In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
My two cents on the Kavenaugh fiasco.
Arby
Member Posts: 668 ✭
Anyone with an ounce of brains can see this charade for what it is... Nothing more than a Democrat hit job to derail the Kavanaugh nomination to the SCOTUS.
Feinstein's staff probably looked the entire state of California to find anyone willing to perjure themselves and giving false witness, a hard assed Liberal , Clinton supporter and DNC donor...with no verifiable evidence.
The Yale "witness" is to be what can be expected from that Liberal cesspool of higher education.... with no verifiable evidence.
Michael Avenatti, is a scumbag attorney that no doubt has many scumbag clients that are willing to perjure themselves...like the latest one...with no verifiable evidence. You might recall that during the election year, there was a female attorney willing to pay any female willing to say they were in some way "abused" by Trump.
And last but not least, there isn't any congress person involved in this fiasco, with the expertise required to evaluate the psychological aspects of any testimony to be given which leaves us the following:
You have the above noted Democrat "witnesses" for the Prosecution with no verifiable evidence.
An avowed Democrat Congress on record as being against Kavanaugh's nomination before his being nominated...screaming for an FBI investigation to search for evidence from a 40 year-old event where the accuser (Ford) can't recall the date or place of the event...When Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI on at least 4 separate occasion over the course of his career...just more delaying tactics.
A Committee Democrat Senator who had Ford's letter since July but never mentioned it during the Kavanaugh Hearings, who waited until two days before the confirmation to bring the Ford letter forward, in a clear effort to delay the Conformation vote.
So how do you weigh the above against Kavanaugh's impeccable history as a decent person, family man and 12 years sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals...the second highest court in the USofA?
Simply put, he must be confirmed to the SCOTUS on Thursday... PERIOD
IF not you can kiss good by to our Nation as a bastion of Liberty and Justice...worse yet, if the Democrats ever gain control of Congress and the Oval Office ? we will have bought the farm as a Nation.
Feinstein's staff probably looked the entire state of California to find anyone willing to perjure themselves and giving false witness, a hard assed Liberal , Clinton supporter and DNC donor...with no verifiable evidence.
The Yale "witness" is to be what can be expected from that Liberal cesspool of higher education.... with no verifiable evidence.
Michael Avenatti, is a scumbag attorney that no doubt has many scumbag clients that are willing to perjure themselves...like the latest one...with no verifiable evidence. You might recall that during the election year, there was a female attorney willing to pay any female willing to say they were in some way "abused" by Trump.
And last but not least, there isn't any congress person involved in this fiasco, with the expertise required to evaluate the psychological aspects of any testimony to be given which leaves us the following:
You have the above noted Democrat "witnesses" for the Prosecution with no verifiable evidence.
An avowed Democrat Congress on record as being against Kavanaugh's nomination before his being nominated...screaming for an FBI investigation to search for evidence from a 40 year-old event where the accuser (Ford) can't recall the date or place of the event...When Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI on at least 4 separate occasion over the course of his career...just more delaying tactics.
A Committee Democrat Senator who had Ford's letter since July but never mentioned it during the Kavanaugh Hearings, who waited until two days before the confirmation to bring the Ford letter forward, in a clear effort to delay the Conformation vote.
So how do you weigh the above against Kavanaugh's impeccable history as a decent person, family man and 12 years sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals...the second highest court in the USofA?
Simply put, he must be confirmed to the SCOTUS on Thursday... PERIOD
IF not you can kiss good by to our Nation as a bastion of Liberty and Justice...worse yet, if the Democrats ever gain control of Congress and the Oval Office ? we will have bought the farm as a Nation.
Comments
The Attorney is a scumbag and a low life.
These peoples actions are beyond the pale, I am embarrassed for my country and I am sure every grave in Arlington has a body rolling in it right now, so sad and disgusting.
It is really insane. If anything like this had happened in My HS it would have spread like wildfire. I graduated in 78 so the time frame is almost the same.
The Attorney is a scumbag and a low life.
These peoples actions are beyond the pale, I am embarrassed for my country and I am sure every grave in Arlington has a body rolling in it right now, so sad and disgusting.
the girls who did this in my high school, drink till pass out and let anyone do anything, were called whores/sisters and would never be believed or trusted
A question for legal beagles:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-julie-swetnick-declaration-20180926-htmlstory.html
In the affidavit above, Swetnick declares 'under penalty of perjury' that she is telling the truth.
Can she actually be charged for perjury if the affidavit is inaccurate, or is this a throw-away line designed to buttress her claims without any real enforceability?
Brad Steele
https://forums.GunBroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=714639
And these are the folks that are critical of Trump for lower the level of discourse in American politics.
