New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Nothing to assume, they are getting paid, so the proper question is why?

Endeavor to answer it.
Click to expand...

It's not my conspiracy theory, nor am I the one proffering questionable, circumstantial evidence as proof of said conspiracy theory, so the question remains yours to answer.

And I get that you can't.

Very few conspiracy theorists have the capacity to see past their own cognitive dissonance to the underlying contradictions at the heart of their beliefs.

But I thought I'd try to nudge you in that direction anyway. I guess I'm just an optimist.
 
johnny karate said:
It's not my conspiracy theory, nor am I the one proffering questionable, circumstantial evidence as proof of said conspiracy theory, so the question remains yours to answer.

And I get that you can't.

Very few conspiracy theorists have the capacity to see past their own cognitive dissonance to the underlying contradictions at the heart of their beliefs.

But I thought I'd try to nudge you in that direction anyway. I guess I'm just an optimist.
Click to expand...

Oh man, that is some next level fallacious argument there, and i strongly commend you for it!

Actual picture of actual 'protester" getting actual cash money from an actual leader of the actual protest you dismiss as teh "conspiracy."

That is actually in the top five greatest posts I have seen today.

Gosh, all I have to do is post and people come slamming into the thread repeatedly making my points for me time after time. Gorgeous!

say, can we talk about these protesters getting PAID some more!
 
The Big Dog said:
Actual picture of actual 'protester" getting actual cash money from an actual leader of the actual protest you dismiss as teh "conspiracy."
Click to expand...

"Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law."

Money to pay potential fines =/= compensation for protesting.
 
phiwum said:
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).
Click to expand...

They don't have to be Trump enthusiasts. In fact, I bet many hate the man. However, they are constrained by what his election, and most importantly continued very high levels of support by Republicans, indicates.

You have one there. I don't think she will be (has she even objected to the absolutely craven procedural double-standard from the rest of the GOP yet?), but your view isn't merit less. Did you have another?
 
johnny karate said:
Money to pay potential fines =/= compensation for protesting.
Click to expand...

Yes, johnny, it is. That may serve as their justification for the compensation, and you can decide for yourself whether you think that justification is valid, but it is still absolutely compensation for protesting.
 
Cory ‘Spartacus’ Booker succeeds in proving Kavanaugh is against racial profiling

I don’t know if the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to self-destruct, or if they’re just frazzled because they have no way to stop the Kavanaugh nomination. Either way, they’re embarrassing themselves on a spectacular level.

At one point during the proceedings Booker dared Republicans to throw him out, comparing himself to Spartacus in the process. If you’re wondering how that makes any sense, you’re not alone.

In the end, Booker released the confidential emails and succeeded in proving not only that he didn’t understand Spartacus, but that Brett Kavanaugh is against racial profiling.

Thank you for making this clear Senator Booker.

https://canadafreepress.com/article...-in-proving-kavanaugh-is-against-racial-profi (Sept 6, 2018)
Click to expand...


I didn't know that Spartacus dared the Roman Republic to throw him out. Learn something new everyday.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no respect for anyone who cannot entertain and discuss hypothetical questions.
Click to expand...

It's actually even worse than just refusing to entertain hypothetical questions (I would sometimes disagree with you and say that depending on the situation 'I don't know enough to say' is a perfectly reasonable answer), in that not only was the hypothetical something he has talked about and damn well should have been already thinking about if he were a worthwhile nominee, but he also refused to discuss his own writings and opinions he's expressed.

But it doesn't surprise me, and probably doesn't surprise you, that those posters who are unconcerned with perjury during confirmation hearings are also unconcerned with if the judge has the intellectual fortitude to defend their stated legal opinions.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm sure he can. But it does no actual good to do so in this context. These hearings are not actually a setting for reasoned discussion and nuanced consideration. They are an attempt to generate soundbites which can be used for partisan political purposes.
Click to expand...

Your objection to them doing their job because it helps them politically to do their job is very telling.

If it is provable that he committed perjury during his previous confirmation, would you support him still?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, johnny, it is. That may serve as their justification for the compensation, and you can decide for yourself whether you think that justification is valid, but it is still absolutely compensation for protesting.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's money to cover costs they incur while voluntarily protesting. See, how compensation usually works is that you make money, not break even.

But then again, I don't know where you work. Maybe you're given just enough money to cover the costs you incur while doing your job, and you consider that "compensation". If so, I regret to inform you that you're working for free.

But since you decided to jump in and defend this conspiracy theory, perhaps you can answer this question:

Why do protesters need to be paid to protest?
 
