President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

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.

 

That's going to go about as well as the time Roosevelt tried to pack the court.

[row_33]

As long as the GOP doesn’t continue to pack it with liberals

 

 

[Golden Goat]

Business Insider: "A top Republican senator offered a potentially massive clue about the identity of Trump's Supreme Court pick."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-orrin-hatch-gave-huge-clue-on-trumps-supreme-court-pick-2018-7

[/dev/null]

11 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

Business Insider: "A top Republican senator offered a potentially massive clue about the identity of Trump's Supreme Court pick."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-orrin-hatch-gave-huge-clue-on-trumps-supreme-court-pick-2018-7

[B-Man]

Bloomberg reporter floats idea that Amy Coney Barrett would reverse Brown v. Board of Education, but…

 

 

I'm sure that you won't be surprised to read that the misleading tweet got the left in an uproar, and................ surprise

 

it gives a completely false slant about Judge Barrett.

 

This is what happens when political reporters try to play gotcha with law articles... The original misleading tweet now has almost 800 RT’s and countless QT’s from large accounts attacking ACB. ~Zero of those people read any of the actual paper or will ever retract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Bloomberg reporter floats idea that Amy Coney Barrett would reverse Brown v. Board of Education, but…

 

 

I'm sure that you won't be surprised to read that the misleading tweet got the left in an uproar, and................ surprise

 

it gives a completely false slant about Judge Barrett.

 

.

 

It established the narrative, though.  So now it's fact.

[Tiberius]

Can't wait for Senators to ask the nominee if the President is above the law, should he have to testify in a criminal matter, can he ignore a subpoena, can he self pardon himself. Fun times! 

[outsidethebox]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Can't wait for Senators to ask the nominee if the President is above the law, should he have to testify in a criminal matter, can he ignore a subpoena, can he self pardon himself. Fun times! 

Everyone on the left have been ignoring subpoenas. It's only bad when the other side does it.

[B-Man]

Ignore the "squirrel" questions.

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT SWEEPSTAKES:  Jonathan Adler discusses the top candidates … or at least the candidates that somebody said were at the top.  

 

 

Paul Mirengoff discusses the same four.

[Deranged Rhino]

One more from Miller since he's on a roll: 

 

 

[B-Man]

IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

 

 VIDEO: Students hate Trump’s SCOTUS pick… before he made it.

 

 

This month, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would be retiring from the Supreme Court of the United States, giving President Trump an opportunity to nominate a potential replacement.  

Instantly, Trump’s political opponents began questioning the credentials of those who were thought to be on his shortlist for the position.

 

The same sentiment was seen on social media from pundits and members of Congress alike -- but what would college students have to say about the matter? Did they have substantive reasons for not trusting the potential replacement, or were they simply set on opposing any Trump nominee? 

 

To find out, I headed to New York University to ask students what they thought about who Trump had chosen to replace Justice Kennedy.

 

Despite the fact that Trump’s decision was still days away from being finalized, students unanimously condemned Trump’s move, harshly criticizing the president’s nonexistent nominee.  

 

“He’s quite extreme in his views,” said one student of the fictitious Judge.

 

“I saw it all over the news, that he’s like racist,” another student added, referring to the announcement that hadn’t yet happened.

 

“I saw the new nominee is like racist, and he’s starting a new wave of something very negative, and I’m really scared about the future and what choices he will make,” another pupil added.

 

When asked if she’d seen the online coverage of the event, one faculty member described witnessing “outrage… as it should be.” 

What else did students have to say? Did anyone realize the decision had not yet been made? 

 

Watch the full video to find out:

 

[IDBillzFan]

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

 

Not even a little.

 

It's like an entire university of Tibs/gators/baskins.

[row_33]

Go back to your dorm rooms and crack the books kids, you don’t have a prayer in life otherwise.

 

 

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

 

 VIDEO: Students hate Trump’s SCOTUS pick… before he made it.

 

 

This month, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would be retiring from the Supreme Court of the United States, giving President Trump an opportunity to nominate a potential replacement.  

Instantly, Trump’s political opponents began questioning the credentials of those who were thought to be on his shortlist for the position.

 

The same sentiment was seen on social media from pundits and members of Congress alike -- but what would college students have to say about the matter? Did they have substantive reasons for not trusting the potential replacement, or were they simply set on opposing any Trump nominee? 

 

To find out, I headed to New York University to ask students what they thought about who Trump had chosen to replace Justice Kennedy.

 

Despite the fact that Trump’s decision was still days away from being finalized, students unanimously condemned Trump’s move, harshly criticizing the president’s nonexistent nominee.  

