Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #97
    It's done, Kavanaugh confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. My hope is that he remains fair, and continues the record he placed in front of the nation. Its my hope that both sides will think twice before throwing around reputations with uncollaborated claims against any nominee. The dems didn't want this to go through before the election, but I think they went over the line by dragging Kavanaugh through that dirt and maybe unified their opposition before the election. It's pretty amazing how consistent the talking point were since Kennedy's retirement, I think they would have done the same playbook on any male nominee. Lord help us for the next confirmation round if Trump has another space to fill if Ginsberg or Breyer decides to retire... or die.

    Just my thinking, he's not going to be as reliable to the right as Alito or Thomas, but should be to the right of Kennedy. There is no way to know for sure, he could be the next Souter.

    Comment


    • #98
      the intolerant Left was on record they would oppose ANYBODY on Trump's list of 25 and do "whatever it takes" to scuttle any nomination. They even had prepared protest signs saying "I'm against judge ----" with no names on them to fill in the blanks after Trump announced his pick! They sunk to new lows and showed the entire country what scumbags they are and will stop at nothing to grab and hold onto power. The media is entirely complicit in the disgusting circus created by the Dems- and what really irks me is the oft-repeated lie that there is some permanent "swing seat" vacated by Kennedy that needed to be filled with same- when no such thing exists. Also how they keeping mindlessly blathering how the GOP wanted for decades to swing the court to the hard right, when in reality it is moving back to center with focus on adhering to the Constitution as intended and not being used to make law instead of just interpreting it as designed. The Founders created a very specific process to make fundamental changes to our society called the Amendment process- and this was to ensure that passing fads and popular culture did not result in making destructive laws on a whim. The libs hate that because their ideas have never been validated enough to survive the Amendment process so they resorted to changing the purpose of the Supreme Court to ram through their unprincipled social agenda.
      Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #99
        Originally posted by like54ninjas View Post
        Iím not exactly sure what you are disputing. Are we discussing if Flynn, or for that matter any other Trump campaign/transition, broke the law by their contracts? But if it is all on the up and up why continually lie about your contacts and conversations?
        The republican house memo is questionable at best.

        Here is the NYT article written on Dec. 1, 2017. In the article it actually has the Mueller court filing.

        WASHINGTON ó President Trumpís former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador last December, becoming the first senior White House official to cut a cooperation deal in the special counselís wide-ranging inquiry into election interference.

        Mr. Flynnís discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trumpís aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynnís plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.

        The documents do not disclose what Mr. Trump knew about Mr. Flynnís discussions. But in at least one instance, prosecutors say, Mr. Flynn was directed by a ďvery senior memberĒ of the presidential transition team to discuss a United Nations resolution. Mr. Trumpís lawyers believe that unnamed aide was Mr. Trumpís son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, according to a lawyer briefed on the matter.
        We are debating the contradictory reporting and actual meaning of what is reported. I bolded this reply of yours above as the topic of discussion:
        You are incorrect sir. General Michael Flynn, Trumpís NSA, lied to the FBI in Jan. 2017 long before Director Mueller was appointed. He lied about his contacts with senior Russian officials on behalf of the Trump transition team in regard to sanctions.

        Followed by my framing the topic for us to debate as this: Did Flynn break any laws talking to Russian diplomats or lie to cover it up?

        The Hill (not a conservative outlet) ran the article with information directly out of the House Intelligence committee memo, which is an official government document containing testimony under oath and other on-the-record before Congress information collected by the bipartisan committee. It is as close to the "truth" as we get from our government. It is not questionable in any sense- everything within it is documented and provable. The Democrats on the committee tried to block its release claiming it was biased and they've claimed this more than once now- that it would damage national security and expose sources, etc. EACH time they claimed that, it was proven false and clearly intended to keep information embarrassing to them from coming out. Adam Schiff runs his mouth each time and makes claims that never get proven by him and Democrats. He said they would release their own report that would rebut all Memo claims, but it did nothing of the sort. I can dig that 1 up and post too if you want to compare them.The NYT (an admitted Liberal leaning, Anti-Trumo publication) article you posted is 1 year old and takes an initial charge filing (not tried or adjudicated yet) and tries to weave a web of lawbreaking around that. No sources are named, no actual LAWS supposedly broken are detailed- just stories about Obama administration warnings, etc.

