Reply With Quote
Let’s just wait another 35 years
....and then revert to what you've been saying all along.
you're playing a political game too, defense for the GOP.
unwaveringly.
Let’s just wait another 35 years
If it was good enough for Garland it's good enough for Kavanaugh too.
it's not political games to want the judicial system to play its part and not just jump to the side of every damn accuser out there. i've known a couple horrible women throughout my life so i am not so naive to believe everyones word out there especially a charge of rape from 30+ yrs ago with little to no detail.
the guys screaming otherwise are just a bunch of sissy's and yall know it. it's the same with male feminists; they're so weak and this is their attempt to get close to women. let's not bull ourselves.
how does Senate Judiciary know the names of people and where they lived, at the party that Mark Judge doesn't remember, where the attempted rape never happened, if they didn't talk to Ms. Ford?
I can see you have a beef against the justice system for investigating claims of sexual assault.
That's on you, bud.
nice historical background on the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
Let's just wait until the election.
that was the standard last time
lmao at you of all people... project much mono?
i don't. i have a beef with jumping to conclusions and ruining careers/lives because of sissy's on either side of the political aisle. it's sickening.
where's the threads and all the hoopla over the allegations against keith ellison? huh? where? there might be one somewhere on this board but does it have the same bs virtue signaling escapade as this thread here?
Lol
I wonder who it is who remembers the party and who was there and told Ed Whelan and Mark Davis.
the standard was for your hillary to have been ushered in so she could appoint lynch. out of here losers!
huh? garland was nominated.
are you suggesting clinton orchestrated the obstruction of garland's nomination so that she could nominate lynch?
the stakes aren't nearly as high, but yeah, you can find it on this board.
here's CNN's story from today: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/polit...han/index.html
maybe not for scalia's seat but def down the line. yall act like there's nothing to anything anyone of us say here if we aren't one of you and don't have our noses so high up in the air. yall sicken me. you, your ideology, and those just like you.huh? garland was nominated.
are you suggesting clinton orchestrated the obstruction of garland's nomination so that she could nominate lynch?
articles! let's see that plastered on MSM just as much as they're smearing judge k rn.
as well, i want to hear the outcry by fellow ST far left gots here. come one, come all you sissy s.
She needs another day to pack provisions for her cross-country drive, apparently.
Well, let's just preface by saying that lower-court judges are in generally more contrived as far as the la ude they have to operate: Not only they have to obviously rule on law, but also where the law isn't necessarily clear, apply precedent, if any, and ultimately, if the SCOTUS touched on the case before, apply SCOTUS guidance. Plus, should they decide to exercise some personal political opinion, they can be eventually overruled if they're in the wrong.
The SCOTUS normally does need to deal in weighing differing court opinions, competing cons utionally protected interests, offering precedent and guidance to lower courts, and they're the final frontier until the SCOTUS decides to revisit again (a relatively high bar). There's inherently more opinion involved in the cases the SCOTUS handles, because clear matters of law were likely handled by the lower courts. And so it's undeniable that how they weight these competing rights and interests is largely based not just on their approach to being textual or adaptive, but their own personal belief on what rights or interests might weigh more heavily than others (and that in turn be influenced by their political world view).
Just going by straight statistics will tell you a guy like Clearance Thomas votes on the conservative side the vast majority of the time. Just like Sonia Sotomayor will vote on the liberal angle. (I'm referring to cases where either precedent or clear rule of law is not delineated, which are normally the high profile cases). That doesn't mean they actively campaign to impose their view on the court, or that they're partisan hacks, but it would be naive to offer that their opinions are not influenced by their political views at all.
I do agree with you that once on the court they should have deference to long standing precedent, unless there's some new significant developments in a particular topic, and keep their political feelings in check. But if we look at the hard numbers, that doesn't really happen. And the people that are spending money on TV ads for this guy to be confirmed are well aware of that fact too. The 'perfect world' scenario would have these guys being wise, apolitical subjects. But unfortunately we live in an imperfect world.
i'm gonna not bother with you at all anymore mono. you're a bore to deal with. as well, your lame internet lingo anyhow. i wish you were a big bad mother er because then maybe i'd take you seriously. i just find you boring, lame, and trying so ing hard to be cool here for whatever reason.
ZzZzZz...
Instead of calling for an investigation to clear his name and imploring his defenders to be patient &await the result of an orderly inquiry, Kavanaugh lawyered up, ran for cover and let the Judiciary Committee and Ed Whelen do the dirty work of defaming his accuser as well as an entirely unrelated middle school teacher, and did nothing to denounce the mob that sent his accuser death threats and chased her from her own home.
Kavanaugh had a chance to show his judicial temperament and blew it.
what he shouldn't had sought council? he's on nat'l tv for a SC seat and is all of a sudden accused of rape from 35 yrs ago but he's not supposed to seek council immediately? as well, if he did nothing then why does he have to speak up for ford? i'd let that reap what she sowed if he is indeed not guilty and this is all a political ploy to delay/etc. that and let her rot in if he is telling the truth.
Oh what false defamatory story was made up about Garland? It’s not morally equal. Garland got hosed bc the party nominating him lost the senate. That’s how the game is played and the Dems will do the same if they get the chance. But accusing someone of a violent crime with no evidence is a particular kind of insidiousness. I hope that isn’t what happened, but it’s not looking promising.
I can see getting a lawyer, sure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
