What's sad is that you think that's a joke based on exaggeration. Pretty much every item on that list is a real and expressed goal of the Trump administration. I don't think most of them will really occur, because most would be found unconstitutional by any Supreme Court of the last hundred years or so. But add Kavenaugh to the current mix and some of them could sneak through - at least in narrow rulings on specific cases.
No sir, what's sad is it's no more of an exaggeration than the "he's guilty and unfit" tirade leveled at Kavanaugh. Do you honestly believe that Trumpet has the authority to overrule the SCOTUS and demand the changes I've outlined?
I'm familiar with the scenarios I've presented and I posted them intentionally, not as joke, but to compare the absurdity of this entire affair.
So Leo, as a Judge, and previously as political staff attorney, Kavenaugh had a long record that would undoubtedly show his history of actions, cases worked on, and decisions. Why do you suppose that record was not made available - in fact hidden - from the Senate as well as everybody else who doesn't have the time and resources to dig through WestLaw.
It's not correct to say that Trump can "overrule" the Supreme Court, but Trump has always used the court as a weapon. Often just for harassment or intimidation or because he has more money to throw at it than his competitor. But since he's been in office he's issued executive orders or gotten his cabinet to issue regulations that he knew and expected would be challenged in court. He knows he's going to lose on most of them, but if he wins a few now and then, he has gained something. Now change the playing field a little. Make the courts more likely to rule in his favor - not necessarily because they're all Trumpers, but because he's appointed judges who are on the fringes of legal theory and practice. Now maybe he wins a few more previously unwinnable items. Now manage to pack the Supreme Court with at least one personal advocate - who believes in the supremacy of the Presidency, and is willing to support all sorts of strange positions. He still won't win everything, but his chances of getting some of the things on that list done go up sharply.
It looks like someone has spit out that crow he was supposedly eating.
I'm pretty sure he never ordered up any crow. He doesn't care about issues, events or outcomes as long as he can be contrary to whatever most everybody else here thinks.
"Roberts’ decision to sit on the complaints against Kavanaugh stands in stark contrast to how he handled a similar complaint–centered around allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment–filed against Kavanaugh’s mentor, now-former judge Alex Kozinski.
In that case, Chief Justice Roberts forwarded the Kozinski complaint to another circuit the day after he received it."
Hopefully all come out
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
I'm thinking there will be Kavenaugh trash stories for a long time. He's going to be sooooo sorry he ever got involved with Trump, even if he was able to achieve his dream job. It's not going to turn out like he dreamed, I'm sure. Trump stories never have happy endings.
It looks like someone has spit out that crow he was supposedly eating.
I'm pretty sure he never ordered up any crow. He doesn't care about issues, events or outcomes as long as he can be contrary to whatever most everybody else here thinks.
True, he is a child that way.
Maybe he thought the confirmation was in peril and didn't want to be a loser. Whatever, now he's taking a victory lap that he could have also claimed if the confirmation failed. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2690&start=100
Leland Keyser, a high school friend of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while they were both teenagers, has written a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify that although she does not remember the house party where the misconduct allegedly occurred, she believes Ford's account....
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
You have to actually start eating before you can spit it out; it was ordered, but a rush on available inventories from so many liberals depleted the supply, I cancelled my back order.
He doesn't care about issues, events or outcomes as long as he can be contrary to whatever most everybody else here thinks. It may appear that way to you because I am not a biased party loyal; you here are strictly liberal, whereas I am middle of the road.
I carefully select my priorities on issues that I choose to defend or ignore regardless of partisanship.
You have to actually start eating before you can spit it out; it was ordered, but a rush on available inventories from so many liberals depleted the supply, I cancelled my back order.
He doesn't care about issues, events or outcomes as long as he can be contrary to whatever most everybody else here thinks. It may appear that way to you because I am not a biased party loyal; you here are strictly liberal, whereas I am middle of the road.
