*Update* President Trump Announces His Supreme Court Nominee – Brett Kavanaugh

You gotta give President Trump credit for controlling the media cycle.  Tonight at 9:00pm President Donald Trump will announce his Supreme Court pick in a prime-time address.

It has been reported that four candidates remain in the running: Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, and Raymond Kethledge.

UPDATE: President Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh !!

Livestream LinkNBC Livestream LinkUSA Today LivestreamAlternate Livestream

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Election 2018, media bias, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

1,781 Responses to *Update* President Trump Announces His Supreme Court Nominee – Brett Kavanaugh

  1. Pyrthroes says:

    Breyer is way past expiration-date, Ginsberg at 85 could kick the bucket any time (and good riddance to ‘er). As Trump himself has said, he anticipates piling four new Justices (sic) atop the three he started with (Alito, the estimable Thomas,and his nibs John Edwards), leaving Kagan and Sotomayor-ski (two of lockstep Rats’ Three Weirds) to flash their seaweed tresses at whichever Soros’ rent-a-mob comes ’round the bend.

    In context, we note that the Framers’ four-line Article III, Section 1, establishing the Third Branch Federal Judiciary, has proved inadequate to prevent the profoundly out-of-sync Kritarchy (“rule by judges”) evolved since Marshal’s inexcusable power-grab in Marbury (1803).

    Sugar-coat Marshal as you will, as Justice Story’s “Commentaries” noted (1833), no-one in 1787 considered the unelected Supreme Court a reigning super-legislature. Apropos III, 1, rudimentary procedural provisions addressing political disincentives via a short-form Amendment XXVIII are not only centuries overdue but eminently feasible.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Tonawanda says:

      Interesting proposal!

      Like

    • rrick says:

      Re: your last paragraph: see the basis of the 10th Amendment and the Kentucky Resolutions (1798)

      I agree with respect the Marbury opinion.

      However. if I may, it is not that the Constitution itself is inadequate. It is the loss of virtue among the people, the government and its departments, inclusive, which has rendered it so. By what scheme devised of men is avarice contained?

      Liked by 8 people

      • rrick says:

        CORRECTION: …the basis FOR the 10th…

        Like

      • Sugarhillhardrock says:

        I share your view. It is the loss of virtue that harms us more than anything.

        Like

        • Donzo says:

          Maybe I picked u p this quote here, apropos at this moment.
          “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.”
          ― Learned Hand, Spirit of Liberty

          Liked by 1 person

          • Reloader says:

            Hence, the opponents of Liberty have expended great effort to (a.) de-educate the existing populace through politicized and sub-standard government-school curriculum, and (b.) wholesale replacement of the existing populace with one which desires no education at all.

            Liked by 1 person

            • piper567 says:

              Y’know, I used to worry that the current American surge (thanks to out great President) may be endangered by these Marxist minions our educational system is churning out.
              So, I am pleasantly surprised that said minions are showing the Country what value these “students” are adding to our social intercourse. they can be nasty and carry stupid signs.
              Meanwhile, to this oldster, most of the folks currently waking up, walking way from this idiocy seem to be quite young.
              During The Campaign, I began reading comments in response to posts on The_Donald, which I found really encouraging. Then came Candice. And Kanye. And now Brandon.

              Listening to the testimonials on #WalkAway, listening to Candace, following individuals who choose to post on FB, etc., watching and noticing many polls (jaded) which show ascending numbers of people who are no longer hoodwinked, I am led to believe our society is experiencing a great divide much different than the one pushed by msm.
              I have been discouraged by the thinking vs feeling reality, but I do believe people are realizing they can reflect, they can think, and its so exciting, they are driven to share their experience with others. And I believe thinking people will leave feeling people in the dustbin.
              This is pretty cool…
              I am no longer as worried as I once was.
              This by no means leads me to believe our edu system needs no reformation. But its current product is demonstrating this need for change, for all to see. a little byproduct #crybabies vs #producers.
              sweet.

