the only reason they are having a female ask the question is so the can say look we cared ... she asked the question not us :kewl:

and if a bunch of silver haired white guys ask, the left will bitch about that. yes or no? fine she doesn’t want an expert, let the senators ask her, and watch how they get attacked for being mean.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sitting in the low chair?
If i had evidence that someone had committed a crime, i have leverage over them. I can go to the police and file the complaint or just ask them to stop what they are doing that i disagree with.
That's what i mean by being nice, giving them a chance to just go on with their life and not continue in the direction they are going.

Almost right. A judge cannot do both at the same time. It is only "scary," a la Pete F, that "he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life" when judges interpret by opinion than by original text. There is no in between.

Interpreting by text proscribes the desire to interject ideas and opinions outside of the text. It denies the ability of the judge to impact government other than limiting it to its constitutional powers.

Interpreting outside of the text eliminates the text (the Constitution), brushes it aside as an impediment to arriving at a desired judgment. And thereby gives a judge the ability to create policy or to support otherwise Congressional unconstitutional legislation. That is the scary that Pete F, perhaps inadvertently, refers to.

The two methods of interpretation cannot be used in conjunction with each other. They are opposing methods.

So originalist judges are robots? What do they do when the code doesn't build?

No, they are judges not legislators nor enablers of unconstitutional legislation.


What code? Judges don't build. And they don't create building codes. They judge by applying existing codes. If those codes don't "build," it is up to the builders to change them.

A good overall government code provides for change. As does the U.S. Constitution--which does not give the judicial branch the power to change the code.

If judges create the laws which they adjudicate, that should surely be a system that Pete F would think is scary. Are you suggesting we should have such a system?

They’ll just accuse her of sexual assault... this seat will never get filled. It’s just going to be one criminal appointee after another. At least we have plenty of other justices?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh it’s going to get filled.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of the 163 citizens nominated to the Supreme Court by presidents since the start of the Republic, only 125 were confirmed, 7 declined.
It’s not the end of the USA if he doesn’t get confirmed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so evil democraps can't whine that she's being bullied.....

if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify someone, it will mean no one gets confirmed.

If there is nothing beyond allegations and hearsay, he's probably going to get confirmed. I would say definite, but they might get 2 defections from Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. Also possible Pence breaks the tie.

Nothing will stop them from that whining.

I still don't see the bad idea of bringing in a subject matter expert. Well, I see the problem if this is just a smear campaign, I see no problem if the goal is justice.

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....

I don't know about that, but somebody seems to be chasing the laser pointer.
Don't worry though, I hear someone is going to have a press conference and straighten everyone out as only he can.

I'd be more concerned with the people sending death threats to senators for supporting Ford's right to be heard.

another from the whack leftist playbook....waaaaa...we're victims....we're getting death threats....

Jeff Flake is a wack leftist?

which senator has not supported ford's right to be heard? they've bent over backwards to ensure that she is heard....yes flake is a flake....ahhh I see....someone from somewhere called his office....he's far more likely to be accosted by an angry mob of leftists in a restaurant if he votes to confirm

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do Kavanaugh and bill Bill Cosby ? have in common

no one believed the women who accused him... at 1st

spence does :bl:

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess they just released video footage of him actually in line, I think that’s him at the front

https://youtu.be/hshbq4_OySI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a pizza place, did you miss that one? Oh wait that was George Soros and Hillary
Sorry you’re right the rest area is on the right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

sex with farm animals is next...democrats are all in....my as well go full nut job

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you bother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What vile accusations these women have made against Kavanagh. If they made the same type of accusations about me and I had the ability to have the FBI investigate I'd be screaming for them to investigate. Lie detectors all around for the accused and accuser. Anyone who lies would be guilty of perjury. I wonder why that hasn't happened?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

interesting....


"The Judiciary Committee sent Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate on a vote of seven-to-seven. In mid-October, on the eve of the Senate’s final vote on Thomas, his confirmation looked like a sure thing.

Meanwhile, as the chances of defeating the Thomas nomination grew smaller, both the press and the groups working against him grew ever more vigorous in their search for material to use against him. Employees at the EEOC reported getting repeated phone calls from journalists and Thomas opponents explicitly asking for “dirt.” On Sunday, October 6, after the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Thomas nomination to the Senate, Newsday and National Public Radio reported that for a month the committee had had in its possession an affidavit from a woman named Anita Hill making charges of sexual harassment.

Thomas supporters protested the introduction of a new charge against him, after so many other accusations had been leveled and failed, on the very eve of the confirmation vote. Thomas opponents said that because not much was known about the charges, the vote should be postponed and Hill’s story given a more thorough airing.

But the opponents said a great deal more as well. They claimed that the Senate, by its treatment of Hill, had already demonstrated men’s outrageous indifference to the welfare of women and the fundamental incapacity of male elected officials to give proper political representation to their female constituents. If the Senators went ahead with their floor vote on Thomas as scheduled, they would compound the insult.

The anger of Thomas’s critics drove out respect for procedural traditions and niceties. The Judiciary Committee had considered Hill’s charges privately, in agreement with Hill’s expressed wishes; but someone on some Senate committee staff decided that he or she was morally justified in overriding these rules of confidentiality and leaking Hill’s affidavit, either directly to the press or to an intermediary, and subjecting both Hill and Thomas to a public airing of the issue.

After the leak, Thomas’s supporters said that because he was to be effectively put on trial, he should be given the presumption of innocence: Hill should have to come up with some solid corroboration of her claim. Thomas’s opponents dismissed this idea, explaining that since sexual harassment often took place in private, an absence of corroborating evidence was only to be expected. Asking for the conventional presumption of innocence under this circumstance would be nothing other than a fancy version of “blaming the victim.”

The opponents evidently calculated that by bathing the whole affair in the light of publicity, they could undo the Judiciary Committee’s verdict. And indeed, at first they seemed to succeed. But in the end, they succeeded too well. They forced a public event that featured Hill and Thomas facing off against each other directly and individually. They provided Hill with a phalanx of lawyers to match Thomas’s White House handlers. They created, in other words, a forum that strongly resembled a criminal trial."

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds just as rediculous as the judge taking a number at the gang bang.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Train gang
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is comical....


In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.


Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News.

"They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."

this is hilarious....

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are doing a fine job of mocking and delegitimizing all actual victims of sexual assault by turing it into a political weapon....again

this guy Avenatti is the perfect presidential candidate for the dems in 2020

Right, it's just an exercise to confirm what's already known, they don't ask any questions about the person's past.