|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 10, 2018 1:23:16 GMT
I honestly didn't think he could get past his ties to the Bush family. Not a bad pick. Probably a little heavy on executive privilege for my liking. Said he would support precedent on Roe v Wade during his confirmation to DC Court. I'm a bit surprised he picked someone with so much experience (which sounds awful) but I really expected one of the new appointees that had just been through confirmation hearings. 10+ years is a whole lot of rulings to dig through and argue about. It'll be interesting to see if McConnell can finish the process before November.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jul 10, 2018 1:52:14 GMT
I am hoping this will be ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 10, 2018 2:00:13 GMT
He’s full of shit on Roe V. Wade. That is precisely the reason he’s been nominated.
He’s a huge step to the right, even further than Gorsuch.
This is not okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 10, 2018 2:10:00 GMT
I think he was nominated for his statements on “sitting presidents should not be indicted while in office”!
Edited to correct an auto correct!
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,017 
|
Post by huskergal on Jul 10, 2018 2:11:17 GMT
I honk he was nominated for his statements on “sitting presidents should not be indicted while in office”! I agree and that is terrifying! |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 10, 2018 2:16:43 GMT
He’s full of shit on Roe V. Wade. That is precisely the reason he’s been nominated. He’s a huge step to the right, even further than Gorsuch. This is not okay. Why do you say he's full of shit on Roe v Wade? He made that statement 10+ years ago and even when he was dissenting on the case of the pregnant immigrant, he did not contest her right to an abortion. I'm hearing lots and lots of hand wringing from the pro-life contingent. |
|
|
|
Post by mom26 on Jul 10, 2018 2:46:46 GMT
I honk he was nominated for his statements on “sitting presidents should not be indicted while in office”! I agree and that is terrifying! Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Kavanaugh's statement is in line with constitutional law. Once out of office is a different story. In office? No, a sitting president cannot be indicted. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 10, 2018 3:16:49 GMT
Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution... Translation - Kavanaugh believes a judge's job is to rule on laws we already have and not to create new law. That's a problem for people who want judges to create new law. |
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,017
|
Post by huskergal on Jul 10, 2018 15:56:08 GMT
I agree and that is terrifying! Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Kavanaugh's statement is in line with constitutional law. Once out of office is a different story. In office? No, a sitting president cannot be indicted. It doesn't seem to be as simple as that. Link |
|
carhoch
Pearl Clutcher
Be yourself everybody else is already taken
Posts: 2,992
Location: We’re RV’s so It change all the time .
|
Post by carhoch on Jul 10, 2018 16:02:27 GMT
NBC has deleted tweet and modified story: Justice Kennedy gave WH list of names, Kavanaugh was on there, was added to WH list. Still raises conflict questions & issues--must be probed in hearings. Let's wait for facts to develop fully then assess any conflict & cloud it castsThat just popped on Twitter and I don’t even know if it’s legal
NBC Is retracting the story
Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @lacaldwelldc & @frankthorp
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 10, 2018 16:15:40 GMT
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,017
|
Post by huskergal on Jul 10, 2018 16:18:13 GMT
That just popped on Twitter and I don’t even know if it’s legal Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @lacaldwelldc & @frankthorp That sucks if that is true. |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jul 10, 2018 16:29:44 GMT
LOL...as if Democrats believe that Obama or any other President and S Ct Justice would use strategy in looking for a replacement.
Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office.
SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it.
|
|
carhoch
Pearl Clutcher
Be yourself everybody else is already taken
Posts: 2,992
Location: We’re RV’s so It change all the time .
|
Post by carhoch on Jul 10, 2018 16:35:38 GMT
Look like NBC is retracting that story
NBC has deleted tweet and modified story: Justice Kennedy gave WH list of names, Kavanaugh was on there, was added to WH list. Still raises conflict questions & issues--must be probed in hearings. Let's wait for facts to develop fully then assess any conflict & cloud it casts
|
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Jul 10, 2018 16:55:54 GMT
Why the fuck was Justice Kennedy in any sort of communication with Trump about his replacement? Especially while Kennedy was ruling on Trump's Muslim ban?
The level of corruption surrounding this administration and court is something I thought I'd never see in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jul 10, 2018 17:10:38 GMT
LOL...as if Democrats believe that Obama or any other President and S Ct Justice would use strategy in looking for a replacement. Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it. Saying that you won’t retire until there’s a person from your party in the White House is not the same as having a hand in actually naming your successor. I don’t fault Kennedy for waiting until there was a republican in office to retire. Makes sense to me. I won’t fault RBG for doing the same. |
|
|
|
Post by lucillebluth on Jul 10, 2018 17:23:36 GMT
Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it. Has she? Do you have a source for that? I remember there were suggestions that she should retire while Obama was in office, which she (obviously) rejected. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 22:38:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 17:36:06 GMT
I didn't know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a bout with Pancreatic cancer several years ago. That is wonderful that she's still alive. Many many people don't recover from that. Good for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 10, 2018 17:45:50 GMT
Why the fuck was Justice Kennedy in any sort of communication with Trump about his replacement? Especially while Kennedy was ruling on Trump's Muslim ban? The level of corruption surrounding this administration and court is something I thought I'd never see in my lifetime. And the level of incompetence by the "news" organizations is just as disgusting. NBC has already had to retract and try and clarify. Leonard Leo who was intimately involved with the process has stated unequivocally it was "garbage" www.hughhewitt.com/leonard-leo-of-the-federalist-society-on-the-nomination-of-judge-kavanaugh/And the "reporter" on twitter: I'll say bluntly - this isn't reporting. This is spreading rumors on twitter. I'm disgusted that NBC has sunk this low. |
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,017
|
Post by huskergal on Jul 10, 2018 17:46:06 GMT
LOL...as if Democrats believe that Obama or any other President and S Ct Justice would use strategy in looking for a replacement. Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it. Is she hand-picking her replacement? |
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 10, 2018 17:47:10 GMT
So knowing that his son's previously undisclosed professional and dubiously legal banking relationship with Trump was about to be revealed, Kennedy started to negotiate his departure and may well have selected his own replacement (if Kavanaugh was selected from a list Kennedy provided.) Said replacement happens to believe that sitting Presidents shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits or criminal investigations. (One wonders how Congress would ever determine a high crime or misdemeanor had occurred if there are to be no investigations.) This is all completely normal. Everything is fine.
Seriously, the first question should be 1) will you recuse yourself from any cases related to the business activities, civil lawsuits and/or criminal investigations of Donald J. Trump and the Trump organization? and 2) did Donald Trump or anyone involved in the nomination decision ask for your loyalty to Donald Trump?
The legal nitty gritty - eh, I could not be more unhappy with how I know he's going to rule but we lost. Dems didn't fight for Merrick Garland, Dems didn't look at the big picture in 2016 and this was the inevitable result. We let Russian bots confuse, distract and divide us and we got the spawn of Putin in return. But the unholy stink of corruption and non-existent ethics that follows this gargoyle of a man everywhere he goes now threatens the Supreme Court of the United States and if there is even one iota of doubt as to whether or not Kavanaugh was brought in to protect DJT from civil and criminal prosecution, it's time for a new level of resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 10, 2018 18:15:18 GMT
Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it. Has she? Do you have a source for that? I remember there were suggestions that she should retire while Obama was in office, which she (obviously) rejected. Actually her comments were more blunt in 2014 (when ironically not only was President Obama in power, BUT the Democrats had a majority in the Senate) and people were publicly encouraging her to retire: She calculated that the republicans would filibuster a judge as liberal as her and the Democrats wouldn't expand the nuclear option to the Supreme Court. I think very highly of Justice Ginsberg's intelligence - her political calculation however was extremely misguided and I fear liberals will rue her decision. |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jul 10, 2018 18:21:21 GMT
LOL...as if Democrats believe that Obama or any other President and S Ct Justice would use strategy in looking for a replacement. Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. SSDD...good if Dems do it; bad if Reps do it. Is she hand-picking her replacement? Not no, she isn't. However, if Clinton had won, I wouldn't be the least surprised if she did or that you would defend it. |
|
|
|
Post by lucillebluth on Jul 10, 2018 18:22:46 GMT
