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

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

(How it started - Harris RIGHT AWAY)

 

 

That video encapsulates everything I despise about the left. The have no morals, they’re bereft of any kind of compass.

[B-Man]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

That video encapsulates everything I despise about the left. The have no morals, they’re bereft of any kind of compass.

 

Quote

 

Ben Shapiro‏Verified account @benshapiro 9h9 hours ago

Little known fact: under Article XLI’s “take backsies clause,”

Democrats can undo the damage Harry Reid did by invoking the nuclear option on judicial nominees by crying and screaming.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Bill Hickey‏ @Freesmith

FollowFollow @Freesmith

Donald Trump is terrible, we are told, for shattering norms of presidential behavior.

 

Obviously there are not similar norms for senatorial conduct.

 

Or is the criticism of Trump just selective outrage expressed by folks who are partisan today and yesterday had the Spirit of McCain?

 

 

 

.

[/dev/null]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

With all the security surrounding Capitol Hill even on a normal work day, let alone a SCOTUS nomination hearing, you'd think maybe somebody would have noticed the person in a bright pink outfit holding a sign as they came thru the metal detectors.

 

 

 

It's almost like somebody may have let her in intentionally

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

If you didn't see it, it is worth your time...
 

 

[ALF]

I actually like listening to Sen Kennedy , the folksy ,commonsense he has is calming. 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

It’s reassuring to know that random dudes can get that close to a guy at the center of the current Two Minutes Hate.

 

 

 

The nutty stuff you're seeing on Twitter right now ("Kavanaugh disrespected the father of a Parkland victim!" "A WH staffer was throwing white power signs on camera!" etc.) is a simple outgrowth of the recognition by Dems that there is no way to stop confirmation. That is all.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Jason Beale‏ago

This is stunning on many levels. Not only is it juvenile, but she's promoting a stunt that involved an unknown individual rushing up to the witness in her hearing and attempting to make physical contact. She knows Kavanaugh had no idea who that man was - yet she tweets this bile.

 

 

Peter J. Hasson‏Verified account @peterjhasson 42m42 minutes ago

There's a staggering amount of misinformation about Zina Bash on Twitter right now, thanks to conspiracy theorists accusing her of being a white supremacist. Her mom is from Mexico, her dad is Jewish and her grandparents narrowly survived the Holocaust

 

Get that FAKE NARRATIVE out there !!

 

 

It's not even about the confirmation, because the Democrats know they can't stop it.

 

This is mid-term campaigning, trying to get their base energized enough to turn out and vote.

[Tiberius]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Trump tweets during Kavanaugh's opening statement: 

 

Any word on his views about privacy and surveillance? Remember how concerned you use to be about that? 

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Any word on his views about privacy and surveillance? Remember how concerned you use to be about that? 

Why don't you look it up for yourself? Why do you always ask other people to do your work for you? DR is not your encyclopedia.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Why don't you look it up for yourself? Why do you always ask other people to do your work for you? DR is not your encyclopedia.

Those were rhetorical questions. But thanks for playing. 

 

 

Btw, I think you would be a better president than Trump 

[4merper4mer]

23 minutes ago, ALF said:

I actually like listening to Sen Kennedy , the folksy ,commonsense he has is calming. 

I have bad news for you regarding Senator Kennedy.  

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Those were rhetorical questions. But thanks for playing. 

How would I know?

[Tiberius]

36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

How would I know?

You've been around here, you should of known, Mr President 

[DC Tom]

50 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Those were rhetorical questions. But thanks for playing. 

 

 

You know who else used rhetorical questions?

[Tiberius]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

You know who else used rhetorical questions?

Alah 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You've been around here, you should of known, Mr President 

I was being rhetorical. You spelled "have" wrong.

[IDBillzFan]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

10 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If you didn't see it, it is worth your time...
 

 

 

I don’t usually like Cruz but that was right on.

[plenzmd1]

8 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

hmm..how does this tweet apply to me

 

1) love me some Popeyes..but more of a thigh guy than drumsticks

 

2) Despise Trump

 

3) Like Kavanaugh and think he is a good nominee

Edited September 5, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

hmm..how does this tweet apply to me

 

1) love me some Popeyes..but more of a thigh guy than drumsticks

 

2) Despise Trump

 

3) Like Kavanaugh and think he is a good nominee

You think he should have to recuse himself from any Trump legal matters? 

