Temperament of Supreme Court

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JasonBillung

I know ...

Someone might uncover that he pulled a chair out from under his classmate at one time in gradeschool!

Well we know Kav is a sexist. He once pulled a girls pig tails in first grade. We can't have someone like that on the supreme court.

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JasonBillung

I know ...

Someone might uncover that he pulled a chair out from under his classmate at one time in gradeschool!

Well we know Kav is a sexist. He once pulled a girls pig tails in first grade. We can't have someone like that on the supreme court.

He also put a toad down a girl's sweatshirt !!!!!

😎🥁😎

originally posted by: JasonBillung
What more can you say?

"Confirm him" comes to mind...

a reply to: Grambler

Back to the topic, If Feinstein thought BK's speech was "unbelievable" perhaps she didn't remember Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing speech.

Watch it and compare what happened with Thomas with what is happening to BK.



History is merely repeating itself.

(For those not into politics in the 1990's and are unaware, here is SCJ Clarence Thomas and what he thought of what the liberals did to him to try to get him out. It is a good lesson. Look at his body language... this guy is PISSED)

a reply to: ketsuko

But to be fair, he literally only has to vote based on the constituation to get them back. Doing his job to the best of his ability will be his best revenge.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: ketsuko

But to be fair, he literally only has to vote based on the constituation to get them back. Doing his job to the best of his ability will be his best revenge.

You know, if the SCOTUS devolved into an MMA-style octogon match with justices tagging in and out, things might get a lot more interesting, and then the left might be wishing they had more judges with the proper judicial temperment ...

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Grambler

An angry drunk who his friends from college won't even defend is the last thing the US need on the supreme court.

Ruth may have problems. Agreed.

Why stack the bench with an alcoholic sexual predator to boot?

I heard you used to like a drink or two in college days..

How did you go with that girl that accused you of attempted rape back on a saturday at 2am in 1983?

see how easy that was to make you untenable for any position going forward!

a reply to: ketsuko

Bring back dueling.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ketsuko

Bring back dueling.

That would cut down on accusations worked in the past. You had to really believe your accusation if you were willing to duel over it.


history.house.gov...

Looks like flake will vote against Kavanaugh because of his temperament

www.theatlantic.com...

What a weasel

I assume him and the Dems will be filing for impeachment of Ginsburg

I am still trying to find the story I saw at 3am this morning, but the class Kavenaugh taught at Harvard? Well he just dropped teaching it and the students wrote a letter stating they didn't want him teaching it because of the allegations against him. So now, in this climate where a man can be destroyed based on ALLEGATIONS that have NO PROOF......well....this man who 6 months ago was a "shoe in" and was actually kind of "groomed" for the position from what I have read, by the man who just stepped down......is now labeled a "alcoholic sexual predator" based off the lame testimony (or what passes as testimony these days) of a woman who has traumatic memories, (I have those too and would NEVER destroy a person based off of them)....wow...I would NOT want to be a man in this climate right now.......
and I thought the McCarthy witch hunt was bad......almost makes it seem like the Salem witch trials are back....a reply to: Grambler

I ALSO read that Flakey Flake admitted that he was a slime ball because he is not running for reelection, so he has nothing to lose.....
when I saw him pussy out when that "woman" told him to look at her when she was speaking to him.....I just shook my head...what an absolute puss...and these are the people representing our country? If I were China or Russia or Iran or ? I would invade America right now....cause America looks REALLY weak right now.........REALLY weak and a LAUGHING stock.......what a joke. reply to: Grambler

a reply to: JasonBillung

Well you flipped me. Anyone that passionate about UB40 is clearly unqualified for the bench.

Sorry for the late reply.
Trying to equate Kavanaugh's "temperment" while under intense character assassination orchestrated by the minority party with the decorum of any court room (much less the Supreme Court) is pathetic, inane and ludicrous.

In a Court of Law, where there are rules, real issues, real questions, real evidence - not conjecture and banter from the committee members pimping for the cameras - a Judge maintains order, assures conduct, and enforces RULES.

In the US Senate there are no rules. Cannibals await to consume the reputations and spirit of all who enter their chambers. Member or not, if you are touched by the Senate, your life WILL be forever changed.

Senators would love to claim the gladiator spirit (I am Spartacus, oops) - but rely on the Ides of March solution (aka Nuclear Option) both figuratively and literally far too often. So, Spartacus was executed for his disclosures as was Cicero for his oratory and writing (and amputated his hands). Let's see what the FBI turns up this time around.

In a US Supreme Court Justice, my hope is that there is a fiery and consuming passion to embrace the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic - and other supplemental affirmations that only Justices make.

ganjoa

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Back to the topic, If Feinstein thought BK's speech was "unbelievable" perhaps she didn't remember Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing speech.

Watch it and compare what happened with Thomas with what is happening to BK.

History is merely repeating itself.

(For those not into politics in the 1990's and are unaware, here is SCJ Clarence Thomas and what he thought of what the liberals did to him to try to get him out. It is a good lesson. Look at his body language... this guy is PISSED)

Update 5.10.2022

Courtesy of ATS member "Flying Fox"..

How the REAL WORLD operates. Forget the "impartial" / "non-biased" pie in the sky bullchit.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Back to the topic, If Feinstein thought BK's speech was "unbelievable" perhaps she didn't remember Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing speech.

Watch it and compare what happened with Thomas with what is happening to BK.

History is merely repeating itself.

(For those not into politics in the 1990's and are unaware, here is SCJ Clarence Thomas and what he thought of what the liberals did to him to try to get him out. It is a good lesson. Look at his body language... this guy is PISSED)

Update 5.10.2022

Courtesy of ATS member "Flying Fox"..

How the REAL WORLD operates.

Forget the "impartial" / "non-biased" pie in the sky bullchit.

gee ii wonder what their temperament is now that they have lefty mobs in front of their houses?

i'm sure it's about up to here.

It's an interesting quandry... the only reason that those lefty mobs are in front of their homes right now is to try and sway/bully their emotions towards the ruling the lefty mob wants. (Feel free to change my mind.)

If that's the case, and the justices could be affected by emotions/temperment, how can the lefty mobs complain if the justices are already ruling with emotion based on how they have been treated by the Democrats?

I'm not sure if this is 'check' or 'checkmate' but I'll hand it back to you guys.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
It's an interesting quandry... the only reason that those lefty mobs are in front of their homes right now is to try and sway/bully their emotions towards the ruling the lefty mob wants. (Feel free to change my mind.)

If that's the case, and the justices could be affected by emotions/temperment, how can the lefty mobs complain if the justices are already ruling with emotion based on how they have been treated by the Democrats?

I'm not sure if this is 'check' or 'checkmate' but I'll hand it back to you guys.

they can't complain.

it's like what was said about rittenhouse.

ya can't start a fight then kill the guy and claim self defense. or something like that.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
It's an interesting quandry... the only reason that those lefty mobs are in front of their homes right now is to try and sway/bully their emotions towards the ruling the lefty mob wants. (Feel free to change my mind.)

If that's the case, and the justices could be affected by emotions/temperment, how can the lefty mobs complain if the justices are already ruling with emotion based on how they have been treated by the Democrats?

I'm not sure if this is 'check' or 'checkmate' but I'll hand it back to you guys.

they can't complain.

it's like what was said about rittenhouse.

ya can't start a fight then kill the guy and claim self defense. or something like that.

Of course they can complain. The only standards they have are doubled.