Donald Trump
Comments
-
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.0 -
Yeah...I think they had reason to not uphold the nomination and it's too bad partisanism is so ugly right now, but I don't think impeachment can even be on the radar. His role is to move past what he interpreted as a "hit." I don't think he will, but at this point, there's nothing to point to that's impeachable.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?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, Wrigley0 -
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.0 -
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.0 -
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
0 -
Would you not be a barrister or justice if you were nominated and confirmed but had never gone to law school or been formally educated, thus an unlearned barrister?mrussel1 said:
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
dignin said:
It was more than just drinking games. How soon people forget.Halifax2TheMax said:
I thought it was more than just “drinking games” that was the subject of the perjury allegation, previous testimony before congress where he either lied or gave misleading testimony, perhaps during his confirmation hearing for the federal bench? Regardless, the subject matter of the perjury allegation shouldn’t be the determinant of whether it’s worth it, a violation or perjury. It’s either perjury or it’s not, regardless of the subject matter.mrussel1 said:
I'm sure he did, related to the obviously false definitions of the drinking games. But no evidence has come to light that would have changed a vote. If it's tongue in cheek, fine. But I hope people don't really think he should be impeached. It cheapens the impeachable offenses that Don is engaged in now, by not honoring the authority of the legislative branch.Halifax2TheMax said:
I believe he perjured himself during his confirmation hearings, making him unfit for the office despite a yea confirmation vote.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?right, if there were an actual thorough investigation , certain allegations may prove valid legally even past the statute of limitations.also be able to see if hes a functional drunk, which is disqualifying to me._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I'm pretty sure a barrister needs to have a law degree, plus a few years of other experience. I'm not in England so not really sure. When I first read it, I thought you said barista! I was going to type... yeah I don't want a liar or a barista on the bench.Halifax2TheMax said:
Would you not be a barrister or justice if you were nominated and confirmed but had never gone to law school or been formally educated, thus an unlearned barrister?mrussel1 said:
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
0 -
My use of the term “barrister” May have been a mistake as it may not be a term that’s interchangeable with “justice” or judge. In my uninformed mind, it’s all the same to me.mrussel1 said:
I'm pretty sure a barrister needs to have a law degree, plus a few years of other experience. I'm not in England so not really sure. When I first read it, I thought you said barista! I was going to type... yeah I don't want a liar or a barista on the bench.Halifax2TheMax said:
Would you not be a barrister or justice if you were nominated and confirmed but had never gone to law school or been formally educated, thus an unlearned barrister?mrussel1 said:
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I think justice of the peace would be the one you're looking for here. They are appointed by the people and need no formal training.Halifax2TheMax said:
My use of the term “barrister” May have been a mistake as it may not be a term that’s interchangeable with “justice” or judge. In my uninformed mind, it’s all the same to me.mrussel1 said:
I'm pretty sure a barrister needs to have a law degree, plus a few years of other experience. I'm not in England so not really sure. When I first read it, I thought you said barista! I was going to type... yeah I don't want a liar or a barista on the bench.Halifax2TheMax said:
Would you not be a barrister or justice if you were nominated and confirmed but had never gone to law school or been formally educated, thus an unlearned barrister?mrussel1 said:
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
0 -
I’m still arguing that the POTUS could potentially nominate someone for a seat or office and be wholly unqualified and with a complicit senate, be sworn in. The house, via impeachment, could try to do something about it.mrussel1 said:
I think justice of the peace would be the one you're looking for here. They are appointed by the people and need no formal training.Halifax2TheMax said:
My use of the term “barrister” May have been a mistake as it may not be a term that’s interchangeable with “justice” or judge. In my uninformed mind, it’s all the same to me.mrussel1 said:
I'm pretty sure a barrister needs to have a law degree, plus a few years of other experience. I'm not in England so not really sure. When I first read it, I thought you said barista! I was going to type... yeah I don't want a liar or a barista on the bench.Halifax2TheMax said:
Would you not be a barrister or justice if you were nominated and confirmed but had never gone to law school or been formally educated, thus an unlearned barrister?mrussel1 said:
How can a barrister be unlearned?Halifax2TheMax said:
Are we back to the context of the perjury charge, then? When you say “that’s a long way from kavanaugh?” Because an unlearned honest barrister might just be better than the most learned perjurer?mrussel1 said:
