Orlando Buffalo Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 58 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: All three comments by this guy are incorrect, she could not recall who was there, the FBI did not give her a polygraph, and her notes were from a couple therapist in 2012 and do not name Kavanaugh or even describe him except in the most generic way. Hell even the USA today said she was a poor witness, changing her story repeatedly. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1497661002 1
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I disagree. Saying he'd nominate the first black woman SCOTUS if elected help him win the primaries and the presidency. He followed through on that promise. You may disagree with the tactic but I can't argue the effectiveness of it. So you’re admitting people are stupid and love someone with racists tendencies? Try that in the real world. HR Mgr: So Mr Biden. If we were hire you tell us what qualities you’d look for in your team. Biden: Black women!
BillStime Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Brett Kavanaugh needs to be ‘actually’ investigated by the FBI instead of the charade they put on...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 17 hours ago, Doc said: I hope they don't go easy on her. That doesn't mean pulling the ***** they did with BK and ACB, but grilling her. There was a time I would have agreed with you, but the rules of the game have changed. The best option if they are looking to keep this nominee off the SC is for the Rs to look at options to derail the nomination, weigh the relative risk of the type of character assassination we’ve seen from Dems, and proceed accordingly. It could be that they see this nominee as a reasonable selection when viewed from a conservative viewpoint. Could be they see the political fallout of the slash and burn approach the Dems take as too great to make wildly unsubstantiated accusations against her from 40 years ago. Or, maybe they are loading up for a massive assault on her character as we speak. It’s a shame, but really, it just is. 1
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: “It says nothing about the court’s view of the seriousness of the offense.” I beg to differ. It speak volumes. 1
SoCal Deek Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 Why is it the least bit surprising to anyone that a left leaning judge would be more liberal on sentencing guidelines? This would only be a story if she said “Throw the book at them!”
B-Man Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR JACKSON: That won’t be asked even though they should be asked but can’t be asked because Democrats will not permit them to be asked even though they asked them of previous GOP nominees. More essential reading from Issues & Insights. https://issuesinsights.com/2022/03/22/how-is-boofed-pronounced-and-other-vital-questions-ketanji-brown-jackson-must-answer/
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Brett Kavanaugh needs to be ‘actually’ investigated by the FBI instead of the charade they put on... Do you believe she passed a polygraph by the FBI? 1
B-Man Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 Supreme Court nominees typically bob and weave under questioning, but this answer to a question this morning hints that Judge Jackson has no special respect for either the text of the Bill of Rights, or the principles of natural rights: In other words, what the Supreme Court createth, the Supreme Court can taketh away. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/bushrod-league.php
SoCal Deek Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 15 minutes ago, B-Man said: Supreme Court nominees typically bob and weave under questioning, but this answer to a question this morning hints that Judge Jackson has no special respect for either the text of the Bill of Rights, or the principles of natural rights: In other words, what the Supreme Court createth, the Supreme Court can taketh away. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/bushrod-league.php I’m going disagree with you here. The right to bear arms is NOT a natural right. It’s a man made right intended as a deterrent to others who’d seek to take away those natural rights. Based solely on your quote of her response I see no problem with what she said. 1
Big Blitz Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 51 minutes ago, B-Man said: Supreme Court nominees typically bob and weave under questioning, but this answer to a question this morning hints that Judge Jackson has no special respect for either the text of the Bill of Rights, or the principles of natural rights: In other words, what the Supreme Court createth, the Supreme Court can taketh away. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/bushrod-league.php She's a full on lunatic
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Supreme Court nominees typically bob and weave under questioning, but this answer to a question this morning hints that Judge Jackson has no special respect for either the text of the Bill of Rights, or the principles of natural rights: In other words, what the Supreme Court createth, the Supreme Court can taketh away. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/bushrod-league.php Now I’m not real smart when it comes to this ***** but isn’t it safe to say the Constitution established the right to bear arms and it’s up to the Supreme Court to uphold those rights! 🤷🏻♂️
ALF Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Now I’m not real smart when it comes to this ***** but isn’t it safe to say the Constitution established the right to bear arms and it’s up to the Supreme Court to uphold those rights! 🤷🏻♂️ Once confirmed she will have the right to overrule the 6 conservative Justices
BillStime Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 We didn't need Senate hearings to know this... just come here and read the prolific words of the cult:
SoCal Deek Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 56 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Now I’m not real smart when it comes to this ***** but isn’t it safe to say the Constitution established the right to bear arms and it’s up to the Supreme Court to uphold those rights! 🤷🏻♂️ Not really. It’s not up to the Court to uphold laws and rights. It’s up to the Court to interpret them…which is important when society is always changing. It could be said that the Executive Branch upholds/enforces them.
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Not really. It’s not up to the Court to uphold laws and rights. It’s up to the Court to interpret them…which is important when society is always changing. It could be said that the Executive Branch upholds/enforces them. Yes they uphold laws and rights (or not as the case may be) through their interpretation of rights and laws as written. They are the final arbiter of disputes of rights and laws. So my point was the Supreme Court did not establish those rights to bear arms. Just by those words alone I feel she is not qualified for the position.
Recommended Posts