Kavanaugh Hearings

[SabreFan1]

51 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

How does the FBI or any investigation for that matter not question the main person involved which prompts an investigation into something. By not doing this, just shows it was a planned joke from the beginning of this investigation, they made sure to limit the investigation so they wouldn't find anything concrete, so they can come back and say see we were right. The fact that the President and the White House has control in what the FBI does in the investigation is a joke as well, because we already know they're bias in the outcome no matter what, so they get to make the decisions based on being bias already that's ridiculous.

The executive branch is the head of law enforcement.  The only person who had enough authority to sidestep Trump in the matter is the DOJ.  Had Jeff Sessions started a war with Trump over a political nomination that was obviously going to make it through the Senate, Trump would have taken his rage out on the investigation into the Russian collusion.  That investigation is more important than what would have been a fruitless effort to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed. 

 

One thing about Republicans.  Once they've made up their minds, they dig in and by hook or by crook, they will follow through.  The Democrats, not so much.

 

Also, this is the Democrats' stupidity coming back to bite the entire country on the rear-end.  Up until a few years ago, it took 60 votes to confirm any federal judge.  The Democrats permanently removed that safeguard in order to push through Obama's appointees.  Hopefully in the future when they get the majority in the legislative and executive branches, they put forth for consideration to the 50 states a constitutional amendment that will require 60 votes once again.

[Toews]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

The executive branch is the head of law enforcement.  The only person who had enough authority to sidestep Trump in the matter is the DOJ.  Had Jeff Sessions started a war with Trump over a political nomination that was obviously going to make it through the Senate, Trump would have taken his rage out on the investigation into the Russian collusion.  That investigation is more important than what would have been a fruitless effort to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed. 

 

One thing about Republicans.  Once they've made up their minds, they dig in and by hook or by crook, they will follow through.  The Democrats, not so much.

 

Also, this is the Democrats' stupidity coming back to bite the entire country on the rear-end.  Up until a few years ago, it took 60 votes to confirm any federal judge.  The Democrats permanently removed that safeguard in order to push through Obama's appointees.  Hopefully in the future when they get the majority in the legislative and executive branches, they put forth for consideration to the 50 states a constitutional amendment that will require 60 votes once again.

Yeah, but by then they might have their own majority and Supreme Court vacancy to fill and they will be reluctant to cede power to the Republicans so they can obstruct away.

 

And that's the inherent problem with politics, it requires the ones in power to do what's right but often they are only interested in accruing more power. Take the recent unprecedented use of the notwithstanding clause by certain Canadian politicians. Of course these individuals are only thinking about the short term and not the precedent they are setting. 

[SabreFan1]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

Yeah, but by then they might have their own majority and Supreme Court vacancy to fill and they will be reluctant to cede power to the Republicans so they can obstruct away.

 

And that's the inherent problem with politics, it requires the ones in power to do what's right but often they are only interested in accruing more power. Take the recent unprecedented use of the notwithstanding clause by certain Canadian politicians. Of course these individuals are only thinking about the short term and not the precedent they are setting. 

One can only hope that the Democrats learned their lesson and will take the hit.  Chuck Schumer is on record saying that the Democrats screwed up when they pulled that short-sited move.

Edited October 6, 2018 by SabreFan1

[Toews]

16 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

One can only hope that the Democrats learned their lesson and will take the hit.  Chuck Schumer is on record saying that the Democrats screwed up when they pulled that short-sited move.

Yeah but taking the hit would be the weak thing to do according to many around here. The fact is that more of the Democratic base will want their own pound of flesh.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Toews said:

Yeah but taking the hit would be the weak thing to do according to many around here. The fact is that more of the Democratic base will want their own pound of flesh.

Sadly you may be right. 

 

If you continue to take an eye for an eye, eventually everyone will be blind.

[Canada Hockey Place]

America = 

 

side note - This may be really bad news for cannabis. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CBH1926]

Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

 

I believe the term is “no $&!# Sherlock”

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, CBH1926 said:

Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

 

I believe the term is “no $&!# Sherlock”

nice of him to be casting stones

 

i honestly felt that the performance of the dem senators at the hearing

hurt their chances the most

they used the hearing as a platform to spew their political views

rather then keep the focus on ford

 

they made the whole thing look as political as it ended up being

rather then showing some dignity and restraint

in the face of serious allegations

they clearly distracted from that focus

and were offensive in their pontificating

 

they helped it become the $&!# show it ended up being

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by coastal.view

[drdeath]

Day # 934 of Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court has sure been an interesting one 

Edited October 7, 2018 by drdeath

[Rob_Zepp]

23 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the real shame in this case imo is the bait and switch that Trump performed over the idea that this was due process.