[donbb]

Kava nawwwwww

[boyst]

29 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

hmm..how does this tweet apply to me

 

1) love me some Popeyes..but more of a thigh guy than drumsticks

 

2) Despise Trump

 

3) Like Kavanaugh and think he is a good nominee

I'd be curious your take on the resident trolls question, but he also does fail to realize that Congress chose him and appointed him, Essentially.

 

But, the cute argument pushed by Tibs is the best narrative constructed by the left in their organized attack that he is simply a drone for...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination.  It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here.  

 

It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination.  It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here.  

 

It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. 

 

 

 

 

So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show. 

[plenzmd1]

18 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I'd be curious your take on the resident trolls question, but he also does fail to realize that Congress chose him and appointed him, Essentially.

 

But, the cute argument pushed by Tibs is the best narrative constructed by the left in their organized attack that he is simply a drone for...

I have no idea why he would have to recuse himself.I trust the guy. This is not some starstruck Trump loving knucklehead that came out of Trumps woodwork, this is a serious guy who seems like a smart, objective legal scholar. I have no worries about him at all about him being objective in all legal matters. I probably won't agree with all his decisions, but I am 55 and have never agreed 100% with any politician or court justice

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show. 

and i agree with this for the most part

[ALF]

Elections have consequences

[Buffalo_Gal]

50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination.  It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here.  

 

It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. 

 

 

 

 

2

What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied),  as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's  Twitter account)).  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show. 

You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism.  When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact.  What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. It happens, and it may be painful when your guy is the right guy at the wrong time, but sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't.  Conservatives have struggled through it, liberals have been on the short end of the stick, but it is what it is. 

 

The good news for all Americans is that if all goes well with BK, it's mostly just political theater designed to rip apart the fabric of our society. Sinister, yes, but in this case, things should work out fine for us all. 

 

We do agree the dems put on a sh5tshow. We'll always have that, and that should be enough for today. 

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied),  as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's  Twitter account)).  

There are things I like about Trump's approach, but I would prefer a more subtle leadership style. 

 

I have come to the conclusion that you are correct, and we needed this guy at this time, but there are times I still feel like I'm wearing my velcro underwear inside out. 

[3rdnlng]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism.  When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact.  What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. It happens, and it may be painful when your guy is the right guy at the wrong time, but sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't.  Conservatives have struggled through it, liberals have been on the short end of the stick, but it is what it is. 

 

The good news for all Americans is that if all goes well with BK, it's mostly just political theater designed to rip apart the fabric of our society. Sinister, yes, but in this case, things should work out fine for us all. 

 

We do agree the dems put on a sh5tshow. We'll always have that, and that should be enough for today. 

There are things I like about Trump's approach, but I would prefer a more subtle leadership style. 

 

I have come to the conclusion that you are correct, and we needed this guy at this time, but there are times I still feel like I'm wearing my velcro underwear inside out. 

Sure, that ripping sound was Velcro underwear.

 

This hearing is a farce and the dems are at the point of throwing the pistol as a last resort. The dems are asking for more information while BK was at the WH, specifically his emails. We all should know that he was the person in the WH that dispatched emails from others to the people that had the need to know. The dems knew this and also knew that it would have been improper for them to see those emails, and that they would never get them. Dems, as is typical lie through their teeth to confuse the issues so that they can fool the public into going along with them. They have been really good at this for a long time. What they can't legislate they try to force via the courts.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

I have no idea why he would have to recuse himself.I trust the guy. This is not some starstruck Trump loving knucklehead that came out of Trumps woodwork, this is a serious guy who seems like a smart, objective legal scholar. I have no worries about him at all about him being objective in all legal matters. I probably won't agree with all his decisions, but I am 55 and have never agreed 100% with any politician or court justice

and i agree with this for the most part

He's a hard core partisan animal. He came up with those embarrassing questions about Monica Lewinski to ask Clinton (Should those be read aloud in the senate?? Where his daughters are??) and then questions Nixon vs USA??  Go after Democrat, go easy on Republican. And there is more. Recusal isn't going to kill him, but if he starts siding with the guy who picked on legal matters related to foreign conspiracy to throw the election that allowed him to get picked, that will create a cloud over him to say the least. 

1 hour ago, ALF said:

Elections have consequences

Yes they do, and if the election is tainted, the guy shouldn't be sitting in judgement of them because he benefitted from it. (Let the other judges decide) 

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism.  When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact.   

Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? 

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

   What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. I 

They carried out the will of the American people? How is that? I don't follow you there

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied),  as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's  Twitter account)).  

On twitter Trump said Sessions should not have indicted two republicans, because they were Republicans! And should have gone after Democrats instead, because they are Democrats

 

Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? 

 

Thankfully, Jeff Flake has already brought that up to BK. 

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? 

 

 

Considering that that's a case that Kavanaugh may end up hearing as a Justice, and that nominees for the Supreme Court do not comment on possible future cases in confirmation hearings, then...no, he absolutely shouldn't answer it.  To even be asked that would demonstrate a desire by the Senate to stack the court for the interests of politics to the detriment of the law.

 

Do any of you partisan morons understand that?

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Considering that that's a case that Kavanaugh may end up hearing as a Justice, and that nominees for the Supreme Court do not comment on possible future cases in confirmation hearings, then...no, he absolutely shouldn't answer it.  To even be asked that would demonstrate a desire by the Senate to stack the court for the interests of politics to the detriment of the law.

 

Do any of you partisan morons understand that?

 

To be fair, you're talking to people who believe the purpose of the Court is to be stacked for the interests of politics in order to circumvent the law.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He's a hard core partisan animal. He came up with those embarrassing questions about Monica Lewinski to ask Clinton (Should those be read aloud in the senate?? Where his daughters are??) and then questions Nixon vs USA??  Go after Democrat, go easy on Republican. And there is more. Recusal isn't going to kill him, but if he starts siding with the guy who picked on legal matters related to foreign conspiracy to throw the election that allowed him to get picked, that will create a cloud over him to say the least. 

Yes they do, and if the election is tainted, the guy shouldn't be sitting in judgement of them because he benefitted from it. (Let the other judges decide) 

Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? 

They carried out the will of the American people? How is that? I don't follow you there

On twitter Trump said Sessions should not have indicted two republicans, because they were Republicans! And should have gone after Democrats instead, because they are Democrats

 

Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? 

 

Thankfully, Jeff Flake has already brought that up to BK. 

You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly.  Lots of them, in fact. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly.  Lots of them, in fact. 

 

 

 

Not to fascists (which Tibs is even though he's too dim to realize it). To fascists it's about emotions. !@#$ elections... and logic... and reason... 

 

[KD in CA]

18 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

WTF Dude.  Dat's raysis.

 

Oh wait, did you mean Roberts is the only non bald dude?

 

I think he meant RBG is the only former ‘50s movie star.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied),  as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's  Twitter account)).  

 

I agree with you, but there's "punching back" and then there's "kicking someone in the groin".

 

 

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism.  When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact.   

Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? 

You're such a disingenuous type aren't you? No hearings on Garland and correctly so since they only followed the "Biden Rule". But how 'bout Sotomayor or Kagan? The Reps had every chance to throw a temper tantrum then but didn't.... I wonder why and don't even claim they were such outstanding characters. Hell, Kagan had never even served as a judge!

As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him?

[Tiberius]

44 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly.  Lots of them, in fact. 

 

 

The Senate?? That's funny! Obama won the election, what about that will of the people? You make a silly argument. You just think Republicans will is the will of the people 

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Sure, that ripping sound was Velcro underwear.

 

This hearing is a farce and the dems are at the point of throwing the pistol as a last resort. The dems are asking for more information while BK was at the WH, specifically his emails. We all should know that he was the person in the WH that dispatched emails from others to the people that had the need to know. The dems knew this and also knew that it would have been improper for them to see those emails, and that they would never get them. Dems, as is typical lie through their teeth to confuse the issues so that they can fool the public into going along with them. They have been really good at this for a long time. What they can't legislate they try to force via the courts.

They are so dishonest. Absolutely no morals. So sad.

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

You're such a disingenuous type aren't you? No hearings on Garland and correctly so since they only followed the "Biden Rule". But how 'bout Sotomayor or Kagan? The Reps had every chance to throw a temper tantrum then but didn't.... I wonder why and don't even claim they were such outstanding characters. Hell, Kagan had never even served as a judge!

As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him?

This is totally different, Obama wasn't under investigation, wasn't obstructing justice, like Trump is out in the open, didn't have a tainted election, and all I'm saying is he shouldn't judge over criminal issues that are directly related to the guy who picked him. That's all. 

 

If Obama was suspected of being a traitor, like some see Trump as, I wouldn't want him picking the judges who will diretly preside over his issue either. 

56 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/404751-brett-kavanaughs-views-in-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment-should-make

 

fourth amendment!