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

[/dev/null]

7 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Even if the Senate flips in 2018 there is a good chance of flipping back over the next several years.  SC justices are for a much longer haul.  I still think that the underhanded measures taken during the nomination process have as much chance to motivate Republicans as having Kavanaugh on the bench energizing Democrats.

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

 

Let the House Democrats impeach whomever they want. The Democrats will never get enough Senate votes to remove either Kavanaugh or Trump. The only thing they will accomplish is to look even more loony and irrational.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

 

Not this time, but they will set the precedent for future Congress' that may want to replace burdensome Supreme Court Justices

[DC Tom]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

This gives new meaning to the term ❄️
 

Mark Zuckerberg held a meeting to try and calm Facebook employee outrage after an exec attended the Kavanaugh hearing (FB)
 

Facebook has been battling an employee revolt after a senior exec, Joel Kaplan, attended the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearing in support of the US Supreme Court nominee.
On Friday, the company held an internal "town hall" meeting with employees to discuss the issue, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg in attendance. 
Zuckerberg reportedly talked about the importance of supporting diverse viewpoints at Facebook.
Facebook has held a company "town hall" meeting with employees to try and quell outrage after a senior executive attended the recent Senate hearing of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg were both in attendance. 

 

And it didn't work.  Facebook employees still want him gone.

[IDBillzFan]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

If Kavanaugh becomes the cause of flipping the Senate next month , would he still be worth gridlock with E.O. rest of way  ?

 

Put another way, if Kavanaugh becomes the cause for the GOP keeping the senate, would he still have been worth the disgusting scorched earth bloodbath he got from the Dems?

Edited October 6, 2018 by LABillzFan

[Uncle Joe]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

This and the Electoral College? What were the Founder's thinking? /sarcasm

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Not this time, but they will set the precedent for future Congress' that may want to replace burdensome Supreme Court Justices

 

The rallying cry of the left has been to take power and then expand SCOTUS to 11 seats.

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

They’re just throwing **** at the wall to try to keep any hope of flipping Congress.  Make no mistake, the Dems KNOW they !@#$ed this up royally.  They had a plan and thought with enough noise the Republicans would cave, because that’s what they do.  Perhaps the greatest effect Trump has had on the Republicans is his willingness to fight to the death over pretty much everything.  They’re following his lead.

[Bray Wyatt]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

The rallying cry of the left has been to take power and then expand SCOTUS to 11 seats.

 

Except that was already tried by FDR and shot down 

 

edit: I believe he tried more than 11 I think 15?

Edited October 6, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[ALF]

8 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Put another way, if Kavanaugh becomes the cause for the GOP keeping the senate, would he still have been worth the disgusting scorched earth bloodbath he got from the Dems?

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

 

LESS controversial!? The guy is vanilla GOPe. There isn't a LESS controversial judge to be had.  

Any "controversy" you may feel is attached was ginned up by the Democrats.  Period. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

 

You didn't answer the question. If the right holds the Senate in November, was the scorched-earth last-minute destruction of Kavanaugh worth it, or would you look back and suggest a better approach?

 

To counter your next question, let me say what I've said quite a bit: I don't care much at all for Trump, but I'll take him if all he does is seat Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

 

Even if the GOP loses the Senate next month.

 

[/dev/null]

15 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

 

Let me stop you right there sir.  You are trying to apply a logical and rational argument.

 

You must first learn to think and argue like a Progressive Fascist

 

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

Way too much to ask but it would be awesome to see Kerry in bracelets.

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

Kavanaugh is a Bush Republican with an excellent judicial record. He is a mainstream conservative. The only thing controversial about him was what arose as a result of an initially anonymous and perduring unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct that was on noone's radar screen as the fella had already passed six FBI background checks. If you mean to imply that Kavanaugh should have been withdrawn once the allegations and Democratic smear tactics ramped up, such a move would only embolden those engaged in such intemperate and scurrilous political tactics to continue doing so to any GOP nominee.

[LB3]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

LESS controversial!? The guy is vanilla GOPe. There isn't a LESS controversial judge to be had.  

Any "controversy" you may feel is attached was ginned up by the Democrats.  Period. 

What do you mean!?! He coaches his kids and likes beer and baseball! He's literally Super-Hitler!

[KRC]

9 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

What do you mean!?! He coaches his kids and likes beer and baseball! He's literally Super-Hitler!

 

He also throws ice. Don't forget about the ice. #IceLivesMatter

[LB3]

Just now, KRC said:

 

He also throws ice. Don't forget about the ice. #IceLivesMatter

I had repressed the nightmare that was the ice throwing.

[ALF]

22 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

You didn't answer the question. If the right holds the Senate in November, was the scorched-earth last-minute destruction of Kavanaugh worth it, or would you look back and suggest a better approach?

 

To counter your next question, let me say what I've said quite a bit: I don't care much at all for Trump, but I'll take him if all he does is seat Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

 

Even if the GOP loses the Senate next month.

 

 

If the right holds the Senate in Nov ,  then the left made a big mistake going after Kavanaugh.

 

I want to know who revealed the Ford letter that her rep and senator received that Ford did not want made public if I followed that correctly.

[IDBillzFan]

From WaPo article...

 

[MichFan]

Kavanaugh’s confirmation was largely accomplished through Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins. Who would have thought these two would champion anything that came from Trump. Makes me believe that Kavanaugh is no where near the extremist that the Democrats have made him out to be. Collins’ speech yesterday was the most effective explanation of the reasoning behind a vote I have ever witnessed. Extremely impressive.

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, ALF said:

 

If the right holds the Senate in Nov ,  then the left made a big mistake going after Kavanaugh.

 

I want to know who revealed the Ford letter that her rep and senator received that Ford did not want made public if I followed that correctly.

 

One day you are likely to learn the entire thing was orchestrated...starting with the truth that virtually all of Ford's online presence was scrubbed, which doesn't just happen for someone in her position.

 

Meawhile the left needs to stop giving the right mid-term advertisements.

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

48 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

 

The whole lot of conspirators.  

 

13 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

If the right holds the Senate in Nov ,  then the left made a big mistake going after Kavanaugh.

 

I want to know who revealed the Ford letter that her rep and senator received that Ford did not want made public if I followed that correctly.

 

The Senate is not in play anymore for the dems. The GOP will hold the Senate and now, likely, the House. 

 

Who leaked the letter? It was staffers on the committee who leaked it. Whether they came from DF's staff or Harris's staff, or both is really irrelevant. It was a political move by those on the left to expose Dr. Ford to the public (against her will) and throw her to the wolves of public opinion - not because they cared about Dr. Ford or the issue (or even believed it), but because they knew in the MeToo era the accusation alone would grind things to a halt and allow them to pressure Trump to drop Kavanaugh. 

 

They badly misjudged the situation.

 

*****************

 

From a woman pushing sharia law.  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

************************

More on the Doxxer

 

********************

 

 

[keepthefaith]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The whole lot of conspirators.  

 

 

The Senate is not in play anymore for the dems. The GOP will hold the Senate and now, likely, the House. 

 

Who leaked the letter? It was staffers on the committee who leaked it. Whether they came from DF's staff or Harris's staff, or both is really irrelevant. It was a political move by those on the left to expose Dr. Ford to the public (against her will) and throw her to the wolves of public opinion - not because they cared about Dr. Ford or the issue (or even believed it), but because they knew in the MeToo era the accusation alone would grind things to a halt and allow them to pressure Trump to drop Kavanaugh. 

 

They badly misjudged the situation.

 

I don't believe at all that Ford ever intended to keep this confidential.  To me it seems that Feinstein referred her to Katz and the quiet period was used to refine the story, scrub her SM profiles,  and prepare Ford to go public all while Feinstein and co waited for the confirmation hearings pass so that they could drop this last minute.  The claim of Ford wanting to remain anonymous was simply the excuse for the delay and for planning the coming out party.

 

Or I think it's possible Katz brought Ford to Feinstein. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Deranged Rhino]

Caption this: 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I don't believe at all that Ford ever intended to keep this confidential.  To me it seems that Feinstein referred her to Katz and the quiet period was used to refine the story, scrub her SM profiles,  and prepare Ford to go public all while Feinstein and co waited for the confirmation hearings pass so that they could drop this last minute.  The claim of Ford wanting to remain anonymous was simply the excuse for the delay and for planning the coming out party.

 

Or I think it's possible Katz brought Ford to Feinstein. 

 

I agree.  Why would Ford go to the trouble of all this just to keep it confidential?  She wanted the information to be known so she could stop his nomination.

 

What I think happened is that they investigated it on their own and found nothing to it.  But in this era of #metoo, they figured they could spring it last second and it would gum up the works. 

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I don't believe at all that Ford ever intended to keep this confidential.  To me it seems that Feinstein referred her to Katz and the quiet period was used to refine the story, scrub her SM profiles,  and prepare Ford to go public all while Feinstein and co waited for the confirmation hearings pass so that they could drop this last minute.  The claim of Ford wanting to remain anonymous was simply the excuse for the delay and for planning the coming out party.

 

Or I think it's possible Katz brought Ford to Feinstein. 

 

Just now, Doc said:

 

I agree.  Why would Ford go to the trouble of all this just to keep it confidential?  She wanted the information to be known so she could stop his nomination.

 

What I think happened is that they investigated it on their own and found nothing to it.  But in this era of #metoo, they figured they could spring it last second and it would gum up the works. 

 

Possible/likely (my thoughts on Ford go darker).

 

 

***************************

 

**********************

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I agree.  Why would Ford go to the trouble of all this just to keep it confidential?  She wanted the information to be known so she could stop his nomination.

 

What I think happened is that they investigated it on their own and found nothing to it.  But in this era of #metoo, they figured they could spring it last second and it would gum up the works. 

 

I'm not even sure they would have investigated it on their own.  Just a "Hey, we can use this!  Let's time it properly..."

 

Really, in the past couple weeks, have the Democrats shown any real evidence they care about victims' rights?  All I've seen is Democrats using them to generate outrage.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

who would the enemies be and what armed conflict would they be referring to Kerry here with?

[billsfan1959]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not even sure they would have investigated it on their own.  Just a "Hey, we can use this!  Let's time it properly..."

 

Really, in the past couple weeks, have the Democrats shown any real evidence they care about victims' rights?  All I've seen is Democrats using them to generate outrage.

The democrats are experts at exploiting real victims for political gain, as well as creating a perception of victimization and then exploiting that perception for personal gain.

[Nanker]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Caption this: 

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.

If you're happy and you know it , then your face will surely show it.

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

 

who would the enemies be and what armed conflict would they be referring to Kerry here with?

The Ayatollah Kakamamie in Iranistan.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Foxx said:

 

who would the enemies be and what armed conflict would they be referring to Kerry here with?

 

It's better asked/answered in the deep state thread. Kerry was openly working to undermine Trump's policy with Iran just a few weeks ago... but the answer is much deeper/darker.