Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[williemackgarza 1826]

No wonder Hillary and Bill are gearing up for another speaking tour. Dems keep losing and just keep going full retard doubling down looking like spoiled little children crying and pouting because they did not get what they wanted or their way.
Its fucking crazy.
Those honorable dem senators and representatives going to make this right and get BK off there!

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

NYS AG and court system. 

Fair enough. Taking down Donald would be a huge orange skin on the wall for some aspirational AG.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 hours ago, Longhorn94 said:

Thank God for Gorsuch?

Kavanaugh is a political hack. He is not a conservative justice who wants small government with limited powers. He is a judicial activist who will seek to interpret and infer based on his political beliefs and desired goals. He is the worst kind of jurist. There is no way an "originalist" or "textualist" can look at that statute and honestly believe that "when released" means anytime after they have been released or served their time, whether it be in close proximity or 50 years after. That people who have paid their debt to society can be detained no matter how long after and can be detained WITHOUT BAIL. Of course, he is interpreting all of this with illegal brown people in his head. i look forward to this being applied to every European immigrant, legal or not, that has ever been arrested for a crime, no matter how small. Let's round em all up and detain them indefinitely without bail because 'MERICA! and lib tears! 

pathetic. 

Kavanaugh is going to force Gorsuch and Roberts to the left just to make sure the Supreme Court doesnt become some political hack tool.

You may be right, I am not sure.  But I was told that Gorsuch was the worst appointment to the Supreme Court, evar.

And, you can't possibly divine Kavanagh's actual opinion from that article.  Gorsuch asks some pointed questions of counsel, which are never, ever any guarantee that that is how he is going to go in the ultimate opinion.  Similarly, the out of context quote that Congress intended to be harsh is probably, pretty likely 100% true and accurate and in no way reflects Kavanaugh's agreement or disagreement with congressional intent.

Congress has passed, and intended to pass, some horribly unconstitutional laws and will continue to do so as long as their is a congress.

I'm not defending Kavanagh, per se, but that is a shitty article that implies that a decision has been made and quotes statements at oral argument as if they were language from an opinion.  That is lousy fucking reporting.  And you seem to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Edited October 11, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34168]

27 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

No wonder Hillary and Bill are gearing up for another speaking tour. Dems keep losing and just keep going full retard doubling down looking like spoiled little children crying and pouting because they did not get what they wanted or their way.
Its fucking crazy.
Those honorable dem senators and representatives going to make this right and get BK off there!

from a guy who lapped up all of cocaine mitch's bullshit waaaaa the dems are being soooooo meaaaaaaannnnnn why can't we just have a voooooooootteeeee

[TwiceHorn 31184]

*there

[Longhorn94 2427]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You may be right, I am not sure.  But I was told that Gorsuch was the worst appointment to the Supreme Court, evar.

And, you can't possibly divine Kavanagh's actual opinion from that article.  Gorsuch asks some pointed questions of counsel, which are never, ever any guarantee that that is how he is going to go in the ultimate opinion.  Similarly, the out of context quote that Congress intended to be harsh is probably, pretty likely 100% true and accurate.

I'm not defending Kavanagh, per se, but that is a shitty article, and, frankly, your analysis of it is shitty.

HAHA!

 

I didnt really provide an "analysis" of the article but whatever. I am fully aware that Justices don't always tip their hands during oral arguments. But I do believe the nature of Gorsuch's questions and Kavanaugh's questions/statements are indicative of their positions. Neither of us can be sure either way. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I was told that Gorsuch was the worst appointment to the Supreme Court, evar.

No, you weren't.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

HAHA!

 

I didnt really provide an "analysis" of the article but whatever. I am fully aware that Justices don't always tip their hands during oral arguments. But I do believe the nature of Gorsuch's questions and Kavanaugh's questions/statements are indicative of their positions. Neither of us can be sure either way. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. 

Au contraire, mon frere. 

Quote

There is no way an "originalist" or "textualist" can look at that statute and honestly believe that "when released" means anytime after they have been released or served their time, whether it be in close proximity or 50 years after. That people who have paid their debt to society can be detained no matter how long after and can be detained WITHOUT BAIL. Of course, he is interpreting all of this with illegal brown people in his head. i look forward to this being applied to every European immigrant, legal or not, that has ever been a

You are imputing quite a lot to Kavanaugh in this passage.  You may be right.  You may be a student of his jurisiprudence.  But, based on what you are saying immediately above, you seem to know how Kavanaugh is going to rule, all based on the quote from the article.

Here's the real quote:

Quote

Is that presumption based on what we think was really

going through Congress's mind at the time or is

it based on a constitutional overlay, because

what was really going through Congress's time

in 1996 was harshness on this topic. Is that

not right?

I defy you to extrapolate from that quote either what the NYT article states or what you elaborate.

I don't think Kavanaugh should have been confirmed.  I also think he is probably too steeped in governmental politics masquerading as "policy" to make a good Justice.  But I think that of most of them.  I think he's kind of your common-or-garden conservative judge, not Satan incarnate.

Edited October 11, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hank Scorpio 17712]

Yes, I wonder which way Kavanaugh will vote in this case. There's no way to know! 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Hank Scorpio

[Longhorn94 2427]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Au contraire, mon frere. 

You are imputing quite a lot to Kavanaugh in this passage.  You may be right.  You may be a student of his jurisiprudence.  But, based on what you are saying immediately above, you seem to know how Kavanaugh is going to rule, all based on the quote from the article.

Here's the real quote:

I defy you to extrapolate from that quote either what the NYT article states or what you elaborate.

Again, not an analysis of the article. And my statement was not solely based on your quote. Instead it was based on his back and forth with Gorsuch and other parts of the argument. It seems from Kav's questioning and statements, he wants to detain people no matter how remote or serious their crimes are. And the other Justices did a nice job pointing out how ridiculous that would be. 

[Mole 4318]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Perhaps, but he for sure wants to be doing something else instead.  Presidenting is hard.  We talk about how much he golfs now.  Guess what?  Its a fraction of how much he was golfing before.  His pre-President workday was nearly entirely R&R with the occasional talk show or rally thrown in. In 2015, if he wanted to fly to Paris tonight and fuck around, he could.  If he wanted to go to Dubai and get crooked money tomorrow while eating burnt steak in Dubai's most expensive restaurants.  Done.  If he wanted to trade Melania in for a new model.  Done.  None of that can happen right now.  Its also quite likely that that lifestyle is over for his next generation now too.  His usefulness to foreigners looking to hide dirty money now has a firm expiration date of January 2021 or 2028.  His kids are going to have to be squeaky clean too which seems an outright impossibility.

Hero's journey.

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump’s life seems pretty miserable since “winning” tho.

 

5 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

That's only because you have a functioning brain.

Trump's brain is telling him that he is two years into the most successful presidency of all-time.  It's saying that every citizen in this country loves him, even if they won't admit it, and the USA is as respected as it has ever been worldwide.  Everyone is super rich and it is all due, solely, to the work of him.

He genuinely looked like he hated the job for about the first six months, but if we are being honest with ourselves, he's been loving every minute of it since he stopped paying attention to reality.  

 

I still think he wanted nothing to do with being POTUS and just was in it for the PR and a nice little stroke to his own ego. The press loved every minute of him running which aided him in his rise to the top of an absolute awful list of candidates by that time it was too damn late to jump ship when you are that far ahead in the polls.

That said he will love every second of his post WH days (whenever that is) Being an ex president gives you a ton of clout, access and opportunity even he as Trump couldn't get pre election. But do agree he is going to have a massive target on his back when he leaves the office but Clinton did too and he seemed to figure out a way to do alright......

[Buzzrock 14867]

I did.

I do.

You did?

I was stunned. I’ll never forget waking up to the news. I went to bed thinking she was a lock.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

16 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

That said he will love every second of his post WH days (whenever that is) Being an ex president gives you a ton of clout, access and opportunity even he as Trump couldn't get pre election. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Am I the only one who missed this?  Chief Justice Roberts has asked the 10th Circuit to investigate ethics concerns regarding Kavanaugh?

