Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
Pumpf I'm glad you're happy with his little lies. You dont see the pattern of behavior because you don't want to.
Of course I'm not pumpf, but I'd like to respond.
About 25 yrs ago, you could have posted the same about Clarence Thomas.
Has Thomas subsequently sniffed a whiff of any improper behavior during his time on the SCOTUS bench?
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
At the end of the day anyone who lashes out at Dems, Hillary and conspiracy theories working against him with the rage and anger he showed is a guarantee to vote your way and that's what you want.
Well....yeah.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
Do you honestly think he will be impartial, fair, non-partisan - all the things a SCOTUS should be? Nope but that's not what Republicans want. Congrats.
Take a swing at a man with an impeccable record.... you best not miss. 
And btw, SFVikeFan... keep up the hyperbole, please.
Even left-wing extremist NPR is admitting you've lost the argument, with the electorate.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874...evaporates
Congrats?
Quote: @KingBash said:
Also: if she's such a joke, why not let the FBI run a real investigation? The whole thing was rigged from the get-go. That I think you can at least agree with, was that it was done just for show because they wanted to speed this up. Shocker! The WH found no evidence of corroboration. What, you think they'd allow the FBI to interview everybody and accidentally find some?
Oh Jeez.
"why not let the FBI run a real investigation?"
The FBI needs evidence of a crime, to be asked (by local authorities) to investigate.
The Blasey-Ford 'team' has never even filed charges in local Montgomery County (Maryland...supposedly where the crime occurred) to instigate the FBI's help in such and investigation.
Ol' Uncle Joe (there he is again) could have told you that, yrs ago, had you listened.
"the WH found no evidence of corroboration"
NO! The FBI issued a report (asked for by Blasey-Ford proponents) that found no FBI evidence of corroboration.
the WH (Trump) ORDERED THE ADDITIONAL FBI INVESTIGATION THAT YOU'RE NOW COMPLAINING ABOUT... per Flake.
All the FBI needed to issue a report, was to review testimony already under sworn oath by all relevant parties, already under penalty of perjury.
You're seriously going to equate Maxine Waters comments on "pushing back" against people who are outright lying to the people trying to gaslight us? You think that means violence, the term push back? She is fed up with GOP lies and tribal warfare and telling her voters to speak up, that is her fucking job. A judge is not supposed to be partisan. Few of us posters here are qualified to be one either because we are too tribal, shocker. No he's not entitled to anger, sorry. You obviously think it's ok for a SCOTUS nominee to behave that way, that's our difference. Did Hillary go ballistic on Republicans in her 11 hour testimony after being investigated for the 47th time? No. And it's not just me, 1000+ law professors from various political backgrounds called him unfit after his behavior. Another retired former SCOTUS judge did the same. You think it's good to be emotional to defend yourself, and hey that's fine if you're an attorney but not ok as a judge. And while you think Ford lied, she passed a lie detector test, he never took one. Lack of evidence doesn't exonerate him or mean it never happened. And I heard plenty of lies, deflections, and blaming others in his testimony that tells me he is obviously trying to hide things and deceive under oath. Again, not ok for a lifetime appointment for SCOTUS. But Republicans have accepted an immoral, lying POS POTUS so none of us this surprises me.
And please, Democrats have NEVER obstructed or prevented the GOP from a SCOTUS nomination when it was their turn, not in the way Garland was handled and that was disgraceful. That precedent was set by McConnell and his groupies who stole that seat for a year with obstruction, refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland and they started this entire shit show with dirty politics so Lindsey Graham can STFU with his moral outrage. And FYI Neil Gorsuch went through without any drama like this from Dems, because he was squeaky clean and well qualified. Kavanaugh is neither.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
You're seriously going to equate Maxine Waters comments on "pushing back" against people who are outright lying to the people trying to gaslight us? You think that means violence, the term push back? She is fed up with GOP lies and tribal warfare and telling her voters to speak up, that is her fucking job. A judge is not supposed to be partisan. Few of us posters here are qualified to be one either because we are too tribal, shocker. No he's not entitled to anger, sorry. You obviously think it's ok for a SCOTUS nominee to behave that way, that's our difference. Did Hillary go ballistic on Republicans in her 11 hour testimony after being investigated for the 47th time? No. And it's not just me, 1000+ law professors from various political backgrounds called him unfit after his behavior. Another retired former SCOTUS judge did the same. You think it's good to be emotional to defend yourself, and hey that's fine if you're an attorney but not ok as a judge. And while you think Ford lied, she passed a lie detector test, he never took one. Lack of evidence doesn't exonerate him or mean it never happened. And I heard plenty of lies, deflections, and blaming others in his testimony that tells me he is obviously trying to hide things and deceive under oath. Again, not ok for a lifetime appointment for SCOTUS. But Republicans have accepted an immoral, lying POS POTUS so none of us this surprises me.
And please, Democrats have NEVER obstructed or prevented the GOP from a SCOTUS nomination when it was their turn, not in the way Garland was handled and that was disgraceful. That precedent was set by McConnell and his groupies who stole that seat for a year with obstruction, refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland and they started this entire shit show with dirty politics so Lindsey Graham can STFU with his moral outrage. And FYI Neil Gorsuch went through without any drama like this from Dems, because he was squeaky clean and well qualified. Kavanaugh is neither.
Best we probably bow out.
I actually asked jimmy to reinstate me into this thread, and that's served it's purpose... which was presenting a logical, fair argument that never goes anywhere.
Today, Kavanaugh will get confirmed and the world will keep turning. But they've succeeded in cheating their way into a SC loaded with conservatives, and Trump got his way: this is one step closer for his criminal activities being forgiving should he ever get in trouble. That's what this was about for him.
Quote: @KingBash said:
@ greediron said:
So you would respect Kavanaugh more if he were a complete ass and criminal as a youth as long as he admitted it rather than being an upstanding person and not admitting it?
If Kavanaugh lied under oath, he is unfit for the job. but I have yet to see anything other than people here speculating they know what his scribblings were referring to. And you would respect Pumpf if he was a hypocrite? That lying is okay if it gets the right vote?
guess I don't get your logic.
What universe are you living in where you think that ALL of the stuff swirling around him, people speaking out, sworn testimonies, evidence of his lies in books his friend wrote, letters he wrote, etc.
And you still don't think he IS a complete ass and a criminal as a youth...
You don't get my logic. I think it's that simple. And maybe I don't get yours.
I said, if he lied under oath, he is unfit. I just don't understand respecting him more if he were a complete ass and criminal. If he assaulted women, he is a scumbag. He may have masked it as he aged, but that type of behavior isn't just something you grow out of.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
You're seriously going to equate Maxine Waters comments on "pushing back" against people who are outright lying to the people trying to gaslight us? You think that means violence, the term push back? She is fed up with GOP lies and tribal warfare and telling her voters to speak up, that is her fucking job. A judge is not supposed to be partisan. Few of us posters here are qualified to be one either because we are too tribal, shocker. No he's not entitled to anger, sorry. You obviously think it's ok for a SCOTUS nominee to behave that way, that's our difference. Did Hillary go ballistic on Republicans in her 11 hour testimony after being investigated for the 47th time? No. And it's not just me, 1000+ law professors from various political backgrounds called him unfit after his behavior. Another retired former SCOTUS judge did the same. You think it's good to be emotional to defend yourself, and hey that's fine if you're an attorney but not ok as a judge. And while you think Ford lied, she passed a lie detector test, he never took one. Lack of evidence doesn't exonerate him or mean it never happened. And I heard plenty of lies, deflections, and blaming others in his testimony that tells me he is obviously trying to hide things and deceive under oath. Again, not ok for a lifetime appointment for SCOTUS. But Republicans have accepted an immoral, lying POS POTUS so none of us this surprises me.
And please, Democrats have NEVER obstructed or prevented the GOP from a SCOTUS nomination when it was their turn, not in the way Garland was handled and that was disgraceful. That precedent was set by McConnell and his groupies who stole that seat for a year with obstruction, refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland and they started this entire shit show with dirty politics so Lindsey Graham can STFU with his moral outrage. And FYI Neil Gorsuch went through without any drama like this from Dems, because he was squeaky clean and well qualified. Kavanaugh is neither.
If Kavanaugh wasn't qualified, I wish they would have brought that up. Rather than act like spoiled children with a hissy fit and then wait until after the hearings to bring up some sham of an accusation they sat of for a month. I don't like Kavanaugh. I thought he was the worst by far on Trump's short list. But of course the Dems have to go for the trendy salacious accusation.
As to Garland, that was using the Democrats own reasoning. The Biden rule. And the Democrats got rid of the 2/3s vote so they could get their "highly qualified" picks through, so they didn't have the ammo to bring down Gorsuch.
As to the other accusations some are throwing out as legit, if any actually had any legitimacy, they would bring the guy down. But an adult woman (she was 18) going to an underage drinking party with repeated assaults going on, yet she continued to go to them while fearing for her life? Yeah, that sounds completely legit.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ KingBash said:
@ greediron said:
So you would respect Kavanaugh more if he were a complete ass and criminal as a youth as long as he admitted it rather than being an upstanding person and not admitting it?
If Kavanaugh lied under oath, he is unfit for the job. but I have yet to see anything other than people here speculating they know what his scribblings were referring to. And you would respect Pumpf if he was a hypocrite? That lying is okay if it gets the right vote?
guess I don't get your logic.
What universe are you living in where you think that ALL of the stuff swirling around him, people speaking out, sworn testimonies, evidence of his lies in books his friend wrote, letters he wrote, etc.
And you still don't think he IS a complete ass and a criminal as a youth...
You don't get my logic. I think it's that simple. And maybe I don't get yours.
I said, if he lied under oath, he is unfit. I just don't understand respecting him more if he were a complete ass and criminal. If he assaulted women, he is a scumbag. He may have masked it as he aged, but that type of behavior isn't just something you grow out of.
You're not understanding my argument whatsoever, because you're stating things I agree with you 100% on, but you're making an argument that, although similar to what I've said, wasn't my intent. I stated numerous scenarios that I believed to be true that were wildly unacceptable, others that could be true to some degree where the line was blurred, and I entertained scenarios to appease your side where this was all fabricated.
Or, and I'm trying to be fair, maybe I just did a really poor job of explaining it. That's very possible.
On record: I don't support him if he was some serial assaulter. I'd never support that.
As to your point I highlighted, I stated over and over again I don't think he's some sexual predator that can't control himself. I think he grew up in a culture of elite, privileged little douchebags that never saw this as that big of a deal, and the further he distanced himself from it and got into the real world, realized that was unacceptable. I don't think he's Bill Cosby.
Here is the most interesting thing I heard in Susan Collins comments:
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three Republican president appointed justices who authored the Casey decision which reaffirmed Roe.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justice’s nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter or women will die.” Just two years later Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
-------
In other words, Republicans campaign on this to get the evangelical vote, knowing full well Roe will never be overturned. Congress knows it, the Court knows it, even the candidate knows it. The only people who don't know it are the voters.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Here is the most interesting thing I heard in Susan Collins comments:
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three Republican president appointed justices who authored the Casey decision which reaffirmed Roe.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justice’s nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter or women will die.” Just two years later Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
-------
In other words, Republicans campaign on this to get the evangelical vote, knowing full well Roe will never be overturned. Congress knows it, the Court knows it, even the candidate knows it. The only people who don't know it are the voters.
Hey, we agree on something! That's one of the reasons I was done with the GOP. They had the power to make significant changes to further limit abortions... but they didn't do it. I do think it's possible that Roe could be overturned- because it was (and is) bad law. But it's not really the style of Constitutionalist judges to write laws; that's more for the progressives.
Which is why the progressives are so upset: they fear that "conservative" judges are going to do the very same thing that liberal judges do (legislated from the bench). MAYBE if the progressives weren't always trying to run end runs around the legislative branch, the SCOTUS wouldn't be such a battle.
It's not over yet, bitches!
https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-exorci...gh-1176666
In a battle of beliefs, a Catholic exorcist is planning to fight an upcoming hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with a special Mass.
On Saturday, Catland Books, a “Metaphysical boutique and occult bookshop” in Brooklyn, New York, is hosting a hex on Kavanaugh in an effort to make him “suffer,” and send a message to his supporters.
“No, you don’t win. He may have been confirmed, but that’s something we already knew was going to happen,” co-owner Dakota Bracciale previously told Newsweek. “We know the system is broken, and the people in charge need to be taken down by any means necessary, magical or otherwise.”
As a response to the hex, Father Gary Thomas, the exorcist for the Diocese of San Jose, California, told the National Catholic Register that he was planning a special Mass for Kavanaugh on Thursday and Saturday.
“This is a conjuring of evil—not about free speech,” Thomas said. “Conjuring up personified evil does not fall under free speech. Satanic cults often commit crimes; they murder and sexually abuse everyone in their cult.”
Upon hearing of the hex, Thomas said he was “appalled” and the other exorcists he shared the story with were equally as troubled by the planned event. The priest explained the hex shows people believe in the power of witchcraft and will direct evil to have a “permanently adverse” effect on Kavanaugh.
“The decision to do this against a Supreme Court justice is a heinous act and says a lot about the character of these people that should not be underestimated or dismissed,” Thomas said. “These are real evil people.”Father Gary Thomas attends the premiere of Warner Brothers’ “The Rite” at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, in Los Angeles, on January 26, 2011. Thomas is holding a special Mass on Thursday and Saturday to counter a planned hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
A priest is appointed to the office of the exorcist by a diocesan bishop, according to the Catholic Herald. An exorcism is a specific form of prayer the church uses to fight against the devil's power.
Other people invoked the name of God in voicing their distaste for the event on the Facebook page Catland Book had set up for the hex.
“The devil is thriving with his many worshipers. Kavanaugh is one of God’s children and will continue to be protected by our Lord. Shame on you that participate in this, I’m praying for you,” one woman commented.
Another person commented that Jesus would attend that hex and will denounce the “wicked gathering.”
The upcoming hex on Kavanaugh has garnered national attention and Bracciale told Newsweekthat it’s not the bookshop's first stab at using magic to upend President Donald Trump. Since he moved into the Oval Office, Catland Books has hosted three hexes on the president, which Bracciale deemed successful.
Saturday’s hex is about more than just Kavanaugh, though. Bracciale explained that the gathering is also intended to be an act of solidarity to let people know they aren’t “alone with the monsters.”
“This is basically Antifa witches,” Bracciale told Newsweek. “We’re coming for these people's throats, and we will never stop, we will never be silenced.... There are a lot of angry people who are righteously filled with rage that are going to take back our country.”
The event is sold out and Bracciale floated the idea of possibly doing a live stream. Even if people aren’t able to watch the hex from their own homes, Bracciale said the store will share a hex, complete with directions, for people to perform on their own.
In light of the overwhelming interest in attending the hex on Kavanaugh, Catland Books decided to host another hex on the Supreme Court justice on November 3.
|
