Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
facts:
a) half mexican
b) young
c) certainly is aware she's on tv
d) almost certainly aware that the OK sign has been co-opted by white supremacists to troll ("what, i was just giving an OK sign")
e) no one holds their hands that way naturally

i don't think she's a white supremacist but i think she is doing it intentionally so she can laugh at the shrill shrieks of the triggered libs. and maybe go on tv later and say to the olds watching fox "look how dumb these libs are they're going nuts about the OK sign."

iow, she's a troll.

Facts:
She is not only Mexican, but she is Jewish.
The OK sign is NOT a white supremacist symbol, it was a troll hoax started by 4chan.
https://www.adl.org/blog/no-the-ok-gesture-is-not-a-hate-symbol
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
As I pointed out elsewhere, the only SCOTUS justice who didn't have to pass the filibuster hurdle is Gorsuch. You know, that Senate tradition that insures justices of at least somewhat moderate inclination, not ones who are highly ideological. We'll soon have another highly ideological justice in Kavanaugh.

Anybody who thinks they won't favor the big guys over the little guys has shit fer brains. It's not like the failed trickle down ideology of hard right billionaires needs any more support in govt than it already has but that's what we'll get.

Compared to the Obama era of legislation by judicial ruling enforcing laws of public opinion instead of the laws on the book, if you consider interpreting the law as it was written on paper highly ideological... then highly ideological is preferable to the current nonsense.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Compared to the Obama era of legislation by judicial ruling enforcing laws of public opinion instead of the laws on the book, if you consider interpreting the law as it was written on paper highly ideological... then highly ideological is preferable to the current nonsense.

That's vague & diversionary nonsense wrt the point I offered. Confirming SCOTUS justices by a mere 51 votes isn't normal or "conservative" in the slightest. It's quite radical & symptomatic of GOP efforts to bend the system to benefit the wealthy & powerful more than it already does.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
That's vague & diversionary nonsense wrt the point I offered. Confirming SCOTUS justices by a mere 51 votes isn't normal or "conservative" in the slightest. It's quite radical & symptomatic of GOP efforts to bend the system to benefit the wealthy & powerful more than it already does.

Why should supreme court justices require more votes than any other cabinet or executive or federal judge position?

In fact article 2 only mentions the 3/5ths rule for treaties. It should have been a simple majority all along.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,812
10,346
136
Why should supreme court justices require more votes than any other cabinet or executive or federal judge position?

In fact article 2 only mentions the 3/5ths rule for treaties. It should have been a simple majority all along.

a simple majority means there's no point in compromise, which is supposed to be the basis for our governance. with a simple majority for everything, that means any time one party gets a majority, they are incentivized to just ram their agenda through. this means potentially huge swings in policy in all aspects of the country every few years, with potentially decades-long consequences or uncertainties from enemies and allies alike - economic policy, foreign (diplomatic) policy, military policy, judicial appointments and other long-term directors (e.g. FBI director), and so on.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,512
4,607
136
That's vague & diversionary nonsense wrt the point I offered. Confirming SCOTUS justices by a mere 51 votes isn't normal or "conservative" in the slightest. It's quite radical & symptomatic of GOP efforts to bend the system to benefit the wealthy & powerful more than it already does.

And who started that 51 vote nonsense? Harry Reid and the democrats invoked the change to the rules and created the nuclear option.

Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor and issued a warning to the Democrats who then controlled the majority.

“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

I think the democrats rule change is bearing fruit.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,512
4,607
136
Nonsense, Mr. K was in the White House while Bush was committing war crimes. Let's see the documents to find out if the nominee is a party to those war crimes.

Was Bush convicted of war crimes? I must have missed it.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,512
4,607
136
your response is a real shocker, your ilk can't stand the first amendment and non-violent protests.

My "ilk" indeed. LOL

I'm all for the first amendment. I'm just not a fan of interfering with the function of an official procedure and disturbing the peace.
 
Last edited:

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
LMAO! Today was a liberal toddler diaper shitting circus. Good job and very classy! The insanity just keeps growing. Pssst...that will help you win elections!!! /s
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I would have shaken his hand and said "I'm sorry for your loss but I need to go now" and then leave.

That's sound advice in theory. But as you know, he wasn't there to accept condolences. In fact, in the interview he gave on CNN after that hearing, he said he approached Kavanaugh "as a father". In other words, if you care about your and my children, you'll agree with my gun control reform.

Looking at it from that angle, it was wise to ignore him, IMO.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
My "ilk" indeed. LOL

I'm all for the first amendment. I'm just not a fan of interfering with the function of an official procedure and disturbing the peace.
Especially when I'm seeing reports this morning that a number of those people were observed being paid afterwards.

Correction: Not paid afterwards, paid before and told "to yell, to scream and even possibly to get arrested."
 
Last edited:
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
LMAO! Today was a liberal toddler diaper shitting circus. Good job and very classy! The insanity just keeps growing. Pssst...that will help you win elections!!! /s
It may very well help win elections. What we saw was a prime example of the perpetual adolescence that is an intrinsic component of the Democrat platform. We saw elected officials acting liking teenagers and their actions were applauded by people that think like teenagers.

In question is how many people that think like teenagers do you have to convince that the party that can allow them to be teenagers forever is the Democrat party? The sell isn't a difficult one when you have members of Congress acting like children and promising many more free big government handouts paid for by those they've labeled as the evil among us. That the math doesn't support any of it doesn't matter. They're selling the idea not the practicality.

Can't get protesters? Pay to get some. Can't get voters? Pay for them too. We've seen that happen in the Chicago mayoral race.

Who funded the payout to the protesters at the hearing? Steyer? Soros? It doesn't really matter but it's important to understand that these people have a plan and that the words shame and disgrace hold no meaning for them. The end justifies the means.

My hope is that two additional Trump picks are on the court before his tenure is over. That may be the only chance we'll have to retain our Republic.

Edit: Two meaning a total of four.
 
Last edited:

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,573
5,096
136
My hope is that two additional Trump picks are on the court before his tenure is over. That may be the only chance we'll have to retain our Republic.


Who is this "WE" you're referring to and what does their republic look like?
 

Gunbuster

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,852
23
81
Lets get to the real meat of the issue. Are blockbuster receipts from 1995 in those
500,000+ Kavanaugh documents? The public needs to know!!!
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
It's hilarious that there's so many brain dead morons in this country (including this forum) that actually believe this kind of shit.
Hilarious yes, surprising - not in the slightest. The media has them chasing shiny objects every single day. What's truly amazing to me is that they never develop a sense that they're being duped. Never direct their ire against the entities keeping them agitated. Instead they fall in line and get angry at the people the media points them towards. They get smoke blown up their asses every day, sometimes multiple times a day and then get mad at everybody but those that are manufacturing the smoke.
 
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Hilarious yes, surprising - not in the slightest. The media has them chasing shiny objects every single day. What's truly amazing to me is that they never develop a sense that they're being duped. Never direct their ire against the entities keeping them agitated. Instead they fall in line and get angry at the people the media points them towards. They get smoke blown up their asses every day, sometimes multiple times a day and then get mad at everybody but those that are manufacturing the smoke.

Trump voters project magnificently.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Why should supreme court justices require more votes than any other cabinet or executive or federal judge position?

In fact article 2 only mentions the 3/5ths rule for treaties. It should have been a simple majority all along.

And now, the shoulda bins.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |