Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kavanaugh will not be confirmed, that leaves Trump to nominate another justice, he can nominate a person who is more conservative and less desirable then Kavanaugh, the Senate then will not confirm. Then it puts the pressure on the Democrats to pass the third nominee because by that time the American public will be tired of the games. So, Trump and the Republicans can then force the issue.
You consider the Democrats playing a game? How do you consider McConnell's failure to bring Obama's nominee up for the advice and consent to replace Scalia?
McConnell used the forthcoming election for misfeasance, and did not apply the same standard in this election year.
McConnell Wife is employed by Trump in his Administration, Quid Pro Quo seems to be afoot.
Only a deplorable POS scumbag liberal snowflake would suggest such a thing from a picture of a father and daughter together.
Just because you molest your kids doesn't mean everyone does it...
FORUM RULES: No Attacks on family members
No Accusations of other members relating to bestiality or pedophilia.
Link
oh please run Mooshelle in 2020, please please do it.Yeah Trump (probably Pence lol) showed the bag of conservative goodies to the evangelicals and they all had an orgasm....did I not just say that? Trump can yank Kavanaugh and replace him with any other of a dozen conservative judges.
I think she's smart enough (and life is too short) to get on that shit-hole corrupted bandwagon. Time for a 40 year old with energy like Kennedy (or Obama) had.
What did Obama do for the SCOTUS? NOTHING.
Obama appointed two qualified women to support the Constitution and other related documents which led up to its passage.
So you are saying that Barak Obama appointed two women to support the Constitution which led up to the passage of the Declaration of Independence...?!
Gee, if there was only a forum rule stating vile snowflakes could not make the unsubstantiated accusations of such against ANYONE....Only a deplorable POS scumbag liberal snowflake would suggest such a thing from a picture of a father and daughter together.
Just because you molest your kids doesn't mean everyone does it...
FORUM RULES: No Attacks on family members
No Accusations of other members relating to bestiality or pedophilia.
Link
Why all this is being rushed before the mid-terms? And why an FBI investigation is impossible? Timing with the expectation that house and senate will be lost in less than 60 days.
Trump needs Kavanaugh in the supreme court:
Evangelicals need Kavanaugh in the supreme court.
- Brett will enable more executive power and protection from the courts to Trump and family.
- Brett will help the ultra-conservative agenda of evangelicals.
- Brett will ensure evangelicals continue to support an immoral Trump as an important part of the base.
I could go on with what's motivating this totally corrupted 'stuff the court' effort by christian lobbies in the USA.
- To be in a position to reverse RoeVWade (abortion ruling)
- To promote and enforce a fundamentalist christian friendly agenda for the next 40 years.
Separation of church and state in the USA ?
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stateswhich reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I call BULLSHIT McConnell !
Evangelicals will support a pig if it helps their agenda!
...but you do falsely, without evidence, accuse others / the President of doing so. Good for you, sparky. Aren't you the 'big man'?!I don't molest kids, I don't molest my kids, and I don't appreciate being defamed here by some jackass circumventing the rules
Not that we haven't figured this out yet, of course we bring up what happened with Bill Clinton in regards with what the left is accusing Kavanaugh of.
Ms. Ford has relief even if the police don't investigate.
Judge Kavanaugh with his denials has made it clear that Ford is lying. She can sue him for defamation, and should, really. She'll be able to get satisfaction
Lol, no dummy, Judge Kavanaugh dug himself into a hole with his not-credible denials.
It is not-credible when Kavanaugh says that he doesn't remember a bunch of stuff (like if he perhaps did at one point meet the accuser), but that he is 100% certain he wasn't at a particular party 35 years ago. It doesn't add up.
It is not-credible when Ford is one pressing for FBI investigation and WH with Kavanaugh run away from it.
I am SOOO glad you are not a lawyer, investigator or a even a simple jurist, who keeps making a fool of himself in the process.
Here is something YOU need to understand, The ACCUSER is the one who has to prove it happened with evidence with the help of a local police prosecutor or Detective. The Accused only has to sit back to see what "evidence" are brought up against him before making a defense.
Dr. Ford has never made a statement under other OATH to the Senate Committee, neither has she asked a local police to investigate it, neither has she sued him over it.
She is running on NOTHING, even her own long time friend contradicted Ford by saying UNDER OATH she didn't know who Kavanaugh was and was never there as claimed by Ford.
Why don't you do some learning on what the RULE OF LAW is?
Burden of proof (law)
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side."
DR. Ford has yet to provide any burden of proof, Kavanaugh doesn't have to defend anything.
Dummy, this is not a court of law. Kavanaugh is not in legal jeopardy. This is a court of public opinion and Congress that can confirm or deny him for just about any reason at all.
Then according to YOU, we can try to destroy people with unsupported accusations, for political or public purposes. It sounds like you have no respect for the law at all then.
Because of people like YOU, he is already convicted of rape, something even Dr. Ford never claimed happened. For the rest of his life, Judge Kavanaugh will have to deal with the damage caused by "public Opinion", based on unsupported allegations.
Do you really think this is good for America to just convict people based on allegations, without legal process?
Whats the alternative? Not let someone victimized by the lifetime nomenee to the Supreme Court have a chance to testify? Thats not a viable option.
Accuser can make her case and accused can make his. So far the accuser is making much better case having taken a polygraph test and calling for FBI investigation, while the accused is making spurious assertions and dodging an FBI investigation.
Obama appointed two qualified women to support the Constitution and other related documents which led up to its passage.
I know he liked to take credit for other people's work, but that is going way too far!
What did Obama do for the USSC?
1. He / His CIA (admittedly) illegally spied on the US Senate and USSC
2. Obama, the self-described Constitutional Scholar, was declared to be in violation of the Constitution on several occasions.
Well abortion was probably iffy, but now after what Democrats are doing to him, it’s almost a guarantee it will be overturned if he’s confirmed. Payback is a bitch.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Lol, no dummy, Judge Kavanaugh dug himself into a hole with his not-credible denials.
It is not-credible when Kavanaugh says that he doesn't remember a bunch of stuff (like if he perhaps did at one point meet the accuser), but that he is 100% certain he wasn't at a particular party 35 years ago. It doesn't add up.
It is not-credible when Ford is one pressing for FBI investigation and WH with Kavanaugh run away from it.
I am SOOO glad you are not a lawyer, investigator or a even a simple jurist, who keeps making a fool of himself in the process.
Here is something YOU need to understand, The ACCUSER is the one who has to prove it happened with evidence with the help of a local police prosecutor or Detective. The Accused only has to sit back to see what "evidence" are brought up against him before making a defense.
Dr. Ford has never made a statement under other OATH to the Senate Committee, neither has she asked a local police to investigate it, neither has she sued him over it.
She is running on NOTHING, even her own long time friend contradicted Ford by saying UNDER OATH she didn't know who Kavanaugh was and was never there as claimed by Ford.
Why don't you do some learning on what the RULE OF LAW is?
Burden of proof (law)
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side."
DR. Ford has yet to provide any burden of proof, Kavanaugh doesn't have to defend anything.
Dummy, this is not a court of law. Kavanaugh is not in legal jeopardy. This is a court of public opinion and Congress that can confirm or deny him for just about any reason at all.
Then according to YOU, we can try to destroy people with unsupported accusations, for political or public purposes. It sounds like you have no respect for the law at all then.
Because of people like YOU, he is already convicted of rape, something even Dr. Ford never claimed happened. For the rest of his life, Judge Kavanaugh will have to deal with the damage caused by "public Opinion", based on unsupported allegations.
Do you really think this is good for America to just convict people based on allegations, without legal process?
Whats the alternative? Not let someone victimized by the lifetime nomenee to the Supreme Court have a chance to testify? Thats not a viable option.
Accuser can make her case and accused can make his. So far the accuser is making much better case having taken a polygraph test and calling for FBI investigation, while the accused is making spurious assertions and dodging an FBI investigation.
Right, and where are the results of this polygraph test? What questions were asked and who asked them?
Would she be willing to take another one; a non-biased one? You know, a woman that insisted Kavanough not be even in the same room with her because she feels so guilty?
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Kavanaugh will not be confirmed, that leaves Trump to nominate another justice, he can nominate a person who is more conservative and less desirable then Kavanaugh, the Senate then will not confirm. Then it puts the pressure on the Democrats to pass the third nominee because by that time the American public will be tired of the games. So, Trump and the Republicans can then force the issue.
You consider the Democrats playing a game? How do you consider McConnell's failure to bring Obama's nominee up for the advice and consent to replace Scalia?
McConnell used the forthcoming election for misfeasance, and did not apply the same standard in this election year.
McConnell Wife is employed by Trump in his Administration, Quid Pro Quo seems to be afoot.
Suppose when Garland was nominated, someone who was at Harvard at the same time like Dr. Jerome Corsi, heard through the grapevine that Garland got out of line once and made an unwelcome and inappropriate advance toward some broad.
No other details were available. The only thing that was known was that it was somewhere in Cambridge during Corsi and Garland's schooling.
Would that warrant a full FBI investigation?
The allegations are NOT through grape-vine, they are direct accusations.
Why would an innocent man being wrongly accused not want FBI to clear him?
How do you propose the FBI do that. Where exactly do they start, like what year?
.
You actually want a break down of the process or do you just not really have an actual objection to what is essentially a reasonable position.
The system broke down 30 years ago when the commiecrats decided they were going to take the blindfold off of lady justice and use her as a super-legislature. They couldn't get their policies passed the proper way so they decided to rule the courts. This isn't about the courts and justice, it's all about you commiecrats agenda and the destruction of the Constitution. Do you seriously think the commies would put so much effort to sway 1/9th of the court if that weren't the case?
You might want to be careful what you wish for, this by any means necessary mantra can and probably will get some people hurt. Schumer announced that as the commiecrat stance the day Kennedy resigned form the court.
.
I don't know wtf you are talking about - FBI is perfectly equiped to quickly conduct a background investigation and report it's findings - it's what they are tasked to do on the daily.
If I was the nomenee with a clear concience and a disdain for a person who is falsely accusing me I would call for exactly that.
Ms. Ford has relief even if the police don't investigate.
Judge Kavanaugh with his denials has made it clear that Ford is lying. She can sue him for defamation, and should, really. She'll be able to get satisfaction
Lol, no dummy, Judge Kavanaugh dug himself into a hole with his not-credible denials.
It is not-credible when Kavanaugh says that he doesn't remember a bunch of stuff (like if he perhaps did at one point meet the accuser), but that he is 100% certain he wasn't at a particular party 35 years ago. It doesn't add up.
It is not-credible when Ford is one pressing for FBI investigation and WH with Kavanaugh run away from it.
Kavanaugh has never said he does not want an investigation, he has said numerous times that he just wants his rights to defend himself against whatever allegations she has.
In reality I don't think Ford or the dems want an investigation because they know nothing will be found. this is about delaying the vote, nothing more.
Kavanaugh will not be confirmed, that leaves Trump to nominate another justice, he can nominate a person who is more conservative and less desirable then Kavanaugh, the Senate then will not confirm. Then it puts the pressure on the Democrats to pass the third nominee because by that time the American public will be tired of the games. So, Trump and the Republicans can then force the issue.
You consider the Democrats playing a game? How do you consider McConnell's failure to bring Obama's nominee up for the advice and consent to replace Scalia?
McConnell used the forthcoming election for misfeasance, and did not apply the same standard in this election year.
McConnell Wife is employed by Trump in his Administration, Quid Pro Quo seems to be afoot.
That is the way most Americans see politics, it is a game and it really is just that, a game to gain power. That is what makes politics intriguing, it is nothing but a game to gain power and prestige.
The allegations are NOT through grape-vine, they are direct accusations.
Why would an innocent man being wrongly accused not want FBI to clear him?
How do you propose the FBI do that. Where exactly do they start, like what year?
.
You actually want a break down of the process or do you just not really have an actual objection to what is essentially a reasonable position.
The system broke down 30 years ago when the commiecrats decided they were going to take the blindfold off of lady justice and use her as a super-legislature. They couldn't get their policies passed the proper way so they decided to rule the courts. This isn't about the courts and justice, it's all about you commiecrats agenda and the destruction of the Constitution. Do you seriously think the commies would put so much effort to sway 1/9th of the court if that weren't the case?
You might want to be careful what you wish for, this by any means necessary mantra can and probably will get some people hurt. Schumer announced that as the commiecrat stance the day Kennedy resigned form the court.
.
I don't know wtf you are talking about - FBI is perfectly equiped to quickly conduct a background investigation and report it's findings - it's what they are tasked to do on the daily.
If I was the nomenee with a clear concience and a disdain for a person who is falsely accusing me I would call for exactly that.
When are you ignorant folks going to understand that the background check has been completed, including the new information.
.
Ms. Ford has relief even if the police don't investigate.
Judge Kavanaugh with his denials has made it clear that Ford is lying. She can sue him for defamation, and should, really. She'll be able to get satisfaction
Lol, no dummy, Judge Kavanaugh dug himself into a hole with his not-credible denials.
It is not-credible when Kavanaugh says that he doesn't remember a bunch of stuff (like if he perhaps did at one point meet the accuser), but that he is 100% certain he wasn't at a particular party 35 years ago. It doesn't add up.
It is not-credible when Ford is one pressing for FBI investigation and WH with Kavanaugh run away from it.
I am SOOO glad you are not a lawyer, investigator or a even a simple jurist, who keeps making a fool of himself in the process.
Here is something YOU need to understand, The ACCUSER is the one who has to prove it happened with evidence with the help of a local police prosecutor or Detective. The Accused only has to sit back to see what "evidence" are brought up against him before making a defense.
Dr. Ford has never made a statement under other OATH to the Senate Committee, neither has she asked a local police to investigate it, neither has she sued him over it.
She is running on NOTHING, even her own long time friend contradicted Ford by saying UNDER OATH she didn't know who Kavanaugh was and was never there as claimed by Ford.
Why don't you do some learning on what the RULE OF LAW is?
Burden of proof (law)
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side."
DR. Ford has yet to provide any burden of proof, Kavanaugh doesn't have to defend anything.
Dummy, this is not a court of law. Kavanaugh is not in legal jeopardy. This is a court of public opinion and Congress that can confirm or deny him for just about any reason at all.
