SCOTUS
- Thread starter Perspective
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
What's her clothing have to do with sexual harassment??
Once again, confirming everyone's stereotypes of Trump enthusiasts.
Would you make this joke at work? Would you make it among friends? Would you tell this joke to your wife and daughter (assuming you're male and straight married to a woman, and have a daughter)?
So, what percentage of these activists' foundations' budgets, would need to be from Soros' funds, for this to be considered a truthful statement?
morekaos
Well-known member
This is an admission of a liberal ?New York Times? writer at how off the reservation the Democrats attack has devolved, it is well worth reading as to what alcoholics refer to as , ?a moment of clarity.?
For Once, I?m Grateful for Trump
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he?s in it. I?m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it?s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey?s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I?ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.
https://outline.com/ft6meE
https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0
https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0
For Once, I?m Grateful for Trump
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he?s in it. I?m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it?s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey?s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I?ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.
https://outline.com/ft6meE
https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0
https://youtu.be/YujYTVQ4_S0
If you want any basic awareness of the world and culture , read the Sunday New York Times. It is among the best investments in yourself that you can make. You can always skip the opinion pages as I do .
If anyone is still keeping score, the ?liberal New York Times ? gifted you trump by breaking the email server story and focusing way too much on it .
If anyone is still keeping score, the ?liberal New York Times ? gifted you trump by breaking the email server story and focusing way too much on it .
morekaos
Well-known member
So, for those of you who think Kavenaugh will forever be dogged by a nasty asterisk you need to re-read the mirror image of Clarence Thomas's nomination process. He seems to have done just fine but at the time of his hearings it looked quite similar and had the same partisan rancor and results. Read this article written by Juan Williams (no friend of Kavenaugh). It was written in 1991 but all you have to do is change a few names and presto!! Could have come out this morning, and it will again. It is all a game.
OPEN SEASON ON CLARENCE THOMAS
The phone calls came throughout September. Did Clarence Thomas ever take money from the South African government? Was he under orders from the Reagan White House when he criticized civil rights leaders? Did he beat his first wife? Did I know anything about expense account charges he filed for out-of-town speeches? Did he say that women don't want equal pay for equal work? And finally, one exasperated voice said: "Have you got anything on your tapes we can use to stop Thomas."
The calls came from staff members working for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were calling me because several articles written about Thomas have carried my byline. When I was working as a White House correspondent in the early '80s, I had gotten to know Thomas as a news source and later wrote a long profile of him.
The desperate search for ammunition to shoot down Thomas has turned the 102 days since President Bush nominated him for a seat on the Supreme Court into a liberal's nightmare. Here is indiscriminate, mean-spirited mudslinging supported by the so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations. They have been mindlessly led into mob action against one man by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Moderate and liberal senators, operating in the proud tradition of men such as Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy, have allowed themselves to become sponsors of smear tactics that have historically been associated with the gutter politics of a Lee Atwater or crazed right-wing self-promoters like Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Even the final vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on whether to recommend Thomas for confirmation turned into a shameless assault on Thomas by the leading lights of progressive Democratic politics. For example, in an incredibly bizarre act, Chairman Joseph Biden stood up after a full slate of testimony and said Thomas would make a "solid justice," but then voted against him anyway.
At the time of the vote, two of the committee's Democrats later explained to me, the members of the Judiciary Committee figured it would make no difference, since Thomas had the votes to gain confirmation from the full Senate. So, they decided, why not play along with the angry roar coming from the Leadership Conference? "Thomas will win, and the vote will embarrass Bush and leave {the Leadership Conference} feeling that they were heard," explained one senator on the committee.