              Like

      • Brilliant!

        “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible” .51 -Patrick Henery

        https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/

        Liked by 2 people

        • piper567 says:

          A poster on The_Donald just showed an article that says Kavanaugh offered to pro bono assist Elian Gonzales’ family when Reno refused to let SCOTUS hear his case.
          oh, my heart.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Ditch Mitch says:

        Ahh, the Alexis de Tocqueville warning, restated by Reagan.

        Like

    • G. Combs says:

      Sotomayor has type I diabetes and is showing signs of problems. She has had two episodes recently of her blood sugar levels going too low. You get dizzy and can pass out. Sotomayor injury ‘more severe than initially believed’

      Diabetes increases the risk of problems with kidneys, eyesight, heart attack and stroke. She is keeping her blood sugar levels low to lessen these problems but then she runs into the low blood sugar problems causing falls.

      Multiple complications and frequent severe hypoglycaemia in ‘elderly’ and ‘old’ patients with Type 1 diabetes.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506989?dopt=Abstract

      Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Older Adults
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522896/

      Diabetes in Older Adults | Diabetes Care
      http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/12/2650

      Like

      • JMC says:

        I agree. Sotomayor has serious health problems. The Wise Latina’s biggest problem is herself. She is now grotesquely obese. See the 2017 photo bottom left in the Wikipedia article on her showing her face and upper body. Her appetite is obviously out of control.

        Like

        • Ken says:

          Her health problems notwithstanding when she came out and said that she would’ve loved to take a baseball bat and hit a fellow SC Justice did it for me. The late great Antonin Scalia was 100 times the justice than the unwise Latin “lady” will ever be.

          Liked by 1 person

          • GB Bari says:

            The Unwise Latina was never qualified to be an SC Justice. She interjects her feelings and politics into every decision rather than following established law. That’s exactly why Obozo The Lawless nominated her.

            Liked by 5 people

        • billsbowl says:

          The Wide Latina.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Patsy says:

        Diabetes is a devastating disease.

        Like

    • Lactantius says:

      Marbury v. Madison opened up the process of judicial review as a method of strictly interpreting the world of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the “strict” interpretation in the hands of liberals and dreamers has caused the problems with the concept.

      Currently, the DemonizingRats are in full gear to defeat strict Constitutionalism in order to subvert the government by using activist courts as their power source in controlling our representative democracy.

      Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives “original jurisdiction” in cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” or in cases “in which a State shall be Party.”

      Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

      Marshall wrote: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department, to say what the law is.” The Supreme Law of the Land did not give the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in cases other than as identified in Article III, Section 2.

      Marshall did NOT invent judicial review. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote:”The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

      If the body politic, which is the Congress at any particular moment in time, can write law which supersedes the Constitution, then what purpose is served by having a constitution other than as something etherial from which to digress?

      When the Supreme Court pays close attention to the laws and the Constitution as written and to the legal reasoning in precedent decisions (stare decisis) of like cases, it is practicing a form of judicial review.

      A Supreme Court which finds what it wants to find is our worst nightmare.

      Griswold v. Connecticut was 7-2 in overturning a Connecticut criminal statute forbidding married couples from using contraceptive devices. Justices Black and Steward dissented on the basis that they could not find specific support for the “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights on which this case was based. They further stated that the Supreme Court has no right to interpret the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment to find “fundamental rights” not specified in the Constitution.

      Justices Douglas, Goldberg, Warren, Brennan, Harlan, White and Stark, found the privacy rights necessary (in the words of Douglas) emanating from the penumbra of The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was made possible by the Griswold discovery of unique privacy rights.

      A liberal, wandering Supreme Court can find what it wants to find and makes a mockery of both the Constitution and of the concept of the rule of law.

