It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Republicans need to move on from Kavanaugh

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I dont see any hate filled comments... granted I haven't looked at every single comment either but still. I think most of the questions are logic based and not emotionally driven....

I'm trying to wrap my head around how anyone could think Hillary was fit for President but Kavanaugh is not fit for SCOTUS. No emotions involved.

(I'm actually an independent that has never voted lol)

A2D
edit on 3-10-2018 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

Very angry.


I don't blame him do you, also do you see his reactions to all this as unusual or not what we would assume would be typically normal?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, we hate people subverting American values and the checks and balances the FF created.


Who are you to dictate what American values are to anyone else?

Thanks for proving my point.




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

You're worried about retribution? Why? Did the dems do something WRONG?

A2D



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: underwerks

I dont see any hate filled comments... granted I haven't looked at every single comment either but still. I think most of the questions are logic based and not emotionally driven....

I'm trying to wrap my head around how anyone could think Hillary was fit for President but Kavanaugh is not fit for SCOTUS. No emotions involved.

(I'm actually an independent that has never voted lol)

A2D


Since there’s no emotion involved I’m sure you’ve gone over Kavanaughs judicial record before commenting about his fitness for office, correct?

Am I to assume you agree with his rulings up to this point?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

The right doesn't lay down and cower. Kavanaugh is a great candidate for the SC.

There is absolutely no reason to abandon him, especially after he has taken such grotesque abuse.

The left has even used his child against him. That is incredibly low and sick.

Now more than ever Kavanaugh must be confirmed.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He said the allegations against him were a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

Effectively boiling the sexual assault allegations down entirely to the fault of the Democrats (Hillary and Company), along with the Democratic party at large. It almost borders on conspiracy theory, and negates the actual charges and who brought them up in favor of extremist rhetoric.

This is a major faux-paux for a judge who from outward appearances is expected to maintain impartiality in their rulings (at least at face value - we can argue till we're blue in the face over the nature of SC justices and their political appointments in another thread). By politicizing a vendetta (or an apparent vendetta), we now have to assume Kavanaugh will carry that baggage with him for his tenure, which raises doubts to the impartiality of his decisions and if he indeed is honest about them would require his recusal on said issues (which serves neither the Republicans or Democrats).



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Wayfarer

You're worried about retribution? Why? Did the dems do something WRONG?

A2D


No, they didn't. The worry is he will vote against constitutionally supported cases if they favor Democratic beneficiarys.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

He's right. I see nothing in there where he says what you claimed.


Kavanaugh will delivery the pinnacle of rage and retribution upon the Democrats and the Democratic party (as he expressly intimated in his hearing), along with its supporters and any prerogatives they may have as a matter of principle for treatment in kind.


Still waiting on you to source that.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, we hate people subverting American values and the checks and balances the FF created.


Who are you to dictate what American values are to anyone else?

Thanks for proving my point.


You proved mine. I don't dictate American values and neither do Democrats. They are expressly laid out in the Constitution and discussed by the Founding Fathers.

I am not the one trying to change innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. I take my lead from the Constitution. Try it sometime.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

He's right. I see nothing in there where he says what you claimed.


Kavanaugh will delivery the pinnacle of rage and retribution upon the Democrats and the Democratic party (as he expressly intimated in his hearing), along with its supporters and any prerogatives they may have as a matter of principle for treatment in kind.


Still waiting on you to source that.


Are you kidding, I just quoted him above. Its in my previous post to you. Short of walking you to the post forcing your face in it, I'm not sure how else I can display the example you requested.


His quoted words to me are an intimation of how he views Democrats and Democratic entities. Its not that hard to grasp, so which part are you having trouble reconciling?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Sorry, there was nothing in there on how he views Democrats. It was how he viewed this one particular issue.

I also see nothing in there about how he will rule in the future. Don't say it's there, quote him where he talks about how this will impact his rulings.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, we hate people subverting American values and the checks and balances the FF created.


Who are you to dictate what American values are to anyone else?

Thanks for proving my point.



I'm sorry. I thought almost everyone agreed that rule of law was an important American value. That the idea of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law was also an important American value.

I guess I was wrong. You seem to like trial by lynch mob.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I dont agree with all his rulings, but again...not everyone is going to agree about something. I mean, I disagree with the judge that put me in a 6 month SATOP class for blowing a 0.01% on my breathalyzer at age 17...but disagreeing is okay. It doesnt mean someone is unfit just because you disagree.

A2D



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Sorry, there was nothing in there on how he views Democrats. It was how he viewed this one particular issue.

I also see nothing in there about how he will rule in the future. Don't say it's there, quote him where he talks about how this will impact his rulings.


Except you're assuming I ever said he directly said that. I said it intimated his intentions (and I have described how above).



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

It did not intimate anything. You are creating something that is not there. You should stop doing that.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: shooterbrody


How will the dems in your scenario gain enough senate seats to impeach anyone? It appears to me to be a mathematical impossibility?


During the midterms yes, but I wouldn't expect the Democrats to have a shot at this impeachment until 2020 at the earliest.

Also, I am not saying they will have the numbers but they might, that is a risk and honestly one the Republicans don't have to take. They have the power to just replace Kavanaugh with another Judge with the same Judicial views and none of the baggage. So my question is why not? Why push through a damaged nominee when it could come back to bite you?


Because “owning the libs” takes precedence over everything else. Over country, over law, over everything.

Just look at the responses in this thread. The hate is oozing out of people. This is the modern Republican Party.


Don't you mean - For the Democrats, “owning the White House and SC” takes precedence over everything else. Over country, over law, over everything. "

Here's some of that "oozing hatred" for ya



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, we hate people subverting American values and the checks and balances the FF created.


Who are you to dictate what American values are to anyone else?

Thanks for proving my point.


You proved mine. I don't dictate American values and neither do Democrats. They are expressly laid out in the Constitution and discussed by the Founding Fathers.

I am not the one trying to change innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. I take my lead from the Constitution. Try it sometime.


If you’re taking your lead from the constitution, how can you support a judge like Kavanaugh who’s interpretation of the constitution is at odds with the literal wording of it? Seriously.

I’ve gone over his judicial record and apart from being one of the main proponents of the Patriot Act during the Bush administration he has also ruled that Americans can be disappeared by the FBI and CIA with no recourse.

How can you throw the constitution around as some kind of defense while defending a man who has shown his contempt for the constitution time and time again?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: underwerks

I dont agree with all his rulings, but again...not everyone is going to agree about something. I mean, I disagree with the judge that put me in a 6 month SATOP class for blowing a 0.01% on my breathalyzer at age 17...but disagreeing is okay. It doesnt mean someone is unfit just because you disagree.

A2D

Rulings are not about what you think should be, it's about what the law says. I haven't seen any rulings yet that I disagree with his logic on why he ruled.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

It did not intimate anything. You are creating something that is not there. You should stop doing that.


Except your 'opinion' is no more weighty than mine, so I'll stop when you do (relief, since I won't ever have to worry about that
)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join