 

“He’s quite extreme in his views,” said one student of the fictitious Judge.

 

“I saw it all over the news, that he’s like racist,” another student added, referring to the announcement that hadn’t yet happened.

 

“I saw the new nominee is like racist, and he’s starting a new wave of something very negative, and I’m really scared about the future and what choices he will make,” another pupil added.

 

When asked if she’d seen the online coverage of the event, one faculty member described witnessing “outrage… as it should be.” 

What else did students have to say? Did anyone realize the decision had not yet been made? 

 

Watch the full video to find out:

 

 

I watched the full video, and it's pretty clear that most of those statements are made about Trump, not a non-existent Supreme Court nominee, and it was cut to make the students look dumber than they really are.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

I watched the full video, and it's pretty clear that most of those statements are made about Trump, not a non-existent Supreme Court nominee, and it was cut to make the students look dumber than they really are.

 

Most public media interviews talk to 60 people and pick the two dumbest to reflect the biased narrative

 

 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Most public media interviews talk to 60 people and pick the two dumbest to reflect the biased narrative

 

 

 

Yes, I'm well aware.  But this particular Campus Reform video goes well beyond that practice.

[row_33]

Should see what Canadian TV does to Americans with this media trick.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

Handmaids' Resistance gather at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. District Courthouse for a press conference about the SCOTUS vacancy and womens' rights.

 

What’s sad is that the only people there to see it where the media cameras.

 

 

.

Stunts and Gimmicks that's todays democrats.

 

 

.

Edited July 9, 2018 by B-Man

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Handmaids' Resistance gather at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. District Courthouse for a press conference about the SCOTUS vacancy and womens' rights.

 

What’s sad is that the only people there to see it where the media cameras.

 

 

.

Stunts and Gimmicks that's todays democrats.

 

 

.

 

Same morons were probably there protesting O'Connor 35 years ago.

[Golden Goat]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

Same morons were probably there protesting O'Connor 35 years ago.

 

I'm betting they don't know who O'Connor is.

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

 

I'm betting they don't know who O'Connor is.

They probably think it's the chick from the Terminator movies

[ALF]

The nominees are no surprise , who can get confirmed is the question.

[Buffalo_Gal]

For those waiting: Tonight, 9pm ET: Watch Trump Announce Supreme Court Pick

[B-Man]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

.... No one has been nominated yet, but Bob already knows how he's voting: 

 

Good luck in November, Bob. 

[B-Man]

Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame by Liz Peek

Original Article   Though they won’t admit it, Democrats are suffering continued fallout from the arrogance of the Obama White House. Liberals are furious that President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court, thus cementing a conservative majority for the foreseeable future. Moreover, liberals are upset that the Trump administration may have convinced Justice Anthony Kennedy to recently announce his retirement, viewing that effort as dirty pool. That Kennedy, age 81, is nobody’s fool – and is unlikely to have been manipulated – appears irrelevant.   The real offense, which actually merits outrage from the left, is that President Obama did not convince liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire during the many years that Democrats controlled the Senate.   Ginsburg is 85. She will surely leave the bench in the next few years, opening up the possibility that the Supreme Court will have an even greater conservative cast – one that might indeed persist for a generation.   Why did President Obama not plan for such a possibility, which would at least have guaranteed four liberal votes on the court? The obvious answer is that he never anticipated that the opportunity would pass.   Even though he received what he called a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, and even though the GOP made unprecedented political gains during his tenure, President Obama was always convinced the country was behind him.    As Mara Liasson wrote for NPR in 2016: “During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.” She noted that the Obama legacy includes “one huge failure: a diminished Democratic Party.”   MORE AT THE LINK:

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame by Liz Peek

Original Article   Though they won’t admit it, Democrats are suffering continued fallout from the arrogance of the Obama White House. Liberals are furious that President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court, thus cementing a conservative majority for the foreseeable future. Moreover, liberals are upset that the Trump administration may have convinced Justice Anthony Kennedy to recently announce his retirement, viewing that effort as dirty pool. That Kennedy, age 81, is nobody’s fool – and is unlikely to have been manipulated – appears irrelevant.   The real offense, which actually merits outrage from the left, is that President Obama did not convince liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire during the many years that Democrats controlled the Senate.   Ginsburg is 85. She will surely leave the bench in the next few years, opening up the possibility that the Supreme Court will have an even greater conservative cast – one that might indeed persist for a generation.   Why did President Obama not plan for such a possibility, which would at least have guaranteed four liberal votes on the court? The obvious answer is that he never anticipated that the opportunity would pass.   Even though he received what he called a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, and even though the GOP made unprecedented political gains during his tenure, President Obama was always convinced the country was behind him.    As Mara Liasson wrote for NPR in 2016: “During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.” She noted that the Obama legacy includes “one huge failure: a diminished Democratic Party.”   MORE AT THE LINK:

 

It's not that he was convinced that the country was behind him, it's that he had casually disregarded the will of the people, and their right to self determination; and had made the decision to coronate Hillary Clinton as the next President.