Now the Senate has extended its attacks on fairness, decency and its own good name by averting its eyes while someone in a position to leak has corrupted the entire hearing process by releasing a sealed affidavit containing an allegation that had been investigated by the FBI, reviewed by Thomas's opponents and supporters on the Senate committee and put aside as inconclusive and insufficient to warrant further investigation or stop the committee's final vote.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley said on the Senate floor Tuesday that the smears heaped on Thomas amounted to the "worse treatment of a nominee I've seen in 11 years in the Senate." Sen. Dennis DeConcini said it "is inconceivable, it is unfair and I can't imagine anything more unfair to the man." And Sen. Orrin G. Hatch described the entire week's performance as a "last-ditch attempt to smear the judge."
Sadly, that's right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/10/10/open-season-on-clarence-thomas/1126ce5b-c63c-447b-b496-545b198d4dcd/?utm_term=.c37ae5b82acf
Sound Familiar?
OPEN SEASON ON CLARENCE THOMAS
The phone calls came throughout September. Did Clarence Thomas ever take money from the South African government? Was he under orders from the Reagan White House when he criticized civil rights leaders? Did he beat his first wife? Did I know anything about expense account charges he filed for out-of-town speeches? Did he say that women don't want equal pay for equal work? And finally, one exasperated voice said: "Have you got anything on your tapes we can use to stop Thomas."
The calls came from staff members working for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were calling me because several articles written about Thomas have carried my byline. When I was working as a White House correspondent in the early '80s, I had gotten to know Thomas as a news source and later wrote a long profile of him.
The desperate search for ammunition to shoot down Thomas has turned the 102 days since President Bush nominated him for a seat on the Supreme Court into a liberal's nightmare. Here is indiscriminate, mean-spirited mudslinging supported by the so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations. They have been mindlessly led into mob action against one man by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Moderate and liberal senators, operating in the proud tradition of men such as Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy, have allowed themselves to become sponsors of smear tactics that have historically been associated with the gutter politics of a Lee Atwater or crazed right-wing self-promoters like Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Even the final vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on whether to recommend Thomas for confirmation turned into a shameless assault on Thomas by the leading lights of progressive Democratic politics. For example, in an incredibly bizarre act, Chairman Joseph Biden stood up after a full slate of testimony and said Thomas would make a "solid justice," but then voted against him anyway.
At the time of the vote, two of the committee's Democrats later explained to me, the members of the Judiciary Committee figured it would make no difference, since Thomas had the votes to gain confirmation from the full Senate. So, they decided, why not play along with the angry roar coming from the Leadership Conference? "Thomas will win, and the vote will embarrass Bush and leave {the Leadership Conference} feeling that they were heard," explained one senator on the committee.
Now the Senate has extended its attacks on fairness, decency and its own good name by averting its eyes while someone in a position to leak has corrupted the entire hearing process by releasing a sealed affidavit containing an allegation that had been investigated by the FBI, reviewed by Thomas's opponents and supporters on the Senate committee and put aside as inconclusive and insufficient to warrant further investigation or stop the committee's final vote.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley said on the Senate floor Tuesday that the smears heaped on Thomas amounted to the "worse treatment of a nominee I've seen in 11 years in the Senate." Sen. Dennis DeConcini said it "is inconceivable, it is unfair and I can't imagine anything more unfair to the man." And Sen. Orrin G. Hatch described the entire week's performance as a "last-ditch attempt to smear the judge."
Sadly, that's right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/10/10/open-season-on-clarence-thomas/1126ce5b-c63c-447b-b496-545b198d4dcd/?utm_term=.c37ae5b82acf
Sound Familiar?
Amy Schumer, Emily Ratajkowski Arrested at Kavanaugh Protest on Capitol Hill
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-s...arrested-at-kavanaugh-protest-on-capitol-hill
This says it all! ;D
https://www.instagram.com/p/BohlM1nBk0_/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-s...arrested-at-kavanaugh-protest-on-capitol-hill
This says it all! ;D
https://www.instagram.com/p/BohlM1nBk0_/
nosuchreality
Well-known member
morekaos said:
What's her clothing have to do with sexual harassment??
