RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:17 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 7:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11549
Location: Sunny South Florida
I've opened my eyes, and I know what I see.

Kavanaugh’s Record Doesn’t Bode Well for Voting Rights
He voted to uphold a law that threatened to disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -rights-1/

As a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh voted in 2012 to uphold a South Carolina voter ID law that the Obama administration said would disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority citizens. The Justice Department blocked the law, which required government-issued photo identification to vote, in late 2011 for violating the Voting Rights Act.

“The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands,” wrote Tom Perez, who was then assistant attorney general for civil rights and now leads the Democratic National Committee. The Justice Department found that more than 80,000 minority registered voters in South Carolina did not have DMV-issued identification, with African Americans 20 percent more likely than whites to lack such ID.

[snip]

Kavanaugh’s opinion suggests that when it comes to voting rights, he would reliably side with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which in 2013 gutted the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states with a long history of voting discrimination no longer needed federal government approval for election changes. This year, the court’s conservatives also upheld voter purging in Ohio and racial gerrymandering in Texas.

Kavanaugh downplayed the racially charged origins of South Carolina’s voter ID law and its impact on voters of color. Members of the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus walked out of the Legislature when the bill was first considered. After the law passed, Ed Koziol, a Republican supporter of the law, wrote an email to the bill’s author, Rep. Alan Clemmons of Myrtle Beach, saying that if African Americans were offered a $100 award for obtaining voter ID, “you would see how fast they got voter ID cards with their picture. It would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon.”

[snip]

Voter disenfranchisement could get worse if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the court. Kavanuagh would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s frequent swing justice. Chief Justice John Roberts would likely become the new swing justice, and he has tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department. With Kavanaugh on the court, the five-member conservative majority will likely uphold new voting restrictions passed by Republican states and could kill the remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act. The days when minority voters could look to the nation’s highest court for protection seem to be over.

[snip][end]

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

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.

I guess I know a little more history than you do, obviously. I guess you didn't know that the Supreme Court, for over 30 years, decided that laws banning child labor were unconstitutional.

Look up Dred Scott v. Sanford. Or Plessy v. Ferguson. Or Korematsu v. United States. Or Lochner v. New York. Or Hammer v. Dagenhart. Or Kelo v. City of New London. Or Bush v. Gore. Then tell me that they can't do it if they decided to.

While it's admittedly unlikely that the Court would say that Trump could overstay his term, let's be clear - that power DOES reside in the Supreme Court. They could decide that the Constitution says that abortion is murder. They really don't have any check on their power. For instance, they knew that handing the 2000 election to GW Bush wasn't good law or a good decision, that's why they said in the decision that it didn't set an precedents and couldn't be used as such in the future.

But, once decided, it was over. There was nothing anyone in America could do. There is no higher power.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371


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

You mean what the right calls "the good old days?" It's what they mean when they say "MAGA!!!!"

Partisan? Maybe. Not paranoid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11549
Location: Sunny South Florida
Actually, GoU, though this is exceedingly rare, it is possible. Congress can check the SCOTUS. It does happen.

https://classroom.synonym.com/congress- ... 13586.html

Writing New Legislation

Ultimately, as the legislating body, Congress can always write new laws and amend the Constitution. If it disagrees with a judicial interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can create a law that renders the decision ineffectual. In fact, the new legislation can reinstate the old decree by employing different wording. The Supreme Court would have to wait until an aggrieved party filed a lawsuit before it could react.

[snip][end]

BTW - a very notable recent example of this was the 1994 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which in effect nullified the SCOTUS decision Oregon vs. Smith, 1990. Re-instating the rights of members of the Native American Church to use peyote.

Congress can, in effect, write a new law that nullifies a earlier decree of SCOTUS.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
I guess I know a little more history than you do, obviously. I guess you didn't know that the Supreme Court, for over 30 years, decided that laws banning child labor were unconstitutional.

Look up Dred Scott v. Sanford. Or Plessy v. Ferguson. Or Korematsu v. United States. Or Lochner v. New York. Or Hammer v. Dagenhart. Or Kelo v. City of New London. Or Bush v. Gore. Then tell me that they can't do it if they decided to.

While it's admittedly unlikely that the Court would say that Trump could overstay his term, let's be clear - that power DOES reside in the Supreme Court. They could decide that the Constitution says that abortion is murder. They really don't have any check on their power. For instance, they knew that handing the 2000 election to GW Bush wasn't good law or a good decision, that's why they said in the decision that it didn't set an precedents and couldn't be used as such in the future.

But, once decided, it was over. There was nothing anyone in America could do. There is no higher power.


Dred Scott case 1857; Plessy 1896; Kormatsu 1944 during the height of WWII; Lochner vs US 1905; Hammer 1918; Bush vs Gore correct decision based on the fact the entire state of Florida was about to be disenfranchised.

Yes it seems that 100 years ago the court made many poor decsions. Which have nothing to do with today.

_________________
"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 7:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Actually, GoU, though this is exceedingly rare, it is possible. Congress can check the SCOTUS. It does happen.

https://classroom.synonym.com/congress- ... 13586.html

Writing New Legislation

Ultimately, as the legislating body, Congress can always write new laws and amend the Constitution. If it disagrees with a judicial interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can create a law that renders the decision ineffectual. In fact, the new legislation can reinstate the old decree by employing different wording. The Supreme Court would have to wait until an aggrieved party filed a lawsuit before it could react.

[snip][end]

BTW - a very notable recent example of this was the 1994 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which in effect nullified the SCOTUS decision Oregon vs. Smith, 1990. Re-instating the rights of members of the Native American Church to use peyote.

Congress can, in effect, write a new law that nullifies a earlier decree of SCOTUS.



I don't see court packing happening anytime soon as it would surely cause the party in power to be voted out. Impeachment proceedings for no real cause other than political reasons would be even worse. There is nothing the Dems can do to prevent the vote on Kavanaugh other than find some scandal in his past.

Leaving the only viable option to write new legislation. Which is something I wish they would do. For example our brave lawmakers used the courts to legalize abortion and to this day still haven't passed a abortion law.

_________________
"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 7:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

Dred Scott case 1857; Plessy 1896; Kormatsu 1944 during the height of WWII; Lochner vs US 1905; Hammer 1918; Bush vs Gore correct decision based on the fact the entire state of Florida was about to be disenfranchised.

Yes it seems that 100 years ago the court made many poor decsions. Which have nothing to do with today.

They're still making poor decisions. Like the one that states the government can take YOUR property and give it to another private citizen.

And Bush v. Gore wasn't a good decision. The Court could have put a hold on everything until the votes were counted. And the fact they based it on the Amendment that abolished slavery was insane.

Read some of the opinions of Alito and Thomas. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.

There's nothing preventing the court from giving us another Lochner Era.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Actually, GoU, though this is exceedingly rare, it is possible. Congress can check the SCOTUS. It does happen.

https://classroom.synonym.com/congress- ... 13586.html

Writing New Legislation

Ultimately, as the legislating body, Congress can always write new laws and amend the Constitution. If it disagrees with a judicial interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can create a law that renders the decision ineffectual. In fact, the new legislation can reinstate the old decree by employing different wording. The Supreme Court would have to wait until an aggrieved party filed a lawsuit before it could react.

[snip][end]

BTW - a very notable recent example of this was the 1994 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which in effect nullified the SCOTUS decision Oregon vs. Smith, 1990. Re-instating the rights of members of the Native American Church to use peyote.

Congress can, in effect, write a new law that nullifies a earlier decree of SCOTUS.

Happened all the time during the Lochner Era. New laws, knocked down every time by the Court.

And, of course, that's what the right has tried to do with Roe, keep writing new laws to test the court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:46 pm
Posts: 1618
Bush vs Gore correct decision based on the fact the entire state of Florida was about to be disenfranchised.


You'll have to explain that one. How is having every vote cast to be counted disenfranchising people? That also wasn't the decision. The Bush vs. Gore decision said the counting of the votes must be stopped because otherwise it'd be a stain on the reputation of Bush. Not based on voter's rights. The personal feelings of Bush.

_________________
Socialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Happened all the time during the Lochner Era. New laws, knocked down every time by the Court.

And, of course, that's what the right has tried to do with Roe, keep writing new laws to test the court.


That was 80-100 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  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
You'll have to explain that one. How is having every vote cast to be counted disenfranchising people? That also wasn't the decision. The Bush vs. Gore decision said the counting of the votes must be stopped because otherwise it'd be a stain on the reputation of Bush. Not based on voter's rights. The personal feelings of Bush.



Because the results have to be certified by the Sec of State and turned into the Electoral College by a certain date or the votes aren't counted. Florida was down to 10 days to do so.

_________________
"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 7:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11549
Location: Sunny South Florida
I suggest you read what the SCOTUS actually said, AND the critiques of their decision.

But even what they claimed had nothing, per se, to do with deadlines.

They halted the Florida recount because, according to them, the different counties were using different standards for counting ballots (infamous "hanging/swinging/etc. chads"), and this violated the equal protection clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

I also recommend you read the critiques of their decision, including from ... Allan Dershowitz.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

That was 80-100 years ago.

Doesn't matter. Nothing has changed, they can do it again. They could decide that the National Labor Relations Act is null and void, and they could outlaw labor unions. There's nothing that would keep them from doing it, if you got enough nuts on the court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
I guess I know a little more history than you do, obviously. I guess you didn't know that the Supreme Court, for over 30 years, decided that laws banning child labor were unconstitutional.

Look up Dred Scott v. Sanford. Or Plessy v. Ferguson. Or Korematsu v. United States. Or Lochner v. New York. Or Hammer v. Dagenhart. Or Kelo v. City of New London. Or Bush v. Gore. Then tell me that they can't do it if they decided to.

While it's admittedly unlikely that the Court would say that Trump could overstay his term, let's be clear - that power DOES reside in the Supreme Court. They could decide that the Constitution says that abortion is murder. They really don't have any check on their power. For instance, they knew that handing the 2000 election to GW Bush wasn't good law or a good decision, that's why they said in the decision that it didn't set an precedents and couldn't be used as such in the future.

But, once decided, it was over. There was nothing anyone in America could do. There is no higher power.


It no longer surprises me what you think you know. I know a fair amount of history. I just don't spend most of my time dwelling in the past.

Your point that "it's admittedly unlikely that the Court would say that Trump could overstay his term", is exactly the point I was making. So we agree in that regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
I have a question about Kavanaugh. Can anyone name even one legitimate non-political reason or fact that makes him unqualified? I understand how many of you don't like him. But, the fact is he is as qualified as any person who has ever been nominated and more qualified than most.

_________________
"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 8:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
I have a question about Kavanaugh. Can anyone name even one legitimate non-political reason or fact that makes him unqualified? I understand how many of you don't like him. But, the fact is he is as qualified as any person who has ever been nominated and more qualified than most.

He's as qualified as Merrick Garland.

But here's a real non-political reason that I'm against him: Sounds like he's going to join Gorsuch as a get-out-of-jail free card for Trump, they look to be two certain votes to keep Trump from getting justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

It no longer surprises me what you think you know. I know a fair amount of history. I just don't spend most of my time dwelling in the past.

Your point that "it's admittedly unlikely that the Court would say that Trump could overstay his term", is exactly the point I was making. So we agree in that regard.

If you have no history, you have no future. Do you know about the Lochner Era? Yes or no?

No, the point you were making is that it couldn't happen. Yes, it could. But not likely. I wouldn't have thought a Court would have stopped a recount and handed the election to one candidate, based upon the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery. But it sure as hell happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10374
I have a question about Kavanaugh. Can anyone name even one legitimate non-political reason or fact that makes him unqualified? I understand how many of you don't like him. But, the fact is he is as qualified as any person who has ever been nominated and more qualified than most.


Glen, Gorsuch is conservative but he's principled about the law, the law is like a religion to him. He won't bend the law even when it might be a good idea to bend it a wee bit.

Kavanaugh is not principled about the law, he's more like a political operative, in fact that's how he got his start, being a political operative. He will bend the law for the Republican agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6352
He's as qualified as Merrick Garland.

But here's a real non-political reason that I'm against him: Sounds like he's going to join Gorsuch as a get-out-of-jail free card for Trump, they look to be two certain votes to keep Trump from getting justice.


If Trump is impeached, I don't believe either of those men have a say in the matter. If Trump is removed and later indicted, it is a very long road through the court system before he shows up at SCOTUS. The only thing where they might have to weigh in is if Trump pardons himself. He would have to do it while in office which would almost guarantee impeachment in my view and would be a disaster for him politically. Bottomline, somebody will have to lay out a scenario whereby the most recent nominees would have any legal sway on Trumps fate. I see that as remote. The effect this nomination has on Trump is political IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371

If Trump is impeached, I don't believe either of those men have a say in the matter. If Trump is removed and later indicted, it is a very long road through the court system before he shows up at SCOTUS. The only thing where they might have to weigh in is if Trump pardons himself. He would have to do it while in office which would almost guarantee impeachment in my view and would be a disaster for him politically. Bottomline, somebody will have to lay out a scenario whereby the most recent nominees would have any legal sway on Trumps fate. I see that as remote. The effect this nomination has on Trump is political IMO.

If Republicans are in power, there MIGHT be an impeachment, but there won't be a removal. I don't think that proving collusion with Russia to overturn the election would get enough Republicans to vote against Trump.

But he could shut down the Mueller investigation, and I think five members of the court would back him in getting rid of Mueller. Plus the Republicans.

Hell, Joe, YOU won't even say what you think should be done if he fires Mueller and ends the investigation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
He's as qualified as Merrick Garland.

But here's a real non-political reason that I'm against him: Sounds like he's going to join Gorsuch as a get-out-of-jail free card for Trump, they look to be two certain votes to keep Trump from getting justice.



Yes, Garland was 100% qualified. IMO though had the situation been reversed the Dems would have done the exact same thing the GOP did. As for a get out of jail free card loom at what you and others of that opinion ae saying. Which is this, we know how the other 8 justices are going to vote so we have to oppose Kavanaugh because we also know how he is going to vote.

_________________
"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 8:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371


Yes, Garland was 100% qualified. IMO though had the situation been reversed the Dems would have done the exact same thing the GOP did. As for a get out of jail free card loom at what you and others of that opinion ae saying. Which is this, we know how the other 8 justices are going to vote so we have to oppose Kavanaugh because we also know how he is going to vote.

Except that the Dems have NEVER done such a thing. Period.

So don't try that bullshit. And McConnell demanding the Dems be fair just shows how dishonest a man he is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358

Glen, Gorsuch is conservative but he's principled about the law, the law is like a religion to him. He won't bend the law even when it might be a good idea to bend it a wee bit.

Kavanaugh is not principled about the law, he's more like a political operative, in fact that's how he got his start, being a political operative. He will bend the law for the Republican agenda.



Look at this flow chart

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

As for bending the law for the GOP agenda yes he will, The same as the 4 liberals will bend it for the Dems agenda. The last real justice we had was Souter. We need 9 Souter's but in our lifetimes will never see another Souter.

_________________
"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 8:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
Except that the Dems have NEVER done such a thing. Period.

So don't try that bullshit. And McConnell demanding the Dems be fair just shows how dishonest a man he is.



Don't be a Pollyanna and believe even for a moment that the Dems wouldn't have done the exact same thing and that you wouldn't have supported it 100%. Both what they did then and what they are doing now.

_________________
"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 8:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371


Don't be a Pollyanna and believe even for a moment that the Dems wouldn't have done the exact same thing and that you wouldn't have supported it 100%. Both what they did then and what they are doing now.

Oh, bullshit. One of the Dem's problem in a knife fight is that they DO believe in fair play. Republicans cheat. They have no interest in EVER playing by the rules. Which we know.

Fact is, the dems have NEVER done it, and the Republicans have. PROVE that he Dems would have done the same thing. I dare you.


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: bengal59, Ike Bana, Libertas and 5 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