Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 36, 37, 38  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 22 of 38
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

If you want to go back to the first stone cast, surely it must the drama created to stop Robert Bork ... same old, same old ... women will be back to back-alley abortions, all of that. You guys are still in the same rut. With Clarence Thomas, they hit him with the white man's fear ... the sexual negro ...


Uhh.... just a wee bit further back. Try Washington...as in George .
Quote:

The anonymous letter IS the nonsense. We should ignore it.

Who is 'we' ?

Quote:

Kavanaugh seems to be a practising Catholic. What's wrong with that?

For me personally ?

Everything and nothing.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you were wrong (as you often are) about George Washington. The Constitution gives the power of appointment to the President in unambiguous terms, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The operating assumption has always been, before Bork, that the President's choice should stand unless there was some seriously disqualifying reason ...

Scalia got unanimous support when he was appointed. So did Ginsberg, both of them with very different legal theories. But you probably know that. You're probably just doing your troll thing.

This sexual allegation is almost certainly the kind of shitty accusation the Democrats make with wanton disregard in their efforts to "Alinsky" politics. They had 250 protesters on hand to make a lot of noise, hoping to delay the nomination until after the mid-terms. The thing is a circus.

It could have been presented in an orderly fashion since they have. had the volunteer's testimony for at least two months, probably three. It's BS ... like the Patrick Brown accusations. It's a woman's right to slander any male anywhere, without regard to any good manners, good breeding, or truthfulness. Don't you support that, TC?

=============================

The issue at stake here is not abortion, and it's not women's rights to special rights beyond the law ... what's at issue with Trump's appointments has to do with the administrative state.

As the US has developed, Congress has mandated a multitude of special agencies who have the power to regulate certain areas of activity, particularly commerce. The developments of the law have taken it well beyond what the Constitution would allow. For example, the EPA under Obama did everything it could, short of legislation, to destroy the coal industry. It was no secret -- Obama himself announced it.

This mandating of extra-jurisdictional powers to these agencies goes back to FDR's attack on the Supreme Court. It also had a big role to play in desegregation of schools.
All of this created an anti-Constitutional body of jurisprudence. Washington is now a forest of such special agencies, and they are, in effect, making important decisions without reference to Congress.

That what's now on the docket. These new judges will join with others to trim back the administrative law in ways I can't predict. Like it or hate it, that is where the legal hammer will fall as a result of these changes.

In other words, it is an attack on the globalists. And they are quite right about that.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OPINION

· 6 hours ago

Kavanaugh confirmation: Four ways Democrats' plan to derail nomination could backfire




Curt LeveyOPINION By Curt Levey | Fox News


During Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing earlier this month, Senate Democrats seemed content just scoring points with their base by quizzing the Supreme Court nominee about President Trump, abortion, dark money, racial issues and the like. Now, in the wake of Christine Ford's sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh, Democrats appear to be shifting to a new strategy aimed at delaying the final confirmation vote until after the November 6 election and actually defeating the nominee.


Playing to the base while implicitly acknowledging that Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation was unlikely to be slowed or stopped was a safe strategy. The same cannot be said of the new Democratic strategy that is emerging. It is politically risky while offering little upside.

The most immediate risk to Democrats comes from raising the hopes of their base by yelling "gotcha" while armed only with an accuser who waited more than three decades to come forward, can't recall many pertinent facts, and recently signed a letter denouncing President Trump. Even if Ford can satisfactorily address the resulting doubts, Democrats can do nothing to stop Kavanaugh without the cooperation of Senate Republicans, who, among other concerns, may be wary about making the examination of a nominee's teenage years a precedent.


That's not to say that Democrats have no chance of using Ford's allegation to defeat Judge Kavanaugh. But the odds of falling flat on their face are greater.

