New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
tyr_13 said:
They aren't looking for themselves; they're looking to convince some (two) Republicans. I don't think at this point they're foolish enough to try to shame any of them, but I do think they're trying to find something a somewhat moral Republican could use as political cover to oppose the nomination.

That hypothetical Republican could cite the Republican's own arguments about nominations already, and if it is found that he did commit perjury during his initial confirmation provably, then this hypothetical Republican could make the argument 'we have plenty of good potential nominees who don't lie'.

Maybe. After what the GOP has shown itself to be, I doubt any living Republican would take that risk now. That GOP supporters are throwing such hypocritical shade at Dems for trying to do the most basic due diligence does not bode well for reasoning or shame working on them.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The GOP is not entirely made of Trump enthusiasts. Two could be swayed (Collins of Maine is a totally independent voice, leaning to confirm, but could be swayed).
 
Lindsay Graham is making an effing ass hole of himself in the Kavanaugh hearing. He's going on and on about how all the partisan divide happened recently and Graham is so sorry all these appointments are not getting 90 votes blah blah blah, elections have consequences blah blah blah.

Not one ******* word about Obama's right to appoint Merrick Garland and how Garland should have gotten 90 votes.

:mad: :soapbox :mad: :soapbox
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Rubio's argument is that because we all knew a SCOTUS judge was in the balance with the 2016 election, and because Trump put out his Federalist list of candidates, therefore the US public voted a mandate for Trump's nominees.

I'm sorry alt-whiters, that ain't how it works. There was Russian interference, decades of false attacks against Clinton, misogyny, the EC, Trump's convincing con, and Comey's interference. Just because McConnell pulled some unethical shenanigans and claimed the election was going to be about the open SCOTUS seat, does not mean that was the one critical factor all voters were focused on. It disgusts me to hear yet more lies.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was the EC. 538 people get to vote for president and they cast a fair vote.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Lindsay Graham is making an effing ass hole of himself in the Kavanaugh hearing. He's going on and on about how all the partisan divide happened recently and Graham is so sorry all these appointments are not getting 90 votes blah blah blah, elections have consequences blah blah blah.

Not one ******* word about Obama's right to appoint Merrick Garland and how Garland should have gotten 90 votes.

:mad: :soapbox :mad: :soapbox
Click to expand...

A) he didnt have a right to appoint. He had the power to nominate.

B) Garland didn't get a vote. He may have received 90 votes if he did.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Lindsay Graham is making an effing ass hole of himself in the Kavanaugh hearing. He's going on and on about how all the partisan divide happened recently and Graham is so sorry all these appointments are not getting 90 votes blah blah blah, elections have consequences blah blah blah.

Not one ******* word about Obama's right to appoint Merrick Garland and how Garland should have gotten 90 votes.
Click to expand...


Look on the bright side. Kavanaugh is 53 years old. Best case scenario, he'll only be on the court for at most 40 years.

"It's one day. Half a day, really. I mean you subtract showers and meals, it's like twenty minutes."
-- Jerry speaking to Elaine
 
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037514830490607617

@senkamalaharris asks if Judge Kavanaugh has discussed Mueller Investigation with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm.

#Kavanaugh: "I would like to know the person you're thinking of."

Sen. Harris: "I think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us."
Click to expand...

Video embedded in tweet. Video of the full exchange embedded in the following tweet.

Oh and, for those curious, the law firm in question has 7 people in DC
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Video of the full exchange embedded in the following tweet.
Click to expand...

Note how he refuses to give a straight answer to the question of whether he's spoken to anybody other than his fellow judges about Mueller's investigation. The answer, however, is obviously "yes", because if it were "no" then he wouldn't need to know who worked at Trump's lawyers' firm in order to say that he'd not spoken to anybody there about it.
 
I see the "spontaneous" "protesters" at the hearing were getting paid cash after performances.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is. He didn't answer those hypotheticals. That is a disqualifying failure as a human being.
Click to expand...

Your answer "it is" is a lie.

answering hypothetical is not a defining feature of a human being.

Refusal to entertain incomplete hypothetical is the duty of a judge. Actual Controversy:

An actual controversy is a constitutional requirement (Found in found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) for federal courts that demands there be a real dispute between two parties capable of being resolved by the court, as opposed to a hypothetical case brought in an attempt to get the court to issue an advisory opinion.

And those are, as they say, the facts
 
The Big Dog said:
Your answer "it is" is a lie.

answering hypothetical is not a defining feature of a human being.

Refusal to entertain incomplete hypothetical is the duty of a judge. Actual Controversy:

An actual controversy is a constitutional requirement (Found in found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) for federal courts that demands there be a real dispute between two parties capable of being resolved by the court, as opposed to a hypothetical case brought in an attempt to get the court to issue an advisory opinion.

And those are, as they say, the facts
Click to expand...

It is the absolutely defining feature and what I primarily judge every human being by. This isnt a hypothetical case brought before him. It isn't a case. It is a hypothetical. His refusal to answer it is a disqualifying moral failing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom