Nanker Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Looks like it's down to three... Trump's top contenders for the vacancy at this time are federal appeals judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, said a person familiar with Trump's thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly. Kavanaugh will have trouble with some of the Conservative Republicans. Sen. Cruz has already said he'd vote against him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Kavanaugh did great work hammering the Clintons. many thanks for his efforts there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 It will be the Catholic chic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 So it won't be Amy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 No one will walk away from Amy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nanker said: Looks like it's down to three... Trump's top contenders for the vacancy at this time are federal appeals judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, said a person familiar with Trump's thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly. Kavanaugh will have trouble with some of the Conservative Republicans. Sen. Cruz has already said he'd vote against him. Kavanaugh would be a terrible pick for libertarians and conservatives. I think he's more than likely to "turn Kennedy" once seated. Kethledge is being touted as an Origionalist, though he's nothing of the sort. Amy Coney Barrett is an Origionalist, and a person of faith; and would torture leftists who would be forced to read opinions they deem to be "anti-woman" by fiat, written in a woman's own hand. She would be a fantastic choice. Edited July 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: Kavanaugh would be a terrible pick for libertarians and conservatives. I think he's more than likely to "turn Kennedy" once seated. Kethledge is being touted as an Origionalist, though he's nothing of the sort. Amy Cohen Barrett is an Origionalist[/I], and would add the perspective of a female conservative to the Court, which, while unimportant to conservatives or libertarians, and those skeptical of identity politics, would serve as a brutal thorn in the paw of leftists who might have to suffer the "indignity" of having to read Origionalist opinions, striking down plea and precedent, in a tone they deem "anti-woman" by fiat, written in a womans own hand. Barrett would be an excellent choice. It would be interesting to watch the media explain how a woman would overturn roe v wade and it being anti woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 No Beerball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: It would be interesting to watch the media explain how a woman would overturn roe v wade and it being anti woman I fixed that terribly broken post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Barrett seems like a good choice on first blush. Need to read more about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 I'm not terribly fond of Kethledge. Kavanaugh could go either way. Barrett is as close to a sure thing that conservatives can get with the three "front-runners" named in the article. There are knocks on her: lesser pedigree in ND Law school, member of a fringe ecumenical Christian group, little experience as a judge (which generally means less predictability for future rulings). Clerking for Scalia helps ease worries, as do several writings of hers outside of her time on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: It would be interesting to watch the media explain how a woman would overturn roe v wade and it being anti woman she is not a democrat and is therefore no longer allowed to be a woman 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, /dev/null said: she is not a democrat and is therefore no longer allowed to be a woman Is this like the Republican Hispanic representative who was not allowed to join the Congressional Hispanic Caucus because he was a Republican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 30 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said: No Beerball? See below. The Catholic chick. 49 minutes ago, Tiberius said: It will be the Catholic chic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 51 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: It would be interesting to watch the media explain how a woman would overturn roe v wade and it being anti woman "Her husband made her do it." [/Hillary] 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Chuck Shumur: Donald Trump is literally satan. Also Chuck Shumur: Mr. President let me show you how to keep your reputation nice! "Tapping into Trump's understanding of the importance of the choice, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told the president this week that nominating someone hostile to abortion access, or the 2010 health care law, would tarnish his legacy." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: Is this like the Republican Hispanic representative who was not allowed to join the Congressional Hispanic Caucus because he was a Republican? Exactly. 1 hour ago, whatdrought said: Chuck Shumur: Donald Trump is literally satan. Also Chuck Shumur: Mr. President let me show you how to keep your reputation nice! "Tapping into Trump's understanding of the importance of the choice, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told the president this week that nominating someone hostile to abortion access, or the 2010 health care law, would tarnish his legacy." It's really amusing to hear life-long pols talk down to a President who has a much broader set of experiences and successes than do they. Chucky doesn't realize that in the ladder of American life, he's scum, a bottom feeder and one that is looked down upon by most "regular people". Edited July 5, 2018 by keepthefaith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: It's really amusing to hear life-long pols talk down to a President who has a much broader set of experiences and successes than do they. Chucky doesn't realize that in the ladder of American life, he's scum, a bottom feeder and one that is looked down upon by most "regular people". But...he didn't build that, somebody else made it happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeBuffaloGreatAgain Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 54 minutes ago, DC Tom said: But...he didn't build that, somebody else made it happen. Trolls gonna troll. Keep on trucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, MakeBuffaloGreatAgain said: Trolls gonna troll. Keep on trucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeBuffaloGreatAgain Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Perfect example. Thanks. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I really do enjoy your posts. Pure hypocrisy and insanity wrapped up in a pretend logical wrapping. Add in a fun gif, and we have ourselves an A+ poster. You go girl! Love ya! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 10 hours ago, MakeBuffaloGreatAgain said: Perfect example. Thanks. I really do enjoy your posts. Pure hypocrisy and insanity wrapped up in a pretend logical wrapping. Add in a fun gif, and we have ourselves an A+ poster. You go girl! Love ya! Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 3 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much? You haven't heard of the Tutu Caper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 19 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Kavanaugh would be a terrible pick for libertarians and conservatives. I think he's more than likely to "turn Kennedy" once seated. Kethledge is being touted as an Origionalist, though he's nothing of the sort. Amy Coney Barrett is an Origionalist, and a person of faith; and would torture leftists who would be forced to read opinions they deem to be "anti-woman" by fiat, written in a woman's own hand. She would be a fantastic choice. Yes, she would torture libs! I hope she is the pick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 His Jew Bee Dance code book was translated from Hebrew to Russian to Canadian. Some important things got lost in translation(s). 4 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 she related to the Cohn-Bendit German terrorist gang of the 70s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hopefully so. That would ensure full Democrat support in the Senate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Apparently there is a 4th candidate now Sources tell Fox News that Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 What? Judge Judy, Hillary Clinton, Stormy Daniels, Max Waters all left out in the cold... again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: Apparently there is a 4th candidate now Sources tell Fox News that Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports. I was on the "just say no" train with regard to Hardiman filling Scalia's seat. My opinion hasn't changed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, Nanker said: What? Judge Judy, Hillary Clinton, Stormy Daniels, Max Waters all left out in the cold... again? I would support the nomination of Hillary Clinton just to watch the Senate Hearings and rejection 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Objectionists can kiss my ass. The President, ANY SITTING PRESIDENT, has the right to select any Supreme Court Justice they see fit. Democrats need to STFU and move on to another Trump-hating scenario they will undoubtedly uncover. This is just one of those reasons that a lot of Americans want nothing to do with politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, njbuff said: Objectionists can kiss my ass. The President, ANY SITTING PRESIDENT, has the right to select any Supreme Court Justice they see fit. Democrats need to STFU and move on to another Trump-hating scenario they will undoubtedly uncover. This is just one of those reasons that a lot of Americans want nothing to do with politics. I agree The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee What worries me is talk from the Left about packing the Court next time a Democrat holds the White House. Of course that sets a dangerous precedent, but that never stopped the Left before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, /dev/null said: I agree The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee What worries me is talk from the Left about packing the Court next time a Democrat holds the White House. Of course that sets a dangerous precedent, but that never stopped the Left before. not to worry. at the rate the Democrats are going, they'll be lucky to hold a seat at the local library. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, /dev/null said: I agree The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee One case where being pedantic is important: The Senate does not have the right to refuse to consider a nominee. They do, however, have the right to determine how they consider the nominee...and if the Senate decides (which they have) that "considering" a nominee is nothing more than accepting written notification of the nomination from the White House and tabling it, then they have satisfied their required duty to "advise and consent." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) If the candidate is qualified and not under contempt they should get in W’s joke of that woman was rightly quashed Edited July 6, 2018 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: One case where being pedantic is important: The Senate does not have the right to refuse to consider a nominee. They do, however, have the right to determine how they consider the nominee...and if the Senate decides (which they have) that "considering" a nominee is nothing more than accepting written notification of the nomination from the White House and tabling it, then they have satisfied their required duty to "advise and consent." Deja vu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 What goes around comes around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Deja vu. Except this time the majority isn't going to spike the nomination on the Chair's desk. These buffoons, in 12 years, have managed to warp our system of government to one of strict one-party, winner-take-all rule where legislation is by executive fiat and judicial review, and justice by mob rule 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts