Kavanaugh Confirmation

#4,057
#4,057
Which party is going to be the one to break with “ tradition “ and just call for a vote without the hearings since they have become toxic ? Wouldn’t that be interesting .
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#4,058
#4,058
Did I hear correctly that K went on Fox News today to talk about this?

That is incredibly inappropriate.

And I'd say the same thing if a Dem nominee went on MSNBC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennTom
#4,060
#4,060
lawgator1 said:
Did I hear correctly that K went on Fox News today to talk about this?

That is incredibly inappropriate.

And I'd say the same thing if a Dem nominee went on MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that’s inappropriate ? Would you feel better if say an ex cia Head was hired by CNN to trash Trump using his contacts he made on the job as sources ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#4,062
#4,062
Grand Vol said:
No, you wouldn't.
Click to expand...


Yes, I would.

The real power of the judiciary is our society's willingness to defer to it when disputes arise. Although Supreme Court justices have political ties, it has always been the case that it is expressed as a philosophy, be it conservative or progressive, not Republican or Democrat.

A justice might be rightly assumed to have a philosophy that results in more decisions one way or the other, but not based in partisanship. That destroys the claim to objectivity.

To go on a tv channel with a partisan agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC, just kills that. From now on, whenever he decides a case, it can be pointed out that he's a political party hack. Not grounded in philosophy, but an operative.

This was an enormous mistake.
 
#4,063
#4,063
Wow they don’t mention their names thru the whole article. And then in the update they put the two people who obviously want to have nothing to do with this **** storm brought to their own front porch. Way to go Farrow you dumbass. Purposely out your sources that are withdrawing their up until then anonymous statements.

Additionally the Newyorker updated their update to remove a positive statement by one of the two people that said “it sounded unlike anything Kavanaugh would do” and just said they wanted their names removed. The final update is below. Well... the final for now till they put more spin on it. What freaking hacks. 🙄

PS: The NYT still interviewed “dozens of people” with no first hand corroboration of Ramirez’s story. Suck it Farrow you hack job.

This story was updated with comments from two former classmates of Kavanaugh, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, who initially signed a statement of support for Kavanaugh provided by his attorneys. They approached The New Yorker after this story was published and asked that their names be removed from the statement, saying that they did not wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#4,064
#4,064
lawgator1 said:
Yes, I would.

The real power of the judiciary is our society's willingness to defer to it when disputes arise. Although Supreme Court justices have political ties, it has always been the case that it is expressed as a philosophy, be it conservative or progressive, not Republican or Democrat.

A justice might be rightly assumed to have a philosophy that results in more decisions one way or the other, but not based in partisanship. That destroys the claim to objectivity.

To go on a tv channel with a partisan agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC, just kills that. From now on, whenever he decides a case, it can be pointed out that he's a political party hack. Not grounded in philosophy, but an operative.

This was an enormous mistake.
Click to expand...
BS. The guy is getting slaughtered in the media by partisan BS. He absolutely has every right to defend himself. I don’t blame him one damn bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#4,066
#4,066
lawgator1 said:
Yes, I would.

The real power of the judiciary is our society's willingness to defer to it when disputes arise. Although Supreme Court justices have political ties, it has always been the case that it is expressed as a philosophy, be it conservative or progressive, not Republican or Democrat.

A justice might be rightly assumed to have a philosophy that results in more decisions one way or the other, but not based in partisanship. That destroys the claim to objectivity.

To go on a tv channel with a partisan agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC, just kills that. From now on, whenever he decides a case, it can be pointed out that he's a political party hack. Not grounded in philosophy, but an operative.

This was an enormous mistake.
Click to expand...


Is this your professional advice as an "attorney".
 
#4,068
#4,068
lawgator1 said:
Yes, I would.

The real power of the judiciary is our society's willingness to defer to it when disputes arise. Although Supreme Court justices have political ties, it has always been the case that it is expressed as a philosophy, be it conservative or progressive, not Republican or Democrat.

A justice might be rightly assumed to have a philosophy that results in more decisions one way or the other, but not based in partisanship. That destroys the claim to objectivity.

To go on a tv channel with a partisan agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC, just kills that. From now on, whenever he decides a case, it can be pointed out that he's a political party hack. Not grounded in philosophy, but an operative.

This was an enormous mistake.
Click to expand...

It airs tonight. You might sound more objective if you wait to hear what he actually says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol
#4,069
#4,069
lawgator1 said:
Yes, I would.

The real power of the judiciary is our society's willingness to defer to it when disputes arise. Although Supreme Court justices have political ties, it has always been the case that it is expressed as a philosophy, be it conservative or progressive, not Republican or Democrat.

A justice might be rightly assumed to have a philosophy that results in more decisions one way or the other, but not based in partisanship. That destroys the claim to objectivity.

To go on a tv channel with a partisan agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC, just kills that. From now on, whenever he decides a case, it can be pointed out that he's a political party hack. Not grounded in philosophy, but an operative.

This was an enormous mistake.
Click to expand...

What about a sitting judge that does interviews showing her bias and hatred for Trump ? But that’s ok right ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 82_VOL_83
#4,070
#4,070
lawgator1 said:
Did I hear correctly that K went on Fox News today to talk about this?

That is incredibly inappropriate.

And I'd say the same thing if a Dem nominee went on MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Not only that, bit the interview was with the woman who took Ailes side when Gretchen accused Ailes of sexual harassment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#4,071
#4,071
We were just sitting here talking about how hard it must be for liberals to seek out high ground to stand on , every talking point they come up with has an immediate reply because of their hypocrisy ... they truly are the Party of “ BEEN THERE DONE THAT”.
 
#4,072
#4,072
Thank goodness nobody has accused me of copping feels in grade school. I'd be in real trouble.

Wish I was like one of these perfect angel God fearing liberals on this board when I was a teen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#4,074
#4,074
Any one noticed 3 different stories ( he's resigned, he's expecting being fired so resigned to Kelly, he's being fired) about RR showed up in 3 different sources to one time today? Aside from draw off Kavanaugh I'd say that's a pretty effective way to catch leakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol and Obsessed
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top