Let's Get To Know Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Submitted by: normalfreak2 1 week ago in Misc News & Politics Tech Weird

Arstechnica Covers some of his Technology based decisions we get to learn a little  bit about where Kavanaugh stands on Net Neutrality and Bulk Data Collection

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.


Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)


While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.



Poliitco has some more interesting tidbits about the Nominee Kavanaugh:

More than any of the other finalists, Kavanaugh is a creature of Washington, having spent the vast majority of his career in the capital.

“In terms of his actual daily life, he’s a guy that does not live in a conservative bubble,” said Doug Gansler, the former Democratic Attorney General of Maryland and a friend and Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s. “He has liberal friends and spends time talking to his liberal friends about a variety of issues. But make no mistake about it, he’s a conservative guy.”

Kavanaugh was born in Washington and grew up in Bethesda, Maryland. He and his wife Ashley, a former personal secretary to President George W. Bush, have two daughters.

According to the D.C. Circuit Court website, Kavanaugh serves meals with Catholic Charities in Washington and has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School. He’s also a fan of the Washington Nationals and coaches youth basketball, according to Gansler.

There are 81 comments:
Male 4,131
On the surface, he seems like someone who both sides can agree on, but time will tell.
1
Reply
Male 9,132
DuckBoy87 I don't think he's someone that both sides can agree on.  His nomination changes the court's jurisprudence entirely.  Instead of having 9 impartial judges we are going to have "5 Conservatives and 4 Liberals" Don't get me wrong Kennedy was also a Conservative but there were some cases you weren't sure what side he was going to come down on, now You know what sides they will come down on.
0
Reply
Male 4,131
normalfreak2 That's why I'm saying on the surface. As in, I haven't delved into this particular nominee's background and have only read what this article says.
0
Reply
Male 680
normalfreak2 Or as an honest person would put it, 5 impartial judges and 4 judges that will try to legislate from the bench.
1
Reply
Male 9,132
johncourage Seeing as how Gorsuch has already legislated from the bench your analogy has no truth behind it.
0
Reply
Male 2,378
normalfreak2  And in your opinion which case was that?
0
Reply
Male 9,132
casaledana https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Nothing to do with opinion, it's a fact, the law they were arguing over has 2 cases of Previous precedent which usually means someone that respects precedence follows that precedence, instead he's reinterpreting law to fit his belief structure, that is legislating from the bench.

Gorsuch overruled previous 2 rulings which were found "lawful" and was cemented as precedence, instead sided with his personal corporation loving beliefs and decided to legislate from the bench.
0
Reply
Male 680
normalfreak2 precedence isn't law. Disagreeing with a precedence isn't legislating from the bench.
0
Reply
Male 9,132
johncourage Then no decision is legislating from the bench then, you can't have it both ways friend.
0
Reply
Male 680
normalfreak2 any decision that isn’t based exclusively on the written law is legislation from the bench. It doesn’t matter if it has been going on for years. The legislature should have corrected the wording of the law. Judges should not find new meanings in laws. It would be better for judges to throw out cases instead of attempting to interpret what the legislature really meant. 

Precedences should only be used to reinforce rulings. A precedence says that some ruling on a similar case is in agreement with this ruling. It should never be the basis for a ruling. 
0
Reply
Male 7,187
What is strange is Kavanaugh is that when he worked with Starr he wanted to nail Clinton's ball to the wall and not only impeach him but wanted to charge him criminallywhile he was President
Now he is saying that a President can not be indicted, prosicuted or investigated for any reason
Criminal   or civil ie the President is above the law yet he also states that no one is above the law ... Except the president
0
Reply
Male 9,643
thezigrat That is incorrect.  I suggest you actually read the article.


Some of the points:
  • Congress has the ability to pass a law deferring civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions of the President until he is out of office.
  • He states categorically, "no one is above the law in our system of government."
  • He also states: "the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

His basic premise is that as Article 1 of the Constitution assigns the checks and balances of the President to Congress, he should  not be harassed by others while in office.  He also notes "an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards."



