Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

CNN)Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, told Republican Sen. Susan Collins he agreed that Roe v. Wade is settled law, Collins told reporters Tuesday.

"We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law. He said that he agreed with what Justice Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said it was settled law," Collins said after meeting with Kavanaugh for more than two hours on Tuesday.
Collins, the much-watched senator from Maine, is considered a key vote in Kavanaugh's nomination. Collins told reporters that she would not announce how she would vote on Kavanaugh's nomination until after his confirmation hearing, which begins September 4.
In addition to abortion, Collins said she talked extensively with Kavanaugh about his philosophy on executive power, judicial philosophy, judges he admired and more.
 
 
"Judge Kavanaugh and I had an excellent session. It was very productive, it was very informative. We covered a wide range of issues," Collins said.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Dick DurbinVerified account @SenatorDurbin 3h3 hours ago

 
 

Judge Kavanaugh worked in the Bush White House for 5 years.

Only 2% of his records from that time have been made public

– and those were cherrypicked for release by Kavanaugh’s former deputy, a Republican lawyer.

Does that sound fair, transparent, and objective? #WhatAreTheyHiding

DlIo564X0AAthpF.jpg
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Collins was likely going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway. This just makes it a certainty.

Cuomo read from a memo by Kavanaugh when he was working for Ken Starr. He was

all over Bill Clinton, not something he would likely repeat in the case of Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Collins was likely going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway. This just makes it a certainty.

Cuomo read from a memo by Kavanaugh when he was working for Ken Starr. He was

all over Bill Clinton, not something he would likely repeat in the case of Trump.

And Durbin was never going to vote for Kavanaugh,  so he didn't need to review any additional data (e.g. memos).

Hopefully the Senate will vote soon which will end this type of 'fake news' from both sides.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

And Durbin was never going to vote for Kavanaugh,  so he didn't need to review any additional data (e.g. memos).

Hopefully the Senate will vote soon which will end this type of 'fake news' from both sides.    

Durbin was never considered a "swing vote" as Collins was. Why shouldn't the Senate get to read all of Kavanaugh's material? Even if it leads to no vote changes, just to see what the old boy thinks. I wouldn't call that fake news, even using your definition. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Durbin was never considered a "swing vote" as Collins was. Why shouldn't the Senate get to read all of Kavanaugh's material? Even if it leads to no vote changes, just to see what the old boy thinks. I wouldn't call that fake news, even using your definition. 

The so called 'fake news' is that any Senator really cares about what is in the material as it relates to impacting how they vote.    This entire process of "we need to read that' is only for political show \ political theater.

There is more then enough material to know 'what the old boy thinks'.    To say one needs ALL OF the material is folly.     Note that when the GOP played the same silly game Reid denied their request.   

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The so called 'fake news' is that any Senator really cares about what is in the material as it relates to impacting how they vote.    This entire process of "we need to read that' is only for political show \ political theater.

There is more then enough material to know 'what the old boy thinks'.    To say one needs ALL OF the material is folly.     Note that when the GOP played the same silly game Reid denied their request.   

   

I believe Kagan's full gov't papers were made available, so why not Kavanaugh's?

I even think that Blowregard would agree.

"A troubling pattern has already emerged in Ms. Kagan's record," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "Throughout her career, she has demonstrated a willingness to make legal decisions based not on the law but instead on her very liberal politics."

Link to post
Share on other sites

liberals would not object to a liberal potus only choicing a pro-abortion nominee for the scotus but gop president's doan have the same prerogative?

every so often the egg-sucking media will throw out one of their favorite stats that the birth rate is falling especially for whites.

there's the reason...and liberals have the gall to complain about racial genocide. they have their genocide only that it is conveniently hidden from view inside the human female womb.

I bet liberal pro-abortionists love ultrasound.

 

"Clarke and Kubrick have no excuse for ignorance."

Image result for 2001 space odyssey fetus

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

MSNBCVerified account @MSNBC 3h3 hours ago

JUST IN: All 10 Dems on Judiciary Cmte want Kavanaugh hearing delayed due to "possibility of criminal wrongdoing by the President,

doubts that Judge Kavanaugh believes a president can even be investigated,

& the unprecedented lack of transparency regarding this nominee’s record”

This will be news when the Republicans say the same thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Seth AbramsonVerified account @SethAbramson 1h1 hour ago

 
 

Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh may actually be *part* of a criminal course of conduct, given what we know about how and why Kavanaugh was selected:

to help Trump obstruct justice and evade the rule of law.

Why is no one making the argument against Kavanaugh hearings in that way?

:unsure:

2/ When you're under federal investigation, you *don't* get to pick the judge in your case, as your selection would be presumed corrupt.

Here, we know that Trump and his team were part of a clandestine deal to get a SCOTUS pick *and* to get a judge who'd help Trump evade justice.

3/ What's worse is that the way this process has unfolded, with little document production, an accelerated timeline, and the overlooking of false statements by the candidate,

suggests that Republicans *know* what they're doing is wrong and that their reason for doing it is wrong.

-_-

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr6666 said:

2/ When you're under federal investigation, you *don't* get to pick the judge in your case, as your selection would be presumed corrupt.

Here, we know that Trump and his team were part of a clandestine deal to get a SCOTUS pick *and* to get a judge who'd help Trump evade justice.

3/ What's worse is that the way this process has unfolded, with little document production, an accelerated timeline, and the overlooking of false statements by the candidate,

suggests that Republicans *know* what they're doing is wrong and that their reason for doing it is wrong.

-_-

 

It appears that some believe that when a case involving the President is being heard by the Supreme Court any justice that was appointed by said President must rescue themselves.      I wonder if that has occurred in the past,  and how often?

Note that most of the SC cases related to the office are NOT about A President (e.g. Trump),  but instead the office of the President;  i.e. the limits of the power of the office.   So is it fair to assume a justice is corrupt by default because of who appointed them?    

I do understand that there is so much corruption in Trump's swamp that even if history shows that justices have NOT rescued themselves in similar cases,   they should do so in this case.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 7:02 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

It appears that some believe that when a case involving the President is being heard by the Supreme Court any justice that was appointed by said President must rescue themselves.      I wonder if that has occurred in the past,  and how often?

Note that most of the SC cases related to the office are NOT about A President (e.g. Trump),  but instead the office of the President;  i.e. the limits of the power of the office.   So is it fair to assume a justice is corrupt by default because of who appointed them?    

I do understand that there is so much corruption in Trump's swamp that even if history shows that justices have NOT rescued themselves in similar cases,   they should do so in this case.

 

 

 

 

Think the issue here is that Kavanaugh is on record as being likely to not hold Trump liable for his actions.  While he said Congress should pass a law prohibiting indicting a president, he has not said he would not vote to protect the president if indicted.

The problems with Kavanaugh is that just what has been released that he has said or written gives indications that he would side with Trump, would restrict abortions while not actually overthrowing Roe v. Wade, etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett Kavanaugh is the least popular SCOTUS pick in decades

"Americans are more divided on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination than they’ve been on any recent Supreme Court nominee, according to recent polling.

Only 41 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll, published on Tuesday, said that they supported Kavanaugh’s nomination, while 37 percent opposed it.

The four-point spread between those who support and those who oppose his nomination make him

less popular than anyone since Robert Bork was nominated in 1987.

 

And the Gallup poll isn’t alone in it’s findings.......

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kmb75/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-least-popular-scotus-pick-in-decades

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Brett Kavanaugh is the least popular SCOTUS pick in decades

"Americans are more divided on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination than they’ve been on any recent Supreme Court nominee, according to recent polling.

Only 41 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll, published on Tuesday, said that they supported Kavanaugh’s nomination, while 37 percent opposed it.

The four-point spread between those who support and those who oppose his nomination make him

less popular than anyone since Robert Bork was nominated in 1987.

 

And the Gallup poll isn’t alone in it’s findings.......

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kmb75/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-least-popular-scotus-pick-in-decades

Well Americans already had their say on SCOTUS nominations, they voted and a GOP President won the election. 

Face facts;  Too many people who would have favored more liberal justices didn't vote.    

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

better argument here.........  :)

Kamala HarrisVerified account @KamalaHarris 20h20 hours ago

 

Remember that this president is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony criminal investigation

and should NOT have the ability to appoint someone to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh's hearing should be delayed until the investigation is resolved.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, mr6666 said:

Ed MarkeyVerified account @SenMarkey 4h4 hours ago

 
 

I will not take a meeting with Brett Kavanaugh.

He has been nominated by someone implicated, and all but named as a co-conspirator, in federal crimes.

 

His nomination is tainted and should be considered illegitimate.

-_-

markey is a sore loser partisan and can go blank himself.

:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

better argument here.........  :)

Kamala HarrisVerified account @KamalaHarris 20h20 hours ago

 

Remember that this president is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony criminal investigation

and should NOT have the ability to appoint someone to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh's hearing should be delayed until the investigation is resolved.

 

The Constitution determines what ability a President has and not Harris.   The Constitution says nothing about a President NOT nominating a Supreme Court appointment when there is a felony criminal investingation that might involve the President.     Harris should stick to her duties as defined by the Constitution and just vote to NOT appoint Kavanuagh.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...