View Full Version : Breaking - Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring from SCOTUS
30 cal slut
06-27-18, 13:06
No story yet, just a headline on my Bloomberg terminal.
This is not a joke.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-kennedy-retiring-trump-gets-2nd-supreme-court-180417906--politics.html
Well at least we get another one in while we can, hopefully RBG goes next, and we can keep a solid foot in the door.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-27-18, 13:15
No story yet, just a headline on my Bloomberg terminal.
This is not a joke.
https://apnews.com/43de809e3c144a1f9048055386394263
We are about to see a war of epic proportions in government as the swamp and dems attempt deny Trump a pick he wants.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-18, 13:25
I forget how long these things take. Will it be done by the election? Or I assume we want it done by the election. We get a non-flaky 2A guy in and things look up.
No story yet,
Oh, there is a story already, at least on NBC news reporting from DC live.
"This could mean the end to abortions"
There have been hits at this for some time now.
This could be huge for conservatives.
There will be a huge fight, the dems will tear into the next nominee like you never seen.
There is also Ruth Bader Buzzy Ginsberg, she is older than Kennedy. Let me dream just a bit, two more conservative Justices to make 7 out of 9 ! I can dream can't I?
I forget how long these things take. Will it be done by the election? Or I assume we want it done by the election. We get a non-flaky 2A guy in and things look up.
Probably won't be done by the mid-terms, but if this doesn't get Republicans out to vote during the mid-terms nothing will.
BoringGuy45
06-27-18, 13:54
There will be a huge fight, the dems will tear into the next nominee like you never seen.
There is also Ruth Bader Buzzy Ginsberg, she is older than Kennedy. Let me dream just a bit, two more conservative Justices to make 7 out of 9 ! I can dream can't I?
Yep, and Stephen Breyer is no spring chicken either. The problem is that I don't see either of them voluntarily leaving while Trump is in office.
Averageman
06-27-18, 14:10
Why not nominate someone immediately? Do you have to wait until Kennedy is out the door?
Retirement is effective July 31. Ted Cruz for SCJ!
Unfortunately, nothing is gonna happen until after the midterms, at which point Uncle Chuckie will stonewall all of Trumps picks, just like Droopy Dog did, so that SCOTUS can Feel the Bern in '20.
Why not nominate someone immediately? Do you have to wait until Kennedy is out the door?
Trump has a list of 20 or so potential nominees. Mitch McConnell said they will try to vote before the mid term.
CleverNickname
06-27-18, 14:35
Retirement is effective July 31. Ted Cruz for SCJ!
I've been reliably informed that Cruz's dad was involved with killing JFK. Would it really be appropriate for Cruz to replace a different Kennedy?
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-18, 14:39
The difference between Garland and now is that Trump will actually back his nominees. Trump will nuclear option them if he has too. IIRC, recess appointments can work for SCOTUS- or that was mentioned for Garland by the fringe.
Yep, that was the plan with Garland.
https://newrepublic.com/article/138787/obama-can-put-merrick-garland-supreme-court
Trump could say that you either vote before the midterms or I appoint him and we can vote after the election. Don’t vote on my nominations, and I shut down the govt.
The New Republic says that is Kosher.....
Garland isn’t on the court because they thought they could get RBGII++++ with Hillary in office.
Now someone has to put a bug in Thomas’ ear about stepping down.
Doc Safari
06-27-18, 14:43
Rush Limbaugh thinks the new strategy of the left will be, "Let's not confirm any more nominees until we know what Mueller's probe is going to reveal."
Averageman
06-27-18, 15:03
A lot of good things are being drown out by the shrill screaming from the left.
Two major wins through the SCOTUS this week, the NORKS and now the Russians sitting down to negotiate. Tax cuts have helped. The market has gained and lost, but is still up and the jobs and economy are better.
The left however are losing their grip and going full Socialist and calling for violence against POTUS Trips cabinet members right before the mid terms.
There is a major difference between a SCOTUS nomination in a mid-term election and. Presidential election. Tuff luck Chuck.
I've been reliably informed that Cruz's dad was involved with killing JFK. Would it really be appropriate for Cruz to replace a different Kennedy?
Simple answer.... hell yes. Got to love Democrat on Democrat crime..... not much better than that.
Unfortunately, nothing is gonna happen until after the midterms, at which point Uncle Chuckie will stonewall all of Trumps picks, just like Droopy Dog did, so that SCOTUS can Feel the Bern in '20.
Bitch McConnel said the vote will be this fall. My assumption is he means prior to the election.
morbidbattlecry
06-27-18, 15:19
There will be a huge fight, the dems will tear into the next nominee like you never seen.
There is also Ruth Bader Buzzy Ginsberg, she is older than Kennedy. Let me dream just a bit, two more conservative Justices to make 7 out of 9 ! I can dream can't I?
They should. They got F***ed over twice the last time. What goes around comes around.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-27-18, 15:25
They should. They got F***ed over twice the last time. What goes around comes around.
Who exactly got ****ed?
So I think it should happen before the election. The same reason I thought that the republicans should have voted on Merit Garland (sp). We don't have partial terms, or lame duck legislatures. The vote should happen with the current senate and those folks who want to oppose the presidents nomination should stand on their votes. I predict if we get a Gorsich type nominee who falls well inside the traditional qualifications of a conservative judge, folks like Tester in Montana, and the senator from Missouri will vote for him or her. I agree with Sen. Graham. Elections have consequences. He voted for liberal justices because they were qualified, and a liberal president gets to pick nominees. This president's nominees (and I don't like this president) should be given the same deference. If they are qualified, they should get in. Period.
Now my real question is what are we going to do with this majority, especially if it grows. 5-4 or 6-3 could do things like invalidate AWBs, require full faith and credit clause of the constitution to acknowledge my WA state CPL like it does my WA state drivers license? RUle that the 2nd amendment applies outside of the home? Rule on the Illinois city AWB that was upheld because it "might make people feel safer". This is a once in a generation opportunity to lock 2A rights for generations. Hopefully President Trump or Pres Pence will get to replace a liberal justice next.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-18, 16:01
With Garland, the GOP held the Senate. That is something. The Dems literally have nothing and Trump as two more years... Garland ins't in because BHO didn't care. Otherwise, you have to believe that BHO was out manned by McConnel. That is hard to really believe, but Mitchy did a nice job not rolling over.
No Dem will vote for a Trump pick. Maybe if they are on the ballot this year and don't have a primary to contend with. Even then, the left will spike their general election just out of spite. Maybe if you got in two years ago in 16, you could play the calculus, but you will be primaried hard when the time comes.
Gird your loins...
With Garland, the GOP held the Senate. That is something. The Dems literally have nothing and Trump as two more years... Garland ins't in because BHO didn't care. Otherwise, you have to believe that BHO was out manned by McConnel. That is hard to really believe, but Mitchy did a nice job not rolling over.
No Dem will vote for a Trump pick. Maybe if they are on the ballot this year and don't have a primary to contend with. Even then, the left will spike their general election just out of spite. Maybe if you got in two years ago in 16, you could play the calculus, but you will be primaried hard when the time comes.
Gird your loins...
Dems have vote for trump picks already. Gorsuch got a handful. I'll bet you a diet coke that some of the democrats in tough reelection bids in states where trump won, will vote for his candidate, as long as he passes the giggle test.
D
Best news of the day, President Trump will get to stack the deck in the conservatives favor again. And just maybe (crossing fingers) get to replace Ginsburg as well. That would be epic!
Whiskey_Bravo
06-27-18, 16:20
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32394/heres-list-trumps-potential-scotus-replacements-paul-bois
List of potentials
Elections have consequences.
I'd like to go back in time to all of the "Never Trumpers" on this site and thank them for nothing.
Thank goodness the majority of the American public were smarter than a minority of folks on here who claim to support the 2nd amendment yet get themselves all balled up over so called "principles."
Trump has proven himself far more effective AND conservative than either of the Bush's, Romney and McCain combined. All of whom I am sure they supported.
Yeah, I told ya so........
Oh, there is a story already, at least on NBC news reporting from DC live.
"This could mean the end to abortions"
LOL. Like that will ever happen. That shit is carved in stone...almost like it's in the Constitution or something...only it's more irrevocable.
Doc Safari
06-27-18, 16:41
My prediction is that the same lowlife types who hounded Sarah Sanders out of the Red Hen restaurant will target all the nominees for SCOTUS and try to intimidate them into withdrawing.
We are truly on the verge of this getting ugly.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-18, 17:12
CNN Headline:
Most Americans think that the Supreme Court Nomination Process is too Partisan
There are great articles out there about how insane it is that the vote for the 7-nations-in-civil-war vote was 5-4. It should have been 9-0. You can't rule that an executive does or doesn't have power based on what you think is in their hearts. That is literally insane.
Yep, the left will go pull unhinged on this. Expect Mueller to be thrown in, Senators to face new #MeToo accusations, and anything else they can throw - even if it doesn't stick. I'm having a hard time thinking of a more contentious and momentous appointment?
This should move the court to the right.
Executed correctly we will have 4 solid conservatives with Roberts the swing vote, and Roberts more conservative than Kennedy. One lib justice goes, and it will be a crushing blow to the left.
Doc Safari
06-27-18, 17:51
This should move the court to the right.
Executed correctly we will have solid conservatives with Roberts the swing vote, and Roberts more conservative than Kennedy. One lib justice goes, and it will be a crushing blow to the left.
Our hope and their fear. I dream of two good constitutional justices and then a string of slam-dunk 2A cases that cause NFA, GCA '68, 1989 Imported Assault Rifle Ban, Section 922(r), and the requirements among states to "license" CCW to all come crashing down under a blanket "shall not be infringed" series of rulings.
I know. Pipe dreams. Pass the hookah.
Averageman
06-27-18, 17:58
There have been a number of things that have passed lately that have caused the Democrats war chest to empty.
Some tax law I can't remember right now that primarily effects Democrat enclaves on the coasts and today's ruling concerning unions.
The Democrats money is going to be spread mighty thin because of the above plus the # me too movement. Money out of Hollywood just aint what it used to be.
I have a feeling they will fight like hell, but have to wisely choose their battles, they can't run an election via Greyhound while serving bologna sandwiches to Staffers. They're in some trouble.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-27-18, 18:42
A bear is most dangerous when it is wounded...
I don't have enough kool-aide to think that we'll get nationwide Constitutional Carry, but not wondering when they'll knock on our door to round up the ARs would be nice. Time to start getting the 2A cases lined up. Start with the 2A is not limited to your house. Then go after some ban on semi-autos and get those sanctified. Then go after mag bans. Shove Miller back down their throats. We have 2 years definately. If the Dems take POTUS back, Thomas isn't exactly a long term reliable position.
If the Dems take the Senate, they might just shut down any approval- and forgetaboutit if RBG croaks during the next two years.
Frankly, if we replace RBG I put a 50:50 at the next Dem POTUS stacking the court with 9+.
So... How will Mc Cain vote??? Or will he vote. Remember, not voting is a “no” vote here.
What really pains me, is that I’m scared that his hate and disdain for Trump will override his duty to do the right thing for the country. Just like with Obamacare. Yes, it will come down to one vote and he could very well destroy it, again.
Averageman
06-27-18, 18:53
So... How will Mc Cain vote??? Or will he vote. Remember, not voting is a “no” vote here.
What really pains me, is that I’m scared that his hate and disdain for Trump will override his duty to do the right thing for the country. Just like with Obamacare. Yes, it will come down to one vote and he could very well destroy it, again.
Or someone could sneak in to his room and fluff up his pillow like Scalia?
SeriousStudent
06-27-18, 19:17
This should move the court to the right.
Executed correctly we will have 4 solid conservatives with Roberts the swing vote, and Roberts more conservative than Kennedy. One lib justice goes, and it will be a crushing blow to the left.
Yes, and I am praying it's Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg.
BoringGuy45
06-27-18, 19:32
I don't have enough kool-aide to think that we'll get nationwide Constitutional Carry...