2
Reply
Male 9,132
megrendel 

And when congress is complicit in doing whatever the current President wants what then?  Pray that the people supporting their Congressperson to do the right thing and vote for someone else?
0
Reply
Male 9,643
normalfreak2 And when congress is complicit in doing whatever the current President wants what then?

Seems that's a worry (unfounded) whenever the same party holds both Congress and the Executive Branch...and it's only happened about 19 times since 1900.  (Where the party of the President also held BOTH houses)


0
Reply
Male 765
megrendel "the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote here. This is a side issue. What is our remedy when Congress, the President and the Supreme Court do 'something dastardly'?

1
Reply
Male 9,643
semichisam01 The Ballot Box...we are a representative Republic, after all.  And so far all of our Presidents and Congress have been duly elected and the Judiciary appointed in accordance to the Constitution.

I haven’t always liked who we, as a country, elect. But I have never doubted they were duly elected. I just figured there were too many idiots voting.

Of course, one particular side has not been able to handle the last election and have gone batshit crazy.

If we reach a point where they are not duly elected that we will have to solve that problem . Until then we can only fight the corruption on an individual basis as we can. But it would seem in the last few years that some above the law...mishandling secret documents and such.
1
Reply
Male 2,378
megrendel Thank you for making this point, I knew it was going to come up. 
  He also made a point of saying that congress needs to make these laws. I think that he was making it clear that if the law was in place he would favor it, and makes the point that it is not law.
  Also as a member of the Starr team he was well aware of the strain it put on Clinton, and I believe he made this statement after that.
  And as a prosecutor do you expect him not to do his job, he was doing what he was placed for within the law.
0
Reply
Male 4,967
thezigrat "Now he is saying"?? How can you be so ill-informed. You are talking about an article he wrote in 2009 and it reads nothing like you are suggesting. Where did you get your talking points memo from? 
1
Reply
3,301
trimble YAY! You're back!!! 
2
Reply
Male 4,967
skypirate Good to see you too my friend!
1
Reply
Male 7,187
trimble.  We will see...
1
Reply
Male 4,991
Only thing worth knowing is that Kavanaugh was perfectly willing to expand broad impeachment powers when the sitting President was a Democrat.  He was the main author for the Starr Report and is quoted in it as saying the reason to proceed with impeachment was for “lying to his staff and misleading the public.”  Now he denounces this approach and calls it "a mistake".  Convenient...

...flip flop much Buddy Boy Brett?
2
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron Now he denounces this approach and calls 

He denounces impeachment?   Where?  (And before you cite his 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, please read it first.  His argument was concerning Congress's ability to pass a law that would defer civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions until he was out of office.   In the article is specifically stated that "the impeachment process is available" to provide a check against a misbehaving president, and cites Article 1 of the US Constitution.)
0
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel I have read it:

“PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.”  

“The decisions a President must make are hard and often life-or-death, the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions, the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the end of the day only one person is responsible."  

"I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.”

 “Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.” (Shocking to say the least)

 “In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President – while in office – from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.” 

 “The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.” 

He does go on to say:

 “A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.” 

However, if the latter is upheld then there is no way to proceed with any impeachment process.  It's not possible, this is a Catch-22 if I ever saw one...

1
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron No, his article clearly states that impeachment is still a viable alternative.  

In both cases the onus is on Congress. They have the power to defer others from suing or prosecuting a sitting president, but at the same time reserves for congress the power to impeach the sitting president as outlined in Article 1 of the constitution.

Nor does his article say anything about anyone in the judicial branch being able to enact any such deferral. 
0
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel 

This part:

  “In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President – while in office – from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”  

Explain to me how you can start the impeachment process if you can't question, investigate or even begin prosecution of criminal acts for a sitting President?
0
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron Explain to me how you can start the impeachment process if you can't question, investigate or even begin prosecution of criminal acts for a sitting President?

Impeachment Process:  The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused.  (So, as with Clinton, First you Impeach, which requires no questioning of the President, then you try.  Once he is impeached, THEN the questioning and trial begin.)

As noted in the article, Congress can pass a law deferring criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel by ENTITIES OTHER  than Congress. 

Congress cannot pass a law that in unconstitutional, and the constitution GIVES congress the right to impeach. 

To quote the article:  "In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions."

Kavanaugh also correctly cites that the Supreme Court found in Clinton vs. Jones that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.  So it's an already established concept. 
0
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel I understand all of this, my concern is with the statement I quoted above.  It implies changing the law to exempt all criminal prosecution and investigation.  It does not state "civil suits" only.  That is a dangerous change IMHO.
1
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron It implies changing the law to exempt all criminal prosecution and investigation.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem.  It STATES CATEGORICALLY to DEFER (no exempt) civil and criminal prosecution by anyone OTHER than Congress.  It EXPLICITLY STATES that impeachment in still available.

Now, I know you wish to INFER the worst possible assumptions so that you can argue based on your bias, but (for a novel concept) why not argue what is actually written?
0
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel No need to be a dick about it.  Not biased in the slightest, but yes, I disagree with what was written by Kacanaugh and it is my opinion is that it is a dangerous road to go down.  I personally feel ANY sitting President should not exempt from criminal prosecution or investigation while in office that may lead to information that can be used by Congress to proceed with the impeachment process.  That is what is actually written.  What is the point of deferring the process until after they leave office if criminal acts are taking place?
2
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron I personally feel ANY sitting President should not exempt from criminal prosecution or investigation 

I actually agree with that, as long as care is taken to control frivolous litigation.

This argument is not about what I think, but about the representation (and misrepresentation) about what Kavanaugh’s 2009 Minnesota Law Review article stated. 
0
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron What is the point of deferring the process until after they leave office if criminal acts are taking place?

He explains that.  Read the article.

And NO WHERE in the article does he state that HE could grant such a deferral.  He stated (correctly) that Congress COULD grant such a deferral.   The Supreme Court had already partially granted that such a law could be passed by Congress.

kalron should not exempt from criminal prosecution or investigation while in office that may lead to information that can be used by Congress to proceed with the impeachment process.  That is what is actually written. 

No, that is a gross misrepresentation of what is written.  But then, misrepresenting it is the only way you can make an argument that Kavanaugh is the devil-incarnate, which is the ultimate goal. 
0
Reply
Male 765
megrendel "The Supreme Court had already partially granted that such a law could be passed by Congress."

Do you honestly believe that the Supreme Court has the power to predetermine which laws Congress can and cannot pass? Please be careful how you respond. Quoting actual wording from Article 3 would help us to understand how you arrived at that truly startling opinion.
2
Reply
Male 9,643
semichisam01 Do you honestly believe that the Supreme Court has the power to predetermine which laws Congress can and cannot pass?

I'll type real slowly so that you may possible follow.

The Supreme Court while deciding particular cases can, and does, determine the constitutionality anything brought before it and/or any related options.

In Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Bill Clinton filed a motion to dismiss the Paula Jones case on Presidential immunity grounds.  (See the relevance there?)

The Supreme Court found that "Deferral of this litigation until petitioner's Presidency ends is not constitutionally required."  (i.e.  They denied Clinton deferral requested based on Presidential immunity.)

But, in the very last line of the opinion, they stated: "If Congress deems it appropriate to afford the President stronger protection, it may respond with legislation."

semichisam01 how you arrived at that truly startling opinion.

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe by reading the fucking Supreme Court Decision on such a matter?
-1
Reply
Male 765
megrendel “I'll type real slowly so that you may possible follow.”

I know that many people take that approach when dealing with someone my age. Apparently they equate age with dementia. I don’t take it personally. Please, feel free to type as fast as you like. I can read it slowly, and re-read it if necessary.

Nevertheless, I was nonplussed by your statement: ‘But, in the very last line of the opinion, they stated: "If Congress deems it appropriate to afford the President stronger protection, it may respond with legislation.”’ That is not the last line of either of the opinions.