the fact that the Senate has kaiboshed some of the appointments for the Fed Reserve and the fact that they have already signaled that Cuccinelli is doa gives me some hope that something as egregious as what you are pointing out will not happen. If they somehow truly appointed someone like Jared, who doesn't have a law degree, then yes I would much more open to impeachment. To me, that's a long way from Kavanaugh.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m not talking about staining the justice, just the senators who voted for him. And the house doesn’t have oversight of the senate but it does have oversight of judicial and executive appointments via impeachment. And yes, even without a senate conviction, the house shouldn’t abrogate their constitutional duties. So Team Trump Treason nominates Jared Dear Boy or Paulie Manaforte for the Supreme Court and the repub senate majority are afraid of the big bad bully and they get confirmed. What’s the remedy, if not the house impeachment process?mrussel1 said:
So the House should impeach a Justice, based on his pre-consent testimony, even though the Senate isn't going to try (let alone convict). It's a waste of political capital and energy. Why are you trying to 'stain' a justice when he's not up for re-election? To what positive end does that serve?Halifax2TheMax said:
But the house is the check on the senate as the house has no role in the confirmation process. A repub senate and a repub potus could nominate and confirm the worst candidates for the judiciary and the house could check those appointments via impeachment hearings. The senate could find them not guilty but they’d be “stained.” IMHO, somebody who commits perjury isn’t Supreme Court material. It cheapens the Supreme Court. Or any court for that matter.mrussel1 said:
I don't take suggestions that lack seriousness, seriously. Think of it as a double jeopardy, but in confirmations. The Senate's role is to advise and provide consent. Once that consent is provided, it's not practical or legitimate to re-litigate the same issues just because a new group of senators has arrived. That would create a cycle that we would never break, and further devolve American politics. I have no interest is worsening our environment.dignin said:
Yes, Thomas is also unfit for the bench. I believe he also perjured himself when it came to his disgusting Anita Hill behaviour.mrussel1 said:
Certainly no immunity from it, but it would be ridiculous. Why not impeach Thomas for Anita Hill? Y'all are fooling yourselves.dignin said:
Haha, just because this particular senate voted for him doesn't make him unimpeachable for that. This is also the same senate that would never impeach Trump.mrussel1 said:
It's not even close to being impeachable. The Senators voted after he said this.dignin said:
The quote above should be enough. Play that whole hearing, case closed.mrussel1 said:
By what grounds should Kavanaugh be impeached? What has he done as a justice that warrants impeachment?ikiT said:If the Dems are going to drag their feet on impeachment of this daily fucking trainwreck of a Presidency, they should at least impeach Barr.
He literally standing there with BOTH his middle fingers extended to the US House. Obstruction in plain sight. We can see you bro.The ONLY person who is going to get away with this behavior is Don Trump himself.
The last I checked Bill Barr ISN'T Don Trump. Drag his monkey ass in to testify. All of them, Hope HIcks, McGahn, Don Jr. all those fuckers. What about Rick Gates? I haven't heard word ONE from him. They're called LAWS.
speaking of impeachment ...Kavanaugh, too. "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades."
What a douche.
Why is this taking so effing long?
He exposed himself as a conspiratorial partisan hack. Completely unfit for the position.
Why do you set the bar so low for such an important position? Do I think you need to be a saint? No. But surely out of all the qualified judges in America you can do better than those two.
And the House does not have oversight responsibility or authority on the Senate.
But think about if putting judges through impeachment trials based on their rulings became the norm. As soon as the House and/or Senate changed hands, there would be a steady stream of them.
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
What are they hiding??
House Oversight votes to hold Barr, Ross in contempt over census dispute https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/house-oversight-contempt-vote-barr-ross/index.html
0 -
That it was racially motivated, Team Trump Treason knew about it as such, endorsed it and when questions started being asked, lied about it and encouraged others to do the same, resulting in Wiiiiiiiiiilbur, lying to Congress at the direction of Team Trump Treason. What else is new?Bentleyspop said:What are they hiding??
House Oversight votes to hold Barr, Ross in contempt over census dispute https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/house-oversight-contempt-vote-barr-ross/index.html09/15/1998 & 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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Like see this paper right here? This one? In my hand? Now it’s in my pocket? But it’s a secret deal with Mexico. See? Here, I’ll take it out again and show you. See? It’s just like that and you’ll find out. See? Here it is again. I don’t know what else to tell you. Do you want to see it again? Here it is. See?
https://apple.news/Ae0yZp87dTLy37uOS5U8yGg
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Jordan knows all about political theaterBentleyspop said:What are they hiding??
House Oversight votes to hold Barr, Ross in contempt over census dispute https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/house-oversight-contempt-vote-barr-ross/index.html
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
So there are no rules
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/12/politics/donald-trump-abc-political-dirt-foreign-country-rivals/index.html
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help