Constitutional carry, maybe not. But as you mentioned, making unrestricted, shall issue permits will be a good start. Plus, if it's ruled that 2A extends outside the home, it's going to be hard to defend not having universal reciprocity. Maybe not as ideal as nationwide permitless carry, but still the next best thing.
Constitutional carry, maybe not. But as you mentioned, making unrestricted, shall issue permits will be a good start. Plus, if it's ruled that 2A extends outside the home, it's going to be hard to defend not having universal reciprocity. Maybe not as ideal as nationwide permitless carry, but still the next best thing.
JMO - and I'm not a Constitutional Law expert by any means - to me absent a finding that the 2A supports Nationwide Constitutional Carry - any actions they take, for example, in terms of reciprocity, and mandatory nationwide shall issue permits, is an interference with States Rights.
Driver's license reciprocity is not a good example, because the feds coerce the states by threatening to withhold NHTSA/DOT funds.
The way I see it, thus far the Supreme Court has looked at CCW as a State's Right issue - from what I understand their have been no challenges to individual states enacting Constitutional Carry laws.
Could be I'm full of it, though.
JMO - and I'm not a Constitutional Law expert by any means - to me absent a finding that the 2A supports Nationwide Constitutional Carry - any actions they take, for example, in terms of reciprocity, and mandatory nationwide shall issue permits, is an interference with States Rights.
Driver's license reciprocity is not a good example, because the feds coerce the states by threatening to withhold NHTSA/DOT funds.
The way I see it, thus far the Supreme Court has looked at CCW as a State's Right issue - from what I understand their have been no challenges to individual states enacting Constitutional Carry laws.
Could be I'm full of it, though.
The line is "to keep AND BEAR". That sounds like a nationwide constitutional issue to me, not a state's right issue.
Further, to a point, does it really matter? If a federal AWB, mag ban, bullet ban, accessory ban, etc etc. were to come down tomorrow you wouldn't hear a peep about states rights, it would just be rammed down everyone's throats like last time. So f*** em. Let them play defense for once. IF (and that's a big if) we get the SC and overall governmental majority, we should just field EVERYTHING we want for both 2A as well as social/economic issues, and see what sticks. Maybe they'll vote some of it down, maybe all of it, maybe none of it. Who knows. Who cares? Nothing to lose, at this point. They'll still have to either stop it voting or go to court to try and overturn it all, or convince the court to make it all state's issues. .
But then, I'm no law expert either.... ;)
Anyway, I'm not going to get my hopes up yet.
The Derpocrat socialists are in full gnashing of teeth mode, they'll raise unholy hell, and candidates will either drop out, OR our good Retardican buddies will find some new and inventive way to f*** it all up.
I may as well start another round of popcorn, this is going to be grand....
Yes, and I am praying it's Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg.
How she is still allowed to weigh in on some of the most important decisions of this country, that will affect the lives of all of our citizens forever is beyond me. McDonalds would have forcibly retired her decades ago.
This "justice for life" horseshit has to go. There needs to be a competency test every decade at least.
JMO - and I'm not a Constitutional Law expert by any means - to me absent a finding that the 2A supports Nationwide Constitutional Carry - any actions they take, for example, in terms of reciprocity, and mandatory nationwide shall issue permits, is an interference with States Rights.
Driver's license reciprocity is not a good example, because the feds coerce the states by threatening to withhold NHTSA/DOT funds.
The way I see it, thus far the Supreme Court has looked at CCW as a State's Right issue - from what I understand their have been no challenges to individual states enacting Constitutional Carry laws.
Could be I'm full of it, though.
Wrong
Probably won't be done by the mid-terms, but if this doesn't get Republicans out to vote during the mid-terms nothing will.
It has to be before the mid-terms. He absolutely has to get that judge in before November. There is really no rational reason not to be able to do it either.
FIFY
nothing will get Republicans out to vote
Never ever put your expectations in the hands of a "Republican" voter. That is a death wish.
How she is still allowed to weigh in on some of the most important decisions of this country, that will affect the lives of all of our citizens forever is beyond me. McDonalds would have forcibly retired her decades ago.
This "justice for life" horseshit has to go. There needs to be a competency test every decade at least.
It is appalling. It pisses me off every time I see her. If she were rational and reasonable but she is simply an admitted Leftist shill. When a Justice says I will stay until Trump is gone.... well what else is there to say. That was pretty much what she offered up when Trump hit the scene. Total bias regardless of the case.
Now someone has to put a bug in Thomas’ ear about stepping down.
If I were CT I wouldn't be be spending any nights out at the ranch if you know what i mean.
Why not nominate someone immediately? Do you have to wait until Kennedy is out the door?
No, they get replaced when the new guy gets approved. OR, the date of retirement. IOW, the Retire date is usually the same date as the new approval. In this case though, it's simply July 31st. Frankly Trump could use that fact as a reason to push things through. We should have a Justice by July 31 to keep things running optimally and normally.
Now knowing Trump he might throw three potentials at them at once and say... I'm just trying to be efficient and that old bat will kick the bucket soon anyway. so we get two approved and spare if needed. That would be funny. Covfefe!!!
Wrong
Which part - my analysis or my disclaimer? :rolleyes:
Seems to me that the only thing that the SCOTUS could do that wouldn't interfere with State's Rights in some form is determine that the Second Amendment really means 'shall not be infringed' and that Constitutional Carry is the law of the land. In other words, if they found it was unconstitutional to prohibit concealed, or open carry, the states would not have a right to pass laws that infringed on that finding.
Likewise, if they found that all the Federal firearms legislation since 1968 was unconstitutional, the states would not have a right to pass laws that infringed on those findings.
Remember that I was commenting on someone's post that it would be nice if the SCOTUS decided that shall issue and national CCW was the law of the land. I don't think they would do that because, absent a finding which significantly changed the current interpretation, such actions would be construed to be interference with state's rights.
As I said, the SCOTUS seems content to allow the states leeway in how they manage CCW and possession issues, to me this is somewhat evident in the cases to which they choose to grant certiorari. They pick and choose the cases which they deign to consider from hundreds of petitions.
Seems to me we are all for State's Rights until we aren't, we are all for smaller government, until we aren't and we are all for Courts not legislating from the bench, until we aren't. Consistent we aint.
JMO
Averageman
06-28-18, 01:20
I think that there are enough Republicans unwilling to overturn Roe vs Wade that this is exactly the wrong time for Conservatives to begin braying like their opposition about overturning it.
It only splits the vote away from confirmation and insure they are at each others throats right before mid-terms.
This would be time to hit the stealth mode button and stfu and move in to action. Hammering the possibility of getting all in your Liberal face is poor tactics.
The nominee, whomever they may be is going to have a very, very tough confirmation. I actually hope the POTUS chooses a Woman as the nominee in order to avoid the # me too folks as much as possible.
Condoleezza anyone?
MountainRaven
06-28-18, 01:22
Elections have consequences.
I'd like to go back in time to all of the "Never Trumpers" on this site and thank them for nothing.
Thank goodness the majority of the American public were smarter than a minority of folks on here who claim to support the 2nd amendment yet get themselves all balled up over so called "principles."
Trump has proven himself far more effective AND conservative than either of the Bush's, Romney and McCain combined. All of whom I am sure they supported.
Yeah, I told ya so........
Keep counting your chickens before they hatch: Donald Trump hasn't gotten us a damned thing, yet.
"They have great power over you people. They have less power over me. What do I need?"
-Donald Trump, on the NRA (2018)
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
-Donald Trump, on 'Red Flag Laws' (2018)
Has he acted on those, yet? Nope. But neither has he acted on all the things he said he'd do for the RKBA.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-18, 01:36
Since Nixon, for all nominees for SCOTUS, the average time to decision (or withdrawl) was 68 days, with a max of 293 (Garland) and a min of 10(Douglas Ginsburg) both of which were withdrawn.
Of those successfully confirmed, the average was 58 days with a max of 99 days and a min of 17.
Bork was the number 2 at 114 days till rejection. Two of Nixon's and Bork were the only ones rejected, though 3 were withdrawn. And Garland at 293 (till Jan3,17).
So by history, they should be able to get it done. Of course, the left has less to lose if the seat is empty since lower court rulings would hold in a 4-4 tie. Considering the crap that comes out of the 9th, you could get into some ugly situations if the court isn't full and impeachment/prosecution silliness starts.
Keep counting your chickens before they hatch: Donald Trump hasn't gotten us a damned thing, yet.
Do what now?!? Seriously, he did the ONLY thing most of us ever required from him, PREVENT another Clinton Presidency. Job done, enjoy the fact that we aren't having the new Clinton Ban shoved down our throat along with every other "done deal" policy that simply would have happened had Shillary been elected.
He could literally do nothing more than tweet provocative stuff that he has no ability or even intention to implement for the remainder of his term and he will STILL have done his job. If he gets some kind of stability with Russia as far as "common ground issues", if he achieves anything meaningful whatsoever with the Norks, if he does anything at all about the flood of illegals into the country or if we are really gonna set the bar high...if he does anything to normalize and improve the economy he will have basically done more than Obama on his best day.
Nobody thinks he's gonna get us to Mars. Nobody thinks he's gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Nobody thinks he's going to end Chinese imports and bring back NAFTA jobs. All those things would be nice...but never gonna happen.
The only reason I voted for him was to prevent another President Clinton, which would have been so disastrous I don't think we can accurately imagine what it might be like. But we'd be begging to go back to the stability and safety of the Obama years.
Grand58742
06-28-18, 08:00
With Trump's favor of military related folks, I wouldn't be surprised to see Margaret Ryan get the nod to move up.
And watch the liberal heads explode trying to tiptoe around the fact she's a woman.
My personal preference would be Don Willett though. He's got a sense of humor.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-18, 08:19
With Trump's favor of military related folks, I wouldn't be surprised to see Margaret Ryan get the nod to move up.
And watch the liberal heads explode trying to tiptoe around the fact she's a woman.
My personal preference would be Don Willett though. He's got a sense of humor.
They have a ploy for all of "their" 'minorities' that don't fall into line . Did they tip-toe around Thomas? Show deference to Nikki Haley? With the mental state of the left, this is going to get ugly.
Doc Safari
06-28-18, 09:04
Do what now?!? Seriously, he did the ONLY thing most of us ever required from him, PREVENT another Clinton Presidency.
THIS. He deserves a spot on Mt Rushmore for this alone.
Keep counting your chickens before they hatch: Donald Trump hasn't gotten us a damned thing, yet.
He has a made a lot of court appointments. That was the Left's seat of power. Got to fortify the foundation before you can expect to win battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
THIS. He deserves a spot on Mt Rushmore for this alone.
And wearing a MAGA hat!
How she is still allowed to weigh in on some of the most important decisions of this country, that will affect the lives of all of our citizens forever is beyond me. McDonalds would have forcibly retired her decades ago.
This "justice for life" horseshit has to go. There needs to be a competency test every decade at least.
What is it that makes you question her competency?
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-28-18, 11:23
Arguing Constitutional Law is stimulating, but frankly, it is about as rigorous as reading animal entrails to understand the future- people are going to either see what they want to see, or what they think you want to hear. That the politics of the court factor into so many decisions, I guess, isn't that much of stunner but I think the founders would be disappointed- but not surprised because they set up our govt with a respect of human failures, not wishing on their better angels.
I'd love a Libertarian pick that would put individual rights over the state and make both sides happy to some degree. That would be ninja. That person may not exist, and the extremes would bitch about either not being able to enforce morality or immorality on the rest of us.
I think term limits or an age limit would be good. Term limit would make it so that the push for younger judges wasn't so pronounced. I'm not against older judges. Frankly, a little more perspective from lower court duty might be good. Knowing that there is a shelf life to the judge might not make the choices so contentious. 11 judges might lead to better coalitions and more 'nodes' of agreement.
That judges and the judiciary may be the block to the Progressive march forward would be DELISH.
RetroRevolver77
06-28-18, 14:08
Keep counting your chickens before they hatch: Donald Trump hasn't gotten us a damned thing, yet.
He stopped Hillary. With Kennedy stepping down, possibly RBG and talk that another may step down- Trump may get up to FOUR Supreme Court Justices picked before he's out. If he doesn't accomplish anything over the next few years, he's already done more for us than any other President in the last five decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thgnzvVjQQk
He stopped Hillary. With Kennedy stepping down, possibly RBG and talk that another may step down- Trump may get up to FOUR Supreme Court Justices picked before he's out. If he doesn't accomplish anything over the next few years, he's already done more for us than any other President in the last five decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thgnzvVjQQk
RGB I don’t see stepping down until after the next Presidential election, regardless of the outcome. She doesn’t want Trump picking her replacement, and if he wins again though she’ll have no choice.
Next presidential term, she’s out. I wouldn’t hold my breath on her doing it before 2020, I’ll bet money that she doesn’t.
I’m calling it now she’ll retire January 2021.
Regardless of age, she doesn’t want Trump to have that nomination.
Regardless of age, she doesn’t want Trump to have that nomination.
And that gives her something to live for.
Yeah, truth. The only way Darth Vader Ginsberg is stepping down before 2021 is if she winds up stepping into a pine box. The power of the Dark Side is keeping her alive, but she's, like, 1000 years old so anything possible.
Before this gets to far into the political weeds, let's just all sit back and enjoy the waterfalls of liberal tears that are already flowing....
https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36274407_10105472954771679_4767854976384892928_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=60560256f2edfe232a1c943825475705&oe=5BE4FCA2&efg=eyJhZG1pc3Npb25fY29udHJvbCI6MSwidXBsb2FkZXJfaWQiOiIxMTgzMzU5NCJ9
https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36282348_10105472954836549_5833544874871226368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=c70ff02b33879ed52568c519bbe6a5d3&oe=5BA474F8&efg=eyJhZG1pc3Npb25fY29udHJvbCI6MSwidXBsb2FkZXJfaWQiOiIxMTgzMzU5NCJ9
https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36236138_10105472954876469_1298994300121513984_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=590f91073df2d318e10193105bf5391f&oe=5BA6A4DD&efg=eyJhZG1pc3Npb25fY29udHJvbCI6MSwidXBsb2FkZXJfaWQiOiIxMTgzMzU5NCJ9
https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36272793_2075497786049072_7513102152483471360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6c6955bfe79087a598a4372a1a29502b&oe=5BE15E3B&efg=eyJhZG1pc3Npb25fY29udHJvbCI6MSwidXBsb2FkZXJfaWQiOiIxOTc0NjEwNzY2MTM3Nzc1In0%3D
https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36317971_2076226585976192_9005758031220178944_n.png?_nc_cat=0&oh=5038af27a983b99edf602f81608790ca&oe=5BE5AD1B&efg=eyJhZG1pc3Npb25fY29udHJvbCI6MSwidXBsb2FkZXJfaWQiOiIxOTc0NjEwNzY2MTM3Nzc1In0%3D
That last one is just gold... :laugh:
Doc Safari
06-28-18, 15:05
Yeah, truth. The only way Darth Vader Ginsberg is stepping down before 2021 is if she winds up stepping into a pine box. The power of the Dark Side is keeping her alive, but she's, like, 1000 years old so anything possible.
Oh, I dunno....maybe someone could invite her on a hunting trip to Texas?
Oh, I dunno....maybe someone could invite her on a hunting trip to Texas?With a pillow fight while she's sleeping?
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
06-28-18, 15:36
Yeah, truth. The only way Darth Vader Ginsberg is stepping down before 2021 is if she winds up stepping into a pine box. The power of the Dark Side is keeping her alive, but she's, like, 1000 years old so anything possible.
Liberals never die. I almost wonder if RBG is right about the 2nd Amendment only applying to state militias, because she was alive, and probably already old, when the Constitution was written! :D
RetroRevolver77
06-28-18, 15:37
Oh, I dunno....maybe someone could invite her on a hunting trip to Texas?
With a pillow fight while she's sleeping?
You people are deplorable, absolutely deplorable.
;)
Doc Safari
06-28-18, 15:37
You people are deplorable, absolutely deplorable.
;)
Card-carrying.
Card-carrying.Here, here!
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
Best news of the day, President Trump will get to stack the deck in the conservatives favor again. And just maybe (crossing fingers) get to replace Ginsburg as well. That would be epic!
I would never underestimate the ability of the Republican clown show in the Senate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
What is it that makes you question her competency?
http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2015/02/13/150213_ruth_bader_ginsburg_gty_629.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/150213_gma_ginburg_16x9_992.jpg
https://theordinarypolitical.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bader-ginsburg.jpg
Lol. That’s it? Falling asleep during a boring speech?
RGB I don’t see stepping down until after the next Presidential election, regardless of the outcome. She doesn’t want Trump picking her replacement, and if he wins again though she’ll have no choice.
Next presidential term, she’s out. I wouldn’t hold my breath on her doing it before 2020, I’ll bet money that she doesn’t.
I’m calling it now she’ll retire January 2021.
Regardless of age, she doesn’t want Trump to have that nomination.
Unfortunately for her (not!!!) the Grim Reaper may have other plans…...
Which part - my analysis or my disclaimer? :rolleyes:
Seems to me that the only thing that the SCOTUS could do that wouldn't interfere with State's Rights in some form is determine that the Second Amendment really means 'shall not be infringed' and that Constitutional Carry is the law of the land. In other words, if they found it was unconstitutional to prohibit concealed, or open carry, the states would not have a right to pass laws that infringed on that finding.
Likewise, if they found that all the Federal firearms legislation since 1968 was unconstitutional, the states would not have a right to pass laws that infringed on those findings.
Remember that I was commenting on someone's post that it would be nice if the SCOTUS decided that shall issue and national CCW was the law of the land. I don't think they would do that because, absent a finding which significantly changed the current interpretation, such actions would be construed to be interference with state's rights.
As I said, the SCOTUS seems content to allow the states leeway in how they manage CCW and possession issues, to me this is somewhat evident in the cases to which they choose to grant certiorari. They pick and choose the cases which they deign to consider from hundreds of petitions.
Seems to me we are all for State's Rights until we aren't, we are all for smaller government, until we aren't and we are all for Courts not legislating from the bench, until we aren't. Consistent we aint.
JMO
The SCOTUS ruled that states which didn't recognize gay marriage had to recognize it from other states, hence making it nationwide. Why shouldn't the same be said of CCW licenses (just like driver's licenses)? You can't pick and choose which "rights" you will defend and which (it also just happens to be the SECOND Amendment in the Bill of Rights) you won't in regards to the entire country. Either the states have rights or they don't. Pick one.
Averageman
06-28-18, 19:42
http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2015/02/13/150213_ruth_bader_ginsburg_gty_629.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/150213_gma_ginburg_16x9_992.jpg
https://theordinarypolitical.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bader-ginsburg.jpg
Somewhere in that disaster you need the sound effect of a long very wet fart.
Somewhere in that disaster you need the sound effect of a long very wet fart.Maybe Depends muffles those sounds?
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
HardToHandle
06-28-18, 21:04
The SCOTUS ruled that states which didn't recognize gay marriage had to recognize it from other states, hence making it nationwide. Why shouldn't the same be said of CCW licenses (just like driver's licenses)? You can't pick and choose which "rights" you will defend and which (it also just happens to be the SECOND Amendment in the Bill of Rights) you won't in regards to the entire country. Either the states have rights or they don't. Pick one.
Not the way U.S. jurisprudence works.
Exhibit #1, incorporation of the Bill of Rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
Lol. That’s it? Falling asleep during a boring speech?
That's three different pics from three different events. And yeah, if she can't remain awake during work hours then how the F can I depend upon her to be able to do anything else? I understand most of Congress is incompetent, but at least they can stay awake and pretend to understand what they are being told.
And just so we are on the same page, I had the exact same issue with Strom Thurmond. When you are still in office at 100 years old I question your competency on a basic level, if you can't even stay awake then I have serious concerns. I'm not saying anyone should be automatically retired at a given age, but around 65 they should have to pass competency tests, perhaps being able to write down sections of the Federalist Papers verbatim and explain their meaning in detail once every five years.
And if Gisnburg can actually still do that between naps then sure, go ahead...but I seriously doubt she could quote sections of the Federalist Papers verbatim and explain their meaning even though that is a core, essential qualification for her job.
Lol. That’s it? Falling asleep during a boring speech?I'll give her a pass on the nap.
But no pass for saying what she did in her interview.
Point being: she slipped and said something that no justice should ever. She's not stupid, she would not have made that kind of slip in the past.
So yes, she's slipping.
Not incompetent, maybe at the IDGAF phase. But slipping.
Do what now?!? Seriously, he did the ONLY thing most of us ever required from him, PREVENT another Clinton Presidency. Job done, enjoy the fact that we aren't having the new Clinton Ban shoved down our throat along with every other "done deal" policy that simply would have happened had Shillary been elected.
He could literally do nothing more than tweet provocative stuff that he has no ability or even intention to implement for the remainder of his term and he will STILL have done his job. If he gets some kind of stability with Russia as far as "common ground issues", if he achieves anything meaningful whatsoever with the Norks, if he does anything at all about the flood of illegals into the country or if we are really gonna set the bar high...if he does anything to normalize and improve the economy he will have basically done more than Obama on his best day.
Nobody thinks he's gonna get us to Mars. Nobody thinks he's gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Nobody thinks he's going to end Chinese imports and bring back NAFTA jobs. All those things would be nice...but never gonna happen.
The only reason I voted for him was to prevent another President Clinton, which would have been so disastrous I don't think we can accurately imagine what it might be like. But we'd be begging to go back to the stability and safety of the Obama years.
Very well said.
Averageman
06-29-18, 01:03
In some parallel universe, Hillary Clinton is cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West while contemplating which Angry Socialist Progressive lesbian she can appoint for her second SCOTUS appointee.
So yeah, I'm happy I don't live there and now I want a MAGA hat for the here and now.
I'll give her a pass on the nap.
If this was a "one time" event I wouldn't even bother mentioning it. But Ginsburg is asleep at the wheel constantly, she literally sleeps on the job. If she did that at WalMart it would be her last day after the third time of snoozing on the bench rather than greeting shoppers at the door.
Normally I'd say it's a good thing she's snoozing given her politics, but the reality is she probably sleeps through a LOT of debate and discussion and then simply gets woken up to vote the way she decided to vote before she dozed off again, and that really isn't the way a supreme court justice is supposed to decide things.
At least Sotomayor and Kagan are actually awake to listen to dissenting positions before they vote.
Doc Safari
06-29-18, 08:55
If people knew how many members of Congress, SCOTUS, you name it--have Alzheimer's, are addicted to drugs, suffer from mental illness, can't function well enough to do their job, etc., there would be an uproar in this country with people DEMANDING term limits and easy recalls of public officials.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-29-18, 09:23
In some parallel universe, Hillary Clinton is cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West while contemplating which Angry Socialist Progressive lesbian she can appoint for her second SCOTUS appointee.
So yeah, I'm happy I don't live there and now I want a MAGA hat for the here and now.
Stop thinking too hard about the alternate realities or else they will collapse on each other’s wave function and there will only be the alternate of Bernie as President.....
ETA: Have we talked about Schumer’s tactical mistake about blowing his filibuster wad on Goresuch and not keeping it for now? Not that it would make much difference. Maybe he really thought Trump would be gone soon. Whatever way, he has one less tool- or more importantly one less delaying tactic.
Odd how the Dems want to wait to vote for the next Senate that will be seated in 7 months, but for some reason they don’t give a hoot about a baby that will be born in 7 months. Why don’t we let the baby vote to see if it is aborted. It surely has a say as to what happens in its future. Odd how that works out.
I'll give her a pass on the nap.
But no pass for saying what she did in her interview.
Point being: she slipped and said something that no justice should ever. She's not stupid, she would not have made that kind of slip in the past.
So yes, she's slipping.
Not incompetent, maybe at the IDGAF phase. But slipping.