Perspective
Well-known member
morekaos said:
Once again, confirming everyone's stereotypes of Trump enthusiasts.
Would you make this joke at work? Would you make it among friends? Would you tell this joke to your wife and daughter (assuming you're male and straight married to a woman, and have a daughter)?
Perspective
Well-known member
Any corroborating evidence for Trump's lie today about Soros paying for Kavanaugh protesters? Or is he just taking more cues from Fox and getting in a globalist Jew innuendo?
morekaos
Well-known member
Not that it matters now but these two sure are on the payroll...
Several women have also approached lawmakers to share their stories of surviving sexual assault, most notably two who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh.
One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, works for the Center for Popular Democracy, which is funded in part by Soros.
Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George Soros?s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.
Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.?
Several women have also approached lawmakers to share their stories of surviving sexual assault, most notably two who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh.
One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, works for the Center for Popular Democracy, which is funded in part by Soros.
Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George Soros?s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.
Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.?
?CNBC article: Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, retired Justice Stevens says
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court because of "potential bias" he showed in his recent Senate confirmation hearing.
Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said he started out believing that Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed, "but his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind."
Stevens cited commentary by Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe and others suggesting Kavanaugh had raised doubts about his political impartiality when he asserted that sexual misconduct accusations he faced stemmed from an "orchestrated political hit" funded by left-wing groups seeking "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...preme-court-retired-justice-stevens-says.html
My comment:
Ex Sumpreme Court Judge Stevens changed his mind on Kavenaugh. In other words, I liked him at first, but not any more.
I don?t know if this will change the GOP vote. K is likely to get confirmed.
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court because of "potential bias" he showed in his recent Senate confirmation hearing.
Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said he started out believing that Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed, "but his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind."
Stevens cited commentary by Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe and others suggesting Kavanaugh had raised doubts about his political impartiality when he asserted that sexual misconduct accusations he faced stemmed from an "orchestrated political hit" funded by left-wing groups seeking "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...preme-court-retired-justice-stevens-says.html
My comment:
Ex Sumpreme Court Judge Stevens changed his mind on Kavenaugh. In other words, I liked him at first, but not any more.
I don?t know if this will change the GOP vote. K is likely to get confirmed.
Perspective
Well-known member
morekaos said:
So, what percentage of these activists' foundations' budgets, would need to be from Soros' funds, for this to be considered a truthful statement?
morekaos
Well-known member
So if political impartiality (as Stevens cites) is a no no for any Supreme Court Justice should we then begin proceedings to impeach Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg? She is clearly partisan and that brings into question her ability to impartially judge the cases before her...don't you think?
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance
It began during the 2016 election campaign, when Ginsburg broke the politics-what-politics? stance usually favored by Supreme Court justices, speaking out bluntly about her concerns regarding Trump.
"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," Ginsburg told The New York Times in a July 2016 interview in her Supreme Court chambers. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don't even want to contemplate that." Ginsburg doubled down on those comments in a subsequent interview with CNN, calling Trump a "faker," and adding: ""He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance
It began during the 2016 election campaign, when Ginsburg broke the politics-what-politics? stance usually favored by Supreme Court justices, speaking out bluntly about her concerns regarding Trump.
"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," Ginsburg told The New York Times in a July 2016 interview in her Supreme Court chambers. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don't even want to contemplate that." Ginsburg doubled down on those comments in a subsequent interview with CNN, calling Trump a "faker," and adding: ""He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
Perspective
Well-known member
Hah, I actually agree with morekaos on this. SCOTUS is a political institution. These judges have records that lean heavily in one political direction or the other, when they're nominated to SCOTUS. We know how Kavanaugh will vote. His threats in his testimony won't change that.
I think you'll have to hold both the Presidency and the Senate in order to get any SCOTUS nominee on the court going forward. That's just how it is.
I think you'll have to hold both the Presidency and the Senate in order to get any SCOTUS nominee on the court going forward. That's just how it is.