"We rate this statement False."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... -inducing/
Desperate, duplicitous Dems continue to look ridiculous in their opposition to Kavanaugh.
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine
Re: SCOTUS
He lied repeatedly. He looked like he was caught with a Playboy. Worse than Sessions about Russians Worse than Big Mama Jama Clarence about Anita Hill. Why even have these hearings if these clowns get away with it.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Agreed. They sure do.
But do you have any doubt that the nominee agrees with those organizations? Or any doubt that he is personally opposed to the reasoning behind Roe? Or did you just want to take a poke at “the libs”?
But do you have any doubt that the nominee agrees with those organizations? Or any doubt that he is personally opposed to the reasoning behind Roe? Or did you just want to take a poke at “the libs”?
Re: SCOTUS
Wondering what some posters would consider "principled opposition"...as opposed to "duplicitous behavior"??
Also wondering how some posters (yeah, those same ones) would classify the actions taken by Mitch McConnell re: Garland, and the subsequent support he received from conservatives (and some self-described "moderates") for the actions he took??
..
Also wondering how some posters (yeah, those same ones) would classify the actions taken by Mitch McConnell re: Garland, and the subsequent support he received from conservatives (and some self-described "moderates") for the actions he took??
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: SCOTUS
"On Wednesday, under questioning from Democrats, Kavanaugh declined invitations to promise he would not vote to reverse Roe, saying it would violate judicial norms to promise a vote on any particular case.seacoaster wrote:Agreed. They sure do.
But do you have any doubt that the nominee agrees with those organizations? Or any doubt that he is personally opposed to the reasoning behind Roe? Or did you just want to take a poke at “the libs”?
"As a general proposition I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade," Kavanaugh said."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics ... index.html
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
And? What do you think that means?
Do you think that that understanding of the importance of Roe means that he would respect it as the law in a proper case before the court?
Do you think that Kavanaugh believes that the Constitution's various guarantees of privacy confer on women a right to terminate a pregnancy without undue burdens imposed by other laws?
Do you think that that understanding of the importance of Roe means that he would respect it as the law in a proper case before the court?
Do you think that Kavanaugh believes that the Constitution's various guarantees of privacy confer on women a right to terminate a pregnancy without undue burdens imposed by other laws?
Re: SCOTUS
Who the hell knows...it's all lawyerspeak anyway.seacoaster wrote:And? What do you think that means?
Do you think that that understanding of the importance of Roe means that he would respect it as the law in a proper case before the court?
Do you think that Kavanaugh believes that the Constitution's various guarantees of privacy confer on women a right to terminate a pregnancy without undue burdens imposed by other laws?
I would hope that when it comes time for K's turn to rule, "I understand the importance of the precedent" is his guiding principle. I would hope he understands what overturning RvW would do to a country already divided in so many ways. I'm optimistic he will.
Re: SCOTUS
He’s a liar. He should be impeached from his current job. Trump needs to pick another white guy from Column A.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
-
- Posts: 7583
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: SCOTUS
I don't like the Kavanaugh pick, mostly due to the "dark money" (is that racists) aspect the TAATS embrace. Trying to have a meaningful discussion as to how/why foreign bundlers are legal? Obama raised millions overseas. How is this legal? Trump didn't even divulge them, how is this legal? Oh, right, we've got ugly porn stars to pay out. Hillaryious that Trump won, isn't it? This guy voted for Bernie, than Jill.Trinity wrote:He’s a liar. He should be impeached from his current job. Trump needs to pick another white guy from Column A.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
"I'm optimistic he will."
Serious question: why?
Serious question: why?
Re: SCOTUS
You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar. What about Cory Booker lying about his spartacus stunt? Kamala Harris lied, Feinstein lied.Trinity wrote:He’s a liar. He should be impeached from his current job. Trump needs to pick another white guy from Column A.
Get over it. He WILL be confirmed.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
-
- Posts: 7583
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: SCOTUS
When is the vote? Not so sure about him being confirmed either.Bandito wrote:You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar. What about Cory Booker lying about his spartacus stunt? Kamala Harris lied, Feinstein lied.Trinity wrote:He’s a liar. He should be impeached from his current job. Trump needs to pick another white guy from Column A.
Get over it. He WILL be confirmed.
Didn't the Supremes already rule on the "superior race" sterilazation issue? If only we allowed Ivy league grads to procreate, with a dozen other colleges thrown in the mix, our country would prosper. Margret Sanger and the Harvard elites say hi
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: SCOTUS
And that seemingly nice Bill Cosby who played a doctor and wonderful family man on TV turned out to be a serial rapist and liar. Things aren't always what they seem on the surface.Bandito wrote:You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar.
-
- Posts: 7583
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: SCOTUS
Kavanaugh's sticking point is the "hot button" issue called abortion, or Roe vs Wade. I can name dozens of more important issues that effect ALL US citizens and non-citizens alike. (Unathorized military actions to start with) But, it is interesting that current Federal law still has maryjane illegal, while states have made it "legal". If Fed law trumps state law, in all aspects, what is to preclude abortion to be legal in states if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Meaning, WHO is going to sue a state for not implementing Federal law, similar to the maryjane issue? Abortion is still illegal in many states. Like our campaign donations and married affairs (illegal), they are rarely, if ever, enforced.
Also, all states having different laws regarding who, and when, an abortion can be done. Take Maine, home of one of the US Senators crying foul because a pretend liberal group says they will raise One million to oppose her when she runs next. California allows Nurse Practicioners to help with early abortion procedures (pill taking), Maine does not. (Did the Maine legislature ban FGM's ** yet, as promised when the pretends took control of the state house? )
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/2 ... c1598.html
States can regulate the intricacies of abortion law ? Where is the AMA on this issue? A a sufferer of lymes, the AMA has their heads up their you know what. Not surprising they don't have uniformity on abortions either.
** FGM's = Female Genital Mutilation is illegal, according to 18 US Code :116. Yet, in Maine it is still legal? Why have Federal laws if states can do what they want? Not asking or choosing sides (does there ALWAYS have to be sides ), just the issue of State Rights vs Federal. IE: Why don't states invoke campaign finance limits, if it's legal to buy my product at dispencaries now?
§116. Female genital mutilation
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—
(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.
(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §645(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–709.)
Effective Date
Section 645(c) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (b) [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996].”
Congressional Findings
Section 645(a) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The Congress finds that—
“(1) the practice of female genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
“(2) the practice of female genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the women involved;
“(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
“(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
“(5) the practice of female genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
“(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.”
Also, all states having different laws regarding who, and when, an abortion can be done. Take Maine, home of one of the US Senators crying foul because a pretend liberal group says they will raise One million to oppose her when she runs next. California allows Nurse Practicioners to help with early abortion procedures (pill taking), Maine does not. (Did the Maine legislature ban FGM's ** yet, as promised when the pretends took control of the state house? )
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/2 ... c1598.html
States can regulate the intricacies of abortion law ? Where is the AMA on this issue? A a sufferer of lymes, the AMA has their heads up their you know what. Not surprising they don't have uniformity on abortions either.
** FGM's = Female Genital Mutilation is illegal, according to 18 US Code :116. Yet, in Maine it is still legal? Why have Federal laws if states can do what they want? Not asking or choosing sides (does there ALWAYS have to be sides ), just the issue of State Rights vs Federal. IE: Why don't states invoke campaign finance limits, if it's legal to buy my product at dispencaries now?
§116. Female genital mutilation
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—
(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.
(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §645(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–709.)
Effective Date
Section 645(c) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (b) [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996].”
Congressional Findings
Section 645(a) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The Congress finds that—
“(1) the practice of female genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
“(2) the practice of female genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the women involved;
“(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
“(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
“(5) the practice of female genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
“(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.”
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: SCOTUS
LOL. Welcome to the Dumbass club. So you are comparing Kav to a serial rapist? Nice. You need to seek help you dumbass.holmes435 wrote:And that seemingly nice Bill Cosby who played a doctor and wonderful family man on TV turned out to be a serial rapist and liar. Things aren't always what they seem on the surface.Bandito wrote:You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
Re: SCOTUS
Those are your words. Work on reading posts before you reply to them.Bandito wrote:LOL. Welcome to the Dumbass club. So you are comparing Kav to a serial rapist? Nice. You need to seek help you dumbass.holmes435 wrote:And that seemingly nice Bill Cosby who played a doctor and wonderful family man on TV turned out to be a serial rapist and liar. Things aren't always what they seem on the surface.Bandito wrote:You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar.
Re: SCOTUS
Work on not being so dumb and comparing Kav to Cosby. You are really stupid.holmes435 wrote:Those are your words. Work on reading posts before you reply to them.Bandito wrote:LOL. Welcome to the Dumbass club. So you are comparing Kav to a serial rapist? Nice. You need to seek help you dumbass.holmes435 wrote:And that seemingly nice Bill Cosby who played a doctor and wonderful family man on TV turned out to be a serial rapist and liar. Things aren't always what they seem on the surface.Bandito wrote:You're right. The guy who serves homeless people at soup kitchens and coaches his daughters' CYO basketball team and is well regarded in DC is a liar.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
Re: SCOTUS
I said "Things aren't always what they seem on the surface". People who appear nice or truthful may in fact not be.Bandito wrote:Work on not being so dumb and comparing Kav to Cosby. You are really stupid.
Read before you post.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Damn, the "foe" controls only get me -- alone, anyway -- so far.
I think it is likely he will get confirmed, although I am awaiting word on Murkowski, Whitehouse and Collins. Manchin and Heidkamp (sic) will be under enormous pressure to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, and I don't know which way that wind blows.
In the end, the Chief Justice may be the problem for the evangelicals who expect this 5-4 majority to reverse or gut 45 years of "settled law." He may actually prove to be a real conservative, in the old sense. That is, the irony here is that the power of stare decisis is, in its essence, conservative, in the way folks like Burke would have understood the word. Now, "conservative" means a willingness to overturn settled law, impose burdens on women, and pretend that the states will somehow sort this out through their respective legislatures and somehow not give us that chaotic patchwork quilt of different laws across different borders.
I think it is likely he will get confirmed, although I am awaiting word on Murkowski, Whitehouse and Collins. Manchin and Heidkamp (sic) will be under enormous pressure to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, and I don't know which way that wind blows.
In the end, the Chief Justice may be the problem for the evangelicals who expect this 5-4 majority to reverse or gut 45 years of "settled law." He may actually prove to be a real conservative, in the old sense. That is, the irony here is that the power of stare decisis is, in its essence, conservative, in the way folks like Burke would have understood the word. Now, "conservative" means a willingness to overturn settled law, impose burdens on women, and pretend that the states will somehow sort this out through their respective legislatures and somehow not give us that chaotic patchwork quilt of different laws across different borders.