Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 84
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,274

    Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

    Brett Kavanaugh deserves his own thread.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...eme-court.html

    Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court
    President Trump nominated appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Monday night to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, ending a days-long guessing game that began the moment Kennedy announced his retirement and setting the stage for a grueling confirmation fight.

    In televised remarks from the East Room of the White House, the president praised what he called Kavanaugh's "impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law."

    "There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving," Trump said.

    Kavanaugh had been considered a front-runner ever since Kennedy's June 27 retirement announcement. Trump conducted a swift and decisive vetting process, eager to push for confirmation of his second Supreme Court pick in less than two years.

    Though the president said Monday his nominee deserves "robust bipartisan support," many Democratic lawmakers had vowed even before the announcement to oppose Trump's choice. In his own remarks, Kavanaugh looked ahead to what's expected to be a bruising confirmation fight: "I will tell each senator that I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic.

    "If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case, and I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."

    He said a judge "must interpret the law, not make the law."

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,274
    oops wrong picture.


    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,896
    Rumor going around that the fix was in on this nomination. Evidently Kennedy told Trump that he [Kennedy] would retire and let Trump nominate a guy, if that guy was Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was a clerk for Kennedy and it appears that Kennedy thinks highly of him.

    If true, a rare occurrence of a SCOTUS justice getting to pick his replacement.

    Strangely enough, if it is true, it makes me feel better about Kavanaugh. I certainly trust Kennedy's judicial judgement over Trump's.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    82,644
    I don’t think a justice having a voice in who follows them is unique. I’ll be honest I don’t know but it doesn’t sound unprecedented to me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I don’t think a justice having a voice in who follows them is unique. I’ll be honest I don’t know but it doesn’t sound unprecedented to me.
    I wouldn’t imagine it’s unique for a Supreme Court judge to give input on who their successor may be. The question is whether there was a promise before he announced his resignation. We won’t get an answer to that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    810
    In the corporate world, when a top key executive is retiring they are almost always asked for input regarding a replacement either through promotion from within or for suggestions in hiring from without. Not uncommon at all and nothing wrong with this.

    If any of the senior politicians in the house or senate were thinking about retirement, don't you think they would discuss with the party bigwigs who they think should replace them. e.g. Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer. They have a lot of input into their successors. Again, not uncommon.

    Anyone ever wonder why there was so few candidates opposing Hillary for the Dem nomination? (Actually only whacky Bernie.) Where was everyone else? A deal was made to nominate Hillary. Probably eight years earlier for supporting Obama, taking Sec of State, and not rocking the boat.

    Funny how some of you are saying "the fix is in" for the SC nomination but the Hillary nomination was perfectly acceptable.

    Deals are made all the time.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,883
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    I wouldn’t imagine it’s unique for a Supreme Court judge to give input on who their successor may be. The question is whether there was a promise before he announced his resignation. We won’t get an answer to that.
    The only thing I'm upset about is that he's not controversial enough. He'll get ratified and we'll all continue to get screwed over from a pro-business vs workforce rights/consumer perspective. The Dems will put up a faux fight and then that'll be the end of it.

    Does not surprise me at all that the SC judge retiring would have some input/conditions in situations such as these.
    Yankees Farm System

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    In the corporate world, when a top key executive is retiring they are almost always asked for input regarding a replacement either through promotion from within or for suggestions in hiring from without. Not uncommon at all and nothing wrong with this.

    If any of the senior politicians in the house or senate were thinking about retirement, don't you think they would discuss with the party bigwigs who they think should replace them. e.g. Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer. They have a lot of input into their successors. Again, not uncommon.

    Anyone ever wonder why there was so few candidates opposing Hillary for the Dem nomination? (Actually only whacky Bernie.) Where was everyone else? A deal was made to nominate Hillary. Probably eight years earlier for supporting Obama, taking Sec of State, and not rocking the boat.

    Funny how some of you are saying "the fix is in" for the SC nomination but the Hillary nomination was perfectly acceptable.

    Deals are made all the time.
    White House officials aren’t Supreme Court justices and a Justice has no right to use their seat as a bargaining chip. What is a seat on the court worth monetarily?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    In the corporate world, when a top key executive is retiring they are almost always asked for input regarding a replacement either through promotion from within or for suggestions in hiring from without. Not uncommon at all and nothing wrong with this.

    If any of the senior politicians in the house or senate were thinking about retirement, don't you think they would discuss with the party bigwigs who they think should replace them. e.g. Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer. They have a lot of input into their successors. Again, not uncommon.

    Anyone ever wonder why there was so few candidates opposing Hillary for the Dem nomination? (Actually only whacky Bernie.) Where was everyone else? A deal was made to nominate Hillary. Probably eight years earlier for supporting Obama, taking Sec of State, and not rocking the boat.

    Deals are made all the time.
    While the business model to me is not particularly relevant, still in general, your assessment is correct.

    However, there are two crucial distinctions to be made:

    (1) a quid pro quo (which from what I can tell does not seem to be the case with Kennedy/Kavanaugh) is of a level of dealmaking in the public sector that probably demands some scrutiny.

    (1) there was no quid pro quo in the nomination of Mrs. Clinton. Support for her candidacy within the ranks — whether tacit or explicit — never guaranteed her the nomination. She still had to go through the hoops (which she did).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    82,644
    I think the senate will properly vet this aspect of the nomination. I don't think they will find anything to it though.
    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    19,274
    it's pretty obvious that Democrats and those on the left were going to object to Trump's pick regardless of who it was. I would think people should have an issue with this. this isn't about anything wrong/bad with a specific candidate, this is just hate/ignorance in general.

    I guarantee that if Republicans were going to obstruct/reject a Supreme Court pick regardless of who it was then those of you on the other side would have an issue with that. or have some forgotten about Merrick Garland.







    https://www.dailywire.com/news/32861...ut-ben-shapiro

    Joy Behar Just Said The Stupidest Thing About Kavanaugh Anyone Has Yet Said
    On Tuesday, the great minds of The View sounded off on their legal theories regarding the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Trump. Joy Behar, that paradigm of dignity and jurisprudential expertise, explained that Kavanaugh “might just be a quieter version of Judge Jeanine.”

    This makes perfectly sense if you were dropped on the head repeatedly as a child, smoked extraordinarily strong strains of marijuana for your entire teenage life, or underwent a voluntary frontal lobotomy.

    But Behar wasn’t done. She explained that Trump shouldn’t be able to appoint a justice at all because he’s under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller (he isn’t). Behar stated, “Why would a president who’s under investigation by the FBI for obstruction of justice and collusion be allowed to pick a Supreme Court justice who will be there? I’ll be dead. There are many people in this room who will still be alive and need abortions … and need health care. How dare he be allowed to do this when he is under investigation!”

    In reality, of course, any Republican pick would have met with the same line from Behar; the Left sees abortion as a sacrament, despite the ubiquitous availability of contraception of all sorts. And the Left’s fear that Kavanaugh, of all people, will threaten Roe v. Wade is wildly overwrought: it’s far more likely that Kavanaugh gradually diminishes the “undue burden” test under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

    The utter panic the Left is undergoing over Kavanaugh demonstrates their view that the Supreme Court ought to be the creator and protector of phantom rights having nothing to do with the Constitution — and that people should not be able to vote on matters of public concern, including the mass killing of the unborn. But don’t worry: they’re not extremists. The only extremists are career lawyers and judges like Harvard Law graduate Brett Kavanaugh, whom we can assume is just like Judge Jeanine Pirro, since English education graduate student Joy Behar’s legal analysis has rarely disappointed.

    this is where sources come into play. just because something comes from Conservative media (dailywire here) does not make it hateful or wrong (benny01). why would Liberal media cover what Joy Behar said? stop being so stupid and having an issue with the source.
    go ahead and google Joy Behar Kavanaugh and see if you can find any of the Liberal media covering this.










    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    While the business model to me is not particularly relevant, still in general, your assessment is correct.

    However, there are two crucial distinctions to be made:

    (1) a quid pro quo (which from what I can tell does not seem to be the case with Kennedy/Kavanaugh) is of a level of dealmaking in the public sector that probably demands some scrutiny.

    (1) there was no quid pro quo in the nomination of Mrs. Clinton. Support for her candidacy within the ranks — whether tacit or explicit — never guaranteed her the nomination. She still had to go through the hoops (which she did).
    What hoops did Hillary go through? She ran almost unopposed. Whacky Bernie and that Irish guy that popped up for a cuppa coffee. She didn't walk through any hoops at all.

    Proof of her anointment will be coming in about a year when a dozen Dem candidates pop up for the nomination (including her probably). Where were they last election?

    Truth be told, if Hillary had to defeat multiple candidates and was forced to take her nomination more seriously and actually campaigned, she probably would have won.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    White House officials aren’t Supreme Court justices and a Justice has no right to use their seat as a bargaining chip. What is a seat on the court worth monetarily?
    Probably nothing. They're all already rich.

    As far as a "bargaining chip" why do you think Ginsburg is still around. She's waiting for a liberal president. She may meet God first but she won't retire under Trump.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    What hoops did Hillary go through? She ran almost unopposed. Whacky Bernie and that Irish guy that popped up for a cuppa coffee. She didn't walk through any hoops at all.

    Proof of her anointment will be coming in about a year when a dozen Dem candidates pop up for the nomination (including her probably). Where were they last election?
    This post reflects such a stunning level of hyperbolic ignorance that my only response is that it reflects a stunning level of hyperbolic ignorance.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    This post reflects such a stunning level of hyperbolic ignorance that my only response is that it reflects a stunning level of hyperbolic ignorance.
    How would you explain…

    In a presidential election, where a new person had to be elected, that the Republicans had over a dozen candidates and the Democrats had only two. What is your explanation for that? If you don't think arrangements were made for her, you're dreaming.

    You know, we can all save a lot of time by just allowing you to be the only poster in these forums. As long as you're out there, no other opinion is needed. You're the only person with any wisdom worth listening to. You're so well plugged in to all of this that we could all learn from you.

    We can have a Crovash thread…no need to post, just read and absorb. There are so many people hanging on your every word, you could probably sell advertising to your posts.

    If only Trump, Obama or whoever could just check with you first…what a wonderful world it would be. Nirvana.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •