Brett Kavanaugh--the president is above the law

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:43 am

He'll fit right in with the authoritarians who post here like 88, Left Seater, Suckaholic, Rooster, and Brainspray. God that's like 2/3 of the regular posters here.

What a surprise our mobbed-up president is picking a justice who thinks he's above the law. Calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned was just a ruse.

RIP USA

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/p ... hment.html

Judge Kavanaugh, who after working for Mr. Starr served as an aide to President George W. Bush, has since expressed misgivings about the toll investigations take on presidents. In 2009, he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:01 pm

Amazing. Well not really I guess.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:08 pm

What a totally asinine statement. No wonder a President would pick such a person. Had to be on Hillary’s short list as well just based on that one statement.

I am sure he will judge better than Merrick Garland though, eh snowflakes?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:24 pm

Left Seater wrote:BUT BUT BUT KKKIIIILLLLLAAAARRRRYYYYY!!!!!

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:58 pm

Roach wrote:So fuck him. He had a chance to do the right thing and get a woman into the position (as judge, you perverts), there are plenty of good ones in the pool. But no, he is too short sighted to see that by appointing a woman he could reveal his true colors and demonstrate his respect and acknowledge their equality. He could become a hero in the long run, maybe in his own time. An actual legacy.

But he did demonstrate his mind set and colors. Again.

He'll get another chance and at that time likely nominate Barrett, assuming Republicans keep control of congress.

Barrett was never going to get confirmed because of her stance on Roe v. Wade. The two pro choice republicans have already voted to confirm Kavanaugh once before, and will likely do it again.

If anyone is interested in a rational opinion on Kavanaugh from a liberal, I suggest this:

A Liberal's Case for Brett Kavanaugh

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:38 pm

Roach wrote:So fuck him. He had a chance to do the right thing and get a woman into the position (as judge, you perverts), there are plenty of good ones in the pool. But no, he is too short sighted to see that by appointing a woman he could reveal his true colors and demonstrate his respect and acknowledge their equality. He could become a hero in the long run, maybe in his own time. An actual legacy.

But he did demonstrate his mind set and colors. Again.

You expected something else? :?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:47 pm

Killian wrote:If anyone is interested in a rational opinion on Kavanaugh from a liberal, I suggest this:

A Liberal's Case for Brett Kavanaugh

Interesting article. Written by Akhil Reed Amar. Sounds like a Muslim.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:22 pm

I'm not on these boards enough to detect sarcasm, but if you're not using it, Akhil Reed Amar is a great read.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:29 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: God that's like 2/3 of the regular posters here.

So pretty much like all of society where hand wringing whimpering little bitches like yourself are in the minority and will be subject to the majority rule of those who wish to preserve our freedoms instead of instituting the socialist government worshiping state you so desire to see. Good call.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:58 pm

First off, Killian, good article. Keep linking excellent reads like that.

Second, there isn’t a Supreme Court nominee that the Left wouldn’t have objected to, as evidenced by various prominent individuals on the Left who said as much. So when Screwy is reflexively against Kavanaugh, a well regarded jurist, but makes no objection against the wise

Latina, Sotomayor, we see that it’s an issue of politics, not solid jurisprudence.

Finally, if Kavanaugh is an example of authoritarianism then the word has lost all meaning. And equating Constitutional originalism to authoritarianism or fascism— which is the subtext here —is ridiculous on the face of it. Why? Because it smears the Founding Fathers of being proto-fascists or white supremacists, which is the new lie that Progressives are pushing. Old dead white males anyone?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:51 pm

Killian wrote:I'm not on these boards enough to detect sarcasm, but if you're not using it, Akhil Reed Amar is a great read.

Hey, I was joking. I appreciated the article, found it very informative, and I think Kavanaugh should be approved by the Senate. I particularly liked this part:

Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.

Everyone would have to understand that in honestly answering, Judge Kavanaugh would not be making a pledge — a pledge would be a violation of judicial independence. In the future, he would of course be free to change his mind if confronted with new arguments or new facts, or even if he merely comes to see a matter differently with the weight of judgment on his shoulders. But honest discussions of one’s current legal views are entirely proper, and without them confirmation hearings are largely pointless.

The compromise I’m proposing would depart from recent confirmation practice. But the current confirmation process is badly broken, alternating between rubber stamps and witch hunts. My proposal would enable each constitutional actor to once again play its proper constitutional role: The Senate could become a venue for serious constitutional conversation, and the nominee could demonstrate his or her consummate legal skill. And equally important: Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninetysomething Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fiftysomething votes he is likely to get.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:58 pm

Rooster wrote:Because it smears the Founding Fathers of being proto-fascists or white supremacists, which is the new lie that Progressives are pushing.

Someone is suggesting that the Founding Fathers who owned slaves were white supremacists? The horror.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:12 pm

Really? So that’s the new standard to which people from a different time and place are measured? Shall we apply the same measurement against your behavior, say, as a child? After all, that was a different time and place, but since all things are now equal, childish tantrums should be viewed in the light of our present day. Or perhaps you stole a candy bar from a grocery store as a kid. That means you’re a thief now, right?

Keep spewing those Progressive talking points, Goobs. You’re making a ton of headway!

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:19 pm

Rooster wrote:Really? So that’s the new standard to which people from a different time and place are measured? Shall we apply the same measurement against your behavior, say, as a child? After all, that was a different time and place, but since all things are now equal, childish tantrums should be viewed in the light of our present day. Or perhaps you stole a candy bar from a grocery store as a kid. That means you’re a thief now, right?

So you're equating me as a child with full-grown adults Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Hey, you might be onto something.

No, you're still a fucking moron.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:25 pm

Rooster wrote:So when Screwy is reflexively against Kavanaugh, a well regarded jurist, but makes no objection against the wise Latina, Sotomayor, we see that it’s an issue of politics, not solid jurisprudence.

I'm sorry, did Sotomayor come out and say the president is above the law? Link, me, oh wise moron.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:04 pm

No. But Sotomater believes she's above the law.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Hey, you stupid bitch -- your job is to evaluate whether a law is constitutional or not, and your national origin (USA) and your gender have fuck-all to do with a "yes" or "no" answer. Your job isn't to decide what you think the law should be.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:35 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Rooster wrote:Really? So that’s the new standard to which people from a different time and place are measured? Shall we apply the same measurement against your behavior, say, as a child? After all, that was a different time and place, but since all things are now equal, childish tantrums should be viewed in the light of our present day. Or perhaps you stole a candy bar from a grocery store as a kid. That means you’re a thief now, right?
So you're equating me as a child with full-grown adults Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Hey, you might be onto something.

No, you're still a fucking moron.

I could use any number of examples that distort who you are versus what you’ve done or who you once were. Have you ever gone faster than the speed limit? You’re a degenerate scofflaw, a reckless offender whose weapon of choice is a four wheeled vehicle. Ever broken a promise to your wife or kids? You’re a lying cheat who welshes on your word and who should never ever be trusted to do what you say you will. Cut out of work early but still claimed 8 full hours for pay? You’re a thief and drag on society.

The fact that you label anyone from the past a racist based on today’s criteria shows just how deep you are steeped in PC culture and the Progressive agenda of revising history to suit the narrative laid out by the Tom Steyns, Tom Perezes, Nancy Pelosis, and Chuck Shumers.

I’d bet good money that you, Goobs, are guilty of sexual assault and rape in your teenage years (or later even) for taking advantage of girls you copped a feel from or pressured to have sex with you. Admit it. You did it once upon a time. “Now wait just a minute, Rooster! You can’t accuse me of that! It was different back then— and besides, it’s her word against mine!”

Uh-huh. How’s that taste now, Mr. ~~Our Founding Fathers Are White Supremacists~~ Rapist?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:49 pm

Rooster wrote:
I’d bet good money that you, Goobs, are guilty of sexual assault and rape in your teenage years (or later even) for taking advantage of girls you copped a feel from or pressured to have sex with you. Admit it. You did it once upon a time. “Now wait just a minute, Rooster! You can’t accuse me of that! It was different back then— and besides, it’s her word against mine!”

You're accusing Goobs of being a rapist now? WTF dude...

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 am

Sure. Based on the political narrative that he ascribes to, anything you’ve done or he’s done in the past paints each of you in the light of today’s unforgivable sins. You’re an actor who copped a feel decades ago? Now you’re persona non grata on a movie set today because you’re a sexual assaulter or a rapist— even if you didn't physically rape someone. The intent is all that is necessary for the label to stick.

Certainly I’m not describing something you’ve not considered or thought of before, right? After all, this is the very ground on which today’s culture wars are being fought. Trump is Hitler not because he has actually gassed millions of Jews, but because a picture was taken of a Mexican child in a cage back during the Obama administration and it has been erroneously on purpose tied to the Trump administration. University of Virginia frat boys are guilty of gang rape on the say-so of a proven liar. Kevin Spacey is no longer being given movie roles because he has been accused of improper conduct in the past, although there has not been a shred of evidence that proves it. Charlie Rose, What’s-His-face from Lake Woebegone, and a bajillion of others are now labeled something negative because of something they may have or may not have done decades before, much less hundreds of years ago for auspicious people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson being guilty of being charter members of the KKK like Goobs says.

All I’m doing is holding Goobs to the same standard that these people are being held to— and that means we can pretty much assume due to his character, political inclinations, and nature as a Dem and a male with a penchant for Asian women, that he is a lecherous, anime loving, rapist who likes Thai lady boys and Korean hookers.

