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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Wayfarer

So again, you dont want Kavanaugh because you disagree with him. It has nothing to do with his performance or fitness as a judge.....

A2D



This is kind of a grey area though. I disagree with his interpretation of Presidential immunity I mentioned above, because I don't think its the correct constitutional assessment. You could argue that's just plain disagreement, and I could equally argue its fundamental misrepresentation of our nations founding document for selfish reasons.




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You gave nothing to answer to. Provide something and I will answer. Saying nener nener is so is not answer worthy.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

No, most of us think he should be impeached and then legal action taken. Why do you have a problem with that?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

And you have yet to provide an example of such. How many of his rulings have gone to the Supreme Court? How many were upheld?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

No, most of us think he should be impeached and then legal action taken. Why do you have a problem with that?


Wait what? The senate assesses the quality of the judge as part of the hiring process. Regardless of whether he did or did not do as Ford's accusations suggest, the very fact that he lies so freely and openly without regard is a pretty blatant deal-breaker (and should be for anyone serious about SC justices), since you know the whole role relies on trust and respect for the law (which has no room for lies).



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




Regardless of whether he did or did not do as Ford's accusations suggest, the very fact that he lies so freely and openly without regard is a pretty blatant deal-breaker (and should be for anyone serious about SC justices), since you know the whole role relies on trust and respect for the law (which has no room for lies).

Hmm
What lies are those?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

We are talking about a President. He should not be able to be tried. If he did something he needs to be removed from office then tried. Why is that ridiculous?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

And you have yet to provide an example of such. How many of his rulings have gone to the Supreme Court? How many were upheld?


Example of how his words intimated a vendetta against Democrats? Now I'm pretty sure you don't understand what 'intimated' means.

Dictionary.com defines the word 'Intimated' as: to indicate or make known indirectly; hint; imply; suggest

Calling out an entire political party as the perpetrators against him in some vendetta now gives pause for any Democrat bringing up a case in front of Kavanaugh. It requires no actual rulings or precedent law to function in such a deleterious way.
edit on 40pm18fpmWed, 03 Oct 2018 13:50:37 -0500America/ChicagoWed, 03 Oct 2018 13:50:37 -0500 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer




Regardless of whether he did or did not do as Ford's accusations suggest, the very fact that he lies so freely and openly without regard is a pretty blatant deal-breaker (and should be for anyone serious about SC justices), since you know the whole role relies on trust and respect for the law (which has no room for lies).

Hmm
What lies are those?


The one that jumps off the top of my head most obviously is saying he did not see Dr. Fords earlier testimony (when in fact he had been in another adjacent building watching it in its entirety). There are more as well.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

We are talking about a President. He should not be able to be tried. If he did something he needs to be removed from office then tried. Why is that ridiculous?


Because it relies on the senate to enforce the law (by impeaching him so that he may be tried criminally). If the senate is benefiting from Trump's breaking of the law, what reason would they have to enforce it?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

That seems easy enough to document.
Why have the dems not been screaming about this lie?
I seemed to have missed it.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

We are talking about a President. He should not be able to be tried. If he did something he needs to be removed from office then tried. Why is that ridiculous?


Because it relies on the senate to enforce the law (by impeaching him so that he may be tried criminally). If the senate is benefiting from Trump's breaking of the law, what reason would they have to enforce it?

If what you describe is actually happening then the country is so broken the President might as well be a dictator. What you are suggesting is Democrat craziness, it is not based in reality at all. If Trump murdered people on live TV and the Senate would not do anything about it EVERY Senator refusing to impeach would be voted out of office.

Stop letting your parties craziness effect your judgement.

Impeach, then prosecute. That's how it should work. Otherwise you would run the risk of what we are seeing happening to Kavanaugh happen to Presidents of BOTH sides of the aisle.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I know exactly what the word means and he implied nothing about his future cases or rulings. Literally nothing. He flat out said exactly what he thought and left nothing to the imagination.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

That seems easy enough to document.
Why have the dems not been screaming about this lie?
I seemed to have missed it.


I'd guess it is just one of a dozen or so issues that's been so downplayed by conservative punditry among conservative listeners that its lost in the static.

The Week Article

After digging into it a little later it seems a couple days ago Kavanaugh contradicted what the aid said about seeing him watching it on tv.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

We are talking about a President. He should not be able to be tried. If he did something he needs to be removed from office then tried. Why is that ridiculous?


Because it relies on the senate to enforce the law (by impeaching him so that he may be tried criminally). If the senate is benefiting from Trump's breaking of the law, what reason would they have to enforce it?

If what you describe is actually happening then the country is so broken the President might as well be a dictator. What you are suggesting is Democrat craziness, it is not based in reality at all. If Trump murdered people on live TV and the Senate would not do anything about it EVERY Senator refusing to impeach would be voted out of office.

Stop letting your parties craziness effect your judgement.

Impeach, then prosecute. That's how it should work. Otherwise you would run the risk of what we are seeing happening to Kavanaugh happen to Presidents of BOTH sides of the aisle.


No dude, stop letting silly hyperbolic examples cloud your otherwise rational assessment. Just because Trump isn't murdering people on live tv doesn't mean he's not potentially breaking laws that the proletariat doesn't understand/care about and which also benefits the Senate Majority. Furthermore it stands to reason that even illegal actions that don't necessarily benefit the Senate Majority directly could nonetheless still serve to their benefit through other political engines such as re-election chances, etc.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

If the guy lied under oath, by all means he needs to be charged with perjury and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I just haven't seen anything credible that shows he did.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal



" Also, let us assume the Democrats have control of the Senate at that point in time. If that is indeed the case, I am willing to bet the house that they will begin impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh based on his demeanor and his lack of impartiality."


Uh, no.........no need to impeach. The Dems have already telegraphed they will pack the court. They've already telegraphed they'll try to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

No need to impeach.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So then we're just left to A2D



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

I know exactly what the word means and he implied nothing about his future cases or rulings. Literally nothing. He flat out said exactly what he thought and left nothing to the imagination.


If you know/knew what it means then why were you hounding me for an example contradictory to the definition you just claimed to understand?

For An Example of my thoughts from the previous post:
If Proxy SC Nominee A describes being brutally assaulted by the Michigan Militia in their youth, and then proceeds to rant about the effects its had on them during their senate confirmation hearing and how much pain and anguish its put them through, we can safely assume Nominee A is going to have to potentially recuse themselves from issue dealing with the Michigan Militia, as no reasonable person could disassociate that trauma from their rational mind entirely, and if they don't, we'll forever wonder just how much of Nominee A's rulings contrary to the Michigan Militia's prerogatives where based not in solid jurisprudence but rather by emotional turmoil.

In essence, but publicly decrying his thoughts on unfair treatment by a political party, he's effectively poisoned himself to rulings relating to that party's plaintiffs, which unfortunately can be argued amount to a large amount of cases before the SC typically.
edit on 40pm18fpmWed, 03 Oct 2018 14:08:21 -0500America/ChicagoWed, 03 Oct 2018 14:08:21 -0500 by Wayfarer because: clarity



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So let me get this straight. If someone treats you unfairly and you call them on it you necessarily must treat them unfair to retaliate? That's your argument?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join