Why be so desperate to confirm Kavanaugh? Who paid off his debts, I wonder? Something really smells badly. Like really badly. Must be another Clinton conspiracy.
Why be so desperate to confirm Kavanaugh? Who paid off his debts, I wonder? Something really smells badly. Like really badly. Must be another Clinton conspiracy.
Like Pizzagate? Or maybe a really juicy one like sex slaves on Mars?
Why be so desperate to confirm Kavanaugh? Who paid off his debts, I wonder? Something really smells badly. Like really badly. Must be another Clinton conspiracy.
Like Pizzagate? Or maybe a really juicy one like sex slaves on Mars?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This entire fiasco is just obscene.
It could be as simple as the D Team is in charge within the Team Trump Treason Administration and it’s par for the course. But me thinks McConnell is trying to hide something.
Why be so desperate to confirm Kavanaugh? Who paid off his debts, I wonder? Something really smells badly. Like really badly. Must be another Clinton conspiracy.
Like Pizzagate? Or maybe a really juicy one like sex slaves on Mars?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This entire fiasco is just obscene.
It could be as simple as the D Team is in charge within the Team Trump Treason Administration and it’s par for the course. But me thinks McConnell is trying to hide something.
If they don't make it public, someone will definitely leak it anyway. So ridiculous that we the people are being kept in the dark about a lifetime appointment that impacts the entire country and could influence global decisions as well.
I still don't understand why any further discovery really needs to be made after all the blatant lies about his past and the overly partisan diatribe he gave as an opening statement. Most publicly biased judge to sit on the bench.
You only go that route if you know the vote is going to be yes for confirmation, but people love Trump so much that they send him fan mail with extra goodies included.
At this point, does anyone doubt that he will be confirmed?
No. This is who we are.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
She's just a voice actor who thought it would be funny to mimic Dr. Ford's voice. She later apologized for her insensitivity and noted that she very much sides with Dr. Ford's testimony -- that's her take on the hearing, FWIW.
She's just a voice actor who thought it would be funny to mimic Dr. Ford's voice. She later apologized for her insensitivity and noted that she very much sides with Dr. Ford's testimony -- that's her take on the hearing, FWIW.
Ok. Did you happen to see any of the hate mail that Rachel Butera received? Before she took it down and apologized? You know damn well that if she had double down or not apologized or not said what she was supposed to say, that Disney would drop her. I assume she wants to keep her acting career intact. It's just like when Kanye West wanders off and says stuff that he's not supposed to say people freek out. The difference is Kayne West doesn't back down. I don't blame Rachel for not wanting her acting career to end today. She said what she needed to say. She's lucky she still has her job.
Unless the FBI report is under 140 characters, I don't see any point on releasing it to the public.
That's easy, Witch Hunt. That's all Trump needs to say.
This is the 'control-alt-delete' phrase for the base.
When they hear this from their leader... all the concerns that might have started to arise within their super intelligent brains just go away and they become reinvigorated again- hating democrats with an even greater tension level given the attack they surmounted against their mushroom-dicked, tubby leader.
She's just a voice actor who thought it would be funny to mimic Dr. Ford's voice. She later apologized for her insensitivity and noted that she very much sides with Dr. Ford's testimony -- that's her take on the hearing, FWIW.
Ok. Did you happen to see any of the hate mail that Rachel Butera received? Before she took it down and apologized? You know damn well that if she had double down or not apologized or not said what she was supposed to say, that Disney would drop her. I assume she wants to keep her acting career intact. It's just like when Kanye West wanders off and says stuff that he's not supposed to say people freek out. The difference is Kayne West doesn't back down. I don't blame Rachel for not wanting her acting career to end today. She said what she needed to say. She's lucky she still has her job.
Uh, OK. I don’t damn well know any of that.
I’m going on words that she actually publicly stated, and you’re going on pure conjecture.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
The following letter will be presented to
the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more
signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most
important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service
explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased,
impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a
result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our
founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the
Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity
and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and
write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear
in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to
do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that
we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views
that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh
displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for
any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this
land.
The question at issue was of course painful for
anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious
inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy,
Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his
prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan,
referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather
than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information,
to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out
with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh
responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he
interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias
and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being
perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a
judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are
part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the
judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other
qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of
law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not
display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on
the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
The following letter will be presented to
the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more
signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most
important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service
explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased,
impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a
result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our
founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the
Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity
and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and
write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear
in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to
do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that
we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views
that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh
displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for
any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this
land.
The question at issue was of course painful for
anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious
inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy,
Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his
prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan,
referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather
than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information,
to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out
with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh
responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he
interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias
and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being
perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a
judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are
part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the
judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other
qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of
law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not
display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on
the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
The following letter will be presented to
the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more
signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most
important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service
explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased,
impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a
result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our
founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the
Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity
and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and
write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear
in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to
do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that
we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views
that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh
displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for
any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this
land.
The question at issue was of course painful for
anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious
inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy,
Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his
prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan,
referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather
than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information,
to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out
with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh
responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he
interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias
and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being
perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a
judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are
part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the
judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other
qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of
law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not
display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on
the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
If I am wrong later I will admit it but which way do these judges vote?
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
The following letter will be presented to
the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more
signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most
important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service
explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased,
impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a
result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our
founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the
Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity
and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and
write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear
in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to
do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that
we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views
that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh
displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for
any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this
land.
The question at issue was of course painful for
anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious
inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy,
Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his
prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan,
referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather
than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information,
to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out
with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh
responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he
interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias
and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being
perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a
judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are
part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the
judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other
qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of
law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not
display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on
the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
Too many words
Agreed.
If they they presented their case in the form of a pop up book... they'd stand a chance!
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Mitch McConnell Says FBI’s Kavanaugh Report Won’t Be Made Public
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-fbi-kavanaugh-report-public_us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Like Pizzagate? Or maybe a really juicy one like sex slaves on Mars?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This entire fiasco is just obscene.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I still don't understand why any further discovery really needs to be made after all the blatant lies about his past and the overly partisan diatribe he gave as an opening statement. Most publicly biased judge to sit on the bench.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
With this administration, yes. Yes it does.
Haha.
She's just a voice actor who thought it would be funny to mimic Dr. Ford's voice. She later apologized for her insensitivity and noted that she very much sides with Dr. Ford's testimony -- that's her take on the hearing, FWIW.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You know damn well that if she had double down or not apologized or not said what she was supposed to say, that Disney would drop her. I assume she wants to keep her acting career intact. It's just like when Kanye West wanders off and says stuff that he's not supposed to say people freek out. The difference is Kayne West doesn't back down.
I don't blame Rachel for not wanting her acting career to end today. She said what she needed to say. She's lucky she still has her job.
When they hear this from their leader... all the concerns that might have started to arise within their super intelligent brains just go away and they become reinvigorated again- hating democrats with an even greater tension level given the attack they surmounted against their mushroom-dicked, tubby leader.
I’m going on words that she actually publicly stated, and you’re going on pure conjecture.
OCT. 3, 2018
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.
The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
If they they presented their case in the form of a pop up book... they'd stand a chance!