Has she? Do you have a source for that? I remember there were suggestions that she should retire while Obama was in office, which she (obviously) rejected. Actually her comments were more blunt in 2014 (when ironically not only was President Obama in power, BUT the Democrats had a majority in the Senate) and people were publicly encouraging her to retire: She calculated that the republicans would filibuster a judge as liberal as her and the Democrats wouldn't expand the nuclear option to the Supreme Court. I think very highly of Justice Ginsberg's intelligence - her political calculation however was extremely misguided and I fear liberals will rue her decision. None of that validates what the previous poster wrote: "Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has repeatedly claimed she will not retire until there's a Democrat in the Oval Office." |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 10, 2018 18:33:48 GMT
So knowing that his son's previously undisclosed professional and dubiously legal banking relationship with Trump was about to be revealed, Kennedy started to negotiate his departure and may well have selected his own replacement (if Kavanaugh was selected from a list Kennedy provided.) Said replacement happens to believe that sitting Presidents shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits or criminal investigations. (One wonders how Congress would ever determine a high crime or misdemeanor had occurred if there are to be no investigations.) This is all completely normal. Everything is fine. Seriously, the first question should be 1) will you recuse yourself from any cases related to the business activities, civil lawsuits and/or criminal investigations of Donald J. Trump and the Trump organization? and 2) did Donald Trump or anyone involved in the nomination decision ask for your loyalty to Donald Trump? The legal nitty gritty - eh, I could not be more unhappy with how I know he's going to rule but we lost. Dems didn't fight for Merrick Garland, Dems didn't look at the big picture in 2016 and this was the inevitable result. We let Russian bots confuse, distract and divide us and we got the spawn of Putin in return. But the unholy stink of corruption and non-existent ethics that follows this gargoyle of a man everywhere he goes now threatens the Supreme Court of the United States and if there is even one iota of doubt as to whether or not Kavanaugh was brought in to protect DJT from civil and criminal prosecution, it's time for a new level of resistance. What exactly was dubiously legal about Kennedy's son's relationship with Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 10, 2018 18:38:16 GMT
I agree and that is terrifying! Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Kavanaugh's statement is in line with constitutional law. Once out of office is a different story. In office? No, a sitting president cannot be indicted. I can't find that prohibition in Article 1, Section 3. Maybe you can find it for me. |
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 10, 2018 18:40:46 GMT
Why the fuck was Justice Kennedy in any sort of communication with Trump about his replacement? Especially while Kennedy was ruling on Trump's Muslim ban? The level of corruption surrounding this administration and court is something I thought I'd never see in my lifetime. And the level of incompetence by the "news" organizations is just as disgusting. NBC has already had to retract and try and clarify. Leonard Leo who was intimately involved with the process has stated unequivocally it was "garbage" www.hughhewitt.com/leonard-leo-of-the-federalist-society-on-the-nomination-of-judge-kavanaugh/And the "reporter" on twitter: I'll say bluntly - this isn't reporting. This is spreading rumors on twitter. I'm disgusted that NBC has sunk this low. NBC should only report per good standards of journalism, but Leonard Leo is very partisan and has basically handpicked 3?4? Of the justices almost singlehanded. He and his cronies have immense power and none of them have been elected. Not someone who is impartial in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by mom26 on Jul 10, 2018 18:46:03 GMT
Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Kavanaugh's statement is in line with constitutional law. Once out of office is a different story. In office? No, a sitting president cannot be indicted. I can't find that prohibition in Article 1, Section 3. Maybe you can find it for me. Basically, a sitting president cannot be indicted unless and until he is impeached and no longer holds the office. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 10, 2018 18:54:40 GMT
I can't find that prohibition in Article 1, Section 3. Maybe you can find it for me. Basically, a sitting president cannot be indicted unless and until he is impeached and no longer holds the office. That's not what it says, though. The fact is that the Justice Dept. has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. A policy can be changed. Not that these toe-suckers who are currently in charge would do any such thing. Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of indicting a sitting president, either. Even this one. But to claim that the Constitution "prohibits" it is just propaganda. It does not. |
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 10, 2018 19:04:44 GMT
We'll have to wait to see what Mueller has found out re. the Deutsche bank loans but at this point anything related to Deutsche Bank and real estate loans made to someone most other banks wouldn't loan to, particularly during the time frame Deutsche bank was definitely laundering money for Russia - eh? Maybe just a lot of smoke. But certainly worthy of the word dubious.
|
|
