Kavanaugh Confirmation

#527
#527
NEOCON said:
Does it bother you at all the Ginsburg is on record as admitting she originally voted for abortion for minority population control ( aka genocide) and only years later realized it was for woman’s rights?

These aren’t my words either.

She’s on record saying this.

May he views it as genocide like I do.
Click to expand...

Would like to know how life liberty and the pursuit of happiness has become a women's right to kill a life with tax payers money backing it..i.e. Planned Parenthood? Have a hard time making that jump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, CABVOL, BigOrangeTrain and 4 others
#528
#528
afb090618dAPR20180906044508.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, NEO and NurseGoodVol
#529
#529
NorthDallas40 said:
I stated earlier today that if Ginsburg steps down on Trumps watch I think Garland would make a great candidate. An extremist court, in either direction, I don’t feel is good for the country. Kavanaugh even stated during his hearings that he’s a Garland fan. Admittedly what else will he say though. And frankly Garland isn’t what I would call an extremist candidate. When Barry picked him i read up and thought he was reasonably centrist and a solid pick.
Click to expand...

Nine justices that interpret the Constitution based solely on its words and original meaning should never be considered extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and NorthDallas40
#530
#530
txbo said:
Nine justices that interpret the Constitution based solely on its words and original meaning should never be considered extreme.
Click to expand...
Don’t disagree. In the most basic form one could state party of nominating POTUS should be irrelevant. If they are qualified they are qualified. And I’ve heard absolutely no complaints on Kavanaugh’s qualifications. Nor do I remember any on Garlands.
 
#533
#533
Between Kamala and Booker all they do is talk, never lets the guy answer the question. They don’t like his answers so they just step on it and keep talking.
 
#534
#534
SLICKYINC said:
Between Kamala and Booker all they do is talk, never lets the guy answer the question. They don’t like his answers so they just step on it and keep talking.
Click to expand...

They’re afraid if they let him speak, most people will be absolutely fine with his confirmation. They’re trying to control the narrative to the extent possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and T-TownVol
#538
#538
BowlBrother85 said:
No, that wouldn't have been Obama's nominee getting a vote... that would have been Clinton's nominee getting a vote and she would have nominated someone else. There is no reason to have not given Garland a vote. If the Republicans in the Senate wanted to vote him down? Fine... but make that vote.
Click to expand...
I agree. The Biden rule is dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roosterjbh
#541
#541
BowlBrother85 said:
We've been over that before and of course, you're purely speaking in the hypothetical because the Democrats could have justified blocking the nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991 (they had an overwhelming majority in the Senate - and a sexual harassment complaint on top of that) but they didn't. No Supreme Court nominee has ever been denied a vote before... until Garland.
Click to expand...
Garland will get the nod when Vadar kicks off. Then liberal heads explode
 
#547
#547
1972 Grad said:
Tell me you haven't seen that "crazy in the eyes" look before.
Click to expand...
It is really a remarkable picture. There is serious hatred in those eyes. She almost looks like something from a science fiction movie.


I hope she doesn't have any guns in her house.


Oh... nothing to worry about on that count at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top