But you claimed you found it, “…by reading the fucking Supreme Court Decision…”
The ‘decision’ was simply to affirm, but it is common (though not strictly correct) to call the Majority Opinion the ‘decision’, so I looked to that.

There were, of course, two written opinions. Usually they are the Majority and the Dissenting, but, since the decision here was unanimous, the two were the Majority and the Concurring. The sentence you quoted is in the body of the Majority opinion. However, a GOOGLE search for the opinions will always bring up the ‘syllabus’, which is a sort of precis, written by the court’s Reporter of Decisions. In the syllabus, the statement you quoted is in the last line.
Apparently, what you read was not “the fucking Supreme Court Decision,” but the fucking syllabus.

No one could fault you for not reading the opinions. They are turgid, at best, and often nearly incomprehensible, and it is not possible to determine how quickly they were typed. (...and google will not usually find them for you unless you already know how to find them...)

In any case, the statement in question did not constitute legal permission for Congress to legislate. It was a fairly common, and IMHO snarky, challenge to Congress: legalese for ‘…and if you don’t like it, you know what you can do about it!’
1
Reply
Male 9,643
semichisam01 semichisam01 Apparently they equate age with dementia.

As I have no idea what your age is, I based it purely on the adeptness (or lack thereof) of using logic. 

semichisam01 In any case, the statement in question did not constitute legal permission for Congress to legislate.

I didn't say it was 'legal permission'.  I stated "The Supreme Court had already partially granted that such a law could be passed by Congress."  They admitted that it was a possibility.  Not that they required permission from the court. 
0
Reply
Male 765
megrendel So all you were saying is that the Supreme Court 'partially' recognises that Congress can pass laws? I would bet that every Justice is absolutely certain that Congress can pass laws.

Have you found the two opinions yet? (Excuse me: the two fucking opinions?)
1
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel Talk about bias.  I, in no, way consider Kavanaugh "devil-incarnate", I just disagree with his writings and statements...

...as I disagree with you on the interpretation of the subject matter.

Your aggressive, stodgy stance in this discussion is exactly why "liberals" have issues with "conservatives" and visa versa.  You need to open your mind and see that everyone involved in politics, right or left, are not interested in you.  They are only interested in themselves, their party and getting re-elected at this point.  What they breed creates arguments between people like you and me, the real people on this planet.  Except I'm not on either side.  I'm only interested in a government for the people, by the people.  Not this charade that has been going on for decades now.  But you clearly have chosen a side and are sticking with it.  Good luck to you.
1
Reply
Male 9,643
kalron Your aggressive, stodgy stance in this discussion 

So, accurately quoting the article is an aggressive, stodgy stance, but continually refusing to recognize that the same article states categorically states that impeachment is still available is anything but a blatant misrepresentation?
0
Reply
Male 4,991
megrendel I think I deleted my other comment by mistake.

 “impeachment is still available.” but at a limited capacity.
1
Reply
Male 2,106
kalron Congress, or in the case of impeachment the House of Representatives, like a criminal prosecutor, has the onus on themselves to get and present what they feel are the crimes and then at trial, or impeachment, present what they see as the facts of the case. The 5th amendment protects you from being forced to provide evidence  that could incriminate yourself. So they have to do their due diligence in collecting and organizing  their case. They can ask someone they are chasing to answer questions but that person cannot be forced to answer. 
My question is in the criminal world either a grand jury must provide a true bill to prosecute, or in the case of lesser crimes a DA decides if they have what they need to convict, who performs that function in the impeachment process? Is there a committee  or a parliamentarian  that guides and sees that the minimums are met?
0
Reply
Male 4,991
scheckydamon Lots of good questions here.  Lets take the Mueller investigation for example.  By the above statement, the investigation would not be permitted because it involves a sitting President.  If you can't investigate, you can't present any evidence to begin an impeachment process.