Nonetheless, failing to deliver might be a risk worth taking for Senate Democrats if they had a reasonable chance of preventing what they say they most fear – the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy with a solid conservative. Headlines suggest that if Democrats can delay confirmation then win control of the Senate on November 6, that goal could be realized. However, a close analysis of the ways in which the new Democratic strategy could play out says otherwise. Consider the possibilities:

1. Democrats' quickly win the fight and Kavanaugh's nomination is withdrawn


Under this scenario, Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would be withdrawn before the month is out. President Trump would respond by quickly picking another nominee from the already vetted short list he compiled in July. No one on that list is more ideologically acceptable to Democrats than Kavanaugh, so they would have no reason to cheer the switch.

Even if Democrats overcome the odds and retake the Senate, the outgoing GOP majority would still have three months to confirm the new nominee. Senators wouldn't even have to cut their pre-election recess short to get the job done.

Of course, if Democrats win the Senate, they will scream bloody murder about the legitimacy of confirmation by a lame duck Congress. But they also screamed bloody murder about the legitimacy of denying Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing and look how far that got them.

2. Democrats delay the confirmation vote beyond the election but Kavanaugh is ultimately confirmed

This is the worst case scenario for Democrats. They gain nothing Supreme Court-wise but their prolonged obstruction of Judge Kavanaugh keeps the one issue that thoroughly unifies Republicans on the front burner, while giving GOP voters a reason to be as angry as Democratic voters and an easily articulable reason to head to the polls: Don't let Democrats steal this Supreme Court seat.

Democrats gain nothing electorally because their voters are already angry and energized. Meanwhile, red state Democratic Senators facing election have to walk a tightrope between the demands of their base and their state's support for Kavanaugh up through Election Day.

3. Democrats delay the vote beyond the election and Kavanaugh is defeated

This would be a great option for Democrats if it were possible. By the time Judge Kavanaugh were defeated, there would not be time for a lengthy confirmation process for the new nominee.

Senate Republicans might expedite the process and Democrats couldn't stop them. However, it will not come to that because the White House won't let Senate Democrats run the clock out. If Kavanaugh's confirmation is in serious doubt, the president won't wait for a vote to pull the plug.

4. Democrats fail to substantially delay the vote or defeat Kavanaugh

Under this scenario, Democrats won't be able to claim even a temporary victory. The best they could hope for is to "extract[] a pound of flesh" from Kavanaugh and "forever brand him as illegitimate," as John Fund suggests.

A pound of flesh might provide some satisfaction for Democrats but it would do nothing to prevent the conservative shift in the Court that supposedly animates their opposition to Kavanaugh.

Consider that Democrats and their allies have spent the last year complaining that Justice Neil Gorsuch is illegitimate because his seat should have been filled by Judge Merrick Garland. Likewise, they’ve been telling us for nearly three decades that Justice Clarence Thomas really is a sexual harasser.

At best, those pounds of flesh have accomplished nothing. Justice Thomas is the most solidly conservative voice on the Court and Gorsuch has, so far, followed closely in his footsteps. At worst, what Thomas went through before being confirmed is part of the reason he is the justice with the least inclination to appease the left.

Senate Democrats should reflect on the lesson of Justice Thomas's confirmation. It is just one reason why their new Anita Hill strategy is a foolish choice.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....kfire.html
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I think you were wrong (as you often are) about George Washington.

Epic fail.
For one, what have I ever said about Washington here in the past? Nothing...probably. So i guess I cant be wrong if I have never opined about it. Seriously funny attempt tho.

Never read or studied history I can assume.

Adams , Madison, Adams (JQ), Tyler.... all had problems with getting their guys vetted and approved.
Quote:

Scalia got unanimous support when he was appointed.

Yup. Of course you have no idea why.

It was because of William Rehnquist and the divisiveness that occurred on his nomination.
Quote:
But you probably know that. You're probably just doing your troll thing.

Hey does that mean you still do your stuck on stupid thing ?

Admit what anyone knows to be the truth.

