bearrock Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 23 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: I don’t think the two things are remotely related. And I certainly don’t think any sane individual could conclude that he lied about anything in his testimony. He says he was not and is not involved in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatant" and it's later revealed the he was ia meeting about whether some of those rules would survive a SCOTUS challenge. You don't think any reasonable person could see that as a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, bearrock said: He says he was not and is not involved in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatant" and it's later revealed the he was ia meeting about whether some of those rules would survive a SCOTUS challenge. You don't think any reasonable person could see that as a lie? need the context of the question to see if he took the question to mean the detainment issue vs a right to representation issue. the two are not one, though they can be conflated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 1 hour ago, bearrock said: He says he was not and is not involved in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatant" and it's later revealed the he was ia meeting about whether some of those rules would survive a SCOTUS challenge. You don't think any reasonable person could see that as a lie? No. I think partisan hacks see that as a way to fan the flames and try to delay the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: No. I think partisan hacks see that as a way to fan the flames and try to delay the inevitable. sometimes it works...see Estrada. of course things are a bit different this round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, twa said: sometimes it works...see Estrada. of course things are a bit different this round. I get it. Politics is bloodsport. And the Court is the grand prize. I just get annoyed when people pretend to be opposed to a person for righteous reasons when its clear it's just partisan bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: I get it. Politics is bloodsport. And the Court is the grand prize. I just get annoyed when people pretend to be opposed to a person for righteous reasons when its clear it's just partisan bs. Not everyone views politics through Machiavellian lens and there are genuinely nominees who have no business being on the Supreme Court like Robert Bork. And it is a big deal to mislead or lie during your senate confirmation hearing. There is a gulf of difference between I forgot about that brief pop in meeting where I opined about how my former boss would view right to representation for combatants and I participated in a high level meeting discussing how to defend the rules regarding combatants and still claimed I had nothing to do with any questions regarding the issue. You want to view everything politics with absolute cynicism and say there no morality or principles involved, that's up to you. As you watch the continuing deterioration of American politics and start blaming everyone in sight, you are probably better off looking in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, bearrock said: Not everyone views politics through Machiavellian lens and there are genuinely nominees who have no business being on the Supreme Court like Robert Bork. And it is a big deal to mislead or lie during your senate confirmation hearing. There is a gulf of difference between I forgot about that brief pop in meeting where I opined about how my former boss would view right to representation for combatants and I participated in a high level meeting discussing how to defend the rules regarding combatants and still claimed I had nothing to do with any questions regarding the issue. You want to view everything politics with absolute cynicism and say there no morality or principles involved, that's up to you. As you watch the continuing deterioration of American politics and start blaming everyone in sight, you are probably better off looking in the mirror. My mirror shows exactly what I am. And I don’t pretend to be anything more. Others should try that. It would require dropping the constant faux outrage and left wing derangement syndrome. So it probably won’t occur. Bork was quailfied. And voted down for partisan reasons. Completely legal for the Senate to act that way. But that set this ship down the river. Kavanaugh is being opposed because the left wing is butt hurt over a variety of things. The most prominent is that Trump won and that the GOP refused to allow a vote on Garland. Which was also completely legal. Bt sure. It’s my mirror that needs face time Edited August 17, 2018 by Kilmer17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Bork was quailfied. And voted down for partisan reasons. Completely legal for the Senate to act that way. But that set this ship down the river. Kavanaugh is being opposed because the left wing is butt hurt over a variety of things. The most prominent is that Trump won and that the GOP refused to allow a vote on Garland. Which was also completely legal. If you view Bork as qualified after his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, has there ever been a Supreme Court nominee that has been unqualified in your view? Voting down a nominee who kowtowed to Nixon is not partisanship. That doesn't even start with Bork's hostility to the Court's prior civil rights decisions. Many liberals will oppose conservative nominees because they think the nominee will make bad ruling on the bench. Some may also oppose originalist because they view the judicial philosophy as a farce. It would be partisan show if liberals would support nominee A if nominated by Obama but oppose if nominated by Trump. Kavanaugh would be opposed by the liberals even if all the founding fathers came back from the grave to annoint the nomination. Not because he's wearing the wrong colored jersey, but because he's gonna make horrifyingly bad and wrong decisions on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Interesting Quote Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for Grassley, noted that Democrats rejected conducting a "targeted search" of Kavanaugh's staff secretary records for terrorism-related issues. "Instead, they politicized this process by demanding the search of every scrap of White House paper of the hundreds of aides who came and went for the entire Bush presidency, with the obvious intent of delaying the confirmation vote past the mid-term elections," he said. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/402300-democrats-question-if-kavanaugh-lied-about-work-on-terrorism-policy Odd they would do that if they believed he lied about terrorism issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 2 hours ago, twa said: Interesting Odd they would do that if they believed he lied about terrorism issues They don’t. They just want the headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, twa said: Interesting Odd they would do that if they believed he lied about terrorism issues It would be hard to judge without knowing the details of the proposed "targeted search". But even so, we don't know that terrorism issue is the only issue where Kavanaugh may have mislead or lied to the senate. We won't know what concerns lie in the staff secretary records until we see everything. That the records are voluminous is all the more reason for Grassley to move quickly, not sit on it. Edited August 18, 2018 by bearrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 *eyeroll* Susan Collins is probably going to end up retiring come 2020. Gonna be hard to win with ranked choice voting and her terrible votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Schumer and company had no problem confirming judges after Bill Clinton was formally accused by the special prosecutor.....seems rather hypocritical But it is their choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 For TrollWA, Nichols is a Conservative. Nice attempt tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said: For TrollWA, Nichols is a Conservative. Nice attempt tho. And your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 The only point, stop talking about the Clintons and the 90s. We talking today and we talking about a conservative who said it, not Democrat a Liberal. Its not like Reagan's white house wasnt mired in criminal scandals yet his judges were confirmed. (and they were confirmed by Democrats) None of that is relevant. This isn't point scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 We ignores the post above yours, among others. Perhaps if you start a thread about your conservative ya might have a point. You don't think congresscritters actions while a POTUS was charged and facing impeachment relevant?....especially those taking a different view now? I must be old, doesn't seem that long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, twa said: Schumer and company had no problem confirming judges after Bill Clinton was formally accused by the special prosecutor.....seems rather hypocritical But it is their choice Schumer? He didn't become a Senator until 1999. Breyer was confirmed in 1994. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Schumer? He didn't become a Senator until 1999. Breyer was confirmed in 1994. The Dem senators if you wish, though i think he was elected in 98 they voted to confirm many judges in that period, including Sotomayer to the 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now