See how that works? Don’t get me started on you, Canadian Baby Seal Killer.

Joe in PB · Post by **Joe in PB** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:26 am

Goober McTuber wrote: So you're equating me as a child with full-grown adults.....

A better analogy, 150 years from now President Obama is viewed as a war criminal because of his ordering of "smart bombing" against terrorist targets that led to the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. Different times, different views on the same activity.

I think if our founding fathers were white supremacists, the Constitution would read as such.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:54 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
I'm sorry, did Sotomayor come out and say the president is above the law?

No she believes she should create law based on her gender and background. And even worse she thinks this is her role and it is ok.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:59 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:He'll fit right in with the authoritarians who post here like 88, Left Seater, Suckaholic, Rooster, and Brainspray. God that's like 2/3 of the regular posters here.

What a surprise our mobbed-up president is picking a justice who thinks he's above the law. Calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned was just a ruse.

RIP USA

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/p ... hment.html

Judge Kavanaugh, who after working for Mr. Starr served as an aide to President George W. Bush, has since expressed misgivings about the toll investigations take on presidents. In 2009, he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”

To the OP, this is actually funny considering the executive-monarchy that was the Obama administration. When he couldn't get Congress to enact his ideas he just went and wrote out an EO and called it good. How's that for being above the law?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:07 am

Rooster wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:He'll fit right in with the authoritarians who post here like 88, Left Seater, Suckaholic, Rooster, and Brainspray. God that's like 2/3 of the regular posters here.

What a surprise our mobbed-up president is picking a justice who thinks he's above the law. Calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned was just a ruse.

RIP USA

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/p ... hment.html

Judge Kavanaugh, who after working for Mr. Starr served as an aide to President George W. Bush, has since expressed misgivings about the toll investigations take on presidents. In 2009, he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”
To the OP, this is actually funny considering the executive-monarchy that was the Obama administration. When he couldn't get Congress to enact his ideas he just went and wrote out an EO and called it good. How's that for being above the law?

Or he just had the Senate change their rules to get what he wanted. Those same rules don’t taste so well now do they snowflakes?

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:58 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
Rooster wrote:
I’d bet good money that you, Goobs, are guilty of sexual assault and rape in your teenage years (or later even) for taking advantage of girls you copped a feel from or pressured to have sex with you. Admit it. You did it once upon a time. “Now wait just a minute, Rooster! You can’t accuse me of that! It was different back then— and besides, it’s her word against mine!”
You're accusing Goobs of being a rapist now? WTF dude...

Lol, truth be told, I’m quite possibly getting Goober and Softball Bat mixed up. I can never remember who is who. Refresh my memory— is Goober the guy who lives in Korea or is that Softball?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:14 am

Maybe Jeff Merkley can flap his gums for another 15 hours like last time. The piece of shit has never introduced so much as one Senate Bill, but daaaaamn, does he bitch about the bills everyone else writes.

And the fucking idiot may just end up being the DNC nominee in 2020. Fucker grandstands every chance he gets.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:15 am

Rooster wrote: Lol, truth be told, I’m quite possibly getting Goober and Softball Bat mixed up. I can never remember who is who. Refresh my memory— is Goober the guy who lives in Korea or is that Softball?

Carson

Softball Bat · Post by **Softball Bat** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:38 am

Rooster wrote:Lol, truth be told, I’m quite possibly getting Goober and Softball Bat mixed up. I can never remember who is who. Refresh my memory— is Goober the guy who lives in Korea or is that Softball?

Goober is the guy who thinks the earth is flat.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:52 pm

Rooster wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Rooster wrote:Really? So that’s the new standard to which people from a different time and place are measured? Shall we apply the same measurement against your behavior, say, as a child? After all, that was a different time and place, but since all things are now equal, childish tantrums should be viewed in the light of our present day. Or perhaps you stole a candy bar from a grocery store as a kid. That means you’re a thief now, right?
So you're equating me as a child with full-grown adults Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Hey, you might be onto something.

No, you're still a fucking moron.
I could use any number of examples that distort who you are versus what you’ve done or who you once were. Have you ever gone faster than the speed limit? You’re a degenerate scofflaw, a reckless offender whose weapon of choice is a four wheeled vehicle. Ever broken a promise to your wife or kids? You’re a lying cheat who welshes on your word and who should never ever be trusted to do what you say you will. Cut out of work early but still claimed 8 full hours for pay? You’re a thief and drag on society.

The fact that you label anyone from the past a racist based on today’s criteria shows just how deep you are steeped in PC culture and the Progressive agenda of revising history to suit the narrative laid out by the Tom Steyns, Tom Perezes, Nancy Pelosis, and Chuck Shumers.

I’d bet good money that you, Goobs, are guilty of sexual assault and rape in your teenage years (or later even) for taking advantage of girls you copped a feel from or pressured to have sex with you. Admit it. You did it once upon a time. “Now wait just a minute, Rooster! You can’t accuse me of that! It was different back then— and besides, it’s her word against mine!”

Uh-huh. How’s that taste now, Mr. ~~Our Founding Fathers Are White Supremacists~~ Rapist?

Are you off your meds?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:58 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
Rooster wrote:
I’d bet good money that you, Goobs, are guilty of sexual assault and rape in your teenage years (or later even) for taking advantage of girls you copped a feel from or pressured to have sex with you. Admit it. You did it once upon a time. “Now wait just a minute, Rooster! You can’t accuse me of that! It was different back then— and besides, it’s her word against mine!”
You're accusing Goobs of being a rapist now? WTF dude...

Dude is a total whack job.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:35 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Maybe Jeff Merkley can flap his gums for another 15 hours like last time. The piece of shit has never introduced so much as one Senate Bill, but daaaaamn, does he bitch about the bills everyone else writes.

And the fucking idiot may just end up being the DNC nominee in 2020. Fucker grandstands every chance he gets.

He and Wyden and Blusterhower and Bonermichi will all show up together at what ever liberal suck fest the media will report on and do all their posturing. Wyden brags about how many town halls he has had, and they all nod like bobble heads. Truth is they seldom show their faces outside Portland or Eugene where their Cool Aid drinkers all reside. Every last one of those stooges would be run out of Central / Eastern/ Southern Oregon if they even opened their pie holes there. If the Dimwits nominate Merkley they will receive the trouncing they will get in the general election, and that stammering..oh wait that is lisping Ron Wyden. Merkely will be blown out simply for being the worst possibly dressed person in public office.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:48 pm

Derron wrote:Merkely will be blown out simply for being the worst possibly dressed person in public office.

The mom-jeans really aren't a good look.

And what's with the remnants of the Goldschmidt Mafia all thinking it's cool to wear ill-fitting jeans to official government functions? They all do it.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:28 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Derron wrote:Merkely will be blown out simply for being the worst possibly dressed person in public office.
The mom-jeans really aren't a good look.

And what's with the remnants of the Goldschmidt Mafia all thinking it's cool to wear ill-fitting jeans to official government functions? They all do it.

That is the sympathetic look to get the hipsters image,and try to shore up what ever support they have left with labor. Speaking of labor, what has happened to the longshore and blue collar crowd supporting these ass clowns.

If Merkleys dress habits were not bad enough, dude really needs to find a better barber and maybe hit him up more than every three months. Dude is the shabbiest looking mother fucker in Congress.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:12 am

Left Seater wrote:What a totally asinine statement. No wonder a President would pick such a person. Had to be on Hillary’s short list as well just based on that one statement.

I am sure he will judge better than Merrick Garland though, eh snowflakes?

Well look at that, the total fraud who pretends to be a pilot, actually making a joke...damn..

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:55 pm

"Keep spewing those Progressive talking points, Goobs. You’re making a ton of headway!"

Possible Sig material

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:32 pm

ChargerMike wrote:"Keep spewing those Progressive talking points, Goobs. You’re making a ton of headway!"

Possible Sig material

Yes, suggesting that someone who owned black people and who didn't think they should be allowed to vote was in some way a "white supremacist" is definitely a Progressive talking point. Go ahead, Mike, put that in your sig. Wear your stupidity proudly.

I get that Thomas Jefferson ≠ Tom Metzger. I get that "white supremacist" has a certainly more vile connotation nowadays than it did many years ago. But a lot of the ideas are still the same.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:10 am

Goober McTuber wrote:I get that "white supremacist" has a certainly more vile connotation nowadays than it did many years ago.

Because it wasn't considered vile at all during the days of the FFs. It was how most white colonists felt. Those who believed in racial equality were a very small minority back then.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:26 am

Goober McTuber wrote: I get that "white supremacist" has a certainly more vile connotation nowadays than it did many years ago. But a lot of the ideas are still the same.

Maybe. Many progressives and liberals are quick to throw out the white supremacist label where it doesn’t fit. For example, saying able bodied people should have a work requirement in order to collect welfare is considered racist by many. Those same people then flip around and throw out the white supremacist label on those who feel this way. Never mind that has nothing to do with race.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:35 pm

Left Seater wrote:For example, saying able bodied people should have a work requirement in order to collect welfare is considered racist by many.

Not by me.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:51 pm

Left Seater wrote:For example, saying able bodied people should have a work requirement in order to collect welfare is considered racist by many.

Never once heard this in my life. Got a link?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:47 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Left Seater wrote:For example, saying able bodied people should have a work requirement in order to collect welfare is considered racist by many.
Never once heard this in my life. Got a link?

Still trolling eh? Guess you don’t read your own employers crap, not that anyone would blame you for that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... lways-was/

You want more, GTS yourself.