The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

Ric Flair said:
This is all about abortion. Democrats don’t want someone like Kavanaugh on the Court for fear he will overturn Roe/Casey. I thiught that was unlikely based on Kavanaugh’s history. But the ultimate F U to the Democrats who accused him of being a sexual predator and gang rapist in front of his wife, children, and parents would be to go ahead and overturn it.

Democrats are doing themselves no favors with their despicable tactics. They’ll either wind up with an enraged Kavanaugh more likely to overturn Roe/Casey or with a different nominee who is more likely to overturn Roe/Casey.
Click to expand...


I see you're choosing your own reality and ignoring what the rest of us are actually saying, Ric. Disappointing.

 
Clifford Franklin said:
I see you're choosing your own reality and ignoring what the rest of us are actually saying, Ric. Disappointing.
Click to expand...


What part of what I said isn’t consistent with reality? Democrats made clear they would oppose whoever Trump nominated. On the night he announced the nominee, they had signs ready for protests with fill-in-the-blanks where they could write in whoever was chosen. Nit a single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has an open mind on Kavanaugh...they have all made clear, even before talking to him, they would vote against him. Nothing he says or does will change their minds. This week delay for another investigation just gives Avenatto and his ilk more time to find crazed nutjobs to make more laughably idiotic claims about Kavanaugh.

But this all stems from abortion politics. If Kavanaugh made clear he was a firm vote for abortion Democrats would enthusiastically support him.

 
Ric Flair said:
What part of what I said isn’t consistent with reality? Democrats made clear they would oppose whoever Trump nominated. On the night he announced the nominee, they had signs ready for protests with fill-in-the-blanks where they could write in whoever was chosen. Nit a single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has an open mind on Kavanaugh...they have all made clear, even before talking to him, they would vote against him. Nothing he says or does will change their minds. This week delay for another investigation just gives Avenatto and his ilk more time to find crazed nutjobs to make more laughably idiotic claims about Kavanaugh.

But this all stems from abortion politics. If Kavanaugh made clear he was a firm vote for abortion Democrats would enthusiastically support him.
Click to expand...
remember how hard they worked against gorsuch?   all that partisan politics to defame him and drag him through the mud.  and garland....heck....so partisan we can't even let him get a chance

 
commando said:
remember how hard they worked against gorsuch?   all that partisan politics to defame him and drag him through the mud.  and garland....heck....so partisan we can't even let him get a chance
Click to expand...


Gorsuch was replacing Scalia, which didn’t change the balance of the Court. And despite that, Gorsuch wouldn’t have been confirmed without McConnell reducing the number of votes needed from 60 to 51. Gorsuch only got 54 votes, despite being exceptionally well qualified.

Kavanaugh will be replacing Kennedy, who is the swing vote and a key vote for liberals on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. That could be a game changer on those issues, with the Court swinging strongly to the right. THAT has to be opposed by the crazed left as strongly as possible.

 
Here’s Rachel Mitchell’s report on Christine Blasey Ford’s incredibly bizarre and completely unsupported charges.

Mitchell’s Report

Ford seems like a nuce lady whi is genuinely struggling with some sort of trauma. But it’s hard to see her speak and then read this report and then believe her story. It’s entirely possible and maybe even likely that she’s simply nuts.

 
The entire crux of her report is that a prosecutor, in a criminal justice context, would not bring a legal charge against Kavanaugh. Which is, surprisingly (not that surprising), almost entirely unrelated to a context that has nothing to do with the criminal justice system. 

"A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution."
Click to expand...
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," she wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."
Click to expand...



Two pretty important quotes from Rachel Mitchell. The interesting thing about the second one, though, is that it is only specifically focused on Dr. Ford's allegations and doesn't take into any account the further allegations levied against Kavanaugh, and the corroborating stories of those, as well as Kavanaugh committing perjury. The likelihood of Ford's testimony is only one focus at play here, the other is whether Kavanaugh is qualified for the position.

 
Ric Flair said:
What part of what I said isn’t consistent with reality? Democrats made clear they would oppose whoever Trump nominated. On the night he announced the nominee, they had signs ready for protests with fill-in-the-blanks where they could write in whoever was chosen. Nit a single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has an open mind on Kavanaugh...they have all made clear, even before talking to him, they would vote against him. Nothing he says or does will change their minds. This week delay for another investigation just gives Avenatto and his ilk more time to find crazed nutjobs to make more laughably idiotic claims about Kavanaugh.

