Kavenaugh Hearing Travesty. Dems Obstruct throughout

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by lex

Well if the court says something is constitutional they can still write a new law. So the ACA is deemed constitutional but it doesn't mean it can't be changed. But no they can't just overturn something. That's why almost all of these justices say that it's the job of Congress to fix things. The court should just be deciding if the current law is ok and if it's being applied correctly.

...in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically
reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination laws. Led by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy in the Senate and New YorkRepublican Hamilton Fish, Jr., in the House, Congress acted to undo those rulings, as well as make other changes to federal law that strengthened the weapons available to workers against discrimination. [emphasis added]

http://prospect.org/article/overruling-court

Basic 8th grade civics or at least it use to be, a new law can overturn (reverse) the Court. Also the States can limit the Court through by Constitutional amendment and Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Which means the Court cannot hear cases or make decisions on certain issues.

The Court does not hold absolute power as it is subject to the checks and balances of government.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I don't believe her fake rape story...she is obviously an operative in a ploy to counter any and all trump nominees for the court...bet we see more of this tactic in the future...hard to prove\ disprove fake rape accusations...the tactic is to taint and create doubts...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Wonder if the FBI will investigate on this and report back to us..http://impiousdigest.com/daughter-of...nee-kavanaugh/

Another lunatic conspiracy theory.
Btw, why is this fringe craziness you posted about special K, who was not even a gleam in Chumpy's eye, from September 17, 2018

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I don't believe her fake rape story...she is obviously an operative in a ploy to counter any and all trump nominees for the court...bet we see more of this tactic in the future...hard to prove\ disprove fake rape accusations...the tactic is to taint and create doubt's..

you are different than Trump, because he believes she gave credible testimony and agreed to order an investigation which he didn't have to grant.

[lex]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

...in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically
reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination laws. Led by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy in the Senate and New YorkRepublican Hamilton Fish, Jr., in the House, Congress acted to undo those rulings, as well as make other changes to federal law that strengthened the weapons available to workers against discrimination. [emphasis added]

http://prospect.org/article/overruling-court

Basic 8th grade civics or at least it use to be.

Um yes as I said:
"by amending or re-enacting the legislation to
clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction"

They can rewrite the laws which is their job.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I don't believe her fake rape story...she is obviously an operative in a ploy to counter any and all trump nominees for the court...bet we see more of this tactic in the future...hard to prove\ disprove fake rape accusations...the tactic is to taint and create doubts...

Crazier than your chemtrails bullshit.

[hcap]

ROME (AP) — The magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Jesuit-educated Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her decades ago.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it had no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interests of the country and “should be withdrawn.”

[hcap]

A Justice Kavanaugh Will Be a Pyrrhic Victory for the GOP
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-backlash.html

Brett Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday an angry, vengeful man. He was belligerent and partisan, blaming allegations of sexual misconduct on a conspiracy of Democrats and “leftists” on behalf of “the Clintons.” He was curt and dismissive, shouting over Democratic committee members. And he was evasive and dishonest, answering pertinent questions about alcohol consumption with petulant dissembling. “Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer,” he said in response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In one exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, he mockingly asked her (later apologizing) if she ever drank to excess, a major breach of decorum for the subject of a hearing, let alone a federal judge.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by lex

Um yes as I said:
"by amending or re-enacting the legislation to
clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction"

They can rewrite the laws which is their job.

Which can undo a ruling, which is a defacto overturning of a Court ruling. I agree it is not overturning through the judicial process, but through Congress' power over the Court via checks and balances on the government.

Meaning, once again, E.T. is talking out of his ass when he says the Court has absolute power and Congress has no power over the Court.

Scary that we allow people like E.T. vote in elections.

[woodtoo]

IF Kavanaugh is not seated as POTUS second choice he will be POTUS third choice.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

You gootas be kidding. Were you serious when saying "We may never know the full extend of his double life as a sexual predator, without an F.B.I. investigation, but his decades-long reign of terror as a serial rapist is over"

Sounds like a demeaning attempt to laugh at both Cosby's victims and special K's victim. With the clear implication there was something invalid in either victim's coming forward and legitimately testifying. Your denial is a clear example of your tin ear. Just like boxcar using word games and literal interpretations to hide what is really going on.

No. It means his decades-long reign as a serial rapist will be over because he has been caught through Ford's identification of Kavanaugh as her sexual assaulter.

Remember when I wrote the above Kavanuagh had been accused by other people alleging his rapist tendencies over decades.

Again, please point out the word "fake", a word, which you accused me of using, the emojis indicating I was making fun of either woman and the exact language calling either of them a liar.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Blame the victim.

Allan

To become a victim, one would require proof. She has none to back up her claim.

Her friend, under the penalty of perjury, rejected ford's story. So did three others.

Liar, yes. Victim, no

[davew]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

you are different than Trump, because he believes she gave credible testimony and agreed to order an investigation which he didn't have to grant.

I doubt if Trump does either, as he has seen a few false accusations himself. I feel he did it so McConnell could get the votes from the fence sitters whom want more information.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by biggestal99 View Post
Blame the victim.

Allan

So far, the only evidence shows that the victim is Special K.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by hcap

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-backlash.html

Chuck Schumer appeared before the press an angry, vengeful man. He was belligerent and partisan in his attack on Judge Kavanaugh ,

Fixed it for you.