Jump to content


Photo

Kavanaugh Confirmed


18 replies to this topic

#1 19April1775

19April1775

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Get over democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative. Let us Americans understand liberty versus tyranny and nothing else.

Posted 06 October 2018 - 03:32 PM

That was fast.


The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to despense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

#2 19April1775

19April1775

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Get over democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative. Let us Americans understand liberty versus tyranny and nothing else.

Posted 06 October 2018 - 03:36 PM

50-48.


The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to despense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

#3 ginger

ginger

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,614 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 07:24 PM

Let's all go out for a beer! Oh darn, :(  I can't...I have to be back to work. I wonder what brand of beer Kavanaugh drinks?  :)



#4 FormerSomeone

FormerSomeone

    Studmuffin Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The hills NE of Binghamton
  • Interests:Many and varied.

Posted 06 October 2018 - 08:53 PM

I wonder what brand of beer Kavanaugh drinks?  :)

 

 

blackout-fixed_1.png


Politicians, like underwear, should be changed frequently.  And for the same reasons.


#5 Kahuna

Kahuna

    Novice Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 06:37 AM

One great step for man.....



#6 BubbaGump

BubbaGump

    Professional Ball buster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,749 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2018 - 10:56 AM

Was there any doubt? And the Dems just get deeper.

#7 JB 2

JB 2

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,058 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 October 2018 - 12:40 PM

Was there any doubt? And the Dems just get deeper.

 

Good things happen when Good Americans stand and fight back. . Ain't it Grand? 



#8 Jack McGurn

Jack McGurn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 01:42 PM

It's about time that someone, especially a white male in today's America, has finally stood his ground against this new brand of sexual McCarthyism.

By now it should be crystal clear to any rational thinking American that this desperate dangerous divisive Democrat Party/ media driven practice of conviction through accusation flies directly in the face of the very root of our justice system......and needs to end.....or we will as a nation.

"When the debate is lost; slander becomes the tool of the loser".

#9 M_Sable

M_Sable

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,655 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 October 2018 - 04:27 PM

I was disappointed by the grandstanding from both parties.

 

Can't credit "he said, she said" from that far back....I can hardly remember the 1970's, let alone one party ;)

 

I was, though, not impressed with Kavenaugh's lack of Supreme Court ability to not let someone get your goat.

 

Whatever. He got his nomination and that is that. Buck up and deal.



#10 Jack McGurn

Jack McGurn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 05:21 PM

Disagree......"let someone get your goat" is a hell of way down the road when it's claimed that you're a gang rapist......from high school days...most especially with a family involved. And, as I stated in my post, it's about time someone, especially a white male today, let their goat be got.

Let us be perfectly clear here. This isn't at all about the Ford woman at all. She will be tossed out and forgotten tomorrow. This is ALL about an orchestrated "resistance" movement to a duly elected President of the United States. This country is being poisoned by the left supported by a blatantly jaded leftist media. And the ONLY protection "we the people" have from the transformed radical Democratic Party, etal., is the Supreme Court!!!!! And that's a fact says Jack!

#11 M_Sable

M_Sable

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,655 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 October 2018 - 09:43 PM

So...the "duly elected President of the United States" that nominated a highly qualified judge in the person of Merrick Garland was stonewalled for a year and that's OK with you, despite no negatives other than partisan preference? If the Supreme Court becomes just another jousting arena between two flocked-up parties, then we are headed for trouble.



#12 Caveman

Caveman

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,459 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 October 2018 - 11:04 PM

43253560_1978541068860030_43145055875608


dt-101.jpg

 

 

 

"Strategic escape, it's like running away only manlier"

Madagascar Penguins


#13 Caveman

Caveman

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,459 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 08 October 2018 - 06:54 AM

43390592_2351027938245719_75707815231592


dt-101.jpg

 

 

 

"Strategic escape, it's like running away only manlier"

Madagascar Penguins


#14 ginger

ginger

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,614 posts

Posted 08 October 2018 - 07:46 AM

So...the "duly elected President of the United States" that nominated a highly qualified judge in the person of Merrick Garland was stonewalled for a year and that's OK with you, despite no negatives other than partisan preference? If the Supreme Court becomes just another jousting arena between two flocked-up parties, then we are headed for trouble.

Actually Sable I was not OK with that and I'm still not.  Every time his name pops up I feel just a tad unsettled. He may have some unfinished business.



#15 OTR

OTR

    Professional Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 775 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 October 2018 - 12:14 PM

So...the "duly elected President of the United States" that nominated a highly qualified judge in the person of Merrick Garland was stonewalled for a year and that's OK with you, despite no negatives other than partisan preference? If the Supreme Court becomes just another jousting arena between two flocked-up parties, then we are headed for trouble.

 

I'm okay with the partisan behaviors concerning both Garland and Kavanaugh, though I'm not fond of the means/methodology of the latter (concern over someone's high school and college drinking habits? pffft).

 

The court should be non-partisan. Each case should be decided based on the words in the Constitution and the words of the law(s) under consideration. That's how it should be, but that's not how it is. Each and every controversial case gets decided 5-4. The fact is that SCOTUS is a partisan entity, and probably always has been.

 

Cognizance of that fact makes it entirely reasonable for Republicans to see Scalia's seat as their primary conservative seat, and for liberals to see Kennedy's seat as their swing seat. Liberals put up a left-leaning moderate (I'd say a moderate-leaning leftist) to replace the conservative seat (Scalia was more than just a conservative vote, he held influence over other justices as well)... they should have absolutely expected stiff opposition, particularly given that they did not hold the senate majority. Republicans put up a staunch conservative to replace a swing vote... they should have absolutely expected stiff opposition.

 

The solution is to get politics out of the court. But if we knew how to do that, we already would have.



#16 19April1775

19April1775

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Get over democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative. Let us Americans understand liberty versus tyranny and nothing else.

Posted 08 October 2018 - 12:43 PM

So...the "duly elected President of the United States" that nominated a highly qualified judge in the person of Merrick Garland was stonewalled for a year and that's OK with you, despite no negatives other than partisan preference? If the Supreme Court becomes just another jousting arena between two flocked-up parties, then we are headed for trouble.

 

You are playing loose with the facts. The Senate refused to hold hearings and vote on his nomination because they were following the Joe Biden rule, yeah, the same Joe Biden who was Obama's VP. When Biden was in the Senate he got a rule accepted that said the Senate would not entertain any President's nomination for SCOTUS if the President was in his or her last year in Office. So your comparison is bunk.


The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to despense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

#17 M_Sable

M_Sable

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,655 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted Yesterday, 10:19 PM

Actually Sable I was not OK with that and I'm still not.  Every time his name pops up I feel just a tad unsettled. He may have some unfinished business.

 

Yah never know Ginger. I guess I just wish that the Supreme Court nominating process was above all of this.  We'll see. Judge Kavenaugh may turn out to be just fine, as once they get on the Court they tend to to become less worried about partisan BS.



#18 M_Sable

M_Sable

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,655 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted Yesterday, 10:20 PM

 

You are playing loose with the facts. The Senate refused to hold hearings and vote on his nomination because they were following the Joe Biden rule, yeah, the same Joe Biden who was Obama's VP. When Biden was in the Senate he got a rule accepted that said the Senate would not entertain any President's nomination for SCOTUS if the President was in his or her last year in Office. So your comparison is bunk.

 

Hmmmmm....interesting.



#19 ginger

ginger

    Ready for Retirement

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,614 posts

Posted Today, 07:16 AM

I bet they were playing manhunt.





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users