspect it must be in a zoo. ;)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12205
Kavanaugh I am hearing is horrible but maybe not horrible enough.

You never know what traitors want, since they are traitors they dont really either.

Hey rumpians, you lost the civil war and you want to fight another one, we know. But do you really?

just saw that Kavanaugh announced that no prez in history worked harder at looking fairly for a nominee than what rump did in his case...starts his career off with not only an ass kissing lie but one that can be disproven in 2 minutes, which means he wont bother with things like precedent AT ALL

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:57 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11227
Location: Sunny South Florida
The more I read, the more he sucks.

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee decided against net neutrality and for NSA surveillance
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/9/17548 ... rveillance

Perhaps most concerning for supporters of net neutrality, Kavanaugh issued an important dissent as part of a hearing on the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which put in place consumer protections for internet users. Kavanaugh wrote that the “net neutrality rule is one of the most consequential regulations ever issued,” but that it was “unlawful and must be vacated” for two reasons. The first was simply that the FCC was not clearly granted the authority to make the rule, and thus overstepped by implementing it, Kavanaugh argued.

Additionally, Kavanaugh wrote, restricting the actions of internet service providers amounted to intruding on their “editorial discretion.” As a result, he argued, the net neutrality rule violated First Amendment protections. (The rules blocked ISPs from favoring certain kinds of internet traffic.) Despite Kavanaugh’s dissent, the court ruled against a petition for a re-hearing, supporting the FCC’s authority on the issue.

Kavanaugh has already taken heat on the dissent. Last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted that “Kavanaugh frequently sides with powerful interests rather than defending the rights of all Americans like when he argued that the FCC’s #NetNeutrality rule benefiting millions of consumers was unconstitutional.”

As flagged by Politico, Kavanaugh also wrote in favor of a decision on the US government’s metadata surveillance efforts spearheaded by the NSA. As part of a challenge to the program, Kavanaugh wrote that “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” Kavanaugh argued that the collection of records was not unlawful because the data was obtained through a third party, and would not constitute an “unreasonable” search based on past case law.

[snip][end]

Got it? As long as the government hired the private spy who's peering through your windowshades, since he's a "third party," it doesn't violate the 4th amendment. :roll:

And, once again, in some contortion of logic that might even tie Godel into a knot, the 1st amendment is once again weaponized ... against Net Neutrality.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:46 am
Posts: 1454
The more I read, the more he sucks.

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee decided against net neutrality and for NSA surveillance
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/9/17548 ... rveillance

Perhaps most concerning for supporters of net neutrality, Kavanaugh issued an important dissent as part of a hearing on the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which put in place consumer protections for internet users. Kavanaugh wrote that the “net neutrality rule is one of the most consequential regulations ever issued,” but that it was “unlawful and must be vacated” for two reasons. The first was simply that the FCC was not clearly granted the authority to make the rule, and thus overstepped by implementing it, Kavanaugh argued.

Additionally, Kavanaugh wrote, restricting the actions of internet service providers amounted to intruding on their “editorial discretion.” As a result, he argued, the net neutrality rule violated First Amendment protections. (The rules blocked ISPs from favoring certain kinds of internet traffic.) Despite Kavanaugh’s dissent, the court ruled against a petition for a re-hearing, supporting the FCC’s authority on the issue.

Kavanaugh has already taken heat on the dissent. Last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted that “Kavanaugh frequently sides with powerful interests rather than defending the rights of all Americans like when he argued that the FCC’s #NetNeutrality rule benefiting millions of consumers was unconstitutional.”

As flagged by Politico, Kavanaugh also wrote in favor of a decision on the US government’s metadata surveillance efforts spearheaded by the NSA. As part of a challenge to the program, Kavanaugh wrote that “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” Kavanaugh argued that the collection of records was not unlawful because the data was obtained through a third party, and would not constitute an “unreasonable” search based on past case law.

[snip][end]

Got it? As long as the government hired the private spy who's peering through your windowshades, since he's a "third party," it doesn't violate the 4th amendment. :roll:

And, once again, in some contortion of logic that might even tie Godel into a knot, the 1st amendment is once again weaponized ... against Net Neutrality.

Unless that private spy is named Steele, which would not be allowed as it is contained by the Steele exception, which may be part of the Biden Rule found in the First Book of Ginsburg.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10087

Not only that but also in a paper he wrote, gave congress a blueprint how to put 666 above the law. He in essence says that a president is not above the law and can be questioned or subpoenaed unless congress passes a law saying they can't. This from a man who worked with Kenneth Starr to attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, but suddenly now is worried about the effect this will have on the federal government. My guess is that if congress passes a law that no sitting president can be sued or charged with ANY crime, is that 666 will NEVER STEP DOWN AS PRESIDENT, no matter what!!!


