Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

Google search September 17: how to hide the body of a woman in the woods

email September 17: Jim, I have that "hiding a woman's body in the woods research" for you

Mr. Kavanaugh, now that we all know Jim killed his wife and hid her body in the woods on October 23, did you have any discussion or do any research regarding hiding Jim's wife's body in the woods?

Kavanaugh: No.

I consider that a lie.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

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).

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

You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat?

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

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 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?

A week to remember, for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 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?

Your reading on it is the same as mine.

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

Other way around.  Woo authored the memo and explained the legality.

I imagine Woo consulted others before writing it.  Whether those others knew that the program existed or would be implemented I don’t know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 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.

Narrator:  "Character was not a pre-requisite for an appointment by this president."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

Did I stutter? 

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 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.

We will take your ramblings under consideration.  Ummmm we have decided you lose.

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

We will take your ramblings under consideration.  Ummmm we have decided you lose.

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!"

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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!"

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

No, my position is that you shouldn't put words in my mouth about a different issue when I'm discussing a specific issue.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

The one on the left says he wasn't involving in the nomination. The one on the right was about the confirmation hearing, not the nomination.

I was referring to the thread as a whole.  Specifically these two pieces together that I referenced in a later post...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 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.

:thumbup:

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

So you are good with lying as long as it not before Congress. You Dudley DeBosier?

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.

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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.

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rodg12 said:

I was referring to the thread as a whole.  Specifically these two pieces together that I referenced in a later post...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbH8czX0AI6U3g.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmbJoP_W4AEd5Y6.jpg

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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 ?

how much of this hearing have you watched?  genuine question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 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?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

I agree with your first sentence.  I've been tied up at work to recognize your second sentence.  Where did he intentionally state falsehoods? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 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.

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.

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

I agree with your first sentence.  I've been tied up at work to recognize your second sentence.  Where did he intentionally state falsehoods? 

 

If you search my posts in this thread, there's quite a bit of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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 ?

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. 

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

What are the laws that have been broken that SC is complaining about?  Been watching the hearing and missed them....TIA.

I assume it's Booker releasing "confidential" evidence from the committee.

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...