CJ SCOTUS vs BK

 

I don't know how much is fanfare, how much is formality, and how much is substantial, but it seems unusual.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Am I the only one who missed this?  Chief Justice Roberts has asked the 10th Circuit to investigate ethics concerns regarding Kavanaugh?

CJ SCOTUS vs BK

 

I don't know how much is fanfare, how much is formality, and how much is substantial, but it seems unusual.

The deal, best as I understand it, is this.  For state judges, there is a state commission on judicial conduct.  Like the bar for lawyers, it entertains ethical complaints and rules on them.  For example State Commission on Judicial Conduct

For federal judicial complaints, they are initially reviewed by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals where the judge sits.  If the complaint is initially ruled meritorious, it is reviewed by the Judicial Council of that Circuit, composed of Court of Appeals and District Court judges from the Circuit.  For example, for the local (Tx, La, Ms) Fifth Circuit, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/other/judicial-conduct-matters/filed-on-or-after-sept-17-201

There is no body to entertain ethical complaints against Supreme Court justices.  However, these complaints arose before his appointment, so they would at least initially be entertained by the DC Circuit Judicial Commission.  But, as the article states, the DC Circuit punted, and Roberts sent it to the 10th Circuit, probably kind of at random, for evaluation. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/misconduct

There apparently is an ability of the Judicial Commission to undertake a quite serious investigation of matters relating to judicial misconduct.

That 10th Circuit site has more information about judicial complaints in the federal system than the Fifth Circuit site.

I would guess that the vast vast vast majority of judicial complaints at the federal level are filed against District Judges and Magistrates (trial courts) rather than Court of Appeals and are frivolous complaints lodged by pro se litigants and criminal defendants.

The Judicial Commission can order a judge not take cases or hire staff, but cannot remove him/her from office, which is left to impeachment.  One might think that an adverse finding from the Judicial Commission would be Exhibit A to Articles of Impeachment.  Upon further review, an adverse finding of a serious breach is forwarded to the Judicial Conference of the United States, which then forwards a recommendation on impeachment to Congress.  See Thomas Porteous.

It is not clear to me that a Judicial Commission may order a punishment of any kind against a judge that no longer sits in the jurisdiction.  But they can certainly make findings and recommendations.

Edited October 12, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

21 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yikes. Mrs. Kavanaugh is OVER it.
 

no one else has really commented. i'm not sure which part really tells the tale, is it the weird fake smile at the beginning, his hand on her closest (seriously, who does that?) shoulder pulling her in for the kiss, the subtle eyeroll after she kisses him, him pushing past her to kiss the kid, her immediate weird posture when he puts a hand in the middle of her back,  that weird thing she does with her eyebrows when he says something, then her face when he's manhandling her while he looks away with almost a sneer on his face, as though he's trying to will her to "act right," when he returns his hand to her back, she goes back into side-eye looks, clearly ready to GTFO of there, and he's just awkwardly patting her back, the repeated, obvious fake smile, but then the very real relief when it comes time to actually GTFO of there. 

there is a lot to unpack in that video.

[Bullneck 18976]

8 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

This whole family has thumbs for faces, sorry.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

no one else has really commented. i'm not sure which part really tells the tale, is it the weird fake smile at the beginning, his hand on her closest (seriously, who does that?) shoulder pulling her in for the kiss, the subtle eyeroll after she kisses him, him pushing past her to kiss the kid, her immediate weird posture when he puts a hand in the middle of her back,  that weird thing she does with her eyebrows when he says something, then her face when he's manhandling her while he looks away with almost a sneer on his face, as though he's trying to will her to "act right," when he returns his hand to her back, she goes back into side-eye looks, clearly ready to GTFO of there, and he's just awkwardly patting her back, the repeated, obvious fake smile, but then the very real relief when it comes time to actually GTFO of there. 

there is a lot to unpack in that video.

Not to mention Donald Trump is standing directly behind her two daughters the entire time.  

A mother’s worst nightmare. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not to mention Donald Trump is standing directly behind her two daughters the entire time.  

A mother’s worst nightmare. 

No it could be Biden behind them trying to grope them. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

no one else has really commented. i'm not sure which part really tells the tale, is it the weird fake smile at the beginning, his hand on her closest (seriously, who does that?) shoulder pulling her in for the kiss, the subtle eyeroll after she kisses him, him pushing past her to kiss the kid, her immediate weird posture when he puts a hand in the middle of her back,  that weird thing she does with her eyebrows when he says something, then her face when he's manhandling her while he looks away with almost a sneer on his face, as though he's trying to will her to "act right," when he returns his hand to her back, she goes back into side-eye looks, clearly ready to GTFO of there, and he's just awkwardly patting her back, the repeated, obvious fake smile, but then the very real relief when it comes time to actually GTFO of there. 

there is a lot to unpack in that video.

Yeah, she looks like she has the divorce paperwork already lined up. Just stand there and try to smile until he is settled into the job.

[pyrohornIII 4801]

 

[Elvis 3356]

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not to mention Donald Trump is standing directly behind her two daughters the entire time.  

A mother’s worst nightmare. 

Why would that be a mother's worst nightmare?

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Elvis said:

Why would that be a mother's worst nightmare? 

Did Dotard ever specify an age limit on grabbing them by the pussy?

 

[retread 2951]

16 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

her immediate weird posture when he puts a hand in the middle of her back,  that weird thing she does with her eyebrows when he says something, then her face when he's manhandling her while he looks away with almost a sneer on his face, as though he's trying to will her to "act right," when he returns his hand to her back, she goes back into side-eye looks

there is a lot to unpack in that video.

I guess every couple relates differently, but that's really odd when he's shaking her shoulder and sneering. Her daughter had looked up at her and smiled, and she's trying to keep a smile on her face.

[triplehorn 2664]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Did Dotard ever specify an age limit on grabbing them by the pussy?

 

Ask Trump pal Jeffrey Epstein .  

Recall that inappropriate reference Trump made about a friend when he addressed all those Boy Scouts.  I suspect that was Epstein.  Ask Dersh too.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

11 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yeah, she looks like she has the divorce paperwork already lined up. Just stand there and try to smile until he is settled into the job.

She didn't settle on that douchebag and stick with him all these years in order to bail out now. She has the prestige of being the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. This is the payoff.

[Fozzz 152]

Fittingly, Justice Brett’s first recorded vote is to deny a stay of execution.  

[Crusher 127]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:08 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Am I the only one who missed this?  Chief Justice Roberts has asked the 10th Circuit to investigate ethics concerns regarding Kavanaugh?

CJ SCOTUS vs BK

 

I don't know how much is fanfare, how much is formality, and how much is substantial, but it seems unusual.

Well good. When they don't find shit will that be enough to stop you braying donkeys from attacking this poor man over and over and over......

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Oh, this poor man.

[tantric superman 4667]

4 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Well good. When they don't find shit will that be enough to stop you braying donkeys from attacking this poor man over and over and over......

Poor mendacious little bitch, you mean?

[Crusher 127]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, this poor man.

Yes!!! This poor man!!!

What has he done but be so excellent at his job he was confirmed to serve on the highest court in the land? His only failing was he was the nominee to replace the swing vote. Flail and wail all you want. Democrats know they can't win over middle America to their way of thinking and actually legislate their ideals. So they must control the court.

The guy is on the court, despite the most disgusting display of partisan bullshit that has ever been perpetrated on the United States Senate by your hero's. They will regret their decision to play their cards the way they did in November. 

Mark my words when the R's increase their majority in Senate and keep their majority in the House.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

OK.

[Crusher 127]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, TriStone said:

I believe we have.  Fella named Bush I think.  He was worse than Hitler and destined for the jailhouse.  I suppose Lady Justice will get around to him eventually, then she'll set her sights on that damn dirty Trump.

And this just I couldn't resist....

 

[Fozzz 152]

The Obamas are trash. 

[Crusher 127]

53 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The Obamas are trash. 

What do you mean?

The fact that they hang out with Bush?

Or the fact that they left the White House surrounded with people who were ready to do anything... Including leaking ? Leak anything that they hear?

[Celery Man 20874]

Flail and wail all you want. Trumpists know they can't win over majority America to their way of thinking and actually sustain their ideals. So they must control the court.

fify

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

5 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Fittingly, Justice Brett’s first recorded vote is to deny a stay of execution.  

Christian pro-lifers love them some capital punishment. 

[Player 4575]

Fittingly, Justice Brett’s first recorded vote is to deny a stay of execution.  

Didn’t want to do it, but felt he owed it to him.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Christian pro-lifers love them some capital punishment. 

Yeah the mental gymnastics you just stumbled over here are mind boggling.

[Turkleton 145]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah the mental gymnastics you just stumbled over here are mind boggling.

Innocence and guilty are lost on these zombies. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Turkleton

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

Innocence and guilt are lost on these zombies. 

Such outdated concepts today.  

[Guest]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Christian pro-lifers love them some capital punishment. 

wrong.

the inverse could be blanketed on the left at the same time, with the alleged sanctity of life while destroying over a million American souls per anum in abortion clinics.

 

This pro lifer disagrees with the death penalty, although I would also posit that a murderer who has acted against another( or mutiple) human beings ain't exactly the same line of discussion as the innocence of the unborn.

[elfenix 34168]

One is being done in my name and on my behalf, using a right that I have transferred to the state as part of the social contract, and the other is not.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Setting aside whether killing someone is moral when imprisonment is an alternative, the strong possibility that our justice system could convict a person who did not actually commit the capital offense warrants opposing the death penalty.   Then again, I have a higher proof threshold for taking a life than for denying someone a job on the Supreme Court.   I know for many of you the reverse is true — absolute certainty of guilt is required to deny a poor man a lifetime job on a court, but whatever 12 random people decide — based even on the mere eyewitness testimony — is enough to kill someone. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Setting aside whether killing someone is moral when imprisonment is an alternative, the strong possibility that our justice system could convict a person who did not actually commit the capital offense warrants opposing the death penalty.   Then again, I have a higher proof threshold for taking a life than for denying someone a job on the Supreme Court.   I know for many of you the reverse is true — absolute certainty of guilt is required to deny a poor man a lifetime job on a court, but whatever 12 random people decide — based even on the mere eyewitness testimony — is enough to kill someone. 

It shouldn't be. DNA evidence should have to be a part of linking a person to a capitol murder charge or such multiple corroborated eye witness testimony that it's waaaaaaaaay beyond a shadow of a doubt as to the guilt of the individual.  If it goes away I'm not gonna lose any sleep though.  

Many of these killers are the product of environment in my opinion, damaged goods long before they ever commit murder.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

wrong.

the inverse could be blanketed on the left at the same time, with the alleged sanctity of life while destroying over a million American souls per anum in abortion clinics.

Somebody dropped an extra "n". Could you use an extra "n", sir?

 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/per-anum

[Guest]

I’m at a point where I would support death penalty for sexual predators, left lane hoggers, and dirty cops. 

[workswithseed 2033]

20 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Christian pro-lifers love them some capital punishment. 

I mean they are pro-life, So I figure you're wrong. Unless you want to actually mean anti-abortion.

[Goredho 17302]

Anyone who can look at the Kavanaugh process and think either the GOP or the Democrats occupy a spot on the high ground is a partisan hack.  Both sides is fucking legit, and Kavanaugh/Ford highlighted it for anyone who has a brain capable of looking at what transpired with dispassioned reason.

But for me it always comes back to this — While politicians from either side can be equally repugnant, only one side controls every. single. one. of the bodies of the federal government that supposedly serve as checks and balances for each other.  Their fringe is running amok.  They are institutionalizing the worst of their ideology.  Our democracy under their undiluted and unchecked rule is metastasizing into a government of, by and for a minority of ultra-conservative, wealthy Christians.  Everyone else best be happy with the crumbs from their table, and the allowance of an existence under their ordained rule.

I can’t believe in only a scant few decades that we’ve forgotten the lessons of Footloose — that these guys are fucking assholes of the highest order and humanity just wants to dance, man.  We’ve got to get a significant number of them out of office and return to a shared balance of power.  That. is. the. only. thing. that. matters. right. fucking. now.

So let’s fucking turn the page.  Kavanaugh is not the hill we want established Dems capable of stopping this shit show within the next two years to die on.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Goredho