 

No one knows the truth but two folks. We had two credible people stating their experience. It needed a proper investigation, but Trump limited it to the point where the outcome couldn't be anything other than good for him. And somehow 1/2 the people in the US think it was a thorough review. That does a disservice to everyone in the US and there will always be a cloud over this. 

 

We're also supposed to believe that the FBI was fair to Trump - this time - but not in other cases. But I guess thats a topic for the other thread. 

No question it smells but also does the FBI "investigation" as you say.   What is clear to most outside the US is however that divisive politics continue to "work" to some degree.  One thought was also when the Democrats were appointing judges and making laws, you didn't see a lot of wingnuts banging on the doors at the Supreme Court or similar.   This "enraged" left is not helping their own cause as it makes them look like the whiners CNN is making 1/2 the US out to be.   It seems the ability to simply dust off and fight another day has long left the building.

[JM_]

50 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

No question it smells but also does the FBI "investigation" as you say.   What is clear to most outside the US is however that divisive politics continue to "work" to some degree.  One thought was also when the Democrats were appointing judges and making laws, you didn't see a lot of wingnuts banging on the doors at the Supreme Court or similar.   This "enraged" left is not helping their own cause as it makes them look like the whiners CNN is making 1/2 the US out to be.   It seems the ability to simply dust off and fight another day has long left the building.

I disagree on that, the right has been dining out on the "activist court" ranting for 25 years now. If we had social media in the 1990s it would have been just as bad imo. Kavanaguh is the culmination of decades of resistance by the GOP to get a conservative court. 

[Rob_Zepp]

Irrespective of what "side" you are on, was sent this and it seemed like taking a bit of humour from a dark issue was something useful.   

[RUPERTKBD]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:26 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

No question it smells but also does the FBI "investigation" as you say.   What is clear to most outside the US is however that divisive politics continue to "work" to some degree.  One thought was also when the Democrats were appointing judges and making laws, you didn't see a lot of wingnuts banging on the doors at the Supreme Court or similar.   This "enraged" left is not helping their own cause as it makes them look like the whiners CNN is making 1/2 the US out to be.   It seems the ability to simply dust off and fight another day has long left the building.

You didn't see much of it when Neil Gorsuch was appointed either, even though everyone knows that the appointment was stolen from Merrick Garland by Mitch McConnell. (Who actually called the blocking of said appointment "one of his proudest moments")

 

What you call "whining" from the "enraged left" is in large part, genuine concern about a guy who lied to the committee about his past and advanced a partisan conspiracy theory as an explanation for the challenge to his appointment. He them doubled down on his lies, claiming that his outburst was "emotional", even though it was clearly scripted.

 

It's this lack of candor and poor temperament that caused 2400 Law professors to sign a petition urging the Senate to reject Kavanagh and it was also why former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said the same.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

You didn't see much of it when Neil Gorsuch was appointed either, even though everyone knows that the appointment was stolen from Merrick Garland by Mitch McConnell. (Who actually called the blocking of said appointment "one of his proudest moments")

 

What you call "whining" from the "enraged left" is in large part, genuine concern about a guy who lied to the committee about his past and advanced a partisan conspiracy theory as an explanation for the challenge to his appointment. He them doubled down on his lies, claiming that his outburst was "emotional", even though it was clearly scripted.

 

It's this lack of candor and poor temperament that caused 2400 Law professors to sign a petition urging the Senate to reject Kavanagh and it was also why former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said the same.

Or, it is about just being pissy that someone won something you wanted someone else to win (not you, the whiners).   I have no idea whether he was lying or she was lying - someone certainly was and the FBI was supposed to figure that out.   If they didn't do that, take it up with them but I don't ever recall this level of whining at any time on anything close to this scale.   If you don't like it (these people), then get out and offer something better.    

