Kavanaugh Is An Extremist

[DOTR]

Kavanaugh Is an Extremely good judge. I will be happy to see him confirmed.

Too bad there isnt more suspense to make it interesting. But given that Kavanaugh will easily be confirmed most of the winning side is already looking into the next appointment after this one.

When I die Trump's court will still be sitting.

Don't get too excited. Kavanaugh may well get impeached for lying during his confirmation hearing

HAHAHAHA. Oh wait, you're serious. HAHAHAHA.

If you really want to laugh ask her what "may well" means and does it have a time frame.

 

[hadit]

This is one f the dumbest OPs in the history of USMB and that is saying something.

And it took so long to join us?? Step on up tell us how Trump is doing a great job tell us our presidency our congress and now our SC hasn't gone to the dogs ,,,,blame all dems for looking for the truth

Dems looking for the truth? Lol! Dems are always looking for the upper hand, the truth is secondary. You are no different than the Republican Party, two sides wanting power, the truth be damned.

Leah isn’t looking for facts or honesty, he is wanting to ruin Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh is just a trump toady to bail him out

That is the Dem lies, that is all it is and you bought it hook, line and sinker and if it ever came down to it I would be the Kavanaugh would up hold the Constitution over Trump.

Kavanaugh is GUILTY of perjury That makes him a devout Republican

When was he found guilty? And why wasn't he removed from the bench?

Methinks you doth be a freaking out.

 

[Lesh]

When was he found guilty? And why wasn't he removed from the bench?

Methinks you doth be a freaking out.

When was the last time a Judge was impeached?

We may see it happen

If his gambling habit doesn't derail him

 

[Ame®icano]

We live in a democracy, that you oppose democracy one must wonder why you remain in the United States (assuming you do, since you are apparently embarrassed to let the reader know where you live).

Nope.

We live in constitutional republic.

Actually it is both

Actually it's not.

In a nutshell.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a democracy, the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

What you want is a democracy, but you cant simply get it, because of the constitutional republic.

Twisted logic ^^^ If we are not a democracy (and democracy has several variants), why would we have seven amendments to COTUS protecting the right of the people to vote, and for we the people to pick our representatives? And, importantly, to change the faces in The District as well as in their home state capital.

COTUS is the law of the land, it can be modified to change us into a Constitution Monarchy, a Constitutional People's Republic (like N. Korea, et al) or a Constitutional Plutocracy (which we seem to be moving toward).

If the BLUE WAVE comes to fruition, Trumpism is sure to be stymied, and his despotic behavior curtailed. Only democracy can save us from what has become a chaotic leadership; COTUS and the Separation of Powers have been abdicated by the Congressional Leadership, and the majority is fixated on an ideology which benefits the few and not the many.

Sure, the Constitution can be changed. But not by the mob rule, or direct democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We live in a democracy, that you oppose democracy one must wonder why you remain in the United States (assuming you do, since you are apparently embarrassed to let the reader know where you live).

Nope.

We live in constitutional republic.

Actually it is both

Actually it's not.

In a nutshell.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a democracy, the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

What you want is a democracy, but you cant simply get it, because of the constitutional republic.

Twisted logic ^^^ If we are not a democracy (and democracy has several variants), why would we have seven amendments to COTUS protecting the right of the people to vote, and for we the people to pick our representatives? And, importantly, to change the faces in The District as well as in their home state capital.

COTUS is the law of the land, it can be modified to change us into a Constitution Monarchy, a Constitutional People's Republic (like N. Korea, et al) or a Constitutional Plutocracy (which we seem to be moving toward).

If the BLUE WAVE comes to fruition, Trumpism is sure to be stymied, and his despotic behavior curtailed. Only democracy can save us from what has become a chaotic leadership; COTUS and the Separation of Powers have been abdicated by the Congressional Leadership, and the majority is fixated on an ideology which benefits the few and not the many.

Sure, the Constitution can be changed. But not by the mob rule, or direct democracy.

Straw Man ^^^ No where in my post suggests either method (mob rule or direct democracy); the point was simple and clear.

All it will take is a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court when an appropriate issue comes before them, and they support some state which opposes abortion or the vote of someone, for some made up reason.

Yes, it can happen here, if one party with a single ideology, say Trumpism, controls the White House, The Congress and a 5-4 or 6-3, etc. hold on the Supreme Court.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nope.

We live in constitutional republic.

Actually it is both

Actually it's not.

In a nutshell.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a democracy, the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

What you want is a democracy, but you cant simply get it, because of the constitutional republic.

Twisted logic ^^^ If we are not a democracy (and democracy has several variants), why would we have seven amendments to COTUS protecting the right of the people to vote, and for we the people to pick our representatives? And, importantly, to change the faces in The District as well as in their home state capital.

COTUS is the law of the land, it can be modified to change us into a Constitution Monarchy, a Constitutional People's Republic (like N. Korea, et al) or a Constitutional Plutocracy (which we seem to be moving toward).

If the BLUE WAVE comes to fruition, Trumpism is sure to be stymied, and his despotic behavior curtailed. Only democracy can save us from what has become a chaotic leadership; COTUS and the Separation of Powers have been abdicated by the Congressional Leadership, and the majority is fixated on an ideology which benefits the few and not the many.

Sure, the Constitution can be changed. But not by the mob rule, or direct democracy.

Straw Man ^^^ No where in my post suggests either method (mob rule or direct democracy); the point was simple and clear.

All it will take is a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court when an appropriate issue comes before them, and they support some state which opposes abortion or the vote of someone, for some made up reason.

Yes, it can happen here, if one party with a single ideology, say Trumpism, controls the White House, The Congress and a 5-4 or 6-3, etc. hold on the Supreme Court.

Neither President, or Congress can change the Constitution on their own. The Constitution itself prevents that. That's why leftists hate it and constantly looking for ways to go around it.

 

[tinydancer]

This has seriously been busted as a lie. Kamala Harris has been shamed by Politifact and the Washington Post.

 

[JWBooth]

So far you have failed to prove Kavanaugh as an extremist but keep trying.

NOthing is going to prove he is an extremist to someone who thinks extremism is normal.

There's no doubt from his past e-mails that he thinks Roe can and should be overturned and that Presidents are above the law.

Those two things alone make him pretty extreme

To fringe folk who think normal is dangerously extreme, an actively status quo fella with a once a decade retrograde utterance is reason to lose sleep. This guy isn’t nearly reactionay enough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me guess. You have no idea what he's really like, but are believing what somebody is telling you to think about him.

So you claim you know him?

Beause we're going by the lies he told publicly

FYI, "lie" isn't defined as "disagreeing with the almighty Lush".

 

[Lesh]

To fringe folk who think normal is dangerously extreme, an actively status quo fella with a once a decade retrograde utterance is reason to lose sleep. This guy isn’t nearly reactionay enough.

Let me guess...if he were to overturn Brown V Board or find the CIvil RIghts Act unconstitutional you would still call him mainstream...huh?

 

[JWBooth]

To fringe folk who think normal is dangerously extreme, an actively status quo fella with a once a decade retrograde utterance is reason to lose sleep. This guy isn’t nearly reactionay enough.

Let me guess...if he were to overturn Brown V Board or find the CIvil RIghts Act unconstitutional you would still call him mainstream...huh?

Hysterics much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

To fringe folk who think normal is dangerously extreme, an actively status quo fella with a once a decade retrograde utterance is reason to lose sleep. This guy isn’t nearly reactionay enough.

Let me guess...if he were to overturn Brown V Board or find the CIvil RIghts Act unconstitutional you would still call him mainstream...huh?

"Let me guess, [some random unrelated hypothetical situation] AHA! He's an extremist because of something I made up that has nothing to do with him!"

Can you GET any more incoherent without a massive dose of illegal drugs?

 

[Lesh]

I was responding to a right wing poster who thinks that NOTHING radical is outside the mainstream.

I guess that was too great a concept for your little right wing mind to grasp

Go away now

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was responding to a right wing poster who thinks that NOTHING radical is outside the mainstream.

I guess that was too great a concept for your little right wing mind to grasp

Go away now

Read the whole conversation. Stand by my statement regarding your lack of coherence.

Hold your breath and wish me away REALLY hard, little leftist. You always seem to think that changes reality.

If it doesn't work, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I'm going nowhere, and you aren't going to get to spew your bilge unchallenged just because you want to.

I'm hoping you start crying.

 

[JBond]

Kavanaugh explained the case this way: "That was a group that was being forced to provide a certain kind of coverage over their religious objection to their employees. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise."

"It seemed to me quite clearly it was. It was a technical matter of filling out a form. In that case they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to."

That phrase, "abortion-inducing drugs," is one the right-wing glommed onto to intentionally confuse contraception with other drugs.

The man thinks that the pill is an abortion inducing drug.

If he's against birth control you know you can kiss Roe V Wade goodbye.

He's trying to pretend otherwise but the e-mails that the Dems released (over the objection if the GOP creeps) showed he clearly thinks he can and should overturn it

True.

Unfortunately, even if Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed, the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing entities will find another reactionary extremist hostile to settled, accepted precedent and the rule of law.

Birth control and/or various drugs related to family planning/non-planning are not a right. You are a moron.

So, we do not have the right to tend to our own healthcare? Really?

Where the **** do you assholes get the right to prevent a person from access to healthcare?

**** off *****. I never said that. Stupid ************. Stop begging others to pay for your mistakes.

 

[Lesh]

**** off *****. I never said that. Stupid ************. Stop begging others to pay for your mistakes.

Tourette's much?

Oh and kinda convenient that men like you never have to pay for those mistakes if they CHOOSE not to huh?

 

[Markle]

Let me guess...if he were to overturn Brown V Board or find the CIvil RIghts Act unconstitutional you would still call him mainstream...huh?

What drugs are you taking? Under what fantasy would Brown v Board of Education, or the any one of the Civil Rights Acts reach the Supreme Court.

Can you at least make an effort to remain in the real world?

 

[Lesh]

What drugs are you taking? Under what fantasy would Brown v Board of Education, or the any one of the Civil Rights Acts reach the Supreme Court.

Are you that stupid?

Virtually anything can reach the Supreme Court if partisans with money and lawyers push hard enough

 

[Cecilie1200]

**** off *****. I never said that. Stupid ************. Stop begging others to pay for your mistakes.

Tourette's much?

Oh and kinda convenient that men like you never have to pay for those mistakes if they CHOOSE not to huh?

Pretty funny, coming from someone who's championing a cause that lets those men walk away utterly scot-free.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What drugs are you taking? Under what fantasy would Brown v Board of Education, or the any one of the Civil Rights Acts reach the Supreme Court.

Are you that stupid?

Virtually anything can reach the Supreme Court if partisans with money and lawyers push hard enough

Exactly who is out there making any sort of credible - or any - effort to reverse Brown v Board of Education?