Kavanaugh Confirmation

#12,577
#12,577
Matt2496 said:
It sure as hell has given Republicans a rallying cry.
Click to expand...

I’ve agitated a few of my Dims friends, they’re pissed and embarrassed. Some have said they were done with them, some won’t vote in Nov, some are voting R.
Told them it’s about damn time they’ve come to their senses. I’d say this is a national way of thinking with Dims. Nov can’t come soon enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLICKYINC and FLVOL69
#12,578
#12,578
Grand Vol said:
Funny, you know he references Bill Clinton a whole bunch of times in that same article? Especially the point behind Bin Laden and the Paula Jones investigation.

And yes, it certainly is in that paper. Highly inferred for both criminal and civil suits.



http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

How is it I read that and saw the method to his words and you, for all your education, can't see that except what you want to see?
Click to expand...

This is the exact stuff that people need to reading and basing their decisions. Too much of the public's decision is so easily swayed by media and those in congress who have an agenda (on both sides). As voters we should be looking beyond the opinion of those who are trying to sway us and make our judgement based off proposed policy and facts.
 
#12,580
#12,580
NurseGoodVol said:
I lived 30 miles from Chicago watching them drag body bags out pf the house daily on the news, John gacy was one sick individual.
Click to expand...
He once worked here in Greeneville at a restaurant. The manager told me about it many, many years ago. As far as I know, he didn't kill anyone here, but he wasn't in town long.
 
#12,582
#12,582
Smokey'sHandler said:
This is the exact stuff that people need to reading and basing their decisions. Too much of the public's decision is so easily swayed by media and those in congress who have an agenda (on both sides). As voters we should be looking beyond the opinion of those who are trying to sway us and make our judgement based off proposed policy and facts.
Click to expand...

It went from an idea he had (good one in my opinion that was politically neutral) to "BASTARD THINKS TRUMP CAN'T GET CHARGED!!!!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol and NorthDallas40
#12,584
#12,584
NurseGoodVol said:
I remember a time in history when one would pull pistols at dawn over crap like this. America is teaming with pansies who hide behind a desk and a pc. It's sickening where this has gone. Slander anyone you want with an anonymous source and its just peachy. If they had to meet them at the waffle house half of this crap wouldn't be printed.
Click to expand...
I met my house builder last night at the Waffle House for some cheese 'n eggs, but all we did was eat.
 
#12,585
#12,585
AirVol said:
I’ve agitated a few of my Dims friends, they’re pissed and embarrassed. Some have said they were done with them, some won’t vote in Nov, some are voting R.
Told them it’s about damn time they’ve come to their senses. I’d say this is a national way of thinking with Dims. Nov can’t come soon enough.
Click to expand...
I've red pilled a couple at work.
 
#12,590
#12,590
electric_chair20181003123913.jpg

holb_c16037020181003120100.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, CagleMtnVol and FLVOL69
#12,592
#12,592
Grand Vol said:
Funny, you know he references Bill Clinton a whole bunch of times in that same article? Especially the point behind Bin Laden and the Paula Jones investigation.

And yes, it certainly is in that paper. Highly inferred for both criminal and civil suits.



http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pd

How is it I read that and saw the method to his words and you, for all your education, can't see that except what you want to see?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.
 
#12,593
#12,593
RockyTop85 said:
I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.
Click to expand...

How many times in the past couple of weeks have we heard a Congressional investigation is not a criminal investigation?
 
#12,595
#12,595
RockyTop85 said:
I stand corrected. He did note the existence of the impeachment process.

Two paragraphs earlier, he points out that criminal investigations against the president are unreliable because of partisan meddling or distrusted because of accusations of partisan meddling. Yet he wants to rely on an unabashedly partisan process for removal that would not, under his system, have the benefit of any type of investigative process.

So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

He lived it. He knows that impeachment is an empty threat for any president that has any type of sizable minority in the senate.

It is an objectively expansive view of executive power and one that is rightly criticized by legal scholars from both points of view and just about anybody else capable of more than a superficial analysis of what he’s saying. It’s criticized not only for being over broad but because it effectively creates complete immunity in any situation where the executive branch and a sizable minority of the legislative branche are philosophically aligned.
Click to expand...

Didn’t you say you were a lawyer? University of FL perhaps?

Do you really think a President would be removed from office with no investigation?
 
#12,599
#12,599
RockyTop85 said:
So, logically, it follows he’s either advocating that the president should he removed based on accusations without investigation. That would certainly be ironic. Or he’s arguing that the only method for stopping a corrupt president is to get 218 representatives and 67 senators to put aside their partisan differences and agree without investigating, that the president should be removed from office.

.
Click to expand...
no. how about he is advocating that the president should be removed via the methods set forth in the Constitution? you know as a Justice should.
 
#12,600
#12,600
Grand Vol said:
It went from an idea he had (good one in my opinion that was politically neutral) to "BASTARD THINKS TRUMP CAN'T GET CHARGED!!!!!!"
Click to expand...

Now who’s being intellectually dishonest?

The post you selectively quoted from was a list of about five reasonable and rational criticisms as to why I think we would have been better off with a different nominee.

Acting like I’m some kind of extremist liberal zealot for criticizing the man for writing a law review article advocating for expansion of executive power is a contradiction in terms, to be polite.

The fact that your defense of that criticism relies on the supposition that the man is an idiot and doesn’t understand the political and procedural pitfalls of impeachment, in spite of participating in an unsuccessful impeachment process l, doesn’t do much to refute the original argument which was:

We would have been better off with another nominee.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top