SCOTUS
- Thread starter Perspective
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
scenario: a guy from two blocks over was walking his dog near your home that evening was seen by one of your neighbors. your neighbor accuses that guy of breaking into your home, but nobody can corroborate your neighbor's story. the police do an investigation and can't prove the guy walking the dog broke in. however, you and all your buddies presume that person is guilty because your neighbor says he did it even though your neighbor can't remember what time or how he broke in. sound familiar?
But they didn?t look at the ring footage or investigate the car that left the scene. (License plate on the ring camera)
Like I previously stated, I would be okay with almost full FBI Report. (it may be good or bad)
Making this up: let?s say they said person 123 was part of insurance scams. Then I would say you know what put him on the court because I don?t believe the accuser.
According to the news (I don?t know if it?s true or not, so it?s hearsay). But they didn?t even interview his roommate in college, they didn?t even interview the people who can collaborate Ramirez allegation. (I saw a picture with Kavenaugh and Ramirez in a picture)
As Chuck Schumer said months ago, the Dems were going to oppose anyone Trump picked (Merrick Garland payback) so there's no point for Trump to pick "someone else better." The Dems were already locked and loaded even before the nomination and BK was just unfortunate enough to be the first one to present himself downrange. The Dems will not hold their fire until all targets are dead.
I demand the FBI interview all 100 million Facebook users who saw the alleged Russian placed ads, under oath with questions provided by Prospective, to see if their vote in 2016 was influenced by the ads. If the FBI does not respond to my demand, as far as I'm concerned, that will be conclusive evidence HRC lost because of the Russians.
eyephone said:
scenario: a guy from two blocks over was walking his dog near your home that evening was seen by one of your neighbors. your neighbor accuses that guy of breaking into your home, but nobody can corroborate your neighbor's story. the police do an investigation and can't prove the guy walking the dog broke in. however, you and all your buddies presume that person is guilty because your neighbor says he did it even though your neighbor can't remember what time or how he broke in. sound familiar?
OCAgentGold
New member
Pretty funny to watch this thread. Kavanaugh was well liked by all until Trump picked him. Clearly Swinestein just held on to Ford as a hail Mary. It took about two minutes of her testimony to determine the cheese had slid off that woman's crackers years ago and that her life probably moves from one crisis to the next. BUT, lets elect a blue wave in November so we can have an insta recession and 30 year olds can move back in their parents homes...
Kings said:
But they didn?t look at the ring footage or investigate the car that left the scene. (License plate on the ring camera)
Like I previously stated, I would be okay with almost full FBI Report. (it may be good or bad)
Making this up: let?s say they said person 123 was part of insurance scams. Then I would say you know what put him on the court because I don?t believe the accuser.
According to the news (I don?t know if it?s true or not, so it?s hearsay). But they didn?t even interview his roommate in college, they didn?t even interview the people who can collaborate Ramirez allegation. (I saw a picture with Kavenaugh and Ramirez in a picture)
OCAgentGold
New member
They should have never listened to the woman, nor held a single hearing. You never validate underhandedness.
OCAgentGold said:
As Chuck Schumer said months ago, the Dems were going to oppose anyone Trump picked (Merrick Garland payback) so there's no point for Trump to pick "someone else better." The Dems were already locked and loaded even before the nomination and BK was just unfortunate enough to be the first one to present himself downrange. The Dems will not hold their fire until all targets are dead.
OCAgentGold
New member
It certainly is, and after watching her say she is not sure who paid for her polygraph, it is ANY sane persons opinion. I mean, uh, I took a polygraph and uh well I'm uh not sure (giggle giggle ) who paid for it? uh... really? lol She is more messed up than a hillbillies front yard
OCAgentGold
New member
I did, its right above your this post, the other guy just responded before me ... conspiracy theory ? I'm in Laguna Altura if you wanna come by....
morekaos
Well-known member
I already consider this one over. The real fun is coming when Ruth Buzzy Ginzberg vacates and Trump puts up a qualified, Catholic, woman that Feinstein has already tried to muddy up. They will be squirming to find dirt on a woman and still claim the #metoo high ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
Banana republic = A president who is under investigation for conspiring in the subversion of his own election and obstruction of justice ?- apparently rigged the investigation of his Supreme Court nominee ?- who lied to the senate under oath and who thinks presidents shouldn?t be investigated.
But now we own the libs , so yes #winning !
As I said before , this is the ideal outcome for midterms . Just because he is confirmed doesn?t mean you will stop hearing about him and the leaks from other FBI agents etc
But now we own the libs , so yes #winning !
As I said before , this is the ideal outcome for midterms . Just because he is confirmed doesn?t mean you will stop hearing about him and the leaks from other FBI agents etc
fortune11 said:
I demand the FBI interview all 100 million Facebook users who saw the alleged Russian placed ads, under oath with questions provided by Prospective, to see if their vote in 2016 was influenced by the ads. If the FBI does not respond to my demand, as far as I'm concerned, that will be conclusive evidence HRC lost because of the Russians.
Perspective
Well-known member
In the unlikely, but very possible, event the Dems take the Senate next month, Trump will have two years (presumably) remaining in his term. What if a liberal SCOTUS Justice dies or resigns in 2019? Will the Reps support the Dems' position that the next President should pick the Justice, especially considering the Dems' takeover of both houses of Congress in 2018?
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a lifelong Republican, told a small crowd in Boca Raton that Judge Brett Kavanaugh?s performance at confirmation hearings should disqualify him. ?The Senators should pay attention to this.?
?-> being out of your powerful seat frees you up to speak your mind, a luxury many of these red state senators don?t have given how craven and rabid the base is ? the biggest fear is getting primaried from the right
This is the trump loving base ?- ? Doug Jones, who indicated last week he would vote no on Kavanaugh, says says his female staff have been threatened by Kavanaugh supporters.
?I?ve had callers telling the young women that answer my phones that they hope they are sexually assaulted."
?-> being out of your powerful seat frees you up to speak your mind, a luxury many of these red state senators don?t have given how craven and rabid the base is ? the biggest fear is getting primaried from the right
This is the trump loving base ?- ? Doug Jones, who indicated last week he would vote no on Kavanaugh, says says his female staff have been threatened by Kavanaugh supporters.
?I?ve had callers telling the young women that answer my phones that they hope they are sexually assaulted."
Perspective
Well-known member
FedSoc Is A Hosting A ?I Still Like Beer? Event, Because Of Course They Are
The only thing FedSoc thinks was "too soon" was desegregation.
And now for a reminder that the Federalist Society thinks putting an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court is great fun. From Cornell Law School:
"The Federalist Society presents
'I still like beer.'
How big beer uses regulation
to harm craft breweries"
Get it? It?s about beer regulations. And their choice for the Supreme Court repeatedly lied under oath about how much beer he drank. So it?s funny.
Join the FedSoc next week when they host a gun regulation symposium titled: ?The Unarmed Saps Of Sandy Hook.? I?ll bet they co-sponsor it with Fisher-Price who will offer a ?My First AR-15? as a door prize.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/fed...l-like-beer-event-because-of-course-they-are/
The only thing FedSoc thinks was "too soon" was desegregation.
And now for a reminder that the Federalist Society thinks putting an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court is great fun. From Cornell Law School:
"The Federalist Society presents
'I still like beer.'
How big beer uses regulation
to harm craft breweries"
Get it? It?s about beer regulations. And their choice for the Supreme Court repeatedly lied under oath about how much beer he drank. So it?s funny.
Join the FedSoc next week when they host a gun regulation symposium titled: ?The Unarmed Saps Of Sandy Hook.? I?ll bet they co-sponsor it with Fisher-Price who will offer a ?My First AR-15? as a door prize.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/fed...l-like-beer-event-because-of-course-they-are/
nosuchreality
Well-known member
That's the same problem the Dems are having, getting primaried from the left.
Frankly, it's why I will vote for Katie Porter in the CA-45. It's two years. She help stifle Trump and she can be replaced in two years if Trump heads out. If Trump doesn't then she may stay longer. Or she'll just be completely ineffective making no difference.
Of course, now that I've said that, she'll get in, stick like a tick and we'll have Californiaesque one party super majority in 2020 at the Federal level...
I wonder who will get the coveted air resource board appointment at the newly created federal equivalent? And who will be the $250K/yr orange county homeless czar? Will it be a single Federal appoint or will be need twelve regional homeless resource boards?
BTW, you should vote on the gas tax, Prop 6. Aka Eliminates certain road repair...
I know, you're thinking but a yes vote removes the tax, it does. But that's winning just the battle losing the war mindset. You'll get spanked down again as the legislature will pass more onerous taxes.
You really need to vote no.
That's right, vote no.
Make all the people in the State pay the ___ing taxes that they keep clamoring the legislature for by sending the people to the legislature. Nothing makes people evaluate their government better than paying the bill.
Frankly, it's why I will vote for Katie Porter in the CA-45. It's two years. She help stifle Trump and she can be replaced in two years if Trump heads out. If Trump doesn't then she may stay longer. Or she'll just be completely ineffective making no difference.
Of course, now that I've said that, she'll get in, stick like a tick and we'll have Californiaesque one party super majority in 2020 at the Federal level...
I wonder who will get the coveted air resource board appointment at the newly created federal equivalent? And who will be the $250K/yr orange county homeless czar? Will it be a single Federal appoint or will be need twelve regional homeless resource boards?
BTW, you should vote on the gas tax, Prop 6. Aka Eliminates certain road repair...
I know, you're thinking but a yes vote removes the tax, it does. But that's winning just the battle losing the war mindset. You'll get spanked down again as the legislature will pass more onerous taxes.
You really need to vote no.
That's right, vote no.
Make all the people in the State pay the ___ing taxes that they keep clamoring the legislature for by sending the people to the legislature. Nothing makes people evaluate their government better than paying the bill.