Trump selects Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 13, 2013
4,705
1,159
743
Left field
#41
In 1974 the Senate was controlled by Republicans while the House was controlled by the Democrats. Both houses were set to impeach Nixon (both Republicans and Democrats).

We saw the "sweet deal" with the previous administration. You know the one that promised to be the most transparent in history, but his AG was held in contempt of congress for? You guessed it, not being transparent and witholding documents!!!!
In 1974 the Senate was controlled by Republicans while the House was controlled by the Democrats. Both houses were set to impeach Nixon (both Republicans and Democrats).

We saw the "sweet deal" with the previous administration. You know the one that promised to be the most transparent in history, but his AG was held in contempt of congress for? You guessed it, not being transparent and witholding documents!!!!
AND what does that have to do with Trump stacking the court in a way that could help determine his future. Great gig if you can pull it off while being investigated.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,536
2,226
1,743
So Cal
#44
AND what does that have to do with Trump stacking the court in a way that could help determine his future. Great gig if you can pull it off while being investigated.
other than it's simply not true. You're really going off on this emotional tirade base on an "article" that he wrote for a newspaper 9 years ago, and not based off of his actual judicial work?

do you actually believe that his generalization opinion piece, that was not opinion on the specifics of any case, would take precedence with him over the actual facts and judicial precedent of a specific case before him? He said he doesn't do that.

now he's not allowed personal opinions - it sounds simply like you're trying to suppress free speech.

my goodness.
 
Feb 11, 2007
3,997
1,858
1,743
Oklahoma City
#45
Clearly, Jesus was thinking that he would get a Supreme Court nomination someday as he certainly kept his thoughts on the subject vague and difficult to analyze, just like a good nominee would.
Seross...I think Jesus was a little to clear to be acceptable as a judge. Some were so angry they even killed him.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,944
18,008
1,743
#46
AND what does that have to do with Trump stacking the court in a way that could help determine his future. Great gig if you can pull it off while being investigated.
And what does the court have to do with Trump in this case? The special investigator will hand a document of their findings to the US House and they'll decide at that point if impeachment is warranted.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,705
1,159
743
Left field
#47
other than it's simply not true. You're really going off on this emotional tirade base on an "article" that he wrote for a newspaper 9 years ago, and not based off of his actual judicial work?

do you actually believe that his generalization opinion piece, that was not opinion on the specifics of any case, would take precedence with him over the actual facts and judicial precedent of a specific case before him? He said he doesn't do that.

now he's not allowed personal opinions - it sounds simply like you're trying to suppress free speech.

my goodness.
All candidates have been approved of by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation as well. If they are so homogeneous why do you think it's coincidence that Trump chose this one over the others? I have my opinion.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,705
1,159
743
Left field
#48
And what does the court have to do with Trump in this case? The special investigator will hand a document of their findings to the US House and they'll decide at that point if impeachment is warranted.
Nothing yet, but what if ........ it ends up in the Supreme Court?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,944
18,008
1,743
#49
Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too.

Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers to swing an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.

The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States’ history of intervention in foreign elections.

American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin win).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html


Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton

http://time.com/4422723/putin-russia-hillary-clinton/

Hillary had her hand in the 2011 Russian election attempting to unseat Putin.

Putins' dislike for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Trump!
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,944
18,008
1,743
#50
Nothing yet, but what if ........ it ends up in the Supreme Court?
How would it end up in the supreme court? The supreme court doesn't rule on impeachment cases, it's left to another branch of government.

Seriously, you've got to be running out of tin foil.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,944
18,008
1,743
#55
You mean he didn't run out when he implied the POTUS could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it right now?

Guy must own Reynolds Wrap... the company. :derp:
Well in all honesty he may have been confused and referring to Obama and/or Billary.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,705
1,159
743
Left field
#56
There are several ways that the Mueller investigation could end up in the Supreme Court. Your failure to acknowledge them doesn't change that fact. If just for one moment you could change the channel from Fox to any other news source you might not be so willfully clueless. Or you might realize the tinfoil hat wearers out number you in the real word. Some of you need to come up for a breath of fresh air once in a while.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,944
18,008
1,743
#57
There are several ways that the Mueller investigation could end up in the Supreme Court. Your failure to acknowledge them doesn't change that fact. If just for one moment you could change the channel from Fox to any other news source you might not be so willfully clueless. Or you might realize the tinfoil hat wearers out number you in the real word. Some of you need to come up for a breath of fresh air once in a while.
Well, tell us one.