The GOP wouldnt confirm Obamas pick

Paybacks a bitch baby ! Write ad naseum about stupid stuff all you want, but its simple. The GOP said FU, The Dems are saying FU.

Its that simple....for most. Sorry about that Chief!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As usual, you are wrong and trying to distort the truth. What, you ask incredulously, have I ever said about George Washington? ... But from your previous post:
Quote:
Uhh.... just a wee bit further back. Try Washington...as in George .


Adams appointed 3 Supreme Court judges. One was John Marshall, the guy who actually made the Supreme Court a central institution interpreting the Consitution.

Quote:
On May 7, 1800, President Adams nominated Congressman Marshall as Secretary of War. However, on May 12, Adams withdrew the nomination, instead naming him Secretary of State, as a replacement for Timothy Pickering. Confirmed by the United States Senate on May 13, Marshall took office on June 6, 1800. As Secretary of State, Marshall directed the negotiation of the Convention of 1800, which ended the Quasi-War with France and brought peace to the nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall


Three week nomination process. 'Another appointment was William Cranch ...

Quote:
In 1800, Cranch was named federal Inspector of Public Buildings, an appointment he received from his uncle, President John Adams. In 1801, Adams appointed Cranch as an associate justice of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. He served until 1806, when he was appointed as the court's chief justice; Cranch served in this position until his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cranch


This was Adam's nephew, by marriage. There is no indication that there was a problem.

The third was Elijah Paine, a Senator before his appointment It seems he was nominated and confirmed a day later! He was sitting on the court in less than a month.

Quote:
On February 24, 1801, Paine was nominated by President John Adams to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Vermont vacated by Samuel Hitchcock. Paine was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 25, 1801, and received his commission on March 4, 1801.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Paine


I don't see any reason to think that there were any Anita Hills around 'in those days to make the irresponsible and unsupportable charges.

If you were this wrong on Adams, why is there any reason to put credibility in your other 'claims? You don't know what you're talking about.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( one of the big unknowns heading into the mid terms is turnout and what kinds of voters will actually show up to vote , polling isn't always reliable and can sometimes be off a fair bit )


Electorate Makeup Will Be Key to Midterm Outcome



With the last primary of the 2018 midterm cycle over, it’s now official: The general election has begun. With 50 days to go, who are midterm voters?

“A midterm voter is little bit older, a little bit whiter and more educated” than a presidential election voter, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Report. While this demographic is usually a positive for Republicans, he cautioned that “educated voters are becoming more Democratic with each election.”


Midterms tend to be low-turnout affairs. In presidential elections, somewhere between 60 to 70 percent of registered voters typically go to the ballot box, whereas in a midterm the number hovers around 40 percent. The drop-off is pronounced among millennials and minority voters.

Millennials are enthusiastic about issues but unreliable on Election Day, particularly in midterms. In the 2016 presidential election, 19 percent of the electorate was millennial voters, while only 13 percent of that group made it to the polls in the 2014 midterms. Similar trends are present among black and Hispanic voters.

In primaries, the top priority for candidates is to attract party loyalists, who are generally more partisan. But in a general election, candidates need to appeal to a wider audience by capturing centrist voters. Exit polling from the 2014 elections show that about 40 percent of the voters identified their ideology as moderate whereas 23 percent identified as liberal and 37 percent as conservative. In 2014, independent voters supported Republicans by 54 percent to 42 percent, and Republicans picked up 13 seats in the House. In 2016, independent voters supported Donald Trump by 46 percent to 42 percent, a margin that likely provided the difference in his victory. In tight elections, independents are often the voting bloc most crucial to victory.


“Independent voters are swayed by results and put off by dysfunction,” said Matt Gorman, communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee. “What we’re seeing in polling is that voters think there will be more dysfunction in Washington if Democrats take over. … The Democrats have gone so far hard left in the primaries it’s hard to see how they can move to the middle in the general” election.

