Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Does anyone have the exact question asked of him and his exact answer? I think we've seen enough of this circus that I'd like to think we are at least all on the same page as far as making sure that the question asked of him and his answer were referring to the same thing as this email from him.

amen.  This, weirdly, has become the most important issue for me.  That, and his weird (that may be perfectly innocent) reaction to KH's questioning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes.  If MT believes he was wrong to be angry at someone's stupidity, that's fine.  But I think he could reasonably be angry instead at someone's callousness and lack of empathy. I've been extrem

I’ve hinted at this before, but I’m not sure I’ve been explicit about it... I was molested when I was a child. The preparator was an older person in my neighborhood.  My parents were friends

So it is early.  But for those of us who did not sleep, it is late. And survivors and their family members have told their tales in here, and rent the hearts from our very chests, and opened eyes that

7 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Has the whole world gone CRAZY? IS STEALTHYCAT THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO GIVES A #### ABOUT THE RULES?! MARK IT ZERO!

My favorite quote ever ever ever in my whole entire life. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sweet J said:

amen.  This, weirdly, has become the most important issue for me.  That, and his weird (that may be perfectly innocent) reaction to KH's questioning. 

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/741172-official-supreme-court-nomination-thread-kavanaugh/?do=findComment&comment=21314928

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Does anyone have the exact question asked of him and his exact answer? I think we've seen enough of this circus that I'd like to think we are at least all on the same page as far as making sure that the question asked of him and his answer were referring to the same thing as this email from him.

Nothing in the email shows he knew that the NSA warrantless surveillance program was already in existence.

I imagine he will be asked to clarify the nature of the conversation now that it has been released though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

Better than where we're at now with only one side doing it?

Sorry  but you don't get to shove the board game off the table, storm out of the kitchen, burn the house to the ground, and then pull out the instructions and insist that we abide by all the rules. You burned it down, you get to wallow here in the resulting chaos with the rest of us.

I didn't (nor did the GOP/conservative) behave in any way when Obama was elected and sitting for 8 years like the DNC/left has behaved and acted in less than 2 years

its pure lunacy to say anything else - the left feeds off the hate and fear and the use those feelings and emotions to create mass chaos and in that, they hope their demands are met for how they see things need to go

there is no tolerance for any other views but liberal - and if that means sanctuary cities, thwarting ICE, rioting college campuses so conservatives can't speak, calling for assassintions/bombings and harassment of the other side ? So be it. If it means drudging up decades old comments or affairs, if it means op-ed stories to the world aout inside Trump administration, if it means talking and releasing confidential things .... do it ...do it all, break every laws and ethic and moral as long as the left gets their way

 

that's not the right burning anything down - that's all the left

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

Democrats have to start bracing for the point when the GOP starts attacking hard - legally and illegally. The left cannot continue to break laws and bully and hate and create chaos ...eventually there will be equal or more retaliation

 

Just seems to me everything has been thrown out the window with the chaotic hearings, the scheduled protesting, the interruptions, the arrests, this Booker deal, the release of op-ed yesterday .........

what's next? a force removal of Trump by a military faction ? civil war ?

"brace for when the GOP starts attacking hard, legally and illegally?"

:lmao:

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Wow, impeach a president and impeach a Supreme Court Justice. What are the odds on those? Fracking shame the Republican Party turned into. AND, Republicans are okay with it. 

Only in your dreams is anyone going to get impeached.

Anxiously await to see him sitting on the bench. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't (nor did the GOP/conservative) behave in any way when Obama was elected and sitting for 8 years like the DNC/left has behaved and acted in less than 2 years

its pure lunacy to say anything else - the left feeds off the hate and fear and the use those feelings and emotions to create mass chaos and in that, they hope their demands are met for how they see things need to go

there is no tolerance for any other views but liberal - and if that means sanctuary cities, thwarting ICE, rioting college campuses so conservatives can't speak, calling for assassintions/bombings and harassment of the other side ? So be it. If it means drudging up decades old comments or affairs, if it means op-ed stories to the world aout inside Trump administration, if it means talking and releasing confidential things .... do it ...do it all, break every laws and ethic and moral as long as the left gets their way

 

that's not the right burning anything down - that's all the left

This is a whole lot of hilarious nonsense and I appreciate the laugh. But also .... Merrick Garland. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Democrats have to start bracing for the point when the GOP starts attacking hard - legally and illegally. The left cannot continue to break laws and bully and hate and create chaos ...eventually there will be equal or more retaliation

You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat?

My response it the same as Booker's:  Bring it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Nothing in the email shows he knew that the NSA warrantless surveillance program was already in existence.

I imagine he will be asked to clarify the nature of the conversation now that it has been released though.

He was asked if he had learned about it before he read about it in the NYT.

The email clearly states that he knew about because he asked questions regarding the 4th amendment and the program

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Nothing in the email shows he knew that the NSA warrantless surveillance program was already in existence.

I imagine he will be asked to clarify the nature of the conversation now that it has been released though.

Do you know who John Yoo is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's from this hearing set.

 

This is from 2006:

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm not sure I quite follow that.  Unless someone who understands this better can explain it to me, I'm not sure we have a clear "He lied in 2006" declaration here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

This is a whole lot of hilarious nonsense and I appreciate the laugh. But also .... Merrick Garland. 

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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?

Seems to be referring to the exact same program. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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?

Mark it zero, Smokey.  League game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't (nor did the GOP/conservative) behave in any way when Obama was elected and sitting for 8 years like the DNC/left has behaved and acted in less than 2 years

its pure lunacy to say anything else - the left feeds off the hate and fear and the use those feelings and emotions to create mass chaos and in that, they hope their demands are met for how they see things need to go

there is no tolerance for any other views but liberal - and if that means sanctuary cities, thwarting ICE, rioting college campuses so conservatives can't speak, calling for assassintions/bombings and harassment of the other side ? So be it. If it means drudging up decades old comments or affairs, if it means op-ed stories to the world aout inside Trump administration, if it means talking and releasing confidential things .... do it ...do it all, break every laws and ethic and moral as long as the left gets their way

 

that's not the right burning anything down - that's all the left

You can’t possibly believe this nonsense. The republicans invented tre hate and fear tactic. I can’t eait until this bull#### is over. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I'm not sure I quite follow that.  Unless someone who understands this better can explain it to me, I'm not sure we have a clear "He lied in 2006" declaration here. 

The NSA warrantless wiretapping program was random/constant surveillance of phone and email conversations of non-citizens who were in the United States where the purpose of the surveillance was to prevent terrorist/criminal violence.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dma7OCqXcAAGOHM.jpg:large

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rustycolts said:

@Henry Ford  I have been watching the confirmation and find it fascinating.  I was wondering what your opinion of him as a judge is and do you believe he would make a good justice.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The NSA warrantless wiretapping program was random/constant surveillance of phone and email conversations of non-citizens who were in the United States where the purpose of the surveillance was to prevent terrorist/criminal violence.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dma7OCqXcAAGOHM.jpg:large

The kicker...the legal architect for which was John Yoo.

Edited by rodg12
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

He was asked if he had learned about it before he read about it in the NYT.

The email clearly states that he knew about because he asked questions regarding the 4th amendment and the program

He asked a question about non-citizen communication surveillance and the 4A.  That doesn’t mean he knew there was an NSA domestic warrantless wiretap program in existence.

He may have known, he may not have.  I expect it will be cleared up shortly.

Edited by jonessed
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Seems to be referring to the exact same program. 

How so? The released email doesn't reference any specific program at all. It seems to me to be a question about the constitutionality of the general idea of warrantless surveillance involving non-citizens. From the date of the email (less than a week after 9-11), it seems more like a precursor email discussing whether the entire concept is constitutional or not rather than discussion of a specific program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonessed said:

He asked a question about non-citizen communication surveillance and the 4A.  That doesn’t mean he knew there was an NSA domestic warrantless wiretap Program in existence.

He may have known, he may not have.  I expect it will be cleared up shortly.

Did you read the email?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonessed said:

He asked a question about non-citizen communication surveillance and the 4A.  That doesn’t mean he knew there was an NSA domestic warrantless wiretap program in existence.

He may have known, he may not have.  I expect it will be cleared up shortly.

He sent an email to John Yoo on September 17, 2001 asking if Yoo had put together any results yet on the question.

On October 23, 2001, John Yoo authored the memorandum that was the basis for authorization of the program.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument I’m hearing from progressives (mostly on the radio) is that he’s a partisan hack, more interested in pursuing whatever agenda is favorable to conservatism than he is in interpreting the law and Constitution with an attempt at impartiality. 

If this were true I would be more concerned. But as I listen to him I’m not convinced that it’s true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Better than where we're at now with only one side doing it?

Sorry  but you don't get to shove the board game off the table, storm out of the kitchen, burn the house to the ground, and then pull out the instructions and insist that we abide by all the rules. You burned it down, you get to wallow here in the resulting chaos with the rest of us.

Show us where the game rules say you can't burn the house to the ground.  :own3d: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

He sent an email to John Yoo on September 17, 2001 asking if Yoo had put together any results yet on the question.

On October 23, 2001, John Yoo authored the memorandum that was the basis for authorization of the program.

And?  At that point the program was a hypothetical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rodg12 said:

Sure, people email the creators of programs all the time discussing the exact parameters of that program that was created without knowing that the program exists.  :rolleyes:

I suspect John Woo reached out to him first.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

The argument I’m hearing from progressives (mostly on the radio) is that he’s a partisan hack, more interested in pursuing whatever agenda is favorable to conservatism than he is in interpreting the law and Constitution with an attempt at impartiality. 

If this were true I would be more concerned. But as I listen to him I’m not convinced that it’s true. 

This is why a thorough and complete document review is essential.  Need to see if the story he's selling at the hearing is the same one that actually happened. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

You suspect that John Woo reached out to him and told him Woo would be drafting a memo to his department to explain the 4A issues?

I expect Woo reaches out to him to get his opinion on the legal implications of doing something like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...