This is the official process, it's written in legalese so good luck :)

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
1
Reply
Male 2,106
kalron Thanks for that doc! Not too bad. Sounds like everything bounces around a bunch of committees   but then that's typical. What I didn't know was that if it gets to the Senate for trial that the Chief Justice presides over the Senate proceedings. 
1
Reply
Male 2,106
kalron Not what I meant. The Mueller investigation is fine. I feel it's been a bit over reaching but that's what a special prosecution  team does. But they have the onus to discover and then present at trial the evidence. They cannot constitutionally ask a suspect, the President or any of the others, to provide evidence against themselves. Also with all the leaks and speculation in the public this has turned into a circus. The standard answer on both sides should be only "No comment". Also the separation of powers allows for the special investigation. The supreme court cannot start or stop it as it's not in their purview. The could only rule on it after challenges work their way up from the lower courts. What will happen should it work it's way up that far nobody knows. All the back and forth is guessing and opinion. Guessing and opinions also are fine but should be presented a little more civilly than they are being done.
1
Reply
Male 4,991
scheckydamon Right, I get that, I'm not speaking about questioning or anything dealing with the 5th.  My concern is the statement "consider a law exempting a President – while in office – from criminal prosecution and investigation".  That would imply the Mueller investigation could not exist to begin with, hence impeding the impeachment process.
1
Reply
Male 2,106
semichisam01 Yes as stated but that law does not exist and like I said it would have to work it's way up the chain to get to the Supremes. My opinion, having watched the court for 45+ years, is that they tend to rule fairly middle of the road. Yes the makeup of the court changes left and right with the different appointments but over all average is middle to a little left or right. The justices take their jobs seriously and rule accordingly. I love reading the dissenting opinions. What was the court makeup for the Roe v. Wade decision? It  was 9 middle aged to old white men. The spread was 7 to 2 for. 6 justices were Republicans and 3 Democrats. The Republican judges were all middle of the road with leanings to conservative. So they got it done.
Disclaimer: I am against abortions except for the usual reasons of rape etc. I am however in support of a woman's right to have an abortion because it is the law of the land. You guys kno
0
Reply
Male 4,991
scheckydamon Agreed.  I'm just concerned that someone who might be appointed to SCOTUS would even consider such a law.
1
Reply
Male 2,106
kalron The SC doesn't consider laws. It provides interpretation  of laws that are written in states or congress. I understand what you're saying so I guess we're down to semantics. His word's can't be taken back but I don't see him as being able to enact something like that unless it works it's way through. The slimers we need to watch are in congress that would write such a law to start with.
1
Reply
Male 4,991
scheckydamon Again, agreed.  Unfortunately the "slimmers" :) on either side might actually consider something so obscured in the end :(
1
Reply
Male 9,132
kalron Ajit Pai must have a raging boner now...
0
Reply
Male 6,088
This man has ONE job to do.  To ensure that when the indictments come against Trump, he will move heaven and earth to argue that Trump cannot be tried while he is president and/or is allowed to pardon himself if found guilty.

The notion that Trump would appoint someone based on abortion, gun rights, or anything else is fairly laughable.
1
Reply
Male 9,643
daegog Not really familiar with how the process works, are ya?

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with presenting indictments, nor can they prevent them.

0
Reply
Male 765
megrendel daegog did not claim that the Supreme Court would be involved in the indictments, only that the Court might have to decide whether a specific idictee can be tried. That is one of their jobs. It seems to me that he is correct, and that he shows some familiarity with 'the process'.
2
Reply
Male 9,643
semichisam01 the court could only rule on such IF congress passed a deferral law (as mentioned in the article) and someone challenged it in multiple lower courts, working its way up to the Supremes.

In which case he would probably vote that such a law is constitutional, as he has made the case already. (And that’s 1 vote out of 9)

What he cannot due is rule that a president can’t be indicted in absence of a law passed by congress.  Again, onus is on Congress.
0
Reply
Male 765
megrendel I agree, in general, but I believe a case involving two branches of the government would go straight to the Supreme Court. In any case, I hope we never find out.
1
Reply
Male 9,643
semichisam01 Agreed.
1
Reply
67
daegog You must be drinking the CNN Kool aid by the gallon. LOL 

First, articles of impeachment are completely independent of the Supreme Court. Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government. That means that if the Mueller investigation finds ANYTHING, the Supreme Court will not be involved. The President can "pardon" himself all he wants but that won't make a difference during the impeachment and POSSIBLE removal process.

You are quoting a bunch of CNN babble about "Trump's strategy." It's a way to demonize a fairly squeaky clean conservative nomination. Now, I don't agree with every decision he has made and again, I am no fan of Donald Trump but I'm getting tired of the liberals in moderate clothing here on IAB constantly parroting the bullshit spewed on CNN, NBC, etc.
2
Reply
Male 765
someguy01 You are arguing that the Supreme Court is not involved in impeachment. That is correct. You are arguing that point with a person who did not make that point. Did you mean to direct your screed against another person?
2
Reply
67
semichisam01 See your conversation with megrendel.
-1
Reply
Male 765
someguy01 "semichisam01 See your conversation with megrendel."
It seems to be a standard practice of trolls on this site, when challenged, to demand that the challenger do the research necessary to prove the troll right. I asked you an eminently reasonable question, and I couched it in polite terms.

You write about 'CNN Kool aid' (sic), and 'CNN babble' and 'parroting the bullshit spewed', and you hope that all of us are stupid enough to think that you are making an argument worth responding to? Come, come, sir. We are all willing to write and read foolishness, if it is funny and we are in the mood. (The name of this site is, after all, 'I Am Bored'.) But most of us are unlikely to mistake solemn foolishness for sense.

I know that many IABers are willing to feed the troll, because it passes the time, and that's why they're here. But, be assured, they all recognise you for a fool.
0
Reply
Male 6,088
someguy01 first, if you think im a liberal in moderate clothing you need too look again.  im the guy wearing the FUCK TRUMP AND EVERY ASSFACE THAT VOTED FOR HIM shirt.

Secondly, you know more about what CNN or NBC says, because i do not watch the news.  I watch Lions Football, Pistons Basketball and Game of Thrones (if it ever comes back), thats it.

You might think he is squeaky clean, but that's because your MAGA hat overlords told you that.  
-5
Reply
67
daegog So that was your response? Wow. Nothing but insults. Another day on IAB.
-1
Reply
Male 6,088
someguy01 How did I insult you?  I know you conservatives are awful sensitive these day so you might have to be a bit more blunt in describing your offense.
0
Reply
67
daegog "because your MAGA hat overlords told you that." That is an insult since I have no "overlords" and you are inferring I am incapable of thought outside a political ideology. Is that clear enough of an explanation for you? 

Don't play dumb after providing an emotionally charged response. I showed that you made an error in your original post since the Supreme Court has nothing to do with articles of impeachment and you got angry. If you have something constructive to add to our discourse, that isn't a personal attack, by all means say it. Otherwise, I will move on.
-1
Reply
Male 6,088
someguy01 Hold the hell up.  You can say that I drink CNN koolaid but I cannot infer that you do the same just with the other side?  You can say that my political ideology comes from CNN or NBC or whatever, but your ideology cannot be discussed or its a personal attack.

REALLY?
-1
Reply
67
daegog You didn't add anything of value to our discourse other than to play the victim, I'm moving on. If you can't tell the difference between a light hearted comment followed by "LOL" and the anger you spewed, I can't help you.
-1
Reply
Male 6,088
someguy01 i see.. Your comment light hearted, mine mean.

Gotcha.
0
Reply
67
daegog "FUCK TRUMP AND EVERY ASSFACE THAT VOTED FOR HIM"

That's mean. If you can't see that, you need help.
0
Reply
Male 169
someguy01  spare me the fake outrage, its conservatives only card, and nowadays it just doesnt work because of how toxic republicans are now
1
Reply
Male 2,106
jarred " I want you to get out of my restaurant."
 According to Representatives Ron DeSantis and Jimmy Duncan, they were approached before the shooting at the practice by a man who asked whether Republicans or Democrats were practicing on the field. 
“You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Go look in the mirror!” 
Former television host George Lopez simulated urinating on President Donald Trump’s Hollywood Star in a video published online Wednesday. 

Oh good god. Trump will drop to his knees and blow this dictator. Trump will swallow. 
Erdogan is now a dictator, no longer a democratically elected president. 
FUCK TRUMP --Kathy Griffin
I could go on but then you know how bad the toxic Republicans are saying such bad stuff.
0
Reply
67
jarred No outrage here, just trying to have a civil debate. Good job furthering political tribalism. Let me guess, you think I'm a conservative, don't you? 
-1
Reply
Male 6,088
someguy01 Oh i see, you took offense at my apparel, well it happens.  You see, it doesn't really mean that, it means freedom.
0
Reply
67
daegog Ok, let's review what happened here:

1. You made a comment that I showed was inaccurate.
2. You got angry and lashed out with insults and mean comments. 
3. I called you out and you played the victim with the "who, me, I didn't do nuffin."
4. I pointed out word for word your angry and spiteful comments. You then proceed to come back with a very strange response about freedom. 

So, I'll say this: I'm sorry you are so angry and feel the need to lash out at people. I hope you can get the help you need. You seem to have a lot of pent up rage. I used to feel that way all the time till I found power lifting and body building about 20 years ago (I'm 37). I was able to work through a lot of anger issues and I hope you can walk that same path. Trust me, you'll feel a lot better if you just let go of that hate and rage. There is a better world on the other side and I hope you can find it. Good luck.
-2
Reply
Male 9,132
daegog Trump Elected a Corporatist Ally judge that believes in the Executive power of the President.  Perfect "conservative Judge" Someone that will shit on the rights of the individual but will side on the side of the very wealthy in 95% of the cases. Trump loves loyalty this is nothing but a loyalty pick.
0
Reply
Male 673
I just hope he goes by his word, when he said he would rule by reading the Law as read, and measuring it by the Constitution As Read. Judicial Activism, or deciding you think you know what the intent of the law is, will be the end of protections for everyone.
2
Reply
Male 9,132
Shelworth Well seeing as how Gorsuch has committed judicial activism already in his first year I doubt that this pick will do anything BUT be a judicial activist.  It's clear in his previous rulings in the DC court he isn't doing anything as the Constitution Reads or the Law as read.  He clearly has misinterpreted it in the past, what's to stop him in the future?


Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty.

That sounds like reading the law as read as the Constitution as Read?  If you think so you need your head checked.
0
Reply
67
normalfreak2 While I agree with you that your example was a very poor judicial interpretation of the Constitution, can you read the Second Amendment for me? You can't have it both ways. The Amendment says nothing about banning weapons, registering guns, etc. The Constitution as Read says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That would mean no banning of automatic weapons, no registration of guns, no ban on criminals and mentally ill having guns. We both know that allowing certain individuals to have a gun is not wise. I just want you to understand that you can't strictly interpret the Constitution on one Amendment and then liberally interpret it on another Amendment just to fit your world view. Unfortunately, the court is doing that everyday between "liberal" and "conservative" judges. The democrats and republicans are turning the court into a twisted reflection of themselves. I for one believe all judges should be moderates who interrupt the constitution as literally as possible while also performing the "common sense" test. Like the government should not allow criminals to have guns and the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens. 

I hope that makes sense. 
1
Reply
Male 9,132
someguy01 The democrats and republicans are turning the court into a twisted reflection of themselves. I for one believe all judges should be moderates who interrupt the constitution as literally as possible while also performing the "common sense" test. Like the government should not allow criminals to have guns and the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens. 

I agree with you on all Judges should be moderates with common sense, 100% agree.  I do NOT believe both parties are trying to twist judges into reflections of themselves.  Merrick Garland WAS NOT and IS NOT an Ideologue.
1
Reply
67
normalfreak2 What the republicans did with Garland was bullshit. I agree with you 100% on that. Then Mitch McConnell's dumb ass got on the Senate floor and demanded democrats not do what republicans did on the Garland nomination. It made me laugh out loud.
0
Reply