One of the biggest demographic changes from the 2014 midterm to the 2016 presidential election was married women. In 2014, this group, which made up 30 percent of the total electorate, voted 54 percent to 44 percent for Republicans. In 2016, however, married women supported Hillary Clinton by two percentage points over Donald Trump. “Much of this midterm is going to come down to the key demographic group of suburban college-educated women, and they don’t like the president,” said Kondik. Among the unknowns for this election are: Will married women continue to move away from the Republican Party and will they show up?

“Polling is showing that educated suburban women like Trump’s policies, but not his tweets,” said Sarah Chamberlain, CEO of Republican Main Street Partnership. She believes suburban women could be won over if Trump would “put down his phone, be less negative and talk about his accomplishments.”

When voters are asked to identify the most important issue in the election, it doesn’t matter if it’s a midterm or presidential election: They overwhelmingly say it’s the economy. Republicans are hoping that voters reward them for stronger economic growth and an improved job market. “The economy is a winning issue for the Republicans this year and voters will reward the party which will continue those policies” said Gorman.


Is that wishful thinking? We’ll know in seven weeks.


Adele Malpass is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She was formerly chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party and money politics reporter for CNBC.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/18/electorate_makeup_will_be_key_to_midterm_outcome_138090.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are more and more people predicting that the Republicans will lose the House based on polls.

Personally, I don't see it, but this is an election of local representatives. It isn't a Presidential affair, and the results are often different than what one would expect from Presidential politics. While Obama, for example, was personally triumphant, during his time in office, the Democrats lost a host of House offices -- over 1000 when you include state elections.

The Democrats hope the same thing will happen to Trump. This ignores some of the cards Trump has to play.

The staging of the revelations about the FBI seems to me to have been delayed until now. Trump has ordered the most problematic of the documents to be de-classified. The DoJ has already served notice that it will 'slow-walk' the revelations, so only a part of them comes to light by election day. There are grand juries going on McCabe and possibly others. Expect some arrests.

The declassified documents make it clear that the perps created the evidence they used to justify search warrants that were used to start a real counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. (In such investigations, the niceties of Amerian law don't come into play.)

Those who have seen the materials suggest that they contain dynamite ...

Expect evidence that Obama was involved, essentially imported this little bit of Kenyan politics into American politics. The intelligence community, including the British MI6, are and have been involved in a regime change operation against Trump. Now they have been caught.

Obama is in danger of becoming the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes. Or at least that's what the people who have seen the material are suggesting.

Once the new revelations becomes 'certified truth', everything will be different.

Right now, the New York Times (a former newspaper) is suppressing half of this news. They publish only what is 'certified' -- ie backed up with official documents -- or what can't be denied. As well as anonymous leaks from deep state people.

Trump has promised to hold lots of rallies to promote the cause. The election is exactly seven weeks away.

This is the election that will settle Trump's fate. I imagine Americans know that -- it is being used to energize the Democrats ... so how can it not also energize the Republicans?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aww...how cute. Somebody did some googling!

Thanks for proving my point.

In other words, nominees have been an issue since Washington, not as PCO said came about w Anita Hill.

Lets add you talk about disproving Washington by using Adam.

You can google but you cant keep who you are talking about on track.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think your conclusion follows from the evidence.

One of the three was confirmed the day after his nomination was put forward. One was the President's nephew. The third had his nomination removed so he could serve as Secretary of State, the third most powerful office in the land.

There's no mention of any serious opposition to the appointments.

You can show me a specific incident, that would help make your point. Or you could show me how nothing changed with Bork's failed nomination.

Or you can play the fool. Your choice ...

(You should note that the first of Dr. Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life is ... DON'T BE PATHETIC!!!)
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point , which has eluded you for some time now, is that there has always been resistance from one party to help the other.

Oi vey.... was simple to figure out unless an agenda is in play.
LOL!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you chose to play the fool. FYI, your presumed point still eludes me. It feels more like a bait & switch con. Show me an example ...