      Like

  2. Patriot1783 says:

    If anyone here is too young to remember what Justice Clarence Thomas and his family had to go thru back in 1991 when the senate was led by Joe Biden & Ted Kennedy, here is just a sample of how ugly the Kavanaugh confirmation could go. I remember the hearings well and was completely disgusted at the lengths those hypocritical senators went to with intent of driving Thomas out similar to to tactics of how they treated Robert Bork a few years earlier.
    Doesn’t matter which decade, Democrats are despicable.

    Liked by 18 people

    • StanH says:

      It was grotesque to watch. But Thomas acquitted himself quite well.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Learning says:

      How hypocritical of Creepy Joe to have conducted this hearing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Patriot1783 says:

        Biden and Kennedy were the ones who no doubt crafted the perverse direction the hearing went.
        In 70-80’s Kennedy and his buddy Chris Dodd used to canvas the DC and MA bars (including Nantucket) trolling for young women to hook up with. They would send in the young nice looking Jr male aides in to make initial contact with the women, ply them with drink and later basically lead them to the Senators.
        Remember William Kennedy Smith rape case, uncle Teddy was also in the house.

        Liked by 2 people

        • MaineCoon says:

          Kennedy was. Dispicable.. Literally, Ds get away with murder.

          Liked by 2 people

          • There is little doubt he is paying for it right now in flames and torment-not just now but forever.

            I have a theory on Eternal Punishment: Each evil perpetrated- spawned from the sinner’s choice- each ripple in the sea of filth brought by the sinner’s diabolical act adds intensity of torment in an equivalent and thus exponential recompense.

            ‘Ol Teddy’s legacy of filth is ratcheting up his torment now and forever.

            Like

        • LannyD says:

          There is the classic story of them together pinning down a drunk young lady on a bar table in Georgetown. Horrible hypocrites these democrats.

          Like

    • Richard Whitney says:

      I watched those hearings. His wife was seated behind him and to his right, and she was visible whenever he was on screen, such as in your screen shot.
      You need to read about Clarence Thomas’ life, and how he rose to the Supreme Court, to understand what a great and courageous man he is.
      The single most popular topic in black feminist literature is bemoaning the fact that successful black men choose white wives. Thomas’ wife on TV every day inspired the left to produce Anita Hill. She was the woman who worked for Thomas at a job where she claimed his put a pubic hair on a coke can (written by Maya Angelou I’d bet) yet she made to charge of sexual misconduct then, instead she followed him across the street to another job when he was promoted. She never made this scurrilous claim until late in the Thomas hearings. Hill had a civil service level that meant that she couldn’t be fired for any reason, and she was (allegedly) an attorney versed in women’s rights, yet she made the unverifiable claim of the pubic hair and used that to defame a great man. It was nonsensical at the time, but no one could question the obvious discrepancies in her story, because,…you know why.
      She still traipses around today making speeches for women’s causes. That is her perpetual payoff for being a mephitic liar.

      Liked by 6 people

      • RobInPA says:

        “mephitic”

        Needed to look it up. Great word!

        Very similar to one of my favorites – “turgid”.

        Thank you!

        Like

      • Angry Dumbo says:

        Events like these cemented my political views as a conservative. I was in law school and could not believe how many of my classmates could not or cared not see through Anita Hill for her opportunism. Justice Thomas shined like the diamond he is. The media sucked back then too, but Gipper was going and PDJT had yet to arrive politically. This was about the same time as Rush’s bake sale in Colorado. Pioneer days.

        God bless you, Justice Thomas.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Flova says:

        Probably Toni Morrison, not Maya Angelou.

        Like

      • carole says:

        I remember that vividly. I was young, thought Anita might actually be telling the truth But my older, wiser (black lady)friend said, ‘She isn’t. I’ve known many black women like Anita Hill. She undoubtedly had a crush on him and he didn’t give her the time of day; plus she was jealous of his white wife and she is taking revenge.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lillie Belle says:

        I remember the testimony of some of their office colleagues who told of Hill insisting on picking Thomas up from the airport, when he said he could just take a cab to the office. Some said they thought she was interested in him romantically. I don’t remember the details but I remember when people asked why she would lie to destroy him I pointed to 2 things- pics of Barbra Streisand and other leftists sucking up to and lionizing Hill and….. pics of Thomas’ white wife, knowing about the hatred many black American women feel for successful black men who marry white women.

