Kavanaugh Confirmation

[RavinDave]

Dear Lord, aren't his 15 minutes up yet?

Avenatti emerges with new sworn allegations against Kavanaugh, amid questions over 1st client

What a sleaze!

 

[AirVol]

It sure as hell has given Republicans a rallying cry.

I’ve agitated a few of my Dims friends, they’re pissed and embarrassed. Some have said they were done with them, some won’t vote in Nov, some are voting R.
Told them it’s about damn time they’ve come to their senses. I’d say this is a national way of thinking with Dims. Nov can’t come soon enough.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

Funny, you know he references Bill Clinton a whole bunch of times in that same article? Especially the point behind Bin Laden and the Paula Jones investigation.

And yes, it certainly is in that paper. Highly inferred for both criminal and civil suits.



http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

How is it I read that and saw the method to his words and you, for all your education, can't see that except what you want to see?

This is the exact stuff that people need to reading and basing their decisions. Too much of the public's decision is so easily swayed by media and those in congress who have an agenda (on both sides). As voters we should be looking beyond the opinion of those who are trying to sway us and make our judgement based off proposed policy and facts.

 

[FLVOL69]

The left has way overplayed their hand this time, Brett Cavanagh will be confirmed and Trump will be reelected much to the dismay of the liberals.

 

[1972 Grad]

I lived 30 miles from Chicago watching them drag body bags out pf the house daily on the news, John gacy was one sick individual.

He once worked here in Greeneville at a restaurant. The manager told me about it many, many years ago. As far as I know, he didn't kill anyone here, but he wasn't in town long.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

When in doubt, go to the source article and read with an open mind. You learn more that way.

You beat me to it.

 

[Grand Vol]

This is the exact stuff that people need to reading and basing their decisions. Too much of the public's decision is so easily swayed by media and those in congress who have an agenda (on both sides). As voters we should be looking beyond the opinion of those who are trying to sway us and make our judgement based off proposed policy and facts.

It went from an idea he had (good one in my opinion that was politically neutral) to "BASTARD THINKS TRUMP CAN'T GET CHARGED!!!!!!"

 

[1972 Grad]

I think so too. They’re all cut from the same cloth.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe they also inhabit the DOJ, FBI, and CIA.

 

[1972 Grad]

I remember a time in history when one would pull pistols at dawn over crap like this. America is teaming with pansies who hide behind a desk and a pc. It's sickening where this has gone. Slander anyone you want with an anonymous source and its just peachy. If they had to meet them at the waffle house half of this crap wouldn't be printed.

I met my house builder last night at the Waffle House for some cheese 'n eggs, but all we did was eat.

 

[SLICKYINC]

I’ve agitated a few of my Dims friends, they’re pissed and embarrassed. Some have said they were done with them, some won’t vote in Nov, some are voting R.
Told them it’s about damn time they’ve come to their senses. I’d say this is a national way of thinking with Dims. Nov can’t come soon enough.

I've red pilled a couple at work.

 

[1972 Grad]

I used to fly with a guy named Tad Low. The Ground Proximity Warning would go off a lot with that guy.

I used to know a Tad Moore. Whatever you did, it was never enough.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I used to know a Tad Moore. Whatever you did, it was never enough.

Tad Pole. Race car driver.

 

[T-TownVol]

I met my house builder last night at the Waffle House for some cheese 'n eggs, but all we did was eat.

Wait until you get to the punch list.

 

[Grand Vol]

I hate having to punch the internet balls of the lawyers around here.






























Just kidding. It gives me the lulz.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[SLICKYINC]

 

[RockyTop85]

Funny, you know he references Bill Clinton a whole bunch of times in that same article? Especially the point behind Bin Laden and the Paula Jones investigation.

And yes, it certainly is in that paper. Highly inferred for both criminal and civil suits.



http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pd

How is it I read that and saw the method to his words and you, for all your education, can't see that except what you want to see?

I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.

 

[Grand Vol]

I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.

How many times in the past couple of weeks have we heard a Congressional investigation is not a criminal investigation?

 

[RavinDave]

Yea someone else surly had to have written that letter. The one she wrote by hand was laughed at by 3rd graders.

I didn't think Dr. Ford came across as surly. A little spacey for sure, but not surly.

 

[hog88]

I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any type of sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.

Didn’t you say you were a lawyer? University of FL perhaps?

Do you really think a President would be removed from office with no investigation?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I didn't think Dr. Ford came across as surly. A little spacey for sure, but not surly.

Here's a picture of her driving home.

 

[SLICKYINC]

I didn't think Dr. Ford came across as surly. A little spacey for sure, but not surly.

Damn it. You're right!

 

[Hunerwadel]

The left has way overplayed their hand this time, Brett Cavanagh will be confirmed and Trump will be reelected much to the dismay of the liberals.View attachment 170880

Do you also have this weeks lottery numbers?

 

[LouderVol]

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

.

no. how about he is advocating that the president should be removed via the methods set forth in the Constitution? you know as a Justice should.

 

[RockyTop85]

It went from an idea he had (good one in my opinion that was politically neutral) to "BASTARD THINKS TRUMP CAN'T GET CHARGED!!!!!!"

Now who’s being intellectually dishonest?

The post you selectively quoted from was a list of about five reasonable and rational criticisms as to why I think we would have been better off with a different nominee.

Acting like I’m some kind of extremist liberal zealot for criticizing the man for writing a law review article advocating for expansion of executive power is a contradiction in terms, to be polite.

The fact that your defense of that criticism relies on the supposition that the man is an idiot and doesn’t understand the political and procedural pitfalls of impeachment, in spite of participating in an unsuccessful impeachment process l, doesn’t do much to refute the original argument which was:

We would have been better off with another nominee.