I carefully select my priorities on issues that I choose to defend or ignore regardless of partisanship.
so, do you go along with Boof's belief in an Imperial presidency where the president is above the law, cannot be indicted or subpoenaed and can pardon himself (no women allowed), or do you go along with Boof's idea that a dem president can be indicted, subpoenaed and cannot pardon him or herself?
edit
and that a dem president should testify under oath about a consequential affair with a much younger adult in a setting where his wife will find out, but that a nominee to the SC should be bitter and outraged to the point of attacking the questioner for similar questions
Last edited by billy.pilgrim on Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
so, do you go along with Boof's belief in an Imperial presidency where the president is above the law, cannot be indicted or subpoenaed and can pardon himself (no women allowed), or do you go along with Boof's idea that a dem president can be indicted, subpoenaed and cannot pardon him or herself? I'm not all wrapped up in politics to the point that I fume over people and events. But to answer your question; no.
and that a dem president should testify under oath about a consequential affair with a much younger adult in a setting where his wife will find out, Get your ass in a sling; pay the consequences, however, what goes on in someone's private life is just that; private. The fact that Trumper got some strange is no business of mine; or anyone else's unless it concerns national security. Upholding an image is not a priority anymore; unless of course the person involved is of the opposing political party.
but that a nominee to the SC should be bitter and outraged to the point of attacking the questioner for similar questions I think you're talking about Mr. Potato-head Gowdy? He's just as big an asshole as anyone else; so I guess you could say he's entitled to his little outrages.
I've spent enough time in Maine this summer to get a good local view of "our" Senator.
Collins has held on to her Republican seat in a largely lefterly leaning state (at least in the populated areas) by being socially moderate. But she has no problem presenting one face to the constituents and then licking McConnell's wrinkled fat ass. Her vote for the tax cut was supposedly in exchange for support for healthcare issues - absolutely none of which happened. Probably knew nothing would happen, but saying she was "promised" something let her hide when she's back in Portland.
I also think McConnell told her that if she didn't vote for McConnell she'd lose all her committee positions and might as well just sit in a corner for the rest of her term.
I guess it's too much to ask that she have balls, but at least a spine would be nice.
I don't know whether they support Collins or not, but I don't see getting a crusty lobstah-man to change his mind or get politically active through a boycott. I can see consumer pressure on a particular company whose CEO publicly takes a position. I can see economic pressure on a state or city whose government publicly (or though law) takes a position. But hammering people who really had absolutely nothing to do with the offending action, and in fact some/many of whom might also oppose it, doesn't seem like a good use of political muscle.
I don't know whether they support Collins or not, but I don't see getting a crusty lobstah-man to change his mind or get politically active through a boycott. I can see consumer pressure on a particular company whose CEO publicly takes a position. I can see economic pressure on a state or city whose government publicly (or though law) takes a position. But hammering people who really had absolutely nothing to do with the offending action, and in fact some/many of whom might also oppose it, doesn't seem like a good use of political muscle.
Yeah, I just think it's interesting. I haven't heard of a state boycott because of one Senator's vote before. Plus, the vote is done - how does the boycott "win"? It could even backfire with a few voters. Fine with me if it's just more embarrassment for her without real economic effect.
That said, betting against WV because Manchin is an asshole worked out great for me yesterday.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I like the steady reminder of what she did. Remember it wasn't just her vote itself or her totally slimy speech of a "thorough investigation" that many if not most of her constituents are mad about. She was under great pressure to vote against Kavenaugh before the assault allegations and was being coy about what she might do. If she really had been having doubts about voting for him before, the assault questions should have been a final topper. So she was lying from the first. Then she continued to act waverly about deciding, resulting in a totally bogus "conclusion" and a tow-the-McConnell-line vote. Not good in a state where most everybody else in elected office (except the batshit moon-howling drooling governor) is socially left-leaning.
It may be sleazy, but I can respect the position of a guy who says, in effect, "Republicans in this state keep me in office, and almost all of them support Trump, so I've gotta vote for Kavenaugh." That's a guy who's at least got the balls to face his own reality. I've got no respect for the guy who won't even stand up for himself.