Maybe, who knows? People get old, sometimes they begin to slip. I would imagine that most of the people who are in a position to know are likely to cover up for her to some degree and keep it from the general public, just as they did for Reagan. From my perspective, limited as it is, I see nothing that makes me think that she's slipping. She's always been an odd duck that speaks her liberal mind freely.
So what do you guys think about Trump trying to fast track Thomas Lee. He's already State Supreme Court Justice.
I don't know that much about him but apparently he writes a lot and specifically in determining what is the intent of the wording.
I'm not sure about his 2A stance. Couldn't dig anything up yet and apparently he has ruled minimally in that area.
BoringGuy45
06-29-18, 13:45
So what do you guys think about Trump trying to fast track Thomas Lee. He's already State Supreme Court Justice.
I don't know that much about him but apparently he writes a lot and specifically in determining what is the intent of the wording.
I'm not sure about his 2A stance. Couldn't dig anything up yet and apparently he has ruled minimally in that area.
As Utah is one of the reddest states in the country, I doubt there has been many gun control debates that he's had to settle.
That said, I hope it's Thomas Hardiman on the 3rd Circuit. He was the runner up to Gorsuch in the last appointment, and he's known to be strongly pro-gun.
In some parallel universe, Hillary Clinton is cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West while contemplating which Angry Socialist Progressive transgender fluidlesbian she can appoint for her second SCOTUS appointee.
FIFY. ;)
As Utah is one of the reddest states in the country, I doubt there has been many gun control debates that he's had to settle.
That said, I hope it's Thomas Hardiman on the 3rd Circuit. He was the runner up to Gorsuch in the last appointment, and he's known to be strongly pro-gun.
Ah! ok, I was wondering why he had so little 2A work. Didn't put 2 and 2 together.
Isn't his brother Mike Lee in the running as well? From what little I've researched both seem like solid choices. Either way, the left is going to go absolutely insane over whoever is chosen.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Yes, he is. I'm just thinking of the critical time frame nature of this one. And actually since he hasn't ruled on 2A they would be hard pressed to tie him down on it. Of course that could cut both ways in a really bad way.
The one thing is though.. only one of them will get it. I mean only one can get it. No way two brothers will be appointed.
Trump really needs a Justice in there now. Just think of the latest immigration ban. He would have lost that. So if he needs to sue up to SCOTUS because the Dems are playing that game... well right now, he loses every match because he loses at the State level. Hawaii, NY, VA I think. I mean they will place cases in whatever State will rule against him then a tie in SCOTUS and he's screwed.
Roberts - 62 - LC ( Loose Canon )
Thomas - 70 - R
Ginsburg - 85 - L Female
Sotomayor - 64 - L Female
Kagan - 58 - L Female
Breyer - 80 - L
Alito - 68 - R
Gorsuch - 51 - R
The Rs are all male. Females live longer. If Trump wins in 2020 he could replace Breyer and Ginsburg also. There is a possibility for a 6-3 or even 7-2 court... and that is why Dems will go vote, block, do whatever to stop this process. They can not afford to lose any more. That means one thing. They will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. If Hillary were POTUS right now. By Nov. teh SCOTUS would be 6.5 to 2.5 or 6-3 at best. any way it would be game over.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-30-18, 01:58
Goresuch isn't 67, he was BORN in 67.
The interesting thing is that all the left seems to care about is abortion. You hear a little about gay rights, money in politics and 'corporations'- but it seems to really come down to abortion. What a sick and twisted line to choose as your Alamo. Ben Shapiro has some insights into that too. You won't get, or we are a long ways away from declaring that the baby is a person with rights. The first step would be to de-federalize the issue and if you 'overturn' RowV Wade, that wasn't about killing a baby, it was about privacy between the patient and the doctor. With out RvW abortion doesn't become illegal, you and throw it back to the states. Then you get state legislators and govs hashing out where the line is. So it isn't like abortion become illegal everywhere all at once.
Welcome to the gun-rights world circa 1990-2018.
Realize that with the guns we won't get it all in one fell swoop. A nice - you have a right to a firearm for selfdefense outside the house is a good start. I just want a nice ruling that AWBs are kosher right and standard cap magazine are part of that. I'll take a narrow ruling that doesn't address much more than that. And then start chipping away at the 86 and NFA. Get a few cases like that and you'll get reasonable curcuits to abide by the ruling, while whackos like the 9th will still screw it up. Then you get nice cases with split circuits that have to be addressed.
At this point, Roberts becomes the weak kneed twit. We already know he like to legislate from the bench to protect us from ourselves.
I think it would be interesting to see how it went, state by state.
Moose-Knuckle
06-30-18, 04:54
Elections have consequences.
I'd like to go back in time to all of the "Never Trumpers" on this site and thank them for nothing.
Thank goodness the majority of the American public were smarter than a minority of folks on here who claim to support the 2nd amendment yet get themselves all balled up over so called "principles."
Trump has proven himself far more effective AND conservative than either of the Bush's, Romney and McCain combined. All of whom I am sure they supported.
Deserves a much needed re-post. :cool:
This "justice for life" horseshit has to go. There needs to be a competency test every decade at least.
Activist judges need to go and for God sake give them random piss tests.
Moose-Knuckle
06-30-18, 05:14
What is it that makes you question her competency?
Alcoholism.
Photos of her snoozing at hearings on Google images, the best being a courtroom artist's impression lmao.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_s946MaOyU
Trump says he will announce his nominee on Monday, July 9.
Alcoholism.
Photos of her snoozing at hearings on Google images, the best being a courtroom artist's impression lmao.
Heh heh. You conclude alcoholism from that?:)
I mean, I'm prepared to believe almost anything of our elected and appointed governmental officials, but I do need some kind of evidence....
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180630/7bbf637ffc6150fc2de12f6809b4dcce.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trump says he will announce his nominee on Monday, July 9.
the two names they are floating now are.....
Brett Kavanaugh -- young male
Joan Larsen -- young Female
FromMyColdDeadHand
Goresuch isn't 67, he was BORN in 67.
I knew something didn't look right about that when I wrote it. will fix, thanks.
A conservative female would help offset the 3 liberal females on the court. Might also be easier to get approved instead of a 6th man.
I think so too. I think she is only 46... actually looks like maybe she's 50.. .still that's young. Not sure of her 2A stance or abortion for that matter. Honestly I think the abortion issue is simply a canard the Left likes to present. Practically everyone I have ever heard comment on it says that pre-existing law decisions will have a lot of weight so a reversal would be unlikely.
Honestly if all the Justices were all of the R persuasion, I would still be worried about a 2A ruling and what States will do with the results.
Larson:
Larsen was quoted after her appointment in Crain's Detroit Business as believing in "enforcing the text (of laws) as written. I don't think judges are a policy-making branch of government."
She is against International Law. Strict reading of our laws, and beyond that has little to history. A blank slate.
Tough call. I hope if she is nominated that someone asks her does she think the pro 2A court wins thus far have correctly read the the words of the Constitution.
Moose-Knuckle
07-01-18, 05:21
Heh heh. You conclude alcoholism from that?:)
I mean, I'm prepared to believe almost anything of our elected and appointed governmental officials, but I do need some kind of evidence....
@ 1:05 the CNN anchor corrected himself from misquoting her earlier, she said; "I was not 100% sober at the SOTU" (aka I was intoxicated). Again, dozens of pics to include court room sketch artists showing her a sleep on the clock. I care not if she's inebriated, narcoleptic, or just bored when you hold that important of a position and can't stay awake on the job then you are not fit for duty. If she is in fact a lush how can that be ethical/legal for her to decide cases when simply walking down the sidewalk intoxicated is illegal in this country?
BrigandTwoFour
07-01-18, 07:37
IMO the abortion issue is dead and needs to be left alone. The left brings it up, and ties it to "reproductive rights," as a scare tactic to rally their female voters. It's not too different than the NRA screaming about "BANS!" in order to stir us up.
Though, to be fair, I really do believe the left winning would result in gun bans faster than the right going back to ban abortions.
There is no "moving the court to the right" as some like to claim. The court isn't Right or Left. It either interprets the Constitution as our founders intended, or it doesn't. The four justices you see falling on the opposite side are activists who do not interpret the Constitution as the founders wrote or intended. The activist judges are appointed to destroy this country and its laws from the inside. The media, the activist courts and the education system are a larger threat than NK, CN and RS.
Calling an appointment right or left is inaccurate, I only say this because you are allowing the left to control the debate and they are forcing you to use their terms and premise.
IMO the abortion issue is dead and needs to be left alone. The left brings it up, and ties it to "reproductive rights," as a scare tactic to rally their female voters. It's not too different than the NRA screaming about "BANS!" in order to stir us up.
Though, to be fair, I really do believe the left winning would result in gun bans faster than the right going back to ban abortions.
Agreed.
Averageman
07-01-18, 11:09
Great article here;
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html#click=https://t.co/g5USfy0ebM
On the final day of the Supreme Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm.
The court’s five conservative members, citing the First Amendment, had just dealt public unions a devastating blow. The day before, the same majority had used the First Amendment to reject a California law requiring religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide women with information about abortion.
Conservatives, said Justice Kagan, who is part of the court’s four-member liberal wing, were “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
Read this closely, it's about to go sideways;
Some liberals now say that free speech disproportionately protects the powerful and the status quo.
“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”
Think about that for a minute and then please. go read the article.
Edited to add this Gem from Columbia Law School;
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=facpub
Can Free Speech Be Progressive?
Louis Michael Seidman*
Georgetown University Law Center
The answer is no. At least the answer is no if we are talking about free speech in the American
context, with all the historical, sociological, and philosophical baggage that comes with the modern,
American free speech right. But explaining why the answer is no will require some work.
I. Some Clarifications, Caveats, and Throat Clearing
I start with two important clarifications.
First, by “progressivism,” I mean the modern political stance favoring an activist government
that strives to achieve the public good, including the correction of unjust distributions produced by the
market and the dismantling of power hierarchies based on traits like race, nationality, gender, class, and
sexual orientation.1
Although this stance has important points of contact with the progressive
movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, there are also important differences.2
Second, saying that the free speech right is not progressive, as so defined, is different from
denying that it might be an important side constraint on the effort to achieve progressive goals. Most
progressives do not favor violence, authoritarianism, or deception even if these techniques might be
used to advance progressive ends.
So suddenly Legal minds, well the Socialist Democratic and Socialist Academia have decided, Your right to free speech offends them.
I wonder how many Blue Collar Middle Class folks find this kind of stuff on the internet? I ask because this is a clear and concise definition of where these folks want to take America.
BrigandTwoFour
07-01-18, 11:30
So suddenly Legal minds, well the Socialist Democratic and Socialist Academia have decided, Your right to free speech offends them.
I wonder how many Blue Collar Middle Class folks find this kind of stuff on the internet? I ask because this is a clear and concise definition of where these folks want to take America.
I could feel my blood beginning to boil while reading that excerpt.
This isn't going to end well...for anyone
edit to add:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Averageman
07-01-18, 12:25
Honestly, after reading a bit of that, you kind of hope Trump gets two more picks.
You're either a Constitutionalist or your the Socialist Liberal "Living Document" Supreme Court Justice. There are simply few if any other choices.
The Left blowing a gasket on this issue, is simply a result of their own motivations and actions coming back to haunt them. They really want to turn the Constitution against freedom's rather than for them.
The recent issue with Labor Unions being able to pick your pocket and then give that money to their pet causes and elections they choose is simply an example. Overturning that was clearly necessary and just.
Reading the above as it relates to Freedom of Speech, should tell you an awful lot about the direction they want to take these issues.
Just as an example, Freedom of Speech is the Hallmark of Freedoms we enjoy, no other Freedoms will be protected if your voice cannot be heard. We here, probably especially here, will not be allowed to exchange our idea's, thoughts and gathered knowledge.
To say advocating for a New Freedom of Speech with kill the Right to Keep and bear Arms should be a given if this were allowed to move forward.
That this is coming out of major University, should really concern all of us.
Edited to add this Gem from Columbia Law School;
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=facpub
First, by “progressivism,” I mean the modern political stance favoring an activist government
that strives to achieve the public good, including the correction of unjust distributions produced by the
market and the dismantling of power hierarchies based on traits like race, nationality, gender, class, and
sexual orientation.
Athough this stance has important points of contact with the progressive
movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, there are also important differences.
Second, saying that the free speech right is not progressive, as so defined, is different from
denying that it might be an important side constraint on the effort to achieve progressive goals. Most
progressives do not favor violence, authoritarianism, or deception even if these techniques might be
used to advance progressive ends.
The new "progressive" model of an activist government seems like it veers dangerously close to authoritarian (for obvious reasons), in which case the second point seems to be almost comically contradictory. It reminds me of the C.S. Lewis quote: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Then again, there are many self identified "liberals" and "progressives" who are finding themselves increasingly at odds with the DNC and the far left who are now driving the party. Liberals have held the 1st Amendment as sacred for a long time, and the idea that those leading their party want to dismantle the right to free speech "for their own good" and can be trusted not to abuse the added power may be a bridge too far.
There is no "moving the court to the right" as some like to claim. The court isn't Right or Left. It either interprets the Constitution as our founders intended, or it doesn't. The four justices you see falling on the opposite side are activists who do not interpret the Constitution as the founders wrote or intended. The activist judges are appointed to destroy this country and its laws from the inside. The media, the activist courts and the education system are a larger threat than NK, CN and RS.
Calling an appointment right or left is inaccurate, I only say this because you are allowing the left to control the debate and they are forcing you to use their terms and premise.
This is true, but generally I see those on the right as being "those who refer to the Constitution as a guide" vs. those on the left who "view the Constitution as a living document subject to current political views."
Of course none of that saved us from having Eminent Domain declared lawful for private use (in direct opposition to the specific wording of the Constitution) so honestly the SCOTUS hasn't meant shit since then. They clearly legislate from the bench despite what the Constitution may or may not say.
Moose-Knuckle
07-02-18, 02:30
The court isn't Right or Left. It either interprets the Constitution as our founders intended, or it doesn't. The four justices you see falling on the opposite side are activists who do not interpret the Constitution as the founders wrote or intended. The activist judges are appointed to destroy this country and its laws from the inside. The media, the activist courts and the education system are a larger threat than NK, CN and RS.
Calling an appointment right or left is inaccurate, I only say this because you are allowing the left to control the debate and they are forcing you to use their terms and premise.
Great post and the point can never be overemphasized.
"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within." — Saul Alinsky
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html#click=https://t.co/g5USfy0ebM
On the final day of the Supreme Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm.
The court’s five conservative members, citing the First Amendment, had just dealt public unions a devastating blow. The day before, the same majority had used the First Amendment to reject a California law requiring religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide women with information about abortion.
Conservatives, said Justice Kagan, who is part of the court’s four-member liberal wing, were “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
Some liberals now say that free speech disproportionately protects the powerful and the status quo.
“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=facpub
Can Free Speech Be Progressive?
Louis Michael Seidman*
Georgetown University Law Center
The answer is no. At least the answer is no if we are talking about free speech in the American
context, with all the historical, sociological, and philosophical baggage that comes with the modern,
American free speech right. But explaining why the answer is no will require some work.
I. Some Clarifications, Caveats, and Throat Clearing
I start with two important clarifications.
First, by “progressivism,” I mean the modern political stance favoring an activist government
that strives to achieve the public good, including the correction of unjust distributions produced by the
market and the dismantling of power hierarchies based on traits like race, nationality, gender, class, and
sexual orientation.1
Although this stance has important points of contact with the progressive
movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, there are also important differences.2
Second, saying that the free speech right is not progressive, as so defined, is different from
denying that it might be an important side constraint on the effort to achieve progressive goals. Most
progressives do not favor violence, authoritarianism, or deception even if these techniques might be
used to advance progressive ends.
This.
****ed up repugnant shit.
Right here.
Is why the founders phrased the subject matter of the 2nd Amendment right behind the subject matter of the 1st Amendment.
That this is coming out of major University, should really concern all of us.
A large portion of academia has been this way for a long, very long time.
Moose-Knuckle
07-02-18, 02:43
Double tap.
titsonritz
07-02-18, 21:41
Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America
No one expected Kennedy to allow Donald Trump to pick his successor. But he has. And it should forever taint his legacy as a jurist.
It’s been a few days now, but the shock of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement hasn’t abated a bit. This is partly because of the ghastly coming ramifications, more on which later. But it’s also because I honestly didn’t think Kennedy would allow Donald Trump to name his successor.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-kennedy-you-are-a-total-disgrace-to-america
I guess 43 years of service isn't enough for some people. I've got to say it is so much fun watching all the liberal hypocrite tears flowing. Ol' Chucky boy crying about holding out until November. :dance3:
There are definitely right/conservative judges. Authoritarian leaning and will find creative ways to justify police powers and searches.
There are definitely right/conservative judges. Authoritarian leaning and will find creative ways to justify police powers and searches.
That's why I'm careful when I express my desire for SCOTUS nominees. I don't want judges that lean either political direction, I just want them to look at the Constitution with a slant towards Originalism.
That's why I'm careful when I express my desire for SCOTUS nominees. I don't want judges that lean either political direction, I just want them to look at the Constitution with a slant towards Originalism.So the problem is that "originalism" is now viewed as conservative/right wing.
It's not right, but that's how the progressives view it.
I think the authoritarian right is overall much closer to originalist than the progressive left.
Moose-Knuckle
07-03-18, 15:41
The Dems will NEVER not appoint a radical leftist activist judge so why should we refrain from doing the exact opposite?
The whole centrist reach across the aisle fence riding thing sounds benevolent and all but it's what has got us to this point. Like in all things, the left only do what they are allowed to do.
The Dems will NEVER not appoint a radical leftist activist judge so why should we refrain from doing the exact opposite?
The whole centrist reach across the aisle fence riding thing sounds benevolent and all but it's what has got us to this point. Like in all things, the left only do what they are allowed to do.
I think that maybe your "radical" right vision and mine are entirely different. I don't want more spying on citizens or legislation like the Patriot Act. I want less things like the TSA, asset forfeiture and eminent domain. When I hear authoritarian right or radical right, those are the things I envision.
I want right of center, but too far to the right begins to blur with too far to the left.
I think that maybe your "radical" right vision and mine are entirely different. I don't want more spying on citizens or legislation like the Patriot Act. I want less things like the TSA, asset forfeiture and eminent domain. When I hear authoritarian right or radical right, those are the things I envision.
I want right of center, but too far to the right begins to blur with too far to the left.
That's pretty much where I am but unless Ted Cruz or somebody like him gets appointed, we're stuck with what we get which is a 100% better pick than what Hitlery would be giving us.
Gorsuch is already proving he's more of a true Conservative than an authoritarian, far right Republican type.
PatrioticDisorder
07-03-18, 17:57
My worry is this Catholic woman whom Trump is considering appointing is not exactly pro-2a. Knock Kennedy for being a “moderate”, he came through on 2a related matters. This CANNOT be a loss on this issue. We need a minimum of 6-3 on 2a issues, particularly if “AWB” or “magazine capacity” cases come before the court, those need to get pimp slapped down hard.
So the problem is that "originalism" is now viewed as conservative/right wing.
It's not right, but that's how the progressives view it.
Exactly. You are allowing them to control the narrative by accepting their definitions.
Averageman
07-03-18, 19:17
She's a Mom of seven kids and has an excellent career in a field dominated by men and she has a great education.
Do you think the Left is willing to allow her the appointment?
She's everything the Left says women cannot achieve.
In other words, she is a nightmare to them.
BrigandTwoFour
07-03-18, 20:14
Exactly. You are allowing them to control the narrative by accepting their definitions.
The changing words thing pisses me off.
They frame it as "Progressives" vs "People holding back progress," and that's how they market the message. Of course, nobody is really ever clear about what they want to progress towards, and the useful idiots will follow.
My worry is this Catholic woman whom Trump is considering appointing is not exactly pro-2a. Knock Kennedy for being a “moderate”, he came through on 2a related matters. This CANNOT be a loss on this issue. We need a minimum of 6-3 on 2a issues, particularly if “AWB” or “magazine capacity” cases come before the court, those need to get pimp slapped down hard.
Are there particular cases that bear this out? I've been looking and haven't found anything concrete.
Just got an interesting email from GOA.... Why is the GOP trying to get a hard core leftist appointed to the Ninth Circus this Monday?
President Trump to Soon Nominate Justice to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy
Dear __________,
I'm sure that you've seen the news.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring. So President Donald Trump now has an opportunity to nominate another justice to the Supreme Court.
If you hadn't noticed, the entire leftist movement is going nuts.
You can be sure, that unless the replacement is a budding leftist (like David Souter), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats will move heaven and earth to utterly destroy him.
Regardless, it is important that we encourage the President to nominate a justice who is grounded in the Constitution -- and who will stand by every word of it (including the Second Amendment).
There are some good nominees on the President's list -- people like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who would be an outstanding pick.
So, if you have a Twitter account, you can tweet the President here to encourage him to pick a pro-gun, constitutionalist judge. (If you're not on Twitter, you can email here.)
Urge him to select a nominee in the mold of Senator Lee or Justice Neil Gorsuch or the late Antonin Scalia.
GOP rushing confirmation of leftist judge
Curiously, the Senate GOP is vigorously pushing anti-gun leftist Mark Bennett, who has been nominated to the Far Left Ninth Circuit bench.
The Senate will be voting on the Bennett nomination this Monday, July 9.
Bennett opposed the Heller Court's finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. He also opposed GOA's right to participate in the political process, which was recognized in the Citizens United case.
Bennett is a leftist across the board.
And yet, the GOP leadership is forcing a vote on him -- while a large number of conservative nominees remain unconfirmed.
On Monday, July 9, we will know who President Trump's nomination is for the Supreme Court.
We will know whether we have to mobilize the Second Amendment community on behalf of a Trump Judicial Pick.
But it is a two-way street.
Donald Trump and the senate GOP owe us an obligation to ensure that their judicial picks unreservedly support the right to keep and bear arms.
Mark Bennett is NOT such a pick.
So please contact Sen. Mark Warner (D) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D) -- and encourage them to OPPOSE the Bennett nomination for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thank you.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director
Follow me on Twitter: @erichmpratt
P.S. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Mark Bennett nomination. Tweet or email the President in regard to the Supreme Court. And if you have let your GOA membership expire, make sure to renew your membership in Gun Owners of America today for only $20!
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-18, 14:02
I think that maybe your "radical" right vision and mine are entirely different. I don't want more spying on citizens or legislation like the Patriot Act. I want less things like the TSA, asset forfeiture and eminent domain. When I hear authoritarian right or radical right, those are the things I envision.
I want right of center, but too far to the right begins to blur with too far to the left.
Huh?
Yeah I never said the "right" should be Orwellian.
The French Revolutionary era was where the terms Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics first originated. The reason for the terms to become used at all was the seating of the ancien régime of France at that time. The aristocrats sat on the right, and the commoners sat on the left.
I honestly have no idea how most people even gauge where they are at on the "Right" vs. "Left" wing thing.
Huh?
Yeah I never said the "right" should be Orwellian.
I honestly have no idea how most people even gauge where they are at on the "Right" vs. "Left" wing thing.
Political spectrum tests are accurate. Some people dont donthem and say “Im moderate” when would peg the meter if they took the test.
PatrioticDisorder
07-05-18, 15:45
Are there particular cases that bear this out? I've been looking and haven't found anything concrete.
Unfortunately none, but full disclosure I am Catholic and while many church going Catholics are “conservative” in many issues, they 2nd amendment beliefs are generally not one of them, hence the by I am worried about this pick.
BoringGuy45
07-05-18, 15:50
Kuthledge’s stock is reportedly rising quickly. He has already held dissenting opinions against gun registration and assault weapons bans. He or Hardiman would be my choice.
It's important to note that Kethledge, like Gorsuch, opposes the Chevron deference (https://www.reuters.com/article/frankel-chevron-otc/the-attack-on-chevron-deference-idUSKBN1E22SM) in which courts automatically default to a federal agency's interpretation of a law. It should go without saying that this doctrine is dangerous and inimical to individual liberty.
Amy Coney Barrett, on the other hand, is wishy-washy (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/03/scotus-short-lister-amy-coney-barrett-on) when it comes to deference to the legislative branch. Not the Chevron deference, but still worrying.
PatrioticDisorder
07-05-18, 16:56
Kuthledge’s stock is reportedly rising quickly. He has already held dissenting opinions against gun registration and assault weapons bans. He or Hardiman would be my choice.
I believe Kavanaugh will be rock solid as well, I’m crossing my fingers. Every single one of these picks is important, particularly this one because we can actually tip the balance the wrong way with the wrong pick.
saw this ?
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/04/ann-coulter-slams-open-borders-zealots-on-trumps-scotus-shortlist-backs-kavanaugh/
I tend to think Ted Cruz has his eye on the ball in terms of what we need:
Sen. Ted Cruz: Mike Lee is the best choice for the Supreme Court
By Sen. Ted Cruz
President Trump is scheduled to announce one of the most important decisions of his presidency on Monday: the name of his second nominee to the Supreme Court, to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
This will be a defining moment for President Trump’s legacy. Every president is remembered for his nominations to the Supreme Court – and not always positively.
Past Republican presidents have repeatedly nominated justices who failed to live up to the principles they were selected to represent. For example, President George H.W. Bush’s selection of liberal David Souter was one of the most consequential errors of his presidency.
Indeed, many of the worst liberal judicial activists, including William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and Harry Blackmun – the author of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide – were appointed by Republican presidents. These mistakes haunt the legacies of presidents, a specter they can never shake. We cannot let this happen again.
Most presidents are forced to gamble on a nominee they do not truly know – someone who has spent a lifetime outside the public eye. Presidents must pore over the thinnest bodies of evidence on these people, trying to discern their convictions and ability from scattered cases and the recommendations of others. It’s a risk, when what a president really needs is a sure thing.
President Trump, however, has lucked out. He has a sure thing, battle-tested, ready, and willing to serve: Sen. Mike Lee.
After countless mistakes by Republicans, we finally have a chance to get this right.
Sen. Lee, R-Utah, was made for this moment. No other candidate has his combination of record, ability, and a sure-fire path to confirmation – and no other candidate would excite conservative voters this November more than someone they know and trust, like Mike Lee.
Moreover, Lee safeguards President Trump’s Supreme Court legacy for all time, because there is not a single soul out there who can doubt that a Justice Mike Lee would remain true to the convictions he has fought for his entire life.
First, there is no question that Mike Lee is extraordinarily well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His legal acumen and experience are unparalleled.
Indeed, Lee has served in all three branches of the federal government. He clerked for two federal judges, including Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito. He was a federal prosecutor, general counsel to the governor of Utah, and has served his home state for the better part of a decade in the U.S. Senate.
As Lee’s colleagues know, he is a brilliant legal thinker, capable of seeing all sides of an issue through a principled, constitutionalist lens.
Lee would interpret the Constitution and laws according to their original meaning and text. He literally wrote the book on the lost clauses of our Constitution and how they protect our fundamental liberties.
A Justice Lee wouldn’t let activist lower courts distort the meaning of our laws and Constitution in order to impose their left-wing preferences on the nation. After all, who knows better that a judge’s job is to apply the law as it is – and not to legislate from the bench – than someone who was previously a legislator himself?
Mike Lee has a proven track record as a formidable advocate for the separation of powers, for federalism, for the Bill of Rights, and for a limited judicial role that adheres to originalism and textualism in judicial interpretation.
This is the judicial model that made Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas so revered by conservatives, and it is why Justice Neil Gorsuch has been such a strong success for President Trump. And now the president has the chance to do it again with Sen. Lee.
President Trump and conservatives can be sure that Lee won’t change. We’ve seen time and again judges bending to pressure from the liberal media and the D.C. cocktail party circuit once they get to the high court, moderating their decisions or avoiding tough issues when they matter most.
But if one thing is certain, it’s that Lee won’t bend his principles in the face of pressure. I’ve seen it myself in the Senate, where Lee has always stood up and fought for what he believed was right, regardless of whether it was popular with the D.C swamp.
Finally, President Trump should consider the single biggest political advantage that Lee has over every other name on his list of potential nominees. As a U.S. senator, his nomination process would be simple and his confirmation would not be in doubt.
Sen. Lee has the respect and admiration of his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike. And even with Republicans’ slim majority, senators on both sides of the aisle would have little trouble giving their advice and consent to a nominee they have served alongside for years.
When it comes to this Supreme Court nomination, President Trump can have it all. He can bring home another huge victory for conservatives with success being certain. And he can honor his promise to the American people to nominate justices “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.” No other nominee fits that mold like Mike Lee.
After countless mistakes by Republicans, we finally have a chance to get this right. President Trump can become the first Republican president in recent history to hit a home run on all his Supreme Court nominations, cementing his legacy for all time.
Nominating Sen. Mike Lee to the Supreme Court is the way to do it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/05/sen-ted-cruz-mike-lee-is-best-choice-for-supreme-court.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-06-18, 02:05
Do people really think that nominating a Senator, a politician, for the 'swing' seat on SCOTUS is going to fly? I know the left will savage who ever Trump puts up, but a white guy politician?
But let's get to Brass tacks, is he going to vote for himself? Is he going to quit his seat and get replaced so that Utah can put another GOP vote in the Senate for him? I'm seeing some legal and parliamentary tricks from the Dems to cock that up.
What were his ten biggest decisions he has handed down from the bench?
Look, I like the guy. A non Harvard-Yale person on the court would be great. But this aint' his time.
Do people really think that nominating a Senator, a politician, for the 'swing' seat on SCOTUS is going to fly?
Look, I like the guy. A non Harvard-Yale person on the court would be great. But this aint' his time.
The way I look at it any President should put forward whomever they see as the BEST candidate for the job, then fight to get that candidate seated.
I'm generally amenable to being a meet in the middle kind of guy on most things, but Supreme Court nominations are not the place to start out by compromising.
titsonritz
07-06-18, 17:50
The way I look at it any President should put forward whomever they see as the BEST candidate for the job, then fight to get that candidate seated.
I'm generally amenable to being a meet in the middle kind of guy on most things, but Supreme Court nominations are not the place to start out by compromising.
For sure. Make them come up with something better than " 'cause I don't wanna." Work 'em over.
Kuthledge’s stock is reportedly rising quickly. He has already held dissenting opinions against gun registration and assault weapons bans. He or Hardiman would be my choice.
I believe he should be the pick as well.
The Bush guy strikes me as dangerous and the most likely finalist to be another swinger.
Grand58742
07-08-18, 12:35
I think the DNC is going to go all out against this nomination and end up losing bigly in the end.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dick-durbin-blocking-trumps-supreme-court-pick-more-important-than-red-state-dems-getting-re-elected
A top Democrat in the Senate said his vulnerable colleagues from red states "understand" that fighting to stop President Trump's Supreme Court pick is more important than getting re-elected in 2018.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was pressed on this "dilemma" that Democrats face as the 2018 midterms approach during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Staying united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you red state senators. Not fighting it as hard might allow the red state senators to get re-elected and get Democrats in control of the Senate. That's your dilemma," host Chuck Todd posited on Sunday.
Durbin conceded that it is a dilemma "in one respect," but made that case for how it is a trade off Democrats are willing to make.
"It is a dilemma in one respect, but not in another. I will tell you, the men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously. They understand it's an historic decision. It's about more than the next election," he said, adding that the issue is about setting the future course for the country.
The problem is, the DNC Senators in Red States tend to be the ones that would vote for the new SCOTUS pick anyway. Manchin, Tester and Heitkamp would likely swing away from the party line and vote for the nomination.
Averageman
07-09-18, 06:15
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/08/report-trump-ruled-out-kethledge-conservative-criticism-immigration/
The only judge among the four whom the president appears to have all but ruled out is Raymond M. Kethledge. People close to the process said the president had found him likable but comparatively dull. And some conservatives, whose support has guided Mr. Trump’s thinking about the courts, have voiced concern about Judge Kethledge on issues like immigration.
Sources close to Breitbart News confirmed that Trump heard criticism from conservatives over Kethledge’s shaky record on immigration. As Breitbart News*reported, in one case back in 2013, Kethledge*sided*with an illegal alien who had overstayed their visa and spent 10 years in the U.S. illegally trying to obtain an employment visa.
In another case in*Kethledge*joined*an opinion which blocked the deportation of a criminal immigrant who had been in the U.S. on a Green Card. The immigrant lied on his U.S. citizenship application and went on to commit grand theft auto.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/08/barrett-and-hardiman-rising-as-trump-readies-supreme-court-pick-maybe/
*Social conservative leaders have been cheering for Barrett, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit whose confirmation hearings erupted when Democrats opposed her as a federal judge because of her devout Catholic faith, in violation of the Constitution’s Religious Test Clause. That episode – which included a bizarre moment where Sen. Dianne Feinstein used a speech pattern that sounded like Yoda from*Star Wars, saying to Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly in you” – made Barrett an instant celebrity with supporters of religious liberty and conservative values.
At age 46, Barrett would be the youngest justice in almost 30 years. She graduated from Notre Dame Law School, clerked for a federal appeals judge and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, then returned to Indiana as a law professor at Notre Dame, where she is well known as an ardent supporter of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. She is a mother to seven children – both biological and adopted – and is affectionately called “Judge Dogma” by some of her admirers for her grueling confirmation ordeal.
PatrioticDisorder
07-10-18, 07:07
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/08/report-trump-ruled-out-kethledge-conservative-criticism-immigration/
The only judge among the four whom the president appears to have all but ruled out is Raymond M. Kethledge. People close to the process said the president had found him likable but comparatively dull. And some conservatives, whose support has guided Mr. Trump’s thinking about the courts, have voiced concern about Judge Kethledge on issues like immigration.
Sources close to Breitbart News confirmed that Trump heard criticism from conservatives over Kethledge’s shaky record on immigration. As Breitbart News*reported, in one case back in 2013, Kethledge*sided*with an illegal alien who had overstayed their visa and spent 10 years in the U.S. illegally trying to obtain an employment visa.
In another case in*Kethledge*joined*an opinion which blocked the deportation of a criminal immigrant who had been in the U.S. on a Green Card. The immigrant lied on his U.S. citizenship application and went on to commit grand theft auto.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/08/barrett-and-hardiman-rising-as-trump-readies-supreme-court-pick-maybe/
*Social conservative leaders have been cheering for Barrett, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit whose confirmation hearings erupted when Democrats opposed her as a federal judge because of her devout Catholic faith, in violation of the Constitution’s Religious Test Clause. That episode – which included a bizarre moment where Sen. Dianne Feinstein used a speech pattern that sounded like Yoda from*Star Wars, saying to Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly in you” – made Barrett an instant celebrity with supporters of religious liberty and conservative values.
At age 46, Barrett would be the youngest justice in almost 30 years. She graduated from Notre Dame Law School, clerked for a federal appeals judge and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, then returned to Indiana as a law professor at Notre Dame, where she is well known as an ardent supporter of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. She is a mother to seven children – both biological and adopted – and is affectionately called “Judge Dogma” by some of her admirers for her grueling confirmation ordeal.
Kethledge & Barrett would have been poor choices. Barrett was a wild card, particularly on 2a issues, I didn’t trust her. Kavanaugh, despite reported Bush ties appears to be a rock ribbed originalist, he was who I hoped Trump picked, Hardiman probably would have been a solid pick as well. One can only hope Hardiman will be taking Ginsburg’s seat. Breyer, Ginsburg, Alito and Thomas are getting up there in age, Trump may end up having more picks than anyone would imagine.... It will be hard to fill Thomas’ shoes, he is a huge asset on the SCOTUS.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-18, 08:17
The changing words thing pisses me off.
They frame it as "Progressives" vs "People holding back progress," and that's how they market the message. Of course, nobody is really ever clear about what they want to progress towards, and the useful idiots will follow.
As nice a trick as calling it the “Right” and the “Wrong”, but the MSM would never play that linguistic angle.
Let’s be clear. We might not have been really happy with Kennedy, but he was on the conservative side- at least he ruled the correct way in most of the gun stuff. Kennedy was a swing vote, but his natural position of right of center, and in the end the right-left split, no matter how few degrees off of center- is the key.
You could have Four Scalias and 5 Garlands and call that a center-right court on balance that would give the Progressives all that they want and well written and reasoned 4 person dissents. When Thomas goes down, unless it is in the next 18 months, this “right court for a generation” ends then. Now if one of the current 4 libs gets replaced, then you really have a right leaning (as long as Roberts doesn’t go wobbly).
Justices are like British Royals in line for the crown. You need an heir and spare- the 5th vote, and a spare for untimely incidents and justices that go wobbly.
Averageman
07-10-18, 10:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIYySZEqOUg
This is hilarious, the Dems had the press release ready and left the name blank and stated their objections about a mystery appointee up to that point.
When they found out it was Kavanaugh, the filled in the blank and spelled his name wrong.
The utter brilliance of our opposition shines through every time.
Believe it or not, with the Russia investigation going full bore and a half a dozen FBI Hierarchy showing "Bias and Prejudice" in their investigation in to Clinton's emails and Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, The Left is now complaining about Kavanaugh having Bias and Prejudice's that should preclude him from sitting on the SCOTUS.
I hope this gets driven through with all the speed and dynamics of a eight horse stage coach that is on fire with two dozen angry Comanche's chasing it.
The thing that the Democrat party has learned (again) from this is to take a page out of FDR's book and resort to "court-packing" via legislation when they regain power. Good review of the plan here:
Democrats must consider court-packing when they regain power. It’s the only way to save democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/07/10/democrats-must-consider-court-packing-when-they-regain-power-its-the-only-way-to-save-democracy/?utm_term=.ac410b578b82
Averageman
07-10-18, 11:50
The thing that the Democrat party has learned (again) from this is to take a page out of FDR's book and resort to "court-packing" via legislation when they regain power. Good review of the plan here:
Democrats must consider court-packing when they regain power. It’s the only way to save democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/07/10/democrats-must-consider-court-packing-when-they-regain-power-its-the-only-way-to-save-democracy/?utm_term=.ac410b578b82
I believe POTUS Trump has been doing this since elected.
Lets all hope the 9th Circuit Court gets a big dose of this!
Whiskey_Bravo
07-10-18, 12:21
I believe POTUS Trump has been doing this since elected.
Lets all hope the 9th Circuit Court gets a big dose of this!
That's not the type of court packing they are talking about. They are talking about waiting until they are back in power and then adding to the total number of justices.
That grim reality is leading many on the left to contemplate radical ideas, including an idea considered and discarded 80 years ago: court-packing. The idea of court-packing — adding extra justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological makeup — causes most Americans to blanch. But if done right, it would actually offer a crucial avenue for safeguarding American democracy.
That's not the type of court packing they are talking about. They are talking about waiting until they are back in power and then adding to the total number of justices.
Correct. FDR was frustrated by the Supreme Court that he was saddled with sabotaging his New Deal agenda so he tried to pass legislation that would let the President appoint one Justice for every Justice over age 70. It would allowed him to appoint 6 Supreme Court Justices and expand the court from 9 to 15 or more. There is no Constitutionally mandated number of Justices. The number is currently 9, but that number is just set by Congressional legislation. That can be changed any time. The fact that Trump has appointed two, and might appoint a third if RBG croaks in time really has the left mobilized to radically change the way that SCOTUS works, and any majority party might have the opportunity to do that. Obama in his first term, for example.....
Can you imagine if the Supreme Court found Demorat court packing legislation unconstitutional. I'd kind of like to see that.:cool:
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-18, 13:36
Fun fact, as far as I can tell an outgoing POTUS, or one during his term, but between legislative sessions, could recess appoint justices. They would only be there for about a year, they would have a full vote.
Considering that even Obama wouldn't recess appoint Garland on his way out- I find it hard to believe that they would pack the court. At that point you have corrupted the Executive and Judicial branches and the Legislative is broken. The Constitution means what ever the POTUS recess appointees are told by POTUS it means. That would actually put military leaders in a tight spot- defend the constitution- as it was generally thought to be or as the POTUS lackies see and rule it...
All so that chicks can kill their babies....
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-10-18, 13:39
Can you imagine if the Supreme Court found Demorat court packing legislation unconstitutional. I'd kind of like to see that.:cool:
As ruled on by the packed court? You put 10 on prevent them from ruling against themselves. And as I point out, it doesn't even take the Senate to vote when you can recess appoint people to SCOTUS.
Self-licking ice-cream cone....
Averageman
07-10-18, 15:50
He should have nominated Kanye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCKM-NuGlNk
Of course Mitch wasn't in favor of that.
Whiskey_Bravo;2640998]
That grim reality is leading many on the left to contemplate radical ideas,
I'm not sure what the term is but whatever "livid squared" is... that's where Liberals are now. They are not even in a reality now. In fact I think they are so mentally twisted over all this that they are retreating into their fake Hollywood world. As they do so they cry "vote, vote".
The only thing it takes for a Liberal to contemplate a radical idea is to simply not get their way.
Ah... and it was just yesterday their savior was being carried to her throne.
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hillary-Clinton-Helped-to-Van-9-11-Memorial-2016-e1473687636255.png
Thank you Hillary. This is all you.
RetroRevolver77
07-11-18, 18:48
Rosenstein asks Prosecutors to Help With Kavanaugh Investigation.
WASHINGTON — Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.
Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement. While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rosenstein-asks-prosecutors-to-help-with-kavanaugh-papers-in-unusual-request/ar-AAzW5ZB?ocid=spartandhp
Absolutely nothing unusual about it since our government seems to be run by Obama socialists attempting to undermine our ****ing country.
Rosenstein wants Trump to fire him before the "Russia Investigation" is over. He will keep doing things of this nature.
Coal Dragger
07-11-18, 23:10
Rosenstein and Mueller are lucky they’re pulling this coup d’etat shit in the US. Can’t imagine this shit being tolerated in many other places in the world. Ironically if Trump really was Hitler as the totalitarian leftists would have us believe, Rosenstein and Mueller would have been hung from lamp posts with piano wire about a year ago along with their staffs and families.
Yet here we are 18+ months into their coup attempt, and they’re still doing what they do.
If we want Rosenstein gone, he needs to be impeached or held in contempt of Congress. Trump should declassify all of the documents requested by Congress and directly order Rosenstein to provide all of them. Then the ball will be in Rosenstein’s court, he can either comply, resign, or Trump will have a justification to fire him. I think a contempt of Congress charge would be a justification for POTUS to dismiss an official.
If Republicans win this fall, Rosenstein and Mueller will likely slither off and start writing books justifying their basically seditious activities. They’ll make millions of dollars, and life will go on. If Republicans lose the House then their shenanigans continue to annoy, if Republicans also lose the Senate stand by for fabricated impeachment charges even if conviction is a pipe dream.
Hopefully Republicans win, and add Senate seats. Then the purges of the D.C. Apparatchik class may begin. Too bad we don’t have Soviet style Gulags to send them to, we’ll instead have to be content with their wailing and lamentations.
Many said after Trump won that it was not the time to celebrate and become complacent.
Well, the time is upon us. Trump is fighting the fight he promised. It's really time for the Non-Leftists or whatever one wishes to call themselves to go pull the RED lever and take people to the polls with them to do the same.
If there were ever two must win elections it's 2018 and 2020. We were not faced with simply defeating Hillary. We have to absolutely win the Hat Trick. 2016, 2018, 2020.
RetroRevolver77
07-12-18, 10:12
Watching the Strzok congressional testimony and it's absolute shit show. The leftists are obstructing on every possible point to keep him from answering any of Gowdy's questions.
Averageman
07-12-18, 11:49
Watching the Strzok congressional testimony and it's absolute shit show. The leftists are obstructing on every possible point to keep him from answering any of Gowdy's questions.
He has a smarmy smile and gives by the book answers, meanwhile the evidence in front of all of them is being ignored. Those e-mails and texts show a clear bias and he had no business sending them, let alone investigating anyone or for that matter being in the FBI.
He didn't even have the good sense to hide this stuff, imagine the real things they don't want you to know...
Wow, Jackson Lee is a real national treasure.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-12-18, 13:47
He has a smarmy smile and gives by the book answers, meanwhile the evidence in front of all of them is being ignored. Those e-mails and texts show a clear bias and he had no business sending them, let alone investigating anyone or for that matter being in the FBI.
He didn't even have the good sense to hide this stuff, imagine the real things they don't want you to know...
Even CNN is running pictures the make Strzok look like he's having a stroke. He sounds like a sociopath- try to convince you the sky is green.
Averageman
07-12-18, 14:33
Falling back on "I can't answer questions about an ongoing investigation" at each and every turn.
One of the Democratic Muppets mentioned how POTUS Trump has offended our Allies by asking for fair trade and to pony up on their NATO bill as doing Russia's bidding.
So free shit for every American isn't enough, we need to do it on an International scale. If we don't, we will offend them?
Somebody needs to be held accountable for attempting to overthrow a sitting POTUS. I'm pretty sure we could start with this guy.
RetroRevolver77
07-12-18, 15:24
Even CNN is running pictures the make Strzok look like he's having a stroke. He sounds like a sociopath- try to convince you the sky is green.
The bigger point is that the Democrats on that committee keep saying that Russia interfered with the election. That Trump was not actually elected legitimately. Even though he didn't even win the popular vote so somehow these nefarious Russians rigged the electoral college. This is by very definition, two sides not agreeing on election results- is now sowing the seeds of a civil war. They are playing a very dangerous game by keeping up this charade. The only party that attempted to rig the election was the Democrats, that's what was exposed and this entire investigation into Trump's campaign from the very beginning is treason.
Doc Safari
07-12-18, 15:35
The bigger point is that the Democrats on that committee keep saying that Russia interfered with the election. That Trump was not actually elected legitimately. Even though he didn't even win the popular vote so somehow these nefarious Russians rigged the electoral college. This is by very definition, two sides not agreeing on election results- is now sowing the seeds of a civil war. They are playing a very dangerous game by keeping up this charade. The only party that attempted to rig the election was the Democrats, that's what was exposed and this entire investigation into Trump's campaign from the very beginning is treason.
I can't remember who said it recently, if it was Rush Limbaugh, Clyde Lewis, or someone else on the radio, but the contention was that historically a civil war starts when one side starts refusing to accept the results of elections. I have not had time to research it further, but it sounds reasonable. If it's true, we are very close indeed.
I can't remember who said it recently, if it was Rush Limbaugh, Clyde Lewis, or someone else on the radio, but the contention was that historically a civil war starts when one side starts refusing to accept the results of elections. I have not had time to research it further, but it sounds reasonable. If it's true, we are very close indeed.
But it would look unlike anything we have seen before. It would be the armed citizens taking out politicians and judges of each opposite side. Then it would work it's way down to local level States and Municipalities with targeted killings. Martial Law would be imposed and it would be a giant sh@t show.
As a postscript to my above content, I would think that beefing up security for the Supreme Court now is a good idea. I know they have what has been considered adequate protection, but I have a vibe that maybe it's time to ramp it up considerably. Just my 2 cents.
Averageman
07-12-18, 16:31
Strzok, just seconds before the recess has his Attorney hand him a phone and suddenly he can answer questions? The same line of questioning he has been deflecting all day with, "I cannot answer questions about an ongoing investigation."?
This is a clown show, he clearly has shown bias and it effected the investigation.
Gowdy wants to bitch slap the guy at this point I'm sure.
But on to bigger fish that need frying....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/politics/rosenstein-kavanaugh-document-review-prosecutors.html
Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.
Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement. While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.
Mr. Rosenstein’s email, which had the subject line “Personal Message to U.S. Attorneys From the Deputy A.G.,” included the sentence, “We need your help in connection with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/07/12/rosenstein-asks-prosecutors-to-help-with-kavanaugh-nomination/
But in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors “who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.” Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday.
Rosenstein is in a difficult position here. He knows that if he is not in his position, Trump will be able to essentially cancel, or at the very least narrow, the Mueller investigation, so he has to be careful not to give Trump an excuse to fire him that isn’t connected to that investigation. So I suspect he’s going along with this in order to protect that investigation by keeping his job. And that’s a wise move, I think.
So now he wants to block the nomination?
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-12-18, 16:44
If they can parse 30,000 emails on Huma's husband's computer in a few days, 270 lawyers should make short work of going through his documents, ne spa? I do agree that he can't be fired while this is going on, but the earlier this gets started and done, the less the Dems in the Senate can say that the records haven't been covered.
Now the leaks will start of stories about this and that in the records, but when it comes out the reality will only be tangentially relevant.
Averageman
07-12-18, 16:45
I will leave this gem here for you guys that were at work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANohtXQhkQw
Remember with 30 or so seconds left he was directed he could answer some of these questions.
Averageman
07-12-18, 16:48
If they can parse 30,000 emails on Huma's husband's computer in a few days, 270 lawyers should make short work of going through his documents, ne spa? I do agree that he can't be fired while this is going on, but the earlier this gets started and done, the less the Dems in the Senate can say that the records haven't been covered.
Now the leaks will start of stories about this and that in the records, but when it comes out the reality will only be tangentially relevant.
They are going to take a lot longer and dig a lot deeper on these I guarantee you.
They are trying to close down the appointment and undermine the POTUS, no holds barred.
Averageman
07-12-18, 18:16
What does Trump Support Smell Like?
https://www.redstate.com/ameliahamilton/2018/07/12/strzok-hearing-gets-heated-what-does-trump-support-smell-like/
Things got heated today at the hearing for FBI agent Peter Strzok, as Congress questioned him about text messages he sent to colleague Lisa Page ahead of the 2016 election. In those text messages, he expressed a pretty solid dislike for then-candidate Donald Trump as well as those who supported him.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, asked Strzok to explain the things he said about his Trump-supporting constituents. Among his questions- “What does Trump support smell like?” and if he meant it when he said that a certain county was full of “ignorant hillbillies.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdzoIHJBGt0
Eat a big ol' weiner Stzrok.
I can't remember who said it recently, if it was Rush Limbaugh, Clyde Lewis, or someone else on the radio, but the contention was that historically a civil war starts when one side starts refusing to accept the results of elections. I have not had time to research it further, but it sounds reasonable. If it's true, we are very close indeed.
They are all discussing that. Could have been Shawn Hannity, Beck, most any of them.
It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face that the Left simply has no concept of, nor adhere to, the peaceful exchange of power. Not all actions of the past repeat in a similar manner though.
Right now, their only weapons are lies and bastardizing our legal system.
I just don't think a civil war is even possible. I mean who do you see leading the charge and slinging lead? Chuck Schumer? Steven Colbert? The Manhattan Island march across America? Beyonce? What exactly would the war look like? A group of Hollywood elite and uber-Liberal politicians that you could fit into one decent sized football stadium on a really good day.... VS... all of the rest of America that is going to be saying... take one more step into my yard and your troubles are going to be over.
The way I see it, there is a huge difference between the Liberal Political psycho mindset and someone that would actually engage in war.... especially against their neighbor, co-worker, family members, etc.
BUT.... you are correct... The Political Left has not accepted nor even tried to allow power to pass after the election. the reason is somewhat simple though. In the past the Right would lose and then "compromise"... meaning do it the Left way. The Left would sit back and smile. Well now they see that what they have been doing has come back to castrate them.
They have been king of the yard getting 100% of their way in power and 50% out of power. If there is a civil war going on, then it is General Trump teaching the right how to fight and win battles and wars that they had long since given up on. Trey Gowdy as an example. He used to attack but had no force. Now he has Trump and many others behind him so he attacks more. Maybe he will actually win a battle.
If the Civil War is in our political system, we still have a -lot- to worry about. We don't have a strong, secure, organize back line. and the Left has always been a one way ticket of 'do it our way'.
I heard a few minutes of Glenn Beck today and in those few minutes he played tapes from the Bork hearings. Ted Kennedy spouted the very same words that are being spouted today about -any- justice the Right appoints. Ont the flip side... the hearing for Rusty Ruth.... it was appalling. An absolute joke. Watching the evolution of corruption of our government I am convinced that woman was bought and paid for behind closed doors. ... and interestingly Orin Hatch was instrumental in her appointment.
Other than within the political arena I just don't see how a civil war could take place. A real civil war among civilians.
Things got heated today at the hearing for FBI agent Peter Strzok
I thought Comey came off as a bit of prick in his hearings. Strzok apparently wrote the book. That guy is more shallow and transparent than Hillary. Not sure who gave him acting lessons but he should get his money back.
Averageman
07-12-18, 20:06
The arrogant narcissism over rides even the basics of common sense with them.
Averageman
07-12-18, 20:16
I thought Comey came off as a bit of prick in his hearings. Strzok apparently wrote the book. That guy is more shallow and transparent than Hillary. Not sure who gave him acting lessons but he should get his money back.
Yeah, but Stzrok saw you in WalMart and thinks you smell funny.
Yeah, but Stzrok saw you in WalMart and thinks you smell funny.
I'm still unsettled about that. I thought it was someone's service dog checking me out. I turn around and find an FBI director with his nose up my crotch. I guess he's just thorough. I figured stranger things had happened in Walmart. When in Rome and all that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-12-18, 22:12
Just watched 90 minutes of CNN with Lemon and guest after guest telling me that I didn't see and hear what I saw and heard. They finally had some GOP guy I've never heard of (not that any of the Progressives were identifiable) and his only point was how he was embarrassed he was to be in the GOP. I know FOX is a circle jerk, and I really rarely watch it, but the CNN reminded me of the good ole 90s when they could say what ever they wanted to.
I thought Comey came off as a bit of prick in his hearings. Strzok apparently wrote the book. That guy is more shallow and transparent than Hillary. Not sure who gave him acting lessons but he should get his money back. I usually don't get too mad at folks, but watching that video with Gowdy made me want to punch Strzok right in the teeth. What an arrogant sack of shit.
PatrioticDisorder
07-13-18, 07:23
But it would look unlike anything we have seen before. It would be the armed citizens taking out politicians and judges of each opposite side. Then it would work it's way down to local level States and Municipalities with targeted killings. Martial Law would be imposed and it would be a giant sh@t show.
As a postscript to my above content, I would think that beefing up security for the Supreme Court now is a good idea. I know they have what has been considered adequate protection, but I have a vibe that maybe it's time to ramp it up considerably. Just my 2 cents.
Actually I don’t believe they have any protection at all. I seem to remember a story from a while back about an armed (with a machete) intruder in Justice Breyer’s Cali home robbing him.
Grand58742
07-13-18, 07:38
https://d3axvdqkyu09xk.cloudfront.net/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F2dvb2n.jpg&hash=07cc58b5bc9eaf66906cffdec3456856
Actually I don’t believe they have any protection at all. I seem to remember a story from a while back about an armed (with a machete) intruder in Justice Breyer’s Cali home robbing him.
If that's the case, that needs to change. Can you imagine a scenario where we get a big time, Leftist President, and one by one the Conservative wing of the Supreme Court falls ill or meets with unfortunate accidents? Surely we have some kind of Secret Service protection for all of the Justices.
Averageman
07-13-18, 12:57
If we did would Scalia still be alive?
Whiskey_Bravo
07-13-18, 13:41
If we did would Scalia still be alive?
Whaaat? Nothing fishy with Scalia's death. I mean sure, he went to a middle of nowhere ranch, was found dead with a pillow over his head, no investigation, was declared dead over the phone you know because it's a big county and it's not like he was a sitting supreme court justice or anything.....
Just watched 90 minutes of CNN with Lemon...
Are you in need of medical attention? We can call 911 for you. I honestly didn't know it was humanly possible to endure 90 of CNN, much less the Lemonman or MadCow segments.
Do you mean 90 minutes straight? Or like 90 minutes over a five year period?
Anyway... they can say what they want because you and 10 other people are the only ones listening....
Of all the cable news networks, CNN experienced the biggest decline in primetime viewership, down a full 25 percent in May.
I don;t think any of their shows can bring an audience of 1M at this point. In fact I even heard O'Reily talking about that today on the Beck show. I forgot who it was, but one of their talking heads had a rating of something over 1M and the next week lost 40% and was down to 800K.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/30/nielsen-media-research-cnns-audience-collapses-25-percent/
PatrioticDisorder
07-13-18, 13:49
If that's the case, that needs to change. Can you imagine a scenario where we get a big time, Leftist President, and one by one the Conservative wing of the Supreme Court falls ill or meets with unfortunate accidents? Surely we have some kind of Secret Service protection for all of the Justices.
I am in total agreement, I don’t think most people are aware they are unprotected, which is currently a good thing. I can see a far left radical going off the reservation and assasinating originalist SCOTUS justices. It would be very unlikely you’d see that happen to any “judicial activists” on the court.
I usually don't get too mad at folks, but watching that video with Gowdy made me want to punch Strzok right in the teeth. What an arrogant sack of shit.
I thought the same thing! ... and I don't think we are alone. Even Limbaugh said today.... 'we have all know a guy like Strzok, you know what I mean, we've all known one in our lives'.. So I think the sentiment is widespread.
For some reason the Left wants to give him a Purple Heart. I thought that was joke when I heard it. Apparently it's true.
I am in total agreement, I don’t think most people are aware they are unprotected, which is currently a good thing.
No USSS detail doesn't mean unprotected. I'd be willing to bet you can't get anywhere near Ginsberg. They are probably following her with a mobile hospital. I would say a body double too, but I'm not sure even Hollywood could pull that off.
Moose-Knuckle
07-13-18, 14:56
But it would look unlike anything we have seen before. It would be the armed citizens taking out politicians and judges of each opposite side. Then it would work it's way down to local level States and Municipalities with targeted killings. Martial Law would be imposed and it would be a giant sh@t show.
As a postscript to my above content, I would think that beefing up security for the Supreme Court now is a good idea. I know they have what has been considered adequate protection, but I have a vibe that maybe it's time to ramp it up considerably. Just my 2 cents.
I have no doubt Justice Scalia was deep sixed.
No autopsy, no security detail, staying at an Obama donor's luxury ranch in the middle of nowhere, found with pillow over face I mean what could go wrong . . .
Actually I don’t believe they have any protection at all. I seem to remember a story from a while back about an armed (with a machete) intruder in Justice Breyer’s Cali home robbing him.
"The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court by protecting the Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors."
If I'm not mistaken the USMS has been tasked in the past to provide the Justices with PSDs as well.
If we did would Scalia still be alive?
Actually he waived off his PSD for his weekend trophy hunt at that ranch.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-13-18, 16:38
"The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court by protecting the Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors."
If I'm not mistaken the USMS has been tasked in the past to provide the Justices with PSDs as well.
.
They may be small, but the USMS has the best uniforms....
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dredd-movie-karl-urban-sequel-217152-1280x0-800x440.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
07-13-18, 17:35
They may be small, but the USMS has the best uniforms....
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dredd-movie-karl-urban-sequel-217152-1280x0-800x440.jpg
If only Judge Dredd was real. :(
I felt Karl Urban (pictured) is the best Dredd on film thus far IMHO.
dwhitehorne
07-13-18, 18:09
A coworker was Supreme Court PD. He was on the security detail for the Justices. He said it was pretty much an armed driver type gig. David
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.