        Like

      • CountryclassVulgarian says:

        I had to good fortune of meeting Ginny Thomas. I was lauding Justice Thomas and told how much I love him. She gave me a conspiratorial smile and said “I love him too!”

        Like

    • beach lover says:

      I remember this well. I hope they show this every day of the hearings to remind the Dems and the Dims how they assaulted this great man.. all because he dared to leave the plantation.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Angry Dumbo says:

        On the heels of Bork – this was most definitely a message being sent.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken says:

        As a Black Conservative myself I remember the Justice Thomas hearings very well. The Dynamic Duo of Doofery Kennedy and Biden really tried to muddy up this great man but he wouldn’t have any off it. You could tell that those two clowns and the rest of the democrats didn’t like this “uppity Black” thinking for himself. I have a copy of his autobiography “My Grandfather’s Son” and this man’s life story is something that should’ve been celebrated in the Black Community. Sadly all Black leftists have done is call him an Uncle Tom who married outside his race. Truly shameful but expected behavior from the left. Also every time I see Anita Hill on TV I say two words liberal liar.

        Liked by 9 people

        • G. Combs says:

          An old boyfriend of mine (white) dated a black girl and was very surprised at the push back he got from the black community. It was in the 1960-70s and it was OK for a black guy to date a white girl but Don’t you White Guys DARE date a black woman.

          As far as I am concerned the private life of two adults should stay PRIVATE PERIOD!

          Liked by 2 people

        • Q&A says:

          Justice Thomas is still mistreated to this day, omitted from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (the so-called “Black History Museum”) and only added after much public shaming a long year after opening the exhibit.

          https://newsone.com/3749548/clarence-thomas-african-american-history-museum/

          Liked by 4 people

          • Ken says:

            Liberal Blacks are still mad about Justice Thomas being added to the museum. I asked a liberal relative of mine and the idiot said that he wasn’t Black enough. I just walked away from him shaking my head. To people like him Clinton was the first “Black” president and Obama was the best ever. You just can’t fix stupid.

            Like

        • logger says:

          Those who call him an Uncle Tom never read Uncle Tom’s Cabin. However did they manage to pervert “Uncle Tom” into some sort of sellout? Aided by the ignorant media.

          Like

    • logger says:

      He called it a high-tech lynching … and he was right. Same for Bork. And the left will do the same for Kavanaugh. Their hatred will be on full display.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ken says:

        Just watch how racist Senators Booker and Harris act during the confirmation hearings. The only difference is (especially in the case of Bork) PDJT will defend his pick.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Benson II says:

        Don’t believe it can happen this time around. We have to many conservative voices that weren’t present in the past, including our president. The howling of the left doesn’t go unanswered nowadays.

        Like

      • LannyD says:

        Agreed. Watch the anti-Catholic sentiment pour. Interesting Kavenaugh put his background on the table so strongly at Trumps announcement. It will be interesting to see how the diverse groups of American Catholics will respond to the attacks on him.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rex70 says:

      Once upon a Harry Reid, only 51 votes are now needed to confirm; the esteemed Justice Thomas had to battle for 60. Those nine votes = a Dem Dog and Pony Show. Thankfully and if McTurdle is tired of having his wife shoo away Dems from him and his front doorstep every day, the Dem Show will be shut down and this great country’s highest Court will continue with its crucial business with another great addition to its bench–courtesy of PDJT. Again.

      Like

    • deepdivemaga says:

      Wow, thank you for sharing that video with me Patriot. Very moving stuff.

