Current Events > Why don they just nominate some other conservative instead of kavanaugh?

Topic List	Page List: 1
solosnake 09/25/18 9:47:54 PM #1:	Why not just put some other dude on there? Theres likely hundreds of other dudes that didnt potentially rape anyone. --- "We would have no NBA possibly if they got rid of all the flopping." ~ Dwyane Wade https://imgur.com/MYYEIx5 https://imgur.com/WGE12ef <cite>solosnake posted [p:909450818] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Why not just put some other dude on there? Theres likely hundreds of other dudes that didnt potentially rape anyone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
justaguy3492 09/25/18 9:49:14 PM #2:	Cause in our dumb political climate it would be considered a "loss" for the Trump administration and of course his ego could never take an L. --- Gt: justaguy3492 <cite>justaguy3492 posted [p:909450897] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Cause in our dumb political climate it would be considered a "loss" for the Trump administration and of course his ego could never take an L.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BLAKUboy 09/25/18 9:50:38 PM #3:	Trump will never back down, because he is physically incapable of admitting defeat. And even if they could coax him into it, it'd likely come after January. Really, their only chance is if Kavanaugh himself rescinds his nomination, which doesn't appear to be a possibility. --- Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera https://signavatar.com/26999_s.png <cite>BLAKUboy posted [p:909450963] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Trump will never back down, because he is physically incapable of admitting defeat. And even if they could coax him into it, it'd likely come after January. Really, their only chance is if Kavanaugh himself rescinds his nomination, which doesn't appear to be a possibility.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 09/25/18 9:50:50 PM #4:	Given Donald Trumps history, he has particular reason for not wanting claims of sexual assault to be impactful. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:909450979] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Given Donald Trumps history, he has particular reason for not wanting claims of sexual assault to be impactful.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
solosnake 09/26/18 8:40:18 PM #5:	this is seriously getting ridiculous --- "We would have no NBA possibly if they got rid of all the flopping." ~ Dwyane Wade https://imgur.com/MYYEIx5 https://imgur.com/WGE12ef <cite>solosnake posted [p:909510277] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>this is seriously getting ridiculous</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
southcoast09 09/26/18 8:42:09 PM #6:	Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. You dont give a screaming baby what wants or it will learn to do the same thing. --- #MakeFinalFantasyGreatAgain <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:909510380] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. You dont give a screaming baby what wants or it will learn to do the same thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WhyGiveUp 09/26/18 8:43:55 PM #7:	http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. --- Be Wonderful <cite>WhyGiveUp posted [p:909510482] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
solosnake 09/26/18 8:45:48 PM #8:	WhyGiveUp posted... http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. interesting --- "We would have no NBA possibly if they got rid of all the flopping." ~ Dwyane Wade https://imgur.com/MYYEIx5 https://imgur.com/WGE12ef <cite>solosnake posted [p:909510588] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhyGiveUp posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> interesting</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
solosnake 09/27/18 9:16:15 AM #9:	Really though, the conservatives have all the power, why are they wasting time with this guy when they could get any number of people that dont have dozens of women who claimed he sexually assaulted them --- "We would have no NBA possibly if they got rid of all the flopping." ~ Dwyane Wade https://imgur.com/MYYEIx5 https://imgur.com/WGE12ef <cite>solosnake posted [p:909534588] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Really though, the conservatives have all the power, why are they wasting time with this guy when they could get any number of people that dont have dozens of women who claimed he sexually assaulted them</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nidhoggr 09/27/18 9:17:36 AM #10:	No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen. <cite>Nidhoggr posted [p:909534636] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mobile_jukester 09/27/18 9:19:22 AM #11:	Kavanaugh is Trumps pocket judge who is willing to pardon a presidents crimes. Kavanaugh also has personal ties to Trump. Conservatives tend to ignore this fact. --- Let's go Red Sox! jukester <cite>mobile_jukester posted [p:909534699] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Kavanaugh is Trumps pocket judge who is willing to pardon a presidents crimes. Kavanaugh also has personal ties to Trump. Conservatives tend to ignore this fact.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/27/18 9:20:43 AM #12:	Because of the principle of the matter. We can't start refusing political positions simply because they were accused and no evidence proving the allegation is true exists. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:909534749] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Because of the principle of the matter. We can't start refusing political positions simply because they were accused and no evidence proving the allegation is true exists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 09/27/18 9:22:21 AM #13:	Nidhoggr posted... No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen. But a Democrat wouldn't be chosen and plenty of conservative judges would sail through nomination. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:909534813] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nidhoggr posted...</cite> <quote>No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen.</quote> But a Democrat wouldn't be chosen and plenty of conservative judges would sail through nomination.