Kavanaugh

Options
17879818384105

Comments

  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,396
    The incels in America and on here are lining up to support these misogynistic idiots
  • OnWis97
    OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,610
    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
    2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • HesCalledDyer
    HesCalledDyer Maryland Posts: 16,491
    There’s that classic saying that if the prefix con- is the opposite of pro- does that make Congress the opposite of progress?

    With this administration, yes. Yes it does.
  • Haha, just heard on Cuomos show that they got a letter from back then when he writes FFFF again? 

    Haha.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • RYME
    RYME Wisconsin Posts: 1,904
    This girl had an interesting take on the hearing as well.  Check it out.

    https://youtu.be/QY19q3nxSpQ
  • dankind
    dankind Posts: 20,841
    edited October 2018
    RYME said:
    This girl had an interesting take on the hearing as well.  Check it out.

    https://youtu.be/QY19q3nxSpQ
    Not at all a take on the hearing.

    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.
    Post edited by dankind on
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927

  • CM189191 said:

    Ouch! “Everyday is a lifetime” I wonder if Kavanaugh believes in hell?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    She forgot to ask forgiveness for him being an old white dude.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    Unless the FBI report is under 140 characters, I don't see any point on releasing it to the public.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Jason P said:
    Unless the FBI report is under 140 characters, I don't see any point on releasing it to the public.
    This is a good point 
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,399
    Jason P said:
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • RYME
    RYME Wisconsin Posts: 1,904
    edited October 2018
    dankind said:
    RYME said:
    This girl had an interesting take on the hearing as well.  Check it out.

    https://youtu.be/QY19q3nxSpQ
    Not at all a take on the hearing.

    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.
    Post edited by RYME on
  • tbergs said:
    Jason P said:
    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.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dankind
    dankind Posts: 20,841
    RYME said:
    dankind said:
    RYME said:
    This girl had an interesting take on the hearing as well.  Check it out.

    https://youtu.be/QY19q3nxSpQ
    Not at all a take on the hearing.

    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. 
    I SAW PEARL JAM

  • 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.



    Too many words
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©

  • 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!
    "My brain's a good brain!"