Perhaps this article will help you find one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/scotus-confirmation-votes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.701f27e65320

If other readers scroll down, there are graphics that quickly show how the vote split is closer when Republicans make the nominations, and how it is getting worse -- with the exception of Clarence Thomas -- until now. Kavanaugh seems to be getting Clarence Thomas levels of hostility.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
So you chose to play the fool.

Stop looking like a partisan effing idiot.

Spout shite all you want but confirmations have been a problem since politics has been around in the US.

Pres Madison- Woolcott rejected by Senate 9-24 in 1811

Pres Adams- Crittenden - postponed indefinitely in 1828

Pres Jackson- Tanney, same a s above until the Senate seats changed.-in 1835.

So...one is 207 years ago, one is 190 years and one is 183.

Bork? 1987 .....thats nineteen eighty seven..... not that long ago when talking about this stuff.

The point still stands. Nothing new on appt issues w the US govt.

(now furiously run off to google and find someway to keep on looking stupid as is your want)
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you really think that these few exceptions prove the case? I don't even know if it's true.

Is it not true that the history runs something like this? Since FDR's time, the appointments have been accepted by the Senate after a perfunctory hearing -- perhaps one day -- with broad bipartisan support, even for the other party's choice.

Now, a Republican nominee is very apt to be held up for a week-long hearing, during which time he will be examined on almost every document he has played a role in creating in his life There will be an FBI check. They will gather and check stories from the public -- all aimed at disqualifying the candidate.

Kavanaugh is getting Clarence Thomas-like smears and slanders cast at him, and he seems as goody-goody-Two-Shoes as you could find in the legal profession (and that's a profession for that kind of people). His mother was a judge! He went to the right schools, and clerked for the right Justice. He's been groomed since he was a lad.

There is no proportion. In all the fuss, about Row vrs Wade, about all the fears the Democrats are stirring ... the essentials are ignored. The Democrats want mediocres like Sotomayor, who will maintain the social justice banner no matter what The Law says.


Last edited by Bugs on Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Do you really think that these few exceptions prove the case? I don't even know if it's true.

Huh what? Then umm... oh lord, never mind.

Quote:
Since FDR's time, the appointments have been accepted by the Senate after a perfunctory hearing -- perhaps one day -- with broad bipartisan support, even for the other party's choice.

Oh FFS... no. FDR nominted 8 I think, all good to go.

But Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon had troubles with their appointees. So did Reagan Bush and Obama.
Quote:

Kavanaugh is getting....
the same treatment the GOP gave.

If they dont like it, they shouldnt have done it.

T'is really simple for most.
Sorry it isnt for you .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Eisenhower nominee that got snagged up was Harlan. First, Earl Warren passed with a voice vote. Harlan passed 71-11, but his nomination was held up because the Supreme Court has just issued its Brown vs The Board of Education, the decision that de-segregated the schools. It was a bombshell to the Senate, and the southerners refused to go along with another appointment. It was smoothed over without Harlan himself becoming a target.

Brennan was a recess appointment. At almost the same time, an elderly Justice announced his retirement, and Eisenhower appointed Wittacker. Both Brennan and Whittaker passed on a voice vote on the same day.

Potter Stewart, Eisenhower's last appointment, was passed 70-17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_Supreme_Court_candidates

None of those guys went through what Kavanaugh is going through. Not even close. It didn't happen with Nixon or with Johnson either. Abe Fortas had to leave the court for some reason. There were no more problems in the other appointees you mention. Snags, scheduling delays, etc. come up, but we are seeing demonstrations against the candidate, not an honest attempt to find a quality individual with the defensible judicial philosophy.

TC chose to play the fool. He can play alone.

Rule #1: {b]DON'T BE PATHETIC111[/b] ... if you can, of course.


Last edited by Bugs on Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 22 of 38

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 36, 37, 38  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


2018 - US Midterm Elections

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB