What Charges Will Be Made Against the Next Conservative Nominee?

What Will the "Charge" Be?

  • Sexual Misconduct

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Murder

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fraud/Embezzlement

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Ethics Violations

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Organized Crime

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Too Latino (Estrada Filibuster)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Too Catholic (Amy Coney Barrett)

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Total voters
    6
Threedee said:
Under the law, there is no "supporting this group over that group." Now, if we weren't a republic, but were instead a totalitarian or authoritarian state, then you might have a point.
Click to expand...

"Under the law"? Do you mean like in Roe v Wade where a new privacy right was created? Or in Kelo where suddenly corporations could take land for their own use, not the "public good" as the Constitution demands? Or in Citizens United where suddenly a corporation was declared to have "personhood?? Each time the Courts rule, be it local, or SCOTUS, a "law" is formed as determined by that Court. We call it a "ruling" yet it has the effect of law, and can only be changed by a higher Court, or the legislature.

As for Trump, I only doubt that he has committed crimes as president/candidate. I still think he raped his first wife, scammed the TU students, ripped-off the taxpayers of NJ, committed housing discrimination, engaged in sexual harassment, rode the Lolita Express, etc.
Click to expand...

And the emoluments clause? How about obstruction of justice with his threats regarding ongoing investigations? Then there is the preventing of Latino's from entering the country to apply for asylum. And the list continues to grow.
 
Jack said:
1. Are you giving up on Kavanaugh?
2. Personally, I think this is political theater.
3. I think the real goal is to fire up the Democrat base for the November elections.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what all Trump rallies are about with all of his lies?
 
Old Trapper said:
"Under the law"? Do you mean like in Roe v Wade where a new privacy right was created? Or in Kelo where suddenly corporations could take land for their own use, not the "public good" as the Constitution demands? Or in Citizens United where suddenly a corporation was declared to have "personhood?? Each time the Courts rule, be it local, or SCOTUS, a "law" is formed as determined by that Court. We call it a "ruling" yet it has the effect of law, and can only be changed by a higher Court, or the legislature.



And the emoluments clause? How about obstruction of justice with his threats regarding ongoing investigations? Then there is the preventing of Latino's from entering the country to apply for asylum. And the list continues to grow.
Click to expand...

Obviously, both parties do not respect the rule of law (going all the way back to Jackson and his appointees).

I'm not sure how the emoluments clause has been violated, or what evidence you have for obstruction. POTUS holds the hammer on matters of immigration and political asylum.
 
Old Trapper said:
It wasn't required when they went after Obama, and Hillary.
Click to expand...

It is worse than that. they kept finding her innocent and merely started another investigation. It was never about justice. Rep Mccarthy said it was about hurting her poll ratings and it worked. He was on some of the "investigations". he accidently told the truth in public, that the Reds used your tax money by the millions for their own political purposes.
 
The next Trump nominated conservative will be deemed unacceptable to the left because.
1. He wet the bed as a child.
2. He was caught masterbating when he reached puberty.
3. He kissed girls in HS.
4. He used a cuss word when he was cut off on the freeway.
5. He believes in God.

There are many more.
 
Old Trapper said:
Huh????? Stupid response. They were the President, and the Secretary of State. Then too, why would even an idiot like you accept an allegation with no proof. Well, in your case if it is a liberal Democrat no proof is necessary.
Click to expand...

Where they being appointed to the SC??
 
Fact is the Federalist Soc. has developed a way to identify, train and track the "right" kind of right-wing judges. They have been developing this system for a couple decades. Kavanaugh is just one of a pile of far righty judges they could have selected. His belief in the imperial presidency was the factor that separated him. Not hard to see why Trump might need a guy like him on the Supremes. All them are pro birthers, pro corporation, anti programs for the poor and workers. The truth is ,whoever is leading the federalists is making our supreme court decisions. We don't even know who it is, but he is super rich. https://fedsoc.org/staff/leonard-leo
 
There will always be a lying liberal twit willing to commit perjury just to attack a conservative .

It's in their blood .....
 
Threedee said:
I think it's highly improbable that this stunt blocks his confirmation.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the goal. I think he will be confirmed. In the off chance he is not, they will just pick another 'Kavanaugh-type' to replace him. I think the goal is the November elections. This is just a 'spectacle' to rile up the Democrat base. IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top