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.
It should be noted that Brett and his GOP "conservative" friends cannot hide behind the "teens are different" excuse - because in recent history their heroes (Thomas, Scalia, etc.) DISSENTED in the SCOTUS case involving such!
"Chief Justice John Roberts voiced in his dissent the opinion that mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them"
Yes, I know - no crimes yet have been committed, proven or convictions brought down.
But I think it is important for those listening to all these threads about "what you did as a teen" to understand where Brett would have come down on that decision (and it's not in question....those are his Heroes)......
Taking it a bit more up to date, if Trump got his wish of the Death Penalty for Drug Dealers and a guy like Brett had been selling some weed and coke when he was 16 (he had plenty of money, so no need to do so), then "SCOTUS Brett" would vote to "have the State Execute Drug Dealer Brett".....
Interesting...and pretty much does away with the idea that teens change and DEFINITELY that Brett cannot use the "I was stupid" excuse since he doesn't believe in it.....or maybe he doesn't for others - especially poor people???
Trump talks a lot of nonsense regarding such issues, indeed he's already been warned by other nations that such moves would make extradition to the US virtually impossible. Trump's backing of torture during his campaign was also dondemned by foreign inteligence services who stated that such a policy would make it difficult to work with US Intelligence agencies under human rights laws.
It should be noted that Brett and his GOP "conservative" friends cannot hide behind the "teens are different" excuse - because in recent history their heroes (Thomas, Scalia, etc.) DISSENTED in the SCOTUS case involving such!
"Chief Justice John Roberts voiced in his dissent the opinion that mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them"
Yes, I know - no crimes yet have been committed, proven or convictions brought down.
But I think it is important for those listening to all these threads about "what you did as a teen" to understand where Brett would have come down on that decision (and it's not in question....those are his Heroes)......
Taking it a bit more up to date, if Trump got his wish of the Death Penalty for Drug Dealers and a guy like Brett had been selling some weed and coke when he was 16 (he had plenty of money, so no need to do so), then "SCOTUS Brett" would vote to "have the State Execute Drug Dealer Brett".....
Interesting...and pretty much does away with the idea that teens change and DEFINITELY that Brett cannot use the "I was stupid" excuse since he doesn't believe in it.....or maybe he doesn't for others - especially poor people???
Hope you realize that the gangbangers in Chicago, etc., use teens to commit their hits (murders - think of all the Chicago shootings, etc.) because there's a chance they won't be convicted as adults and therefore get a much more lenient prison term.
The Offspring even wrote a song about it...
"The gangs stake their own campus locale
And if they catch you slippin' then it's all over pal
If one guys colors and the others don't mix They're gonna bash it up, bash it up, bash it up, bash it up
Hey - man you talkin' back to me?
Take him out
You gotta keep 'em separated
Hey - man you disrespecting me?
Take him out
You gotta keep 'em separated
Hey they don't pay no mind If you're under 18 you won't be doing any time Hey, come out and play
By the time you hear the siren
It's already too late
One goes to the morgue and the other to jail One guy's wasted and the other's a waste..."
It should be noted that Brett and his GOP "conservative" friends cannot hide behind the "teens are different" excuse - because in recent history their heroes (Thomas, Scalia, etc.) DISSENTED in the SCOTUS case involving such!
"Chief Justice John Roberts voiced in his dissent the opinion that mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them"
Yes, I know - no crimes yet have been committed, proven or convictions brought down.
But I think it is important for those listening to all these threads about "what you did as a teen" to understand where Brett would have come down on that decision (and it's not in question....those are his Heroes)......
Taking it a bit more up to date, if Trump got his wish of the Death Penalty for Drug Dealers and a guy like Brett had been selling some weed and coke when he was 16 (he had plenty of money, so no need to do so), then "SCOTUS Brett" would vote to "have the State Execute Drug Dealer Brett".....
Interesting...and pretty much does away with the idea that teens change and DEFINITELY that Brett cannot use the "I was stupid" excuse since he doesn't believe in it.....or maybe he doesn't for others - especially poor people???
Not on target at all. How many of us delve into college parties and bar scenes in a job interview? I've been interviewed by the FBI multiple times for security clearances and not once was asked if I started a fight at a bar or drank like a camel in College or high school.
Obviously, it's not a threat to national security or necessary to serve one's country. BK served on the bench for 12 years without issue. So, is this bar incident an issue now? Meh.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be bothered by youthful drunken carousing if he hadn’t gone to great pains to portray himself as a choir boy. Literally. “Little lies beget big lies” and all that. For some of us, it’s not even about Ford’s or Ramirez’s accusations anymore; it’s about who he is now.
I get that as a concept. But in practice, how could they possibly lower the bar any further, or be any more despicable in their behavior than they have been? If they could figure out any new lie to tell or another, worse slander to commit against Kavanaugh, you know they would all rush to do it right now.
So what new and worse level of nastiness could they possibly be holding back for the replacement for RBG? Is that really even possible after what we have seen here? Really?
It will no doubt be more of the same. Accuse the nominee of crimes without any proof. Maybe the next nominee will be accused of child porn or trafficking drugs in elementary school. They better hope Ginsberg doesn't need to be replaced soon or they are going to look pretty stupid and petty when they play the same tactics again.
It should be noted that Brett and his GOP "conservative" friends cannot hide behind the "teens are different" excuse - because in recent history their heroes (Thomas, Scalia, etc.) DISSENTED in the SCOTUS case involving such!
"Chief Justice John Roberts voiced in his dissent the opinion that mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them"
Yes, I know - no crimes yet have been committed, proven or convictions brought down.
But I think it is important for those listening to all these threads about "what you did as a teen" to understand where Brett would have come down on that decision (and it's not in question....those are his Heroes)......
Taking it a bit more up to date, if Trump got his wish of the Death Penalty for Drug Dealers and a guy like Brett had been selling some weed and coke when he was 16 (he had plenty of money, so no need to do so), then "SCOTUS Brett" would vote to "have the State Execute Drug Dealer Brett".....
Interesting...and pretty much does away with the idea that teens change and DEFINITELY that Brett cannot use the "I was stupid" excuse since he doesn't believe in it.....or maybe he doesn't for others - especially poor people???
I haven't read anything this absurd since Christine Fairs latest tweets.
You already know how illogical this is, because you attempt to circumvent some of the obvious criticism. Not only have you failed to understand the reasons for the dissent on legal grounds, you ascribe a guess to the dissenters moral stance which cannot be concluded from the dissent. You then ascribe a (misunderstood) third parties possible moral views to an unrelated individual. You conclude with a view that is counter to the outcome of the very case you cite.
Just when we thought the left couldn't get any more banal......
Honestly, I wouldn’t be bothered by youthful drunken carousing if he hadn’t gone to great pains to portray himself as a choir boy. Literally. “Little lies beget big lies” and all that. For some of us, it’s not even about Ford’s or Ramirez’s accusations anymore; it’s about who he is now.
Good, then you'll realize he's now the same person he was a month ago with an unblemished 12 year record on the second highest court.
If Kavanaugh had a decades-old drinking problem, we would expect to see legal records reflecting such. DWIs, disorderly conduct charges, etc. So... where are they?
FWIW... The same type of bogus allegations are launched in divorce and child custody disputes all the time. Hearsay is irrelevant and inadmissible. Show us the money. Where are the police reports charging Kavanaugh with public intoxication, etc.?
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.