 

It wasn't important what the people wanted, because he had determined to subvert their will to his own legacy, and never dreamed his machinations would fail him, and destroy his legacy.

[DC Tom]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

.... No one has been nominated yet, but Bob already knows how he's voting: 

 

Good luck in November, Bob. 

 

Shocked, yes, shocked I'm not...!

 

I'll be surprised when a Democrat tweets "I'll give Trump's nomination the same consideration I would any other nomination, regardless of party."

[B-Man]

ALLAHPUNDIT HAS A HUNCH: It’ll Be Barrett For SCOTUS.

 

As for why Barrett over Kavanaugh or Kethledge, Trump’s instinct when told that he can’t do something is to do it. And Barrett is the one pick more than any other about whom he’s being told “You can’t do that!” She’s too pro-life! Collins and Murkowski will walk! Official Washington much prefers Kavanaugh or Kethledge! I think Trump processes advice like that in terms of “You don’t have the balls to do this.” It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull. More than that, though, Barrett is very clearly the choice that’ll make his base happiest and galvanize them for a big chair-throwing culture-war brawl with the left.

 

Kethledge is getting knocked by the right for his immigration votes, Kavanaugh is getting bashed for being a Bushie, but Barrett seems to be viewed as some sort of conquering white knight of social conservatism. I think that’s foolhardy: She’s far less of a known quantity as a judge than Kavanaugh or Kethledge are and might well disappoint conservatives in all sorts of ways over the next 40 years on the Court. (Although, crucially, probably not on abortion.) It’d be wiser to give her five years on the bench and then see where things stand.

 

But Republicans don’t necessarily have five years to play with. By far the stupidest argument in support of passing over Barrett this time is that Trump can save her for the eventual Ginsburg vacancy. Trump may be out of office in as little as two and a half years, though. There’s every reason to think Ginsburg can hang on until then. And if she does, it might plausibly be another full decade before a Republican president gets to fill a Court seat.

 

 

We’ll know soon enough.

[Bray Wyatt]

Just heard the pick is in, who do you think it will be and who do you want? Want - Barrett/Kethledge, Think - Hardiman 

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Just heard the pick is in, who do you think it will be and who do you want? Want - Barrett/Kethledge, Think - Hardiman 

 

Kim Kardashian

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Kim Kardashian

 

Out of all the Kardashians thats the one you go with? I mean you cant even look at her best asset while shes seated on the bench!

[row_33]

not a shred of interest in following this topic

 

they've turned it into an episode of Maury, shameful

 

not even amusing, the worst crime of all

 

 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Kim Kardashian

You may have something there. After all, he did interview her a while back and she must have impressed Trump immensely with her petition for the poor woman that was incarcerated for life.

[IDBillzFan]

27-year-old Politico Reporter Can't Even Handle RBG's 1-Hour Workout.

 

They can't work out. They can't open jars. Has America's left turned into a bunch of wussies?

 

It can't be...

 

[Doc Brown]

14 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Just heard the pick is in, who do you think it will be and who do you want? Want - Barrett/Kethledge, Think - Hardiman 

It will be Barrett.  A female in her mid 40's that will exasperate the culture war the most with the left that Trump thrives on.  However, she's the most unknown on the bench so this could backfire in the long run.

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

It will be Barrett.  A female in her mid 40's that will exasperate the culture war the most with the left that Trump thrives on.  However, she's the most unknown on the bench so this could backfire in the long run.

 

Yeah I more prefer Kethledge as he is in the mold of Gorsuch etc., but I picked her just to watch the left scramble to discredit her. Judge Napolitano said that Trump and Barrett didnt seem to hit it off in their meeting from what he heard so he didnt think it was going to be her

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Yeah I more prefer Kethledge as he is in the mold of Gorsuch etc., but I picked her just to watch the left scramble to discredit her. Judge Napolitano said that Trump and Barrett didnt seem to hit it off in their meeting from what he heard so he didnt think it was going to be her

 

This is not a sandbox I typically play in, so forgive my being naive when I ask, is there not a conservative black female  judge qualified for the spot?