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hawaiian_punch 09/27/18 9:22:51 AM #14:	mobile_jukester posted... Kavanaugh is Trumps pocket judge who is willing to pardon a presidents crimes. Kavanaugh also has personal ties to Trump. Conservatives tend to ignore this fact. <cite>Hawaiian_punch posted [p:909534828] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>mobile_jukester posted...</cite> <quote>Kavanaugh is Trumps pocket judge who is willing to pardon a presidents crimes. Kavanaugh also has personal ties to Trump. Conservatives tend to ignore this fact.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheKentster 09/27/18 9:23:15 AM #15:	Because it doesn't matter who it is, it could be Jesus and they'd still come up with allegations like this. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, only keeping Trump from getting a Supreme Court pick. <cite>TheKentster posted [p:909534846] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Because it doesn't matter who it is, it could be Jesus and they'd still come up with allegations like this. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, only keeping Trump from getting a Supreme Court pick.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 09/27/18 9:24:11 AM #16:	TheKentster posted... Because it doesn't matter who it is, it could be Jesus and they'd still come up with allegations like this. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, only keeping Trump from getting a Supreme Court pick. How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:909534872] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheKentster posted...</cite> <quote>Because it doesn't matter who it is, it could be Jesus and they'd still come up with allegations like this. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, only keeping Trump from getting a Supreme Court pick.</quote> How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuia 09/27/18 9:25:27 AM #17:	If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court --- "You will pay dearly for your futile resistance!" <cite>SageHarpuia posted [p:909534934] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 09/27/18 9:28:51 AM #18:	@SageHarpuia posted... If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court hockeybub89 posted... How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:909535057] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>@SageHarpuia posted...</cite> <quote>If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court</quote> <cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote>How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
eston 09/27/18 9:29:38 AM #19:	Nidhoggr posted... No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen. --- http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i215/estonc/grizzly_bear_chairs_2.jpg https://imgur.com/8kjZU <cite>eston posted [p:909535089] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nidhoggr posted...</cite> <quote>No matter who was picked the left would find something to outrage about until a democrat was chosen.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuia 09/27/18 9:32:29 AM #20:	Doom_Art posted... @SageHarpuia posted... If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court hockeybub89 posted... How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? That has nothing to do with my post you fucking contrarian --- "You will pay dearly for your futile resistance!" <cite>SageHarpuia posted [p:909535210] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@SageHarpuia posted...</cite> <quote>If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court</quote> <cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote>How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? </quote></quote> That has nothing to do with my post you fucking contrarian</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 09/27/18 9:33:41 AM #21:	WhyGiveUp posted... http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. Yep. Kav believes republican presidents are above the law, which is the only reason he's sticking by him. --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:909535256] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhyGiveUp posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> Yep. Kav believes republican presidents are above the law, which is the only reason he's sticking by him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 09/27/18 9:35:35 AM #22:	SageHarpuia posted... Doom_Art posted... @SageHarpuia posted... If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court hockeybub89 posted... How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? That has nothing to do with my post you fucking contrarian How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:909535324] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuia posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@SageHarpuia posted...</cite> <quote>If accusing someone of rape was all it took to disqualify them there would be no justices on the supreme court</quote> <cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote>How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? </quote></quote> That has nothing to do with my post you fucking contrarian</quote> How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/27/18 9:51:51 AM #23:	Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:909535941] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 09/27/18 9:52:40 AM #24:	@darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. hockeybub89 posted... How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:909535972] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>@darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> <cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote>How many rape accusations was Gorsuch facing? </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 09/27/18 9:53:09 AM #25:	darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. I.... what? You mean the guy who is already on the Supreme Court? --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:909535987] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> I.... what? You mean the guy who is already on the Supreme Court?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 09/27/18 9:53:15 AM #26:	Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:909535994] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 09/27/18 9:55:15 AM #27:	Heineken14 posted... darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. I.... what? You mean the guy who is already on the Supreme Court? With multiple Democratic votes, no less --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:909536082] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> I.... what? You mean the guy who is already on the Supreme Court?</quote> With multiple Democratic votes, no less</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alpha218 09/27/18 9:58:46 AM #28:	Questionmarktarius posted... Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be. The process? Republicans intend on ramming him through just like everything else extremely unpopular theyve passed under this admin --- I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite user on the Citadel. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/1349-mario Now Playing: nothing :( <cite>Alpha218 posted [p:909536231] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be.</quote> The process? Republicans intend on ramming him through just like everything else extremely unpopular theyve passed under this admin</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 09/27/18 10:00:31 AM #29:	Alpha218 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be. The process? Republicans intend on ramming him through just like everything else extremely unpopular theyve passed under this admin Given the admin. Seems like the only thing they know is how to force themselves onto others. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:909536307] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alpha218 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>Sometimes you get a Robert Bork, sometimes you get a Clarence Thomas. Let the process play out, and then move on to the next one if need be.</quote> The process? Republicans intend on ramming him through just like everything else extremely unpopular theyve passed under this admin</quote> Given the admin. Seems like the only thing they know is how to force themselves onto others.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 09/27/18 10:02:48 AM #30:	Conservatives are working backwards from the idea that Senate Democrats are devoted to blocking Trump's judicial picks at all costs and will stop at nothing to deny him, but that premise really doesn't check out. This was a month ago: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-democrats-trump-federal-judges_us_5b86c0eee4b0cf7b00313783 Senate Democrats just gave a huge gift to President Donald Trump: They agreed to expedite votes on 15 of his nominees to lifetime federal court seats because they wanted to go home. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) had lined up votes for all those district court nominees last week. Normally, Senate rules require up to 30 hours of waiting time for each nominee something Democrats typically take advantage of to delay action on confirming Trump judges. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) cut a deal with McConnell on Tuesday to bypass the wait times and let them all get through. Why? So Democrats could get back to campaigning and focusing on winning re-election in November. The Senate is now out of session until next Tuesday. Of the 15 nominees, six were confirmed by voice votes on Tuesday. Another one was confirmed on a recorded vote. The remaining eight will get quick votes next week. Its a major win for Trump and McConnell, whose No. 1 priority is filling up federal courts with conservative judges many of whom are incredibly anti-abortion, antiLGBTQ rights and antivoting rights. Trump has gotten 26 circuit court judges confirmed, more than any other president at this point in his term. Another way of putting it: 1 in 7 U.S. circuit court seats is now filled by a judge nominated by Trump. As with Hillary Clinton, the Republican notion of a ruthless and Machiavellian Democratic Party is at odds with what is plain to see: they're barely competent and love losing. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:909536404] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Conservatives are working backwards from the idea that Senate Democrats are devoted to blocking Trump's judicial picks at all costs and will stop at nothing to deny him, but that premise really doesn't check out. This was a month ago: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-democrats-trump-federal-judges_us_5b86c0eee4b0cf7b00313783 <quote>Senate Democrats just gave a huge gift to President Donald Trump: They agreed to expedite votes on 15 of his nominees to lifetime federal court seats because they wanted to go home. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) had lined up votes for all those district court nominees last week. Normally, Senate rules require up to 30 hours of waiting time for each nominee something Democrats typically take advantage of to delay action on confirming Trump judges. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) cut a deal with McConnell on Tuesday to bypass the wait times and let them all get through. Why? So Democrats could get back to campaigning and focusing on winning re-election in November. The Senate is now out of session until next Tuesday. Of the 15 nominees, six were confirmed by voice votes on Tuesday. Another one was confirmed on a recorded vote. The remaining eight will get quick votes next week. Its a major win for Trump and McConnell, whose No. 1 priority is filling up federal courts with conservative judges many of whom are incredibly anti-abortion, antiLGBTQ rights and antivoting rights. Trump has gotten 26 circuit court judges confirmed, more than any other president at this point in his term. Another way of putting it: 1 in 7 U.S. circuit court seats is now filled by a judge nominated by Trump.</quote> As with Hillary Clinton, the Republican notion of a ruthless and Machiavellian Democratic Party is at odds with what is plain to see: they're barely competent and love losing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 09/27/18 10:06:12 AM #32:	darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him. --- Sarcasm is my basic function. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:909536551] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/27/18 3:45:18 PM #33:	creativerealms posted... darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him. With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:909554560] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him.</quote> With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 09/27/18 3:50:22 PM #34:	because he's already said publicly that he'd never support holding a president legally accountable for his actions, and trump loves that. --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:909554891] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>because he's already said publicly that he'd never support holding a president legally accountable for his actions, and trump loves that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mobile_jukester 09/27/18 3:50:53 PM #35:	monkmith posted... because he's already said publicly that he'd never support holding a president legally accountable for his actions, and trump loves that. The funny thing is even alt right kids dont even know this. --- Let's go Red Sox! jukester <cite>mobile_jukester posted [p:909554927] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote>because he's already said publicly that he'd never support holding a president legally accountable for his actions, and trump loves that.</quote> The funny thing is even alt right kids dont even know this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jborgan 09/27/18 3:58:05 PM #36:	Nothing happened to Gorsuch and nothing would've happened to Hardiman or Barrett. Trump wanted another stooge, but unfortunately this stooge has a lot of skeletons in his closet. But dumb conservatives will keep acting like wanting a guy who has a gambling problem, thinks a sitting President should be above any and all scrutiny, and might possibly be a rapist not on the highest court in the country for the rest of his life such a horrible thing. --- http://www.last.fm/user/jborgan <cite>jborgan posted [p:909555394] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Nothing happened to Gorsuch and nothing would've happened to Hardiman or Barrett. Trump wanted another stooge, but unfortunately this stooge has a lot of skeletons in his closet. But dumb conservatives will keep acting like wanting a guy who has a gambling problem, thinks a sitting President should be above any and all scrutiny, and might possibly be a rapist not on the highest court in the country for the rest of his life such a horrible thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Complete_Idi0t 09/27/18 3:59:56 PM #37:	darkjedilink posted... creativerealms posted... darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him. With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench? I always thought Garland was Obama's candidate. Learn something new everyday! <cite>Complete_Idi0t posted [p:909555497] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him.</quote> With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench?</quote> I always thought Garland was Obama's candidate. Learn something new everyday!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/27/18 4:01:01 PM #38:	Because then they'd have to admit they put a possible rapist in a position of power in the first place. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:909555557] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Because then they'd have to admit they put a possible rapist in a position of power in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 09/27/18 4:03:20 PM #39:	WhyGiveUp posted... http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:909555702] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>WhyGiveUp posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 09/27/18 4:20:09 PM #40:	Questionmarktarius posted... WhyGiveUp posted... http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion? The main argument in favor of it is that it prevents states from holding sham trials for the sole purpose of acquitting clearly guilty defendants through bias or corruption since the feds can still prosecute (and the other way around). That said, the US DoJ has regulations that make it rather rare for a defendant acquitted in state court to be tried in federal court. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Forbidden Power/Divine Veil Grimoire <cite>bover_87 posted [p:909556717] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WhyGiveUp posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion?</quote> The main argument in favor of it is that it prevents states from holding sham trials for the sole purpose of acquitting clearly guilty defendants through bias or corruption since the feds can still prosecute (and the other way around). That said, the US DoJ has regulations that make it rather rare for a defendant acquitted in state court to be tried in federal court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 09/27/18 4:22:39 PM #41:	bover_87 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... WhyGiveUp posted... http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him. Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion? The main argument in favor of it is that it prevents states from holding sham trials for the sole purpose of acquitting clearly guilty defendants through bias or corruption since the feds can still prosecute (and the other way around). That said, the US DoJ has regulations that make it rather rare for a defendant acquitted in state court to be tried in federal court. In any case, if the same act is illegal at both the state and federal level, there's at least one redundant law in place. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:909556870] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WhyGiveUp posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ Specifically this. Trump wants Mueller unable to indict his co-conspirators on unpardonable state charges and leave them open to being pardoned, preventing them from flipping on him.</quote> Why would anyone even want a "separate sovereign" exclusion?</quote> The main argument in favor of it is that it prevents states from holding sham trials for the sole purpose of acquitting clearly guilty defendants through bias or corruption since the feds can still prosecute (and the other way around). That said, the US DoJ has regulations that make it rather rare for a defendant acquitted in state court to be tried in federal court.</quote> In any case, if the same act is illegal at both the state and federal level, there's at least one redundant law in place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#42	Post #42 was unavailable or deleted.
uwnim 09/27/18 4:30:57 PM #43:	Questionmarktarius posted... In any case, if the same act is illegal at both the state and federal level, there's at least one redundant law in place. Redundant laws happen. Like you could have a situations where a state passes a law and later on the federal government passes a very similar one. Removing the state law would be a waste of time and depending on what it is, look bad. In other situations having redundant laws makes law enforcement more effective due to the state/county/city being able to handle something that otherwise would have to be taken care of by federal agencies. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:909557409] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote> In any case, if the same act is illegal at both the state and federal level, there's at least one redundant law in place. </quote> Redundant laws happen. Like you could have a situations where a state passes a law and later on the federal government passes a very similar one. Removing the state law would be a waste of time and depending on what it is, look bad. In other situations having redundant laws makes law enforcement more effective due to the state/county/city being able to handle something that otherwise would have to be taken care of by federal agencies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 09/27/18 4:48:07 PM #44:	darkjedilink posted... creativerealms posted... darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him. With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench? Neil Gorsuch was Trump's first canadate. Yes the democrats didn't want him. I think you are confusing him with Garland. --- Sarcasm is my basic function. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:909558417] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him.</quote> With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench?</quote> Neil Gorsuch was Trump's first canadate. Yes the democrats didn't want him. I think you are confusing him with Garland.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Im_JustMe0129 09/27/18 4:49:32 PM #45:	Because false accusations of rape will befall that one too. <cite>Im_JustMe0129 posted [p:909558497] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Because false accusations of rape will befall that one too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 09/27/18 4:50:32 PM #46:	creativerealms posted... darkjedilink posted... creativerealms posted... darkjedilink posted... Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him. All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him. With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench? Neil Gorsuch was Trump's first canadate. Yes the democrats didn't want him. I think you are confusing him with Garland. don't bother with djl he can't fucking recognize his face in a mirror. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:909558556] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Aside from Trump being Trump, you think the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing again? Trump could nominate Gorsuch, and Dems would all of a sudden have a problem with him.</quote> All of a sudden? Dems always Had a problem with him.</quote> With Gorsuch? Obama's candidate, that they've been bitching for three years was stonewalled? You're saying Dems DIDN'T want him on the bench?</quote> Neil Gorsuch was Trump's first canadate. Yes the democrats didn't want him. I think you are confusing him with Garland.</quote> don't bother with djl he can't fucking recognize his face in a mirror.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 09/27/18 4:55:01 PM #47:	G O R S U C H O R S U C H C U S R O G caps --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:909558839] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>G O R S U C H O R S U C H C U S R O G caps</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 09/27/18 4:56:13 PM #48:	southcoast09 posted... Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. Easy way around that. Withdraw his nomination, then nominate the most extreme-right person they can find who still meets all the requirements. --- http://www.facebook.com/loaocos/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAfJB3KYYDg <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:909558920] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><cite>southcoast09 posted...</cite> <quote>Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. </quote> Easy way around that. Withdraw his nomination, then nominate the most extreme-right person they can find who still meets all the requirements.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 09/27/18 4:57:47 PM #49:	Obama wanted Gorsuch? Well then somebody should have told Trump that so that he would have picked someone else. --- Sig User Logic https://imgur.com/lA5fm7w <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:909559025] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote>Obama wanted Gorsuch? Well then somebody should have told Trump that so that he would have picked someone else.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 09/27/18 9:31:59 PM #50:	southcoast09 posted...Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. . True only the republicans are allowed to do that. --- Sarcasm is my basic function. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:909573736] in Why don th... [t:77040424]...</cite> <quote><quote><cite>southcoast09 posted...</cite>Because hes innocent and theyre standing by him. If they did just put some other conservative in it would be teaching the leftists that they could cry and scream until we did what they wanted. .</quote> True only the republicans are allowed to do that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Why don they just nominate some other conservative instead of kavanaugh? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Why don they just nominate some other conservative instead of kavanaugh?