 

You have some pretty firm confidence on the "facts".   I don't have that at all but will admit to not knowing either person or having access to the FBI files.   

[RUPERTKBD]

13 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Or, it is about just being pissy that someone won something you wanted someone else to win (not you, the whiners).   I have no idea whether he was lying or she was lying - someone certainly was and the FBI was supposed to figure that out.   If they didn't do that, take it up with them but I don't ever recall this level of whining at any time on anything close to this scale.   If you don't like it (these people), then get out and offer something better.    

 

You have some pretty firm confidence on the "facts".   I don't have that at all but will admit to not knowing either person or having access to the FBI files.   

Maybe to some, but I think the majority just feel as I do, that Kavanagh was unfit. You certainly didn't see this level of opposition when Gorsuch was appointed, but I'm pretty sure Liberals weren't particularly happy about it.

 

As far as the "lying" goes, I respect your opinion, but personally I am sure enough that he was lying to maintain that coupled with his outburst and response to several questions from Democratic Senators, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

Maybe to some, but I think the majority just feel as I do, that Kavanagh was unfit. You certainly didn't see this level of opposition when Gorsuch was appointed, but I'm pretty sure Liberals weren't particularly happy about it.

 

As far as the "lying" goes, I respect your opinion, but personally I am sure enough that he was lying to maintain that coupled with his outburst and response to several questions from Democratic Senators, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

I agree that someone was lying or "mis-remembering" as I was told is now a "thing".    

 

Would I want someone with that kind of background (aggressive) being a SPJ?   Nope.    However, neither would I want someone like the Canadian system has put in place that seem more likely to release someone than enact the laws the the country.

 

Somewhere there must be happy middle ground.   Somewhere.   

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I agree that someone was lying or "mis-remembering" as I was told is now a "thing".    

 

Would I want someone with that kind of background (aggressive) being a SPJ?   Nope.    However, neither would I want someone like the Canadian system has put in place that seem more likely to release someone than enact the laws the the country.

 

Somewhere there must be happy middle ground.   Somewhere.   

 

Quote

At the time, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, publicly said that he had urged Obama to nominate Garland as "a consensus nominee" who would win Senate confirmation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

[Rob_Zepp]

23 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

I was thinking more of:

 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Or, it is about just being pissy that someone won something you wanted someone else to win (not you, the whiners).   I have no idea whether he was lying or she was lying - someone certainly was and the FBI was supposed to figure that out.   If they didn't do that, take it up with them but I don't ever recall this level of whining at any time on anything close to this scale.   If you don't like it (these people), then get out and offer something better.    

 

You have some pretty firm confidence on the "facts".   I don't have that at all but will admit to not knowing either person or having access to the FBI files.   

Or are you completely ignoring that he PERHURED himself in front of a senate committee?

 

Did you drink beer?  No.  Oh excwept all those times I drank beer

 

Did you ever black out?  No...except for those times I don't remember

 

Did you ever physically acost anyone?  No.  Except for that time with that bar fight and all those people that are saying otherwise.

 

I mean, is it just being pissy that someone "won something" or is it just a complete and utter end to the patience for people like yourself that like to spin the facts because you really cannot argue otherwise and refuse to accept that you might be wrong?

 

As for not being able to remember a time where this level of whining was this close to this scale.

 

need I remind you of the time the GOP held a sit in to ensure Obama couldn't pass the ACA by shutting down the government while reading green eggs and ham at nearly midnight to their kids?  Oh how about the buying starbucks to pour it out?  Wait no buying Nikes to burn them?  Ohhhh buying taylor swift merch today and burning it?  Or even better my personal fave, being mad at a dude in tites refusing to stand for a song

 

I mean I don't want to say your memory is selectively short but hey...we don't need merrick garland in the room continually bringing up her emails do we

[Warhippy]

46 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I agree that someone was lying or "mis-remembering" as I was told is now a "thing".    

 

Would I want someone with that kind of background (aggressive) being a SPJ?   Nope.    However, neither would I want someone like the Canadian system has put in place that seem more likely to release someone than enact the laws the the country.

 

Somewhere there must be happy middle ground.   Somewhere.   

I agree.  Appointing people with no accountability simply to score political points and stack the deck is wrong

 

 

 

 

 

But the Canadian Supreme Court doesn't have the hyper political issues that the US does thankfully.