Burgold

Anthony Kennedy announces intention to retire from SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

There isnt a single conservative judge that Trump could have named that wouldnt have faced the same kind of "scrutiny".  Kavanaugh is a boring white guy conservative jurist.  I agree with you that the backlash is a result of people's hatred for Trump.

 

You are probably right that there wasnt one that he could nominate that wouldnt be scrutinized, but again that is Trumps fault (different from what you call peopels hatred of Trump). You know well that Trump has been skirting the edge of legality since day 1. And you know well that he is under investigation that he has done everything in his power to impede. So common sense *if you can be honest with yourself* would tell you that this guy, who is seen as having a soft spot for presidents when it comes to following the law, would come with some added baggage. 

 

Trying to deny this just makes you look dishonest man

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'd also add that the way the GOP treated Garland plays into any and all Trump nominations but that shouldn't be a surprise. When you stoop that low, your opposition is now free to do so as well.

 

Edit..not that I condone that but it's the reality of politics. 

 

right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

You are probably right that there wasnt one that he could nominate that wouldnt be scrutinized, but again that is Trumps fault (different from what you call peopels hatred of Trump). You know well that Trump has been skirting the edge of legality since day 1. And you know well that he is under investigation that he has done everything in his power to impede. So common sense *if you can be honest with yourself* would tell you that this guy, who is seen as having a soft spot for presidents when it comes to following the law, would come with some added baggage. 

 

Trying to deny this just makes you look dishonest man

 

right

Honestly, I think we're saying the exact same thing.  SO I'll just leave that as "I agree with you".

 

I do however think the issue about whether or not a POTUS can be indicted is being played as a bs game and faux outrage.  It appears that there really is a vagueness to that question and answer legally speaking.  I would think that EVERY Judge would have an opinion on it, and I doubt he's the only one who has written something that could be seen as supporting the idea that the POTUS cant be indicted.

 

All that said, the left is trying to make this look like Trump is nominating a guy outside the box SOLELY because the guy has promised to prevent him from being indicted.  I think that's lunacy.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Because the Heritage foundation wouldnt have allowed him if he was anything else.

 

Board seriously needs a sarcasm font. :) 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Please don't defend Robert "Saturday Night Massacre" Bork.

Bork got a hearing and was voted down because he was a horrifyingly bad nominee.  There was nothing unfair about that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Honestly, I think we're saying the exact same thing.  SO I'll just leave that as "I agree with you".

 

My bad when I said you I didnt mean Kilmer17 - I do that alot. We do agree. 

 

 

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

I do however think the issue about whether or not a POTUS can be indicted is being played as a bs game and faux outrage.  It appears that there really is a vagueness to that question and answer legally speaking.  I would think that EVERY Judge would have an opinion on it, and I doubt he's the only one who has written something that could be seen as supporting the idea that the POTUS cant be indicted.

 

Agree. And this is why we have them. Someone has to make these decisions. 

 

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

 

All that said, the left is trying to make this look like Trump is nominating a guy outside the box SOLELY because the guy has promised to prevent him from being indicted.  I think that's lunacy.

 

Its not lunacy. It may not be whats happening. But Trump has shown what hes about. People would be idiots to believe hes not capable of making a decision with his own personal benefit in mind. Almost everything he has done has been like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same heritage foundation that recommended Scott Pruit, Betsy DeVos, and Mick Mulvaney should of course be trusted when it comes to judicial nominations.

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there wouldn’t be nearly as much push back if for example Hardiman had been the pick.  I think people expect Trump to pick a conservative judge and there would be the usual pushback one gets from the opposite party in these situations.  

 

But since it’s Trump and Kavanaugh has said things that make people worry about one of the few reasons for hope people have for getting rid of Trump before 2020 or after it, people are understandably nervous about him in addition to his very conservative positions.  Though the GOP’s games with Garland add too this as well of course.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

All that said, the left is trying to make this look like Trump is nominating a guy outside the box SOLELY because the guy has promised to prevent him from being indicted.  I think that's lunacy.

 

I mean, him having publicized positions on POTUS' ability to be subjected to legal processes are basically the only thing separating him from the rest of the Heritage crowd.

 

"Why Brett" is a valid question given the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Do we also believe 90% or so of another nominees records would have to be hidden by the GOP? 

 

Do you believe that 90 percent of the current Justices records WERENT "hidden"?

Share this post


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

 

Absolutely. Do you have proof otherwise?

No.  Do you have proof that he's hiding 90 percent of his?

 

The point is that SCOTUS nominees typically make it that far because they dont expose much of their prior opinions that arent part of the public record.  That's how they get through confirmation hearings with vague answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

No.  Do you have proof that he's hiding 90 percent of his?

 

The point is that SCOTUS nominees typically make it that far because they dont expose much of their prior opinions that arent part of the public record.  That's how they get through confirmation hearings with vague answers.

 

It was from here. And I don't think I claimed Kavanaugh was hiding them himself. I blamed the GOP, I thought.

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive gone through the Post article a few times and dont see any reference to 90 percent.  I admit my computer is scrolling like my cell phone reading through a Visionary post, so I may have just missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Ive gone through the Post article a few times and dont see any reference to 90 percent.  I admit my computer is scrolling like my cell phone reading through a Visionary post, so I may have just missed it.

Do you support the full release of Kavanaugh's records from the time he worked as White House Council?

 

For that matter shouldn't that be available through the FOIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Do you support the full release of Kavanaugh's records from the time he worked as White House Council?

 

For that matter shouldn't that be available through the FOIA?

No.  I don’t see how that’s relevant to his qualifications to be a Justice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

No.  I don’t see how that’s relevant to his qualifications to be a Justice 

You don’t see how his past job performance is relevant?

Man, I want to apply for a job at your business!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Do you support the full release of Kavanaugh's records from the time he worked as White House Council?

 

For that matter shouldn't that be available through the FOIA?

 

12 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

No.  I don’t see how that’s relevant to his qualifications to be a Justice 

 

24 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You don’t see how his past job performance is relevant?

Man, I want to apply for a job at your business!

 

Here's a better one for you, Kilmer.  (Or anybody else who wants to jump in):  

 

Congress (and The People) have a right to all of Hillary's email as SecState, but none of Kavanaugh's, because . . . ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Kavanagh intentionally try and hide his govt communications?   

 

The flip lip side is this-   Over and over people here say the phrase “but her emails” as a retort to anyone they are trying to shame for supporting trump. 

 

So I would ask- But his emails?

 

hypocrisy is funny that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Did Kavanagh intentionally try and hide his govt communications?   

 

The flip lip side is this-   Over and over people here say the phrase “but her emails” as a retort to anyone they are trying to shame for supporting trump. 

 

So I would ask- But his emails?

 

hypocrisy is funny that way

 

"But her emails" is a retort that works, because we've seen her emails, there's nothing there, and the GOP still wants to "investigate" them more, after five years of having them

 

So, tell you what. Hand over Kavanaugh's writings to the opposition party, let them spend five years going through them (while making daily claims about all of the incredible dirt they've found in them, when it's not really there), and then claim that the situations are equal

 

Now, I do think you've got a valid point, there. To me, the biggest, most scandalous "take" from Hillary's emails is the fact that she set up the server in the first place. The only reason for doing so, is so that you can get rid of evidence. To me, that says far worse things about her character than any of the "shocking discoveries" they found in five years of fishing for dirt investigating. 

 

If only that had been the justification they used, to justify their political fishing expedition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.