      I am only in my mid 20s so I was not around to watch these hearings. Seeing this today shows me that the game is still the same and the only way you WIN is if you fight back and punch them right back in the teeth. As you mentioned above, Bork was put through from what I could only imagine hours of a nightmare hearing. I have read Sharyl Atkinsons’ book “The Art of the Smear” and in the first chapter she goes over the Bork hearing and the Thomas hearing. She explains how far they went to destroy these two men. Great book, highly recommend it.

      Recently, I have also heard both Dan Bongino and Andrew Wilcow bring up these two hearings but it makes a different impact to *see* the hearings and feel the emotion in the room.

      I pray that Brett Kavanaugh has the will to fight and wade through the upcoming Senate hearings. I am sure that was the topic of discussion when Trump interviewed him last week. Perhaps Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and others could give him some behind the scenes tips and coaching to get through this swamp of a hearing.

      Thanks again for the post, I am going to go watch some more videos from this hearing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Patriot1783 says:

        Your welcome deepdivemaga, as SD has posted previously don’t ever look away.
        I believe the whole hearing can be found online. Quite disturbing and shows what strength Justice Thomas and his devoted wife are made from.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. MVW says:

    Anything goes for the ‘Big Dream’ of Slavery by Socialism.

    Like

  4. pnj01 says:

    The crazy thing about Judges having a super veto over the elected branches every move is that judges are incapable of independent thought. They can’t take a look at secret intelligence and say: we need a strategy to deal with this imminent threat to our homeland. Instead, they have to wait for a “cause or controversy” to arise and then to deal with it in and “adversary process.” So, they sit around waiting for somebody to complain and then issue a briefing schedule and then weigh what the two sides say. That would be a bizarre way to handle a crisis like Pearl Harbor or 9-11. Just imagine: the US Navy comes running in on December 8, 1941 screaming: “judge, judge: we need your authorization to respond to this incredible sneak attack on our main naval bastion in the Pacific….” And the judge would respond: “but have you served your Enemy??”

    Liked by 1 person

    • TarsTarkas says:

      I think that in a national emergency that the executive (most especially PDJT) would ignore any and all emergency injunctions issued by any judge in the land and be willingly obeyed. Lincoln certainly was never held accountable for his suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the executive power, and IMO rightfully so.

      Justice Thomas addressed this very problem in his concurring opinion in Trump vs Hawaii:

      “Thomas also urged the court to take up an issue that the majority specifically did not address: whether a federal district court, as in this case, can issue a “nationwide” or “global” injunction, which bars the executive branch from enforcing a law against anyone, anywhere. Asserting that such injunctions “are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system” – by, for example, “preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts” and “encouraging forum shopping” – Thomas concluded that they “are legally and historically dubious”: “If federal courts continue to issue them,” he wrote, “this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.””

      A warning shot across the bow of the lawfare abusers. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, we could see it decided during the very next term.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Monadnock says:

    The strong endorsement buy the NRA augers well for this pick by the President. Glad to see that.

    Like

  6. sDee says:

    Heritage Foundation has a few summary points on Kavanaugh’s past writings including statutory interpretation by the Judicial , and the dangers of “criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution” of a sitting president.
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07/09/trump-hits-another-home-run-with-supreme-court-pick-brett-kavanaugh/

    Like

  7. MS Idaho says:

    Does anyone know who all was invited to the White House for the announcement last night? I know some Dems were invited & declined. That sure was an enthusiastic audience – loved it

    Like

  8. covfefe999 says:

    How did the lib riots work out? Did they stomp on any police cars or break any windows or set stuff on fire? 🙂

    This past Saturday notorious attention ho Michael Pfleger staged a “protest” against gun violence on the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94). He wanted to shut the expressway down for several hours … because you know inhibiting drivers addresses the problems of people shooting and killing each other with their illegally-acquired guns.. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel actually condoned the stunt. IL Gov Bruce Rauner and both Chicago and IL state police criticized it. Apparently the police held Pfleger and his idiot fellow squatters to one lane but it still caused a problem because obviously drivers couldn’t zoom past the idiots at the normal expressway speed (which is like 80 mph!, it’s a beautiful stretch of urban expressway). Meanwhile in the ‘hoods that, a bunch of people were shot and killed. The “protest” had ZERO EFFECT. ZERO. So what about the Supreme Court riot last night? Is Kavanaugh still the nominee? 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Anonymous says:

    Democrats lose their minds.

    Like

  10. trapper says:

    David French over at NRO, quoting a piece he published in the Washington Post (?!) lamenting that PDJT has nominated Kavanaugh instead of French’s preference Amy Coney Barrett:

    “Would another Republican have the guts to put forward a nominee who would so clearly inflame the culture wars?”

    And there you have it. French preferred Barrett because he saw her as the nominee who would “inflame the culture wars.” Not win them, inflame them. Activity today over a plan for ultimate victory. Tactics over strategy. Culture wars for sport and profit?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-supreme-court-an-opportunity-lost/

    Like

    • Benson II says:

      Great relief she was not picked. I believe she had the slimmest record of any of them in the finals which is why I’m very happy she wasn’t chosen.

      Like

    • mamajen says:

      I liked Barrett, but I’m thinking he might have wanted to spare a mom of 7 some of the hatred that the left is going to dish out. I mean, I’m sure she’s tough, but that’s a lot to cope with.

      Like

    • Christina says:

      David French became irrelevant a long time ago, along with Kevin D. Williamson.

      Like

    • CountryclassVulgarian says:

      Does anyone besides bill kristol care what david french has to say?

      Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Does French not understand that one of the goals was to get this justice confirmed sooner than later? Trump wants him seated before the midterm elections. I think there’s no way Barrett would have been confirmed so quickly.

      Like

  11. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Here is my prediction about how the communists will carry on during confirmation hearings:
    First, some smart people will bring up a range of issues actually worth discussing: views on the degree that a sitting president can be threatened with a lawsuit, views on illegal immigration responses by government, etc.

    But these in-depth issues will be too deep for those who want to foam at the mouth. So, marching orders will be given to focus on abortion. I give this all 10 days from now. It will all be about abortion.

    The Progs will then appear to be very irrelevant, having no ability to discuss other matters, and trotting out the tired war-on-women strategy. Not being so concerned with accuracy, but more with getting people into a tizzy, their abortion discussion will not fit what the SC, and any nominated justice, might actually be face with.

    A handful of commentators will still follow actual relevant discussions, and will make this war-on-woman strategy appear even more misguided and tone-deaf with regard to the actual issues involved in this SC nomination.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Foam at the mouth Fauxcahontas has called Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh an “animal”. Where is the outrage? President Trump calls gangs what they are “animals” and the left comes unhinged, then refers to them as nice guys. Very messed up and crazy. Just like the Dims will use the straw man Republican war on women, when they are the ones threatening and harassing Republican women in the administration and conservative women in general. It gets beyond ridiculous, they have no credibility or common sense. Beyond stupid!

      Like

  12. berrytrail says:

    Two people called it correctly on the 6 July post about the Supreme Court nominee. I will remember their names as trustworthy. I had no dog in this fight, as I am just grateful that Trump is making the choices. I would like to point out one thing that many don’t seem to know: Being Catholic does not guarantee that one is socially conservative. In fact, it’s usually the opposite. I grew up in a charismatic Catholic church and itt was the most nauseating lefty church I have ever attended. I’m not sure why people assume that Barrett was going to be socially conservative. My experience and observation tells me that most charismatic Catholics are lefties.

    Like

  13. Christina says:

    berrytrail aka Christina of the Husky Dog profile pic.

    Like

  14. calbear84 says:

    Obama gave us Kagan & Sotomayor…Trump gives us Kavanaugh & Gorsuch. Well done MAGA patriots, well done.

    Like

  15. VegasGuy says:

    I get a kick out of the so called….Established Law…” argument being pushed.

    IMHO there is no such thing. There are Established Rights which can be expanded but not restricted, and there is “EXISTING LAW” which is subject to the whim of the Legislature and the interpretation of the Courts.

    If Law were “established” once passed there would be no need for Appeals Courts or The SCOUTS…these so called “established laws” could never be repealed or modified if one were to buy into the stare decisis concept as fixed by prior decree…. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction. There in lies the flexibility of the concept….”The same response from the same court or lower court in that jurisdiction…” Of course that applies to the decision being based on the exact arguments that were initially presented.

    SCOTUS can rehear prior decided cases if the underlying argument changes. I believe SCOTUS can uphold its’ prior decision while at the same time relinquishing future jurisdiction to the State level. Again JMHO.

    IMHO Laws are quite fluid in nature, & the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw fit to add a Judicial Branch to the Government for this specific reason…to place constraints & oversight on the Legislative Branch & to insure that Laws passed conform to the Constitution. The purpose of SCOTU is not to create Law but rather to apply Law as Constitutional or to strike down Law as
    Un-constitutiional.

    Liked by 1 person

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      This is ALL they have for Roe V Wade because RVW is incredibly vulnerable.
      All the SC would need is a good amicus brief with the obvious and plentiful scientific support that life begins at conception, and that the scientific basis for first-trimester as some kind of clinical demarcation is super weak, although passibly arguable at the time of RVW, plus beyond such an amicus, simply to state 14th amendment says “life” and “due process,” and having two doctors opine, or waiting periods, or information, is nothing close to what otherwise would be decent due process for a death decision, state a handful of civil rights law, and maybe throw in “disparate impact” just to give a nod to the SJWs.

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        I wish they could ban abortions because abortions are torture. I was watching some videos about late term abortions, they inject a chemical directly into the fetus to slow and then stop the heart, and then they go about dismembering and removing the feturs. If the woman objects to the injection, they do the dismemberment without it. Can you imagine? I think abortions earlier in the pregnancy don’t even involve that injection. How can this be allowed?

        Like

      • wrd9 says:

        Abortion is used by many women as birth control. It shows a lack of personal responsibility. And, no, I’m not excusing men. If you look at the statistics, 30% of abortions are done by black women and 50% of all women who get abortions did not plan for any sort of contraception in the month when they became pregnant.

        Like

  16. G. Combs says:

    HMMMMmmm
    I meant to post this elsewhere (presidental thread) but I can not reach that page.
    …..
    D’Souza exposes the secret history of LBJ is a really great Utube. He talks of Fake History of the Democrat Party. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXP2EdqJ16s

    (I hope that has not been removed from the net.)

    Like

  17. PowerCord says:

    My fear is that Kavanaugh is part of the swamp. Apparently, he never had a job in the private sector and was always a DC denizen. I hope he serves us well.

    Like

    • Trump Train says:

      Agree, but enough people I have faith in are on board, so there is some comfort. That said they can always turn like Roberts ect.

      Like

    • freedom says:

      PowerCord, my apprehension is high for the reasons you stated. As a Bushie, there is a good chance that Kavanaugh is part of the swamp. I fear that he will betray Trump, and America, with NWO thinking and Bush clan influence. It is significant that Bush, McCain, Collins and Murkowski approve of Kavanaugh. Actually, it is quite frightening. He may be cut of the same cloth as that useless Judge Roberts.

      Like

  18. yonason says:

    How refreshing. No Joe Biden to molest the nominee’s children.

    Like

  19. TheLastDemocrat says:

    HuffPo is quite tone deaf – their headline right now is, in big bold letters:
    “ROE DEATH PANEL LOOMS.”

    Like

  20. William Huey says:

    Why would Trump nominate a member of Yale’s Skull and Bones? I smell a rat…..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s