Last edited:
According to the WAPO, the emails Booker leaked had been cleared for release, he just jumped the gun a little.
This will make expulsion almost impossible ( I never thought it was a realistic possibility anyway). On the other hand, it does make it look like Booker was indulging in a little bit of grandstanding.
 
tyr_13 said:
It's actually even worse than just refusing to entertain hypothetical questions (I would sometimes disagree with you and say that depending on the situation 'I don't know enough to say' is a perfectly reasonable answer), in that not only was the hypothetical something he has talked about and damn well should have been already thinking about if he were a worthwhile nominee, but he also refused to discuss his own writings and opinions he's expressed.

But it doesn't surprise me, and probably doesn't surprise you, that those posters who are unconcerned with perjury during confirmation hearings are also unconcerned with if the judge has the intellectual fortitude to defend their stated legal opinions.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, Kavanaugh holds that such hypotheticals are a matter between the judge and the litigants. If he were to opine on them to Congress, it would undermine the trust of litigants that he would be open to their arguments in a trial. Therefore, since his actual duty as a judge is to the litigants, it would be improper (perhaps even unconstitutional) for him to render pre-judgements at Congress' behest.

Thus his refusal to discuss hypotheticals at the confirmation hearings is not an automatic black mark, but a nuanced and complex question that should be debated as such.

And there is precedent in this. The objection to a "litmus test". The reluctance to pre-judge. Etc. Wasn't there a nominee who refused to answer hypotheticals about abortion cases?
 
Last edited:
Cory Booker's office confirms that the whole grandstanding **** show that was his Spartacus moment was phony as a seven dollar bill, because the ******* documents were released last night.

These clowns are Spartacularly Dishonest.

:D
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The way I understand it, Kavanaugh holds that such hypotheticals are a matter between the judge and the litigants. If he were to opine on them to Congress, it would undermine his credibility as an impartial judge in a trial. Therefore, since his actual duty as a judge is to the litigants, it would be improper (perhaps even unconstitutional) for him to render pre-judgements at Congress' behest.

Thus his refusal to discuss hypotheticals at the confirmation hearings is not an automatic black mark, but a nuanced and complex question that should be debated as such.

And there is precedent in this. The objection to a "litmus test". The reluctance to pre-judge. Etc. Wasn't there a nominee who refused to answer hypotheticals about abortion cases?
Click to expand...

What do you have supporting that? I listened to him say, "I haven't studied that issue," but missed him saying, "It would be unfair to discuss that issue." As far as I know, his justification was not the one you present. (Also note that I outright said it was sometimes perfectly reasonable to not answer hypotheticals.)

And none of that applies to discussing his own written views.
 
johnny karate said:
No, it's not. It's money to cover costs they incur while voluntarily protesting. See, how compensation usually works is that you make money, not break even.
Click to expand...

1) that's not a requirement
2) since this money is disbursed before any fines are levied, and there's no indication that they have to return the money if they aren't fined, they very well may make money.

But since you decided to jump in and defend this conspiracy theory, perhaps you can answer this question:

Why do protesters need to be paid to protest?
Click to expand...

Don't know, don't care. They are being paid. It's not like this is the first time, there is a long history of paying people to protest. For example:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ppfu0o/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-working-stiffed
 
johnny karate said:
Such a weird conspiracy theory.

Trump is very unpopular and so is Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee.

Why do conservative conspiracy theorists imagine the need for paid protesters?
Click to expand...

It was George Soros in the Bildeberg airship!

Truth is - a lot of organizations receive donations from people who believe in their causes, and this includes from philanthropic organizations from this or that wealthy person, as well as small donations. BLM, Planned Parenthood, Prager U...this is a part of how capitalism works. Wow, what a shock, organizers need food. This is especially useful when official government agencies also spend money to shut them down.

Second, yes this does include money for bail, when needed. And?

Third, this is another case of self-snitching in my opinion. "Well, I'd never protest against anything, unless I were being paid, so other people must be getting paid as well." Sorry, but a lot of people actually believe in having access to health care (including abortions), not having police forces act as white supremacist enforcement patrols, and so forth. And while a lot of people have aid in transportation, living rooms to sleep in, and the like, this is veryh rarely enough to pay for any sort of full-time work.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
-Trump

Sounds like Trump is paying people to beat up protesters.
Click to expand...

Got any pictures of him passing out the long green to "protesters" like we have seen proven and admitted by the schlubs at the ongoing hearing??

protip: No.

I get that bringing this up again is better than discussing total rat fink Cory "Spartacus" Booker's humiliating display today, tho.

:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom