Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because of political bias

It's off topic - deal with your emotions elsewhere.

Doc1 is not Off Topic, the topic being the USSC and political bias, being a Leftist though you have no issue with the Leftist Judges having political bias or probably don't have an issue in general with Leftist Activist Judges who have demonstrated extreme political bias on a daily basis since The Donald became American President.

Like who? In what case?

You might not be in a position to know this Oosie but these judges have to be impartial. And the Senate hearing is in large part to make sure that's true. In this case Kavanaugh voluntarily outed himself as IMpartial. According to what the Senate is supposed to be doing that should disqualify him. In the moment he appeared to be committing what we colloquially call "suicide by cop" --- you don't quit but you give the authority ample reason to end your quest for you.

Yet the Senate seems to be ignoring that glaring fly in the ointment.

Well they just voted 50-48 so he is confirmed. Not sure if he did illustrate he is impartial, Brett Kavanaugh was defending himself against vicious accusations I think if someone is accused of being a gang rapist then they have a right to be angry.

Only Lindsey Graham came up with that, and I have no idea what he was snorting that day. But it was without doubt the strangest question ever from a Senate SCOTUS hearing.
 
He is against the 2nd amendment. He has his own political biases. How he could even call out what he thinks is someone else’s, is, as usual, a left tactic. ‘My bias doesn’t matter, only your possible one does, because it goes against my own’.
Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because of political bias


Let us know when you petition to have Ginsberg impeached for her OVERT political bias.
Or her drinking...
Stevens is 98 years old. He also doesn’t like the 2nd.

I asked Oddball what the relevance of his age is. So far, he ran away. What you didn't seem to mention was that three decades of that 98 years was spent ON the Supreme Court.

What the "2nd" means I have no idea.
 
He is against the 2nd amendment. He has his own political biases. How he could even call out what he thinks is someone else’s, is, as usual, a left tactic. ‘My bias doesn’t matter, only your possible one does, because it goes against my own’.

Once again I had to cut out the quote because you fucked it up.

But go ahead, explain how somebody who's "against" an integral part of the Constitution gets onto the Supreme Court. This oughta be good. And first essplain to the class what Justice Stevens' fucking AGE has to do with anything.

And DON'T REARRANGE THE QUOTE THIS TIME.
 
Dear, sorry you are so inept at following a box of text.
He is against the 2nd amendment. He has his own political biases. How he could even call out what he thinks is someone else’s, is, as usual, a left tactic. ‘My bias doesn’t matter, only your possible one does, because it goes against my own’.

Once again I had to cut out the quote because you fucked it up.

But go ahead, explain how somebody who's "against" an integral part of the Constitution gets onto the Supreme Court. This oughta be good.

And DON'T REARRANGE THE QUOTE THIS TIME.
 
Hey--- YOU'RE the one avoiding the questions, quote-freak.
 
What the Left is too blind or stupid to recognize is that a "Conservative" or "Originalist" justice HAS NO POLITICAL BIAS.

He merely applies the Constitution to the law and the facts, and reaches an appropriate conclusion.

The problem is with Justices who compare the law and the facts with what they think the Constitution ought to say. The reason why this is untenable is because their views have nothing to do with the real Constitution.

If you don't like what they decide, there is no remedy. ALL YOU WANT IS FOR THE CONSTITUTION IS TO PREVAIL. If the USSC is going to make up "Constitutional" provisions, the people and the Congress are powerless to correct their errors.

Except by nominating and confirming justices who will respect the Constitution as it actually is, and not as it has been modified by Leftist thought-experiments.
 
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens says Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is quoted as saying that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed to the high court because of Kavanaugh's potential political bias.

It's rare for a retired justice to weigh in on a pending nomination.

The Palm Beach Post reports that Stevens, in remarks to a group of retirees in Florida, suggested Kavanaugh lacked the temperament for the lifetime appointment.

Stevens, who's praised Kavanaugh before, says he's changed his mind about Kavanaugh for reasons unrelated to Kavanaugh's "intellectual ability."

More: Kavanaugh and the FBI report: Here's what we know now

More: Kavanaugh protesters put swing vote lawmakers on notice

Stevens is quoted as saying, "I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind."

He says commentators have argued that Kavanaugh's Senate testimony last week showed a potential for political bias.

And the newspaper says Stevens says he thinks "there's merit to that criticism and I think the senators should really pay attention that."

The 98-year-old Stevens was nominated to the court by Republican President Gerald Ford and served from 1975 to 2010.


Well we all knew that, but most are not talking about it since it is so blatantly obvious, but maybe we are wrong to do so. Maybe we should talk about it more.
HE won't be don't worry. The democrats have it locked up.
 
Hey--- YOU'RE the one avoiding the questions, quote-freak.
I am avoiding nothing. He has his own biases towards the Constitution of which this country was founded. And yes, his age of 98. Over half of those over 90 suffer from some dementia.

“An Italian study of over 2000 seniors over 80 years old6 confirms that dementia does indeed keep increasing with age (it had been thought that risk leveled off for those who reached their 90s). The study found that 13.5% of those aged 80 to 84 had dementia, rising sharply to 30.8% of those 85 to 89, 39.5% of those 90 to 94, and 52.8% among those older than 94.”
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

The Haters LOST!
 
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens says Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is quoted as saying that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed to the high court because of Kavanaugh's potential political bias.

It's rare for a retired justice to weigh in on a pending nomination.

The Palm Beach Post reports that Stevens, in remarks to a group of retirees in Florida, suggested Kavanaugh lacked the temperament for the lifetime appointment.

Stevens, who's praised Kavanaugh before, says he's changed his mind about Kavanaugh for reasons unrelated to Kavanaugh's "intellectual ability."

More: Kavanaugh and the FBI report: Here's what we know now

More: Kavanaugh protesters put swing vote lawmakers on notice

Stevens is quoted as saying, "I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind."

He says commentators have argued that Kavanaugh's Senate testimony last week showed a potential for political bias.

And the newspaper says Stevens says he thinks "there's merit to that criticism and I think the senators should really pay attention that."

The 98-year-old Stevens was nominated to the court by Republican President Gerald Ford and served from 1975 to 2010.


Well we all knew that, but most are not talking about it since it is so blatantly obvious, but maybe we are wrong to do so. Maybe we should talk about it more.

Phony-E-Baloney, your cooked, forget it, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial-) Wait till the next release, lol. Your side will be lucky to be elected dog catcher-)
 
Can lock this thread!!!

FREE BEER FOR ALL!!!:springbed::springbed:

:booze::booze::booze::booze:

Happy Hangover!!!

Ooooops....did DUMS make hangovers illegal yet?
 
Hey--- YOU'RE the one avoiding the questions, quote-freak.
I am avoiding nothing. He has his own biases towards the Constitution of which this country was founded.

And yet --- you can't back that up. You seem to think that saying so makes it so. So yes you damn sure are avoiding that question.

But leave us move on to the next question avoided:


And yes, his age of 98. Over half of those over 90 suffer from some dementia.

“An Italian study of over 2000 seniors over 80 years old6 confirms that dementia does indeed keep increasing with age (it had been thought that risk leveled off for those who reached their 90s). The study found that 13.5% of those aged 80 to 84 had dementia, rising sharply to 30.8% of those 85 to 89, 39.5% of those 90 to 94, and 52.8% among those older than 94.”

Where in any of this is a diagnosis specific to John Paul Stevens? Hm?
 
Pogo, the odds are he suffers from some dementia, even if slight. Secondly, I answered you, just don’t like my answer.
Hey--- YOU'RE the one avoiding the questions, quote-freak.
I am avoiding nothing. He has his own biases towards the Constitution of which this country was founded.

And yet --- you can't back that up. You seem to think that saying so makes it so. So yes you damn sure are avoiding that question.

But leave us move on to the next question avoided:


And yes, his age of 98. Over half of those over 90 suffer from some dementia.

“An Italian study of over 2000 seniors over 80 years old6 confirms that dementia does indeed keep increasing with age (it had been thought that risk leveled off for those who reached their 90s). The study found that 13.5% of those aged 80 to 84 had dementia, rising sharply to 30.8% of those 85 to 89, 39.5% of those 90 to 94, and 52.8% among those older than 94.”

Where in any of this is a diagnosis specific to John Paul Stevens? Hm?
 
What the Left is too blind or stupid to recognize is that a "Conservative" or "Originalist" justice HAS NO POLITICAL BIAS.

He merely applies the Constitution to the law and the facts, and reaches an appropriate conclusion.

The problem is with Justices who compare the law and the facts with what they think the Constitution ought to say. The reason why this is untenable is because their views have nothing to do with the real Constitution.

If you don't like what they decide, there is no remedy. ALL YOU WANT IS FOR THE CONSTITUTION IS TO PREVAIL. If the USSC is going to make up "Constitutional" provisions, the people and the Congress are powerless to correct their errors.

Except by nominating and confirming justices who will respect the Constitution as it actually is, and not as it has been modified by Leftist thought-experiments.

Here's ^^ a wag who wants to talk about "no political bias" ----- who in the FIRST LINE of his post immediately lumps a generalization fallacy of "the Left". :rofl:

Can't make this up.

What the poster (a single poster and not the entire side of some imaginary spectrum) is too blind or stupid to recognize is that the nominee sat in the hot seat and pointedly invoked the same fallacy, even proceeding to then narrow it down to a specific political party and then further narrow to "the Clintons" in a vast conspiracy theory And that's right there on the record.
 
Pogo, the odds are he suffers from some dementia, even if slight. Secondly, I answered you, just don’t like my answer.

The "odds" huh. On an interview you didn't even watch?

And I know you didn't watch it because I did and there are no signs in it of "dementia". You just don't like HIS answer. Further, if he was "demented" then he must have also been "demented" when he originally supported Kavanaugh, before his hearing meltdown which changed his mind.

So which "dementia" do you wanna go with here?

BUSTED.
 

Forum List

Back
Top