        The article I posted blows all that up with this: The report claims that these top FBI and Justice Department officials had different answers regarding whether the agents were ďinvestigating misleading statements to the Vice President, which the Vice President echoed publicly about the content of this calls; a possible violation of the Logan Act; or a desire top obtain more information as part of the counterintelligence investigation into General Flynn.Ē

        Then there is this: "Although Deputy Director McCabe acknowledged that Ďthe two people who interviewed [Flynn] didnít think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case,í General Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements on December 1, 2017"

        Then the Mueller sentencing memo dropped 2 days ago and recommended no jail time and blacked out exactly what topic Flynn made his false (misleading) statement about? There's no indication at all Flynn lied about or covered up contacts with Russian officials. And again, that is not illegal according to former federal prosecutors like Andy McCarthy and noted legal scholar, Yale Law Professor, and proud Liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz. Check out his Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

        So I'm saying despite dozens of articles and opinion pieces out there claiming there is lawbreaking and trying to tie Flynn + Russians + Trump = COLLUSION - the actual facts just don't support that. There's a ton of spin doctoring and biased reporting by anti-Trump forces trying to delude us into believing a narrative that just isn't true.

        So what do you make of that? Facts we know: Flynn pleaded guilty to 1 single count on a topic not disclosed + Mueller recommended a slap on the wrist sentence + no mention of tying Trump or his team to any illegal contacts or collusion. I'm open to considering your convincing arguments proving the case the Trump haters are trying to make out of it. Or, If you're satisfied my depicting of the event is more correct that what you come up with- we can move on to debating if any of the charges against Manafort or convictions for his crimes have anything at all to do with Trump or Collusion during or after the campaign


        Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

        Comment


        • Moved discussion posts regarding POTUS legitimacy to appoint to the supreme court to this thread:

          http://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/...-mueller-probe

          Comment


          • Hey SDfan. I will get back to our discussion soon. I fractured 3 ribs and my brain is a bit foggy with pain meds. You deserve a well thought out response.
            DALTON RISNER (OT) KSU
            JUAN THORNHILL (FS/CB) UVA
            RENELL WREN (DT) ASU
            JUSTIN HOLLINS (LB) ORE
            DAWSON KNOX (TE) UMS
            ALEXANDER MATTISON (RB) BSU
            ATHONY RUSH (DT) UAB

            Comment


            • Originally posted by like54ninjas View Post
              Hey SDfan. I will get back to our discussion soon. I fractured 3 ribs and my brain is a bit foggy with pain meds. You deserve a well thought out response.
              no worries bro. Health always takes priority.
              Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

              Comment


              • This case will be going to the Supreme Court for sure...

                Federal Judge in Texas declares Obamacare/ACA unconstitutional, as the individual mandate can no longer be called a tax, which is why SCOTUS allowed the ACA. The decision may be overruled by the appeal court, but in any case, it will appealed higher. My thinking is that the popular provisions in the ACA will be retained, in particular pre-existing conditions, by congress, but if its completely removed by SCOTUS, I can't think of any enduring major legislative action from the Obama administration.

                Comment


                • agreed it ends up in SC. It was upheld as Constitutional (5-4) last time by Chief Justice John Roberts contorting the law like a pretzel to find a way to keep it by calling it a Tax law. This ran contrary to the way most Constitutional Scholars analyzed it and pissed off Conservatives who thought he caved for public opinion purposes. Time for a do-over by John Roberts, as clearly there is now rationale the tax is gone by act of Congress and he has cover to kill it. Then maybe the new Congress can get serious about a bipartisan health care bill that keeps the best parts of Obamacare,(pre-existing coverage and re-establish high risk pool for the sickest) but uses free market to set coverage details and competitive pricing. Liberals will have to necessarily give up their dreams of single payer, universal, or "free" medicare for all and gov't control of the entire health care system to get buy-in from enough Republicans and the general public.
                  Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ru...3Kl?li=BBnb7Kz

                    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.
                    Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • No worries... she does planks. But I wonder how many were willing to give a lung for her.

                      Comment


                      • I don't want to say anything mean about her or wish her ill health, but I think a 3rd Conservative Justice nominated by Trump would be better for the country in the long run to counter the increasing leftist insanity the democrats are pushing on us to destroy the country from within. She can't hang on forever and the sooner she's gone the better
                        Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • test

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X