Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He could vote to overturn Roe v Wade, Same-Sex Marriage. These are issues that should remain in place!
Those are unlikely to even arrive on the court docket, frankly. And didn't you say a little while ago that you were going to make yourself Canada's problem?
They're not my leaders. I am an IND with positions from both extremes of left and right. Always have been. But, I have not heard any leadership in the Dems advocating impeaching him. It would be ridiculously difficult. It would be a lot easier to pack the court - say 15 justices - as it would take but a simple vote to do that. It might be a good idea anyway if it resulted in more moderates on the bench and less clear ideological division than 9 allows. Coupled with my call for 60 senators to approve, we could actually configure a court where we would not be able to predict the outcome before a case was even heard.
I saw a show on Sunday where Jerry Nadler was talking about impeaching him if the dems take back control of the house.
They also used "retired"FBI agents--and agents
And incompetent isn't the word--
I think deliberately ignorant works better--
I am sure they did exactly as they were told by Don McGahn and Chris Wray (a Yale alumnus who was 2 yrs behind Kavanaugh
Sad that the only way the FBI can get Trump to approve of its work is by ignoring people they would normally question...
But
LOL...***** because an FBI didn’t come up with the results you wanted. The left sounds
So stupid.
So apparently Ford's lawyers are saying she had more "evidence" to offer in the form of answers to questions. That's not evidence. I was going to ask how these people earned the law degrees. However, I realize by just saying certain phrased like "Evidence to offer" regardless if it's viable or not these people, Ford, and her Clinton backed lawyers are preying on the lowest common dominator of people who are of low IQ and easily manipulated at being used for agendas.
Yes it was. Many positions require more than one interview, especially if something comes up.
He had 30 plus hours of a "job interview" in front of the SJC.
Quote:
I mean who does that:
“So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened?”
“You’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?”
“Could you answer the question, Judge? That’s not happened. Is that your answer?”
“Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.”
As I said, try something like this at a job interview, report back how soon you are shown the door.
That wasn't part of the "job interview" process...that was Kavanaugh defending himself against, "I dunno" Ford's claims WHO has NADA - not even her BFF could back her up.
Well--there is certainly an "unstable" POTUS
What would have happened if Kavanaugh didn't get anointed???
Do you think Trump would have accepted that with equanimity?
And McConnell certainly used "any means necessary" when he blocked Obama's nomination of Meritt Garland
Someone Susan Collins revealed was basically JUST LIKE Kavanaugh in their decisions from the bench...
Who knew??? But not good enough for McConnell--although Collins didn't mention that when she was attacking the Dems for their opposition to Kavanaugh and their attack on the tradition and partisanship in the Senate...
We could have had a Kavanaugh clone on the court lo these many months ago---one w/o the attached history Kavanaugh will trail around behind him with every decision that is made by the court...
I will say that Collins history has shown that she will support a viable judge put forward by a D or R president
She just didn't complain when McConnell blocked Garland for 10 months---
Nothing wrong with breaking precedent when YOUR party is doing it...
And her claim that Kavanaugh promised her that he would not vote to over turn precedent is just disengenuous
I give him 9 months before he put his 2 cents in and a major reversal occurs...
I'm referring to the way the government is structured. Expanding the supreme court in such a manner would be similar to expanding or decreasing the senate or house of representatives. Such actions is a slippery road that will eventually to lead to a dictatorship or civil war.
There is reason why many scholars argue that if the senate had impeached Clinton, then the US government would have a problem. Bill Clinton lied under oath to hide a martial affair, which in short didn't warrant his impeachment as a president of the United States. Similarly, expanding the US supreme court would put the USA government in jeopardy. In the case of Bill Clinton, if a sitting president could be removed, then any subsequent government official could be removed for similar offense that would fall under high crimes and misdemeanors.
Last edited by NekoLogic; 10-05-2018 at 07:29 PM..
And her claim that Kavanaugh promised her that he would not vote to over turn precedent is just disengenuous
I give him 9 months before he put his 2 cents in and a major reversal occurs...
Are you familiar with any cases working their way to SCOTUS in the next 9 months where this would even be possible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
