What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

jonessed said:
If he knew they were discussing an existing program and not a hypothetical he would be lying.  We don’t know that yet.
Click to expand...
In 2006? He knew.  Much of the discussion in the hearing was that he was aware of the program just like the public (it had all just come out).

 
Sweet J said:
You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat?

My response it the same as Booker's:  Bring it. 
Click to expand...
You consider it stolen, whereas we just consider it a Supreme Court Seat. 

You can even put an asterisk by his name, as long as he will be ruling for the next 40 years is what counts.  :thumbup:

Now if we can get one or two more after Kavanaugh, that will be even better.

RBG sometimes reminds me of the movie Weekend at Bernies

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't always agree with his views but I think he is a thoughtful, well-written, and well-researched judge who does a good job.

I also believe that he intentionally stated falsehoods to Congress during a confirmation hearing and should be removed from the bench.
Click to expand...
If not intentional it was at least reckless.  A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering.  Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide.  One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character.

 
Stealthycat said:
all of that and far more is true and now this Booker fiasco ........... what an embarrassment for the left

first it looked like Booker was Spartacus LOL and the left were all like "hell yeah, lets break laws and breach codes for the good of the people !!"

and now, its like ... uh ... there was no breach, now, it just looks like you lied and tried to create chaos and unrest for nothing but to cause disruption

what a ####### week huh?
Click to expand...
A week to remember, for sure.

 
GroveDiesel said:
Ok, and the released email is Kavanaugh referring to a different program than the Terrorist Surveillance Program, no?

Which is why in his hearing, Kavanaugh specifically says that there were multiple programs and tries to clarify with Leahy whether he's specifically referring to TPS.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Your reading on it is the same as mine.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
If not intentional it was at least reckless.  A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering.  Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide.  One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character.
Click to expand...
Narrator:  "Character was not a pre-requisite for an appointment by this president."

 
Sweet J said:
Did I stutter? 
Click to expand...
How does one stutter, if anything you are playing fast and loose with the truth.

You now what is funny, "they" expected HRC to win, so there was no reason to complain too much.

Ooops they got Trumped on that line of reasoning.  :thumbup:

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't always agree with his views but I think he is a thoughtful, well-written, and well-researched judge who does a good job.

I also believe that he intentionally stated falsehoods to Congress during a confirmation hearing and should be removed from the bench.
Click to expand...
We will take your ramblings under consideration.  Ummmm we have decided you lose.

 
Henry Ford said:
It isn't.  I said anyone who lies to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be impeached.  But I'm good with all of those.
Click to expand...
Does lying on a message board count?

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
At some point bait becomes so rancid it is only good for maggots, not fish or gators.  That point was some time ago.

I learned this from Troy Landry, the King of the Swamps.  "Choot 'em!"
Click to expand...
I had a client once who was distantly related to Troy Landry.  Between them, I believe that Troy got the brains, the looks, and the personality of the family.

 
Henry Ford said:
It isn't.  I said anyone who lies to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be impeached.  But I'm good with all of those.
Click to expand...
So your position is that lying to Congress should not be prosecuted?

i happen to disagree and I think DOJ leniency to the political class (certain members)  is a major threat to the credibility of the rule of law in this country.

ismissing open hypocrisy as “whataboutism” is a sign that the era of political discourse is over and it’s all about who has power.

 
Rove! said:
So your position is that lying to Congress should not be prosecuted?

i happen to disagree and I think DOJ leniency to the political class (certain members)  is a major threat to the credibility of the rule of law in this country.

ismissing open hypocrisy as “whataboutism” is a sign that the era of political discourse is over and it’s all about who has power.
Click to expand...
No, my position is that you shouldn't put words in my mouth about a different issue when I'm discussing a specific issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
If not intentional it was at least reckless.  A jurist of his experience ought to get questions clarified before answering.  Either way he intended to thwart the inquiry, and that I do not abide.  One does not micturate on congress, or at least one should not, not if one aspires to the highest judicial office in the land. I find him qualified of mind, but not of character.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Qanon said:
So you are good with lying as long as it not before Congress. You Dudley DeBosier?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take.  You should formulate a sentential logic proof using my statements from which you derived that conclusion.  It would really shame me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin said:
Yeah, I don't think any of the liberals/progressives and traditional conservatives on this board will find any middle ground with regarding this guy. Kavanaugh is a traditional conservative's sliver lining. The traditional conservatives and libertarians here may dislike Trump and many of his policies, but they love Gorsuch and they love Kavanaugh. This is why they put up with so much crap from Trump. There is no way they are going to allow themselves to see negatives here.
Click to expand...
I see plenty of negatives FWIW and I'm not really in love with either of Trump's picks.  Of course I am not a rabid conservative either, but definitely more conservative than liberal.  This #### the party's become is nothing close to what it's been before.  The core beliefs of yesteryear simply don't apply in today's world.  Technology, global economies and other governments being part of the equation (now more than ever before) require us to step back and reevaluate.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I read the stuff in those links. Without rereading them several more times, I don't see a contradiction. Which particular statements are you referring to?
Click to expand...
In the second link from my post you quoted, he specifically discusses recommending Pryor for nomination in the email.  In the first link, he denies handling his nomination.

 
Stealthycat said:
this hearing is a mockery for the system that's in place - if ya'll can't agree to that, that the chaos and mass confusion is so far overboard ..... then you're justifying any means necessary to get the end result you want (no Kavanugh)

and if you realize that, than you would have to expect the GOP to do the same

and when both sides are full on war, breaking laws and violating everything we stand on as a country .... then where will we be at ?
Click to expand...
how much of this hearing have you watched?  genuine question.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I read the stuff in those links. Without rereading them several more times, I don't see a contradiction. Which particular statements are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Pryor's nomination was April 3, 2003.  That's about four months after the email discussion about his "interest."  It wasn't about his confirmation.

 
Henry Ford said:
Pryor's nomination was April 3, 2003.  That's about four months after the email discussion about his "interest."  It wasn't about his confirmation.
Click to expand...
The post I was responding to had an image of a June 5, 2003, email about his confirmation. That was the one on the right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I don't always agree with his views but I think he is a thoughtful, well-written, and well-researched judge who does a good job.

I also believe that he intentionally stated falsehoods to Congress during a confirmation hearing and should be removed from the bench.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first sentence.  I've been tied up at work to recognize your second sentence.  Where did he intentionally state falsehoods? 

 
rodg12 said:
In the second link from my post you quoted, he specifically discusses recommending Pryor for nomination in the email.  In the first link, he denies handling his nomination.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't think the stuff in the December 2002 email about recommending different judges for different seats necessarily amounts to "handling the nomination" for perjury purposes. But there's enough there that it's worth looking into to see if he was being intentionally misleading.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
this hearing is a mockery for the system that's in place - if ya'll can't agree to that, that the chaos and mass confusion is so far overboard ..... then you're justifying any means necessary to get the end result you want (no Kavanugh)

and if you realize that, than you would have to expect the GOP to do the same

and when both sides are full on war, breaking laws and violating everything we stand on as a country .... then where will we be at ?
Click to expand...
What do you consider what the GOP did to Merrick Garland? 

For what it's worth, I'm with you on these hearings and found Harris's as well as others questioning and behaviors to be lacking. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top