A question for legal beagles:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-julie-swetnick-declaration-20180926-htmlstory.html
In the affidavit above, Swetnick declares 'under penalty of perjury' that she is telling the truth.
Can she actually be charged for perjury if the affidavit is inaccurate, or is this a throw-away line designed to buttress her claims without any real enforceability?
Trump may have lowered the discourse level, but congress seems all too willing to swim/drink/spew in the swill.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Anyone with an ounce of brains can see this charade for what it is... Nothing more than a Democrat hit job to derail the Kavanaugh nomination to the SCOTUS.
Feinstein's staff probably looked the entire state of California to find anyone willing to perjure themselves and giving false witness, a hard assed Liberal , Clinton supporter and DNC donor...with no verifiable evidence.
The Yale "witness" is to be what can be expected from that Liberal cesspool of higher education.... with no verifiable evidence.
Michael Avenatti, is a scumbag attorney that no doubt has many scumbag clients that are willing to perjure themselves...like the latest one...with no verifiable evidence. You might recall that during the election year, there was a female attorney willing to pay any female willing to say they were in some way "abused" by Trump.
And last but not least, there isn't any congress person involved in this fiasco, with the expertise required to evaluate the psychological aspects of any testimony to be given which leaves us the following:
You have the above noted Democrat "witnesses" for the Prosecution with no verifiable evidence.
An avowed Democrat Congress on record as being against Kavanaugh's nomination before his being nominated...screaming for an FBI investigation to search for evidence from a 40 year-old event where the accuser (Ford) can't recall the date or place of the event...When Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI on at least 4 separate occasion over the course of his career...just more delaying tactics.
A Committee Democrat Senator who had Ford's letter since July but never mentioned it during the Kavanaugh Hearings, who waited until two days before the confirmation to bring the Ford letter forward, in a clear effort to delay the Conformation vote.
So how do you weigh the above against Kavanaugh's impeccable history as a decent person, family man and 12 years sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals...the second highest court in the USofA?
Simply put, he must be confirmed to the SCOTUS on Thursday... PERIOD
IF not you can kiss good by to our Nation as a bastion of Liberty and Justice...worse yet, if the Democrats ever gain control of Congress and the Oval Office ? we will have bought the farm as a Nation.
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Is he hiding or is a Jurist bond by the facts of Precedent?
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
His role on the SCOTUS would be to determine the Constitutionality of any issue brought before the SC...NOT to view an issue as what the particular Justice thinks it should be or would like it to be according to Liberal bias...The latter is ruling by FIAT...by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement,
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
I believe that I factually outlined the orchestration by the Democrats...would you care to factually outline your point of view or opinion
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
TRAITORS in power?...really? The only treason in evidence is being perpetrated by the Democrats in power, the Deep State, Kerry, undermining current State Department agenda in Iran, the lying MSM just to name a few.
The President was elected by the will of the people and the Electoral College which was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Anyone supporting the current monkeyshines (your word choice not mine, the word monkey was deemed racist by the democrats)noted above is guilty of being a participant in America's destruction.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
PUTZ...by definition is a stupid or worthless person. Would you care to expound on how you arrived at that assumption
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
Fortunately, we as individuals, are the only ones stuck with our opinions...the rest are free to hold to their own opinions...wonderful don't you think?
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
Kavanaugh has stated two principles he follows.
1. The US Constitution
2. Precedent
His swore job on the Supreme Court (as it is in his current job FWIW) is to uphold the Constitution. If he believes that there is the potential, in a case brought before him, where those two principles are in conflict, he then has to review how the previous decision was made and determine to the best of his ability if the conflict exists, and if it is material to the point where overriding a previous decision is justified.
He statements regarding precedent were targeted to the Olympia Snow types who would vote against him if they believed he would overturn Roe V. Wade or the decisions that resulted in the affirmation of the legality of the ACA.
It is political positioning, and regardless of whether one believes it to the correct response, in our current environment of a political court is necessary for confirmation.
We don't know what he will actually do, as candidates for SCOTUS are currently coached to not state what they actually believe regarding specific past, current, or hypothetical future decisions.
I do not want a conservative ideologue on the court anymore than I want a liberal ideologue. I would like to have someone who can be depended upon the make a Constitutional decision, regardless of the politics of the case. As we have seen in many recent decisions, the majority of justices are nearly 100% predictable in politically charged cases. This proves the political nature of the court and the abrogation of the their oath by these justices.
Brad Steele
This won't be popular but honestly if all you got on him is being horny as a teen in the 80's when everyone was doing Coke in DC including the legislators and Mayor of DC he is damn near and angel confirm him.
The problem now is that Kavanaugh has categorically denied everything. While I agree to some extent that being a bit aggressive as teen age boy is not disqualifying, denying it if it happened is. My feeling is that Kavanaugh is has too much to lose to be caught in a lie about his boyhood behavior. Had he done something, one would assume he is smart enough to admit to it (I am discounting this latest bimbo bombshell) so as to be able to move on with his life, even if it cost him his promotion. I doubt there would be a move to impeach him if he copped a feel or two as a boy. OTOH, the radical and nonsensical voices in the metoo movement may push for that as well.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by mag00
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
Kavanaugh has stated two principles he follows.
1. The US Constitution
2. Precedent
His swore job on the Supreme Court (as it is in his current job FWIW) is to uphold the Constitution. If he believes that there is the potential, in a case brought before him, where those two principles are in conflict, he then has to review how the previous decision was made and determine to the best of his ability if the conflict exists, and if it is material to the point where overriding a previous decision is justified.
He statements regarding precedent were targeted to the Olympia Snow types who would vote against him if they believed he would overturn Roe V. Wade or the decisions that resulted in the affirmation of the legality of the ACA.
It is political positioning, and regardless of whether one believes it to the correct response, in our current environment of a political court is necessary for confirmation.
We don't know what he will actually do, as candidates for SCOTUS are currently coached to not state what they actually believe regarding specific past, current, or hypothetical future decisions.
I do not want a conservative ideologue on the court anymore than I want a liberal ideologue. I would like to have someone who can be depended upon the make a Constitutional decision, regardless of the politics of the case. As we have seen in many recent decisions, the majority of justices are nearly 100% predictable in politically charged cases. This proves the political nature of the court and the abrogation of the their oath by these justices.
Precedent is irrelevant in the highest court. If all judges agree that is all that matters. If a future court cast and case comes along they can disregard that precedent and set a new one.
They can deny or accept a case that is "similar" based on precedent. More appropriately reject similar that have been ruled on already. That helps keep the docket manageable. The lower courts are to honor precedent, and that was what he USED TO serve on.
As I have stated in other topics, I can't find the "qualifications" spelled out in the Constitution that require you to be a bar approved person.
I have heard of some rules that have been adopted over the years, but that IS NOT WRITTEN in the constitution. Of course the swamp dwellers will protect status quo.
Highlighted red, I can do that, don't take no mental giant to figure it out. Over the years, precedent has convoluted the application/interpretation of the Law of the Constitution.
Strip it down to the original and start from fresh. Precedent may or may not be a bad layer of paint.
Study the Obamacare case and get back to me on how good precedent is.
Quote from magOO: My comments are in red.
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Is he hiding or is a Jurist bond by the facts of Precedent?
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
His role on the SCOTUS would be to determine the Constitutionality of any issue brought before the SC...NOT to view an issue as what the particular Justice thinks it should be or would like it to be according to Liberal bias...The latter is ruling by FIAT...by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement,
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
I believe that I factually outlined the orchestration by the Democrats...would you care to factually outline your point of view or opinion
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
TRAITORS in power?...really? The only treason in evidence is being perpetrated by the Democrats in power, the Deep State, Kerry, undermining current State Department agenda in Iran, the lying MSM just to name a few.
The President was elected by the will of the people and the Electoral College which was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Anyone supporting the current monkeyshines (your word choice not mine, the word monkey was deemed racist by the democrats)noted above is guilty of being a participant in America's destruction.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
PUTZ...by definition is a stupid or worthless person. Would you care to expound on how you arrived at that assumption
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
Fortunately, we as individuals, are the only ones stuck with our opinions...the rest are free to hold to their own opinions...wonderful don't you think?
Ah the flaming red liberal response. And that is where I'm leaving it. [:D] It's only your opinion after all, right? You haven't brought forth any facts, so pull up yer panties already. [:X][:X][:X][xx(]
And this is another little thing that has me questioning him, not his accusers or accusations.
In his interview the other night, it seemed he was over stating his love and compassion and help for the women in his life and how they all would walk on water for him.
My question is why is he so intent on pushing that plug? Does he feel guilty for some transgression of his youth? I was raised Catholic, in a Catholic school, and I assure you all women aren't saints that deserve such attention as he claims and makes damn sure we know how he helps women.
While that may not be an issue, I find it a bit telling. He is male and there can be no doubt he has thought of sex and some of the women in that way, and if not, I don't want him on the supreme court. Did he act on it in the way his accuser says, I don't think so.
But then again, what happened to Lance Armstrong, that Jerk let me down big time.
It is really insane. If anything like this had happened in My HS it would have spread like wildfire. I graduated in 78 so the time frame is almost the same.
The Attorney is a scumbag and a low life.
These peoples actions are beyond the pale, I am embarrassed for my country and I am sure every grave in Arlington has a body rolling in it right now, so sad and disgusting.
Yep, I graduated the same time. and if anybody would have done that in my school, well let's just say he would never had any kids, because we would have took a rusty pair of sheep shears and cut off not only his testicles but his BallPark Frank...
As for the flaming red "liberal" response...Dude please do not confuse me with any thing remotely Liberal I am an Iron Assed Conservative and a Constitutionalist.[:)]
[:X][:D]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by mag00
The man did not vote, the man hides behind precedent. They should vote, but not confirm.
I could care less about his high school days. But his inability to understand his role in the highest court is why I would not vote him in if I were on the panel.
This dog and pony show is orchestrated by both sides to provide you with false choices that advance the machine. That is all.
Now we have another "budget crisis" at the opportune moment. Me smells TRAITORS in power, time to rise up and clean house the way our founders left the door open to do.
You let these monkeyshines fly, and you are part of the destruction of America.
Same thing happened with Obama and his birth certificate. It did not matter where he was born, his father is Kenyan and he was not qualified by the US Constitution. Kavanaugh is a PUTZ.
Only think Kavanaugh has going is he is a religious family man who pride himself in achievement of those he mentors. Is that enough for the job, not in my opinion.
Kavanaugh has stated two principles he follows.
1. The US Constitution
2. Precedent
His swore job on the Supreme Court (as it is in his current job FWIW) is to uphold the Constitution. If he believes that there is the potential, in a case brought before him, where those two principles are in conflict, he then has to review how the previous decision was made and determine to the best of his ability if the conflict exists, and if it is material to the point where overriding a previous decision is justified.
He statements regarding precedent were targeted to the Olympia Snow types who would vote against him if they believed he would overturn Roe V. Wade or the decisions that resulted in the affirmation of the legality of the ACA.
It is political positioning, and regardless of whether one believes it to the correct response, in our current environment of a political court is necessary for confirmation.
We don't know what he will actually do, as candidates for SCOTUS are currently coached to not state what they actually believe regarding specific past, current, or hypothetical future decisions.
I do not want a conservative ideologue on the court anymore than I want a liberal ideologue. I would like to have someone who can be depended upon the make a Constitutional decision, regardless of the politics of the case. As we have seen in many recent decisions, the majority of justices are nearly 100% predictable in politically charged cases. This proves the political nature of the court and the abrogation of the their oath by these justices.
Precedent is irrelevant in the highest court. If all judges agree that is all that matters. If a future court cast and case comes along they can disregard that precedent and set a new one.
They can deny or accept a case that is "similar" based on precedent. More appropriately reject similar that have been ruled on already. That helps keep the docket manageable. The lower courts are to honor precedent, and that was what he USED TO serve on.
As I have stated in other topics, I can't find the "qualifications" spelled out in the Constitution that require you to be a bar approved person.
I have heard of some rules that have been adopted over the years, but that IS NOT WRITTEN in the constitution. Of course the swamp dwellers will protect status quo.
Highlighted red, I can do that, don't take no mental giant to figure it out. Over the years, precedent has convoluted the application/interpretation of the Law of the Constitution.
Strip it down to the original and start from fresh. Precedent may or may not be a bad layer of paint.
Study the Obamacare case and get back to me on how good precedent is.
Precedent is relevant because it sets the rules for a given time frame. This is not to say that it should be accepted absent review, just that previous cases must be considered through the thought process of the decision, but with an open mind as to whether that decision comports with the Constitution.
A classic example is the mis-application of the 14th Amendment vis-?-vis anchor babies. An amendment that was designed to grant freed slaves full citizenship has been twisted to grant citizenship to the children of a women who just happens to be in the US while giving birth. SCOTUS has ignored the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' verbiage, just as it has ignored the obvious intent.
You know this. I know this, and anyone who legitimately looks at the wording and context of the Amendment knows this. An open-minded judiciary would overturn this precedent, IMO, given a proper case. The problem is, of course, that a plaintiff requires standing to bring the case. In this instance, that plaintiff is going to have prove damage by an individual who was born here to a mother who was here illegally because of the granting of birthright citizenship. It is a rigged game here, and the rigging is no accident.
Brad Steele
Armchair lawyers all. You do not know the facts so yhou are guessing like we are.
Just what are the facts, as you see them?
Heck if Kavanaugh is voted to the SC I wouldn't be surprised if this blew up into a Cosby sized epidemic.