But this all stems from abortion politics. If Kavanaugh made clear he was a firm vote for abortion Democrats would enthusiastically support him.
Click to expand...


There's pages of commentary in this thread about why Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court on the merits. He's a liar. He's an unapologetic partisan hack - which is not at all what he seemed to promise us before:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said the court "must never, never be viewed as a partisan institution," as he closed out the first day of a rancorous Senate hearing that has bitterly divided Republicans and Democrats.

 
"The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle," Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday. "They do not caucus in separate rooms. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Click to expand...


Kavanaugh showed up to part two of his job interview screaming at senators charged with voting for him and bizarrely claimed that that this was political retaliation by the Clintons and the far-left. While it would surprise no one that those groups would find his politics detestable, it is absolute bash#t crazy that someone showed up screaming that kind of lunacy at a job interview.

Lastly, I understand what he has been through over the past couple of weeks hasn't been very fun. Hell, it's probably sucked. But he showed up to a job interview yelling at people, choking back tears at times and just being generally belligerent, rude and smarmy. Utterly unprofessional, emotionally volatile and smug. To borrow a word that is far too often used to described females in politics, he seemed hysterical. Certainly not being able to control one's emotions in such a setting is not the type of temperament that should be given a lifetime seat on the highest court in the country.

I've no doubt that Democrats want to hold this seat open. But if Kavanaugh falls, another Kavanaugh will take his place. It's a fruitless endeavor. Frankly if Kavanaugh is as petty as you make him sound in deciding to tank Roe v. Wade because some Democrats were mean to him, it's even more reason to not put him on the Supreme Court. I'd think you'd side with us on this one and call for him to step down, Ric.

 
TGHusker said:
Republicans need to remember, when they come to a knife fight wt a knife (playing by the 'rules'), the Dems come wt F-35s. 

OPED pointing out the blood sport that these nominations have become.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/29/kavanaughs-hearings-are-a-national-disaster-and-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/
Click to expand...
Put forth another nominee who isn't an abuser and it might go more smoothly. Kavanaugh and his battered family, please. I have zero sympathy for a man who doesn't give a rats a$$ about how this effects his family. If he did he could have bowed out long before any of this.

 
TGHusker said:
Republicans need to remember, when they come to a knife fight wt a knife (playing by the 'rules'), the Dems come wt F-35s. 

OPED pointing out the blood sport that these nominations have become.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/29/kavanaughs-hearings-are-a-national-disaster-and-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/
Click to expand...
remember how the republicans used a carpet bombing campaign to totally stop the garland nomination?  and what did the dems do about gorsuch?   a couple party poppers?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
commando said:
remember how the republicans used a carpet bombing campaign to totally stop the garland nomination?  and what did the dems do about gorsuch?   a couple party poppers?
Click to expand...
Agree - as noted in my previous post - the Repubs were wrong to hold the Garland nomination up for so long.  while Kennedy was center right, Garland was center left but not radical like Obama's other nominees.  The thing was, Garland was going to replace the Conservative spokes person/intellect on the court in Scalia.  Repubs so that as too big of a swing.

 
TGHusker said:
Agree - as noted in my previous post - the Repubs were wrong to hold the Garland nomination up for so long.  while Kennedy was center right, Garland was center left but not radical like Obama's other nominees.  The thing was, Garland was going to replace the Conservative spokes person/intellect on the court in Scalia.  Repubs so that as too big of a swing.
Click to expand...
i am sure the dems see kavanaugh as too radical right..especially after his outburst in that senate hearing.  heck...i wasn't opposed to kavanaught at first.  thought i wanted to hear things out when the accusations came out.....then woof....that outburst. i am now hoping against hope that he isn't confirmed.   he is not an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes....he is as partisan as there is out there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Flake said today he wouldn’t have done what he did if he had been up for re-election.

I know I’m a broken record but term limits would improve things drastically. More politicians would try to do things they think are right rather than caring only about staying in power. 

 
Back
Top