stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by stelio on Sept 28, 2018 6:38:33 GMT 1, Wether he is gulity or not.. the way he presented himself is enough of a reason why he should not be appointed the most important position in America.
Wether he is gulity or not.. the way he presented himself is enough of a reason why he should not be appointed the most important position in America.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by moron on Oct 6, 2018 12:40:59 GMT 1, If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh.
If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh.
|
|
stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by stelio on Oct 6, 2018 12:55:25 GMT 1, Even if you donโt believe the woman...The man clearly lied under oath. This is a undeniable fact. He should not be allowed to hold a seat on the supreme court.
I am ashamed to be called an American.
Even if you donโt believe the woman...The man clearly lied under oath. This is a undeniable fact. He should not be allowed to hold a seat on the supreme court.
I am ashamed to be called an American.
|
|
mose
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 410
๐๐ป 424
May 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by mose on Oct 6, 2018 13:09:19 GMT 1, Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American.
To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power.
Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American.
To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power.
|
|
h.dupa
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 401
๐๐ป 348
October 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by h.dupa on Oct 6, 2018 13:29:19 GMT 1, A judge is a public official who has a responsibility to make sound judgments, both professionally, and in his or her personal life. Because of this, a judge must be careful to exhibit high standards of integrity in all facets of life. The public keeps a wary eye on those passing judgment over their communities, and generally expect irreproachable behavior from their judges.
So, no.
A judge is a public official who has a responsibility to make sound judgments, both professionally, and in his or her personal life. Because of this, a judge must be careful to exhibit high standards of integrity in all facets of life. The public keeps a wary eye on those passing judgment over their communities, and generally expect irreproachable behavior from their judges.
So, no.
|
|
lacklisted
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 302
๐๐ป 302
July 2016
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by lacklisted on Oct 6, 2018 13:42:10 GMT 1, Whilst on the street of London #Wefail does this ;-)... 
Whilst on the street of London #Wefail does this ;-)... |
|
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by Chris JL on Oct 6, 2018 13:44:42 GMT 1, If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh.
This statement completely explains your user name.
If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh. This statement completely explains your user name. |
|
|
|
Jaylove
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,599
๐๐ป 1,073
November 2016
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by Jaylove on Oct 6, 2018 13:57:47 GMT 1, Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American. To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care.
Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well.
Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American. To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. |
|
mose
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 410
๐๐ป 424
May 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by mose on Oct 6, 2018 14:16:58 GMT 1, Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American. To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well.
I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such.
So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences.
I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way.
Kavanaugh has an incredible resume and his legal ideas are well within the mainstream of American. To me, it begins and ends with that and makes it a relatively easy yes. I may not like Kavanaugh, and am still quite salty about the Merrick Garland situation (who was a well-qualified nominee and should be on the Court right now), but elections have consequences and included among those are the use of appointment power. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such. So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences. I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by Chris JL on Oct 6, 2018 15:29:00 GMT 1, I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such. So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences. I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way.
Democracy and Majoritarianism are two very different things - check the dictionary and think again. Not to mention that the republicans are actually a minority in US elections, and have been for a long while (since 1992 they have won the popular vote only once!), but they are indeed better at stealing the game... partially thanks to a US supreme court ruling that allows unbounded special interestsโ money in the elections.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such. So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences. I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way. Democracy and Majoritarianism are two very different things - check the dictionary and think again. Not to mention that the republicans are actually a minority in US elections, and have been for a long while (since 1992 they have won the popular vote only once!), but they are indeed better at stealing the game... partially thanks to a US supreme court ruling that allows unbounded special interestsโ money in the elections. |
|
qest
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 619
๐๐ป 713
March 2018
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by qest on Oct 6, 2018 16:02:29 GMT 1, I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such. So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences. I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way.
I'd be interested to see the substance behind your claim that Kagan has the "same level of political involvement." It sounds like you're including her time in the SG's office, which has historically (until the Trump administration) prided itself on its apolitical consistency from one administration to the next.
Regardless of that, these are the words of a partisan operative, not someone merely with "passionate ideals":
"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
I suspect if Kagan said something even remotely similar, she'd be labeled as a partisan (and hysterical). There has never been any genuine doubt that the ideological views of judges shape their jurisprudence. But there's a distinction between ideology and political operation. It's worth noting that complaints of partisanship didn't arise with respect to Gorsuch.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about a judge vowing payback. He's also quite partisan. The Cons gave him a "yes" because they know he will push their agenda. That is it, that is all. He could have killed a baby, they wouldn't care. Party over everything. A lot of Americans are getting a wake up call. Politics are a dirty game...Cons are just better at it right now and they are unwavering. Their supporters are unwavering as well. I get curious about this whole labeling as 'partisan' being viewed as something that should disqualify. Political parties are associated with ideals. People tend to be passionate about their ideals. Besides money, that's usually why someone invests all that time in law school and such. So, to me, when I hear the 'partisan' slur, it mostly registers as 'passionate about ideas that are not in-line with mine'. The call for bi-partisanship is usually a tool of the loser of the last election to attempt to minimize the consequences of said election. And, elections have consequences. I mean, Justice Kagan has the same level of political involvement as Kavanaugh and substantially less time as a judge (though more as an academic). I don't believe we label her as partisan in any way. I'd be interested to see the substance behind your claim that Kagan has the "same level of political involvement." It sounds like you're including her time in the SG's office, which has historically (until the Trump administration) prided itself on its apolitical consistency from one administration to the next. Regardless of that, these are the words of a partisan operative, not someone merely with "passionate ideals": "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups." I suspect if Kagan said something even remotely similar, she'd be labeled as a partisan (and hysterical). There has never been any genuine doubt that the ideological views of judges shape their jurisprudence. But there's a distinction between ideology and political operation. It's worth noting that complaints of partisanship didn't arise with respect to Gorsuch. |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Kavanaugh vs Ford - Senate Hearing, by moron on Oct 7, 2018 20:39:53 GMT 1, If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh. This statement completely explains your user name.
Did they file police reports against Kavanaugh at any time or have these allegations just surfaced?
If the women accusing him did file reports, even if many years ago or recently. It looks to me like the nomination should have been suspended pending an investigation.
One reason is that people should not be above the law.
The other reason is that if reports were filed and for some reason no evidence or not enough evidence was found or something similar. Or something as covered up, who would have confidence in someone who is compromised or could be blackmailed if they do have skeletons in their closet.
If the women are serious they should go to the police and file police reports against Kavanaugh. This statement completely explains your user name. Did they file police reports against Kavanaugh at any time or have these allegations just surfaced? If the women accusing him did file reports, even if many years ago or recently. It looks to me like the nomination should have been suspended pending an investigation. One reason is that people should not be above the law. The other reason is that if reports were filed and for some reason no evidence or not enough evidence was found or something similar. Or something as covered up, who would have confidence in someone who is compromised or could be blackmailed if they do have skeletons in their closet. |
|
