You mean like the meeting Republicans held BEFORE Obama took office on how to block EVERYTHING he proposes.
You mean like the meeting Republicans held BEFORE Obama took office on how to block EVERYTHING he proposes.Partisans like yourself came out against him within seconds of his being named, for no other reason than the person that named him. Don't lie that it has anything at all to do about the man.
Why let reality dictate your decisions when you can just make shit up and deep throat whatever fox ejects.Partisans like yourself came out against him within seconds of his being named, for no other reason than the person that named him. Don't lie that it has anything at all to do about the man.
Roe v Wade is the smokescreen. The real issue is the desire of the left to have a court that will at some point, in essence nullify the second amendment. The electorate will not allow for it through the amendment process but a SCOTUS that bases rulings on feelings instead of the Constitution can. If they do there is essentially no recourse.Liberals are really convinced that conservatives are gunning for Roe V Wade. Not so. Most of them I know, while they do not personally support all aspects of abortion, are reasonable toward it, especially in the cases of rape, incest and the possibility that the child would be born with severe birth defects. Where we disagree, often times, is at what point in the pregnancy abortions should be allowed to be performed. Most of us consider abortion to be settled law.
Our concerns about having a liberal weighted court are about keeping the Gov. Jerry Browns of this world from creating sanctuary states, allowing illegals to vote and appointing illegals to government positions. We want judges who interpret things according to the law, not by their feelings or biases in situations.
Roe v Wade is the smokescreen. The real issue is the desire of the left to have a court that will at some point in essence nullify the second amendment. The electorate will not allow for it through the amendment process but a SCOTUS that bases rulings on feelings instead of the Constitution can. If they do there is essentially no recourse.
This is about ultimate power. Power to change the course of the nation. Power to fundamentally transform it. You can't do that with an armed populace.
Roe v Wade is the smokescreen. The real issue is the desire of the left to have a court that will at some point, in essence nullify the second amendment. The electorate will not allow for it through the amendment process but a SCOTUS that bases rulings on feelings instead of the Constitution can. If they do there is essentially no recourse.
This is about ultimate power. Power to change the course of the nation. Power to fundamentally transform it. You can't do that with an armed populace.
Remember Kavanaugh was not on the original Federalist list. He was added later. Smoke meet fireThe real power grab is Trump wanting Brat Kavanaugh to rule on his pardon powers being extended to include State as well as Federal ( case up on the SC docket in next session) and of course to block Trump from being subpoenaed and indicted. Any other conservative pick would most likely defend the 2A.
I'm really disappointed that the MSM isn't pushing this ( my above post ) in their fight against Brat K., this is the real story to take him down. Real Americans don't want a dictator with unlimited powers.Remember Kavanaugh was not on the original Federalist list. He was added later. Smoke meet fire
I have yet to see any Kavanaugh supporters answer the following, is lying during your job interview, for the SCOTUS, disqualifying for the position?
They probably'll say everyone "fluffs" their application.I have yet to see any Kavanaugh supporters answer the following, is lying during your job interview disqualifying for the position?
The rose tint is built into the lenses. It's called by those so colored automatically as 'neutral gray'.They probably'll say everyone "fluffs" their application.
I have yet to see any Kavanaugh supporters answer the following, is lying during your job interview disqualifying for the position?
So from what I'm seeing from the NYT, Flake, Murkowski, and Collins lied about the kind of investigation they wanted, since they were aware of the limitations the admin was placing on the investigation.
Not a Kavanaugh supporter but its the lies that should disqualify him.I have yet to see any Kavanaugh supporters answer the following, is lying during your job interview disqualifying for the position?
Honestly yeah. The Democrats did not do an adequate job of questioning either; I know it's a tall task with 5 minutes each but it has to be done. Cede your time to a lead questioner and get real answers.Not a Kavanaugh supporter but its the lies that should disqualify him.
If we are treating this like a corporation, I would also fire every member of the judiciary committee.
That's called duh-version & blame shifting.
That's completely nuts. Preservation of Roe is an honest issue for Dems, completely independent of your gun grabber fantasies.
Not a Kavanaugh supporter but its the lies that should disqualify him.
If we are treating this like a corporation, I would also fire every member of the judiciary committee.
Why aren't Democrats going after perjury charges from the hearing? It's obvious he lied under oath.
I'm seeing quite a bit of rationalization in conservative circles that admits Kav was not truthful but excuses it on the grounds that the questions were unfair/embarrassing. Much like Trump they know the lies are lies but in service of the partisan agenda it doesn't matter. There is no sin except losing.
My expectation is that the FBI investigation, which appears to be hobbled from the WH, will probably turn up little we don't know. This will likely lead to a successful but narrow confirmation vote next week. The downstream political consequences for the Republican look unfavorable. Without an issue to mobilize their voters turnout could lag. Democratic campaign finance figures are 4 to 5 times the last midterm cycle and their voters appear very motivated. Republican money sources are aggressively cutting off incumbent candidates who look done to preserve resources. The House appears all but lost and the senate is in question. Loss of one or both houses will certainly lead to investigations into the Kavanaugh appointment.
The real long term cost of Kavanaugh's appointment is the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I expect to see Democrats try to pack it in my lifetime.
The FBI said they were going to look into both Ford's and Ramirez's allegations. If they look into those allegations thoroughly they will find them to be much more credible than Kavanaugh's denials. So the question is not "how much did Trump hobble the FBI?", the question is how much did the FBI hobble itself to serve the conservative agenda. There is ample evidence and many credible witnesses to be looked at in the Ford allegation alone. If the FBI come back with "We dunno who is telling the truth!" then they are not trying to find out who is telling the truth.