Speaking of 666:

Image

He bit a sheriff's deputy. Local news, it happened yesterday 40 miles from here. https://kmph.com/news/local/man-arrested-after-running-from-deputy-and-biting-his-arm-in-oakhurst


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:10 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11227
Location: Sunny South Florida
I guess you're joking McS, but Chris Steele was first hired by the Washington Free Beacon, so he was doing private collection for a private entity. 4th amendment doesn't touch that.

Political campaigns are also private entities. So likewise for Republican primary campaigns that had him doing stuff.

By the time the government was going through the Steele Dossier, which was privately collected, there were warrants obtained because of probable cause.

The Trumpists keep claiming their 4th amendment rights were violated - thing is, they weren't, whereas Trump continues to support policies and nominees that will do that to other people.

BTW, maybe that was what you were alluding to. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:04 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36043
As I stated:
In 1993 Biden defined it. Fact.
The pundits, press, and politicians labeled it. Fact.
Justice Gorsuch made it ironclad conservative boiler plate. Fact.
The Ginsburg Rule is very real and no amount of gas bag bloviating is going to neutralize it or make it go away. Fact.

What you posted was an OPINION piece from a small-town newspaper, not a fact piece. Do you know the difference between hard news and opinion? Just asking.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:11 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36043

As a rule, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Presidents don’t “step down”. Their term of office
expires and their legal authority to act as President expires right along with it. Anything else would require an amendment of the constitution which requires super majorities in both houses of Congress as well as approval at the state level. Highly unlikely. When it is Trumps time to go, he will go whether he likes it or not.

Not exactly. Do you know who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. They can literally make law. If they had five solid votes, they could say that yes, the President didn't have to run for re-election.

That's the literal truth. If you want to know the abilities of a court to keep the rest of the country from making laws, look up "Lochner Era". Even if the nation made a new Constitutional Amendment - they are the ones that interprets it. It can mean anything they want it to mean. That's why an Amendment meant to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude was used to hand the 2000 Presidential election to GW Bush.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6300
Not exactly. Do you know who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. They can literally make law. If they had five solid votes, they could say that yes, the President didn't have to run for re-election.

That's the literal truth. If you want to know the abilities of a court to keep the rest of the country from making laws, look up "Lochner Era". Even if the nation made a new Constitutional Amendment - they are the ones that interprets it. It can mean anything they want it to mean. That's why an Amendment meant to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude was used to hand the 2000 Presidential election to GW Bush.


There isn't a provision in the Constitution or in the 20th amendment that contains anything the remotely resembles a provision whereby a sitting President can continue as President beyond the expiration of his term. It ends Jan 20. Thereafter the duly elected President takes office or the provisions of the 20th amendment take effect. This isn't really something that is gray in any way. It's stated quite plainly. Not really anything to interpret.

If there is any question as to whether the President elect is qualified or ready to take office, the one thing that isn't in the constitution is a provision where the departing President stays on. So the folks who don't like strict constructionists on SCOTUS can take comfort in the fact that it is highly unikely those Justices would simply ignore the plainly written provisions in the US Constitution as it regards the President's term of office. Of course, that won't stop you from trying to sell that line to those willing to buy it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6500
Cardinals president uses team media to endorse Supreme Court nominee

When the Arizona Cardinals used the team's social media and website to declare that team president Michael Bidwill backed Trump's recent SCOTUS nominee, people were quick to point out the double standard players face when bringing politics into their profession.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1016512464412921856


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6500
Supreme Court: Yankees' Brian Cashman backs Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's pick

So far, Yankees general manager Brian Cashman thinks President Donald Trump is batting a thousand with his Supreme Court picks.

After endorsing Trump choice Neil Gorsuch last year, Cashman is at it again, this time backing Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/20 ... supre.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:20 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17020
When making the rounds Kavanaugh should not waste his time talking to any Senator who has already stated they are going to vote against him. Also, as to whether or not he is qualified to be a Justice. It seems that he has the exact same qualifications as the other 8 justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... naugh.html

Not that any of this matters to you openminded liberals who are so tolerant of others but, USA Today headline calls his resume "Gold Plated".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 767923002/

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:22 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17020
Not exactly. Do you know who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. They can literally make law. If they had five solid votes, they could say that yes, the President didn't have to run for re-election.

That's the literal truth. If you want to know the abilities of a court to keep the rest of the country from making laws, look up "Lochner Era". Even if the nation made a new Constitutional Amendment - they are the ones that interprets it. It can mean anything they want it to mean. That's why an Amendment meant to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude was used to hand the 2000 Presidential election to GW Bush.



Not being to partisan or paranoid are you? The Lochner era ended 81 years ago.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ike Bana and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group