Is it ok for a Supreme Court Nominee to lie in order to get appointed? Should they be removed?
May 5, 2022 08:38:49 #
336Robin
Loc: North Carolina
It's obvious that several of them lied to get themselves appointed and passed.
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
May 5, 2022 08:53:47 #
336Robin wrote:
It's obvious that several of them lied to get themselves appointed and passed.
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
How did they lie? At the time they answered the quesion Roe V. Wade was settled law, but that does not mean it cannot ever be changed.
May 5, 2022 09:08:24 #
Liberty Tree wrote:
How did they lie? At the time they answered the quesion Roe V. Wade was settled law, but that does not mean it cannot ever be changed.
They indicated that they would not change it. It was settled. They lied under oath.
May 5, 2022 09:30:59 #
RascalRiley wrote:
They indicated that they would not change it. It was settled. They lied under oath.
So, people aren't allowed to change their mind? People do it all the time. Look at you.
May 5, 2022 09:31:11 #
336Robin wrote:
It's obvious that several of them lied to get themselves appointed and passed.
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
Is it ok for a president to lie about actually being elected by 81 million people, when only 8 million i******s v**ed for him and his regime! Or 8 elite billionaires?
May 5, 2022 09:43:46 #
Parky60 wrote:
So, people aren't allowed to change their mind? People do it all the time. Look at you.
If it had been Dems you would be drawing attention to it. And yes people do change their minds and if you can justify it with that logic then it will not be of concern for you.
May 5, 2022 10:10:00 #
336Robin
Loc: North Carolina
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Is it ok for a president to lie about actually being elected by 81 million people, when only 8 million i******s v**ed for him and his regime! Or 8 elite billionaires?
You have bought into the disinformation and you're basing your life on delusions that simply can't be proven true.
Now you see why we need a board to weed out disinformation. It's because some people want to believe the lies
and they don't possess the utzpah to figure out what the true is. It's a sad state, but appears to be true.
May 5, 2022 10:31:26 #
Joe Biden entered the senate in 1973, the same year the Supreme Court legalized a******n in its Roe v. Wade decision. He has evolved from being strongly pro-life to rabidly pro-a******n. Here is a list of his changing positions.
1974: A year after Roe v. Wade was decided, he said the ruling had gone “too far” and that a woman seeking an a******n should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
1976: He v**es for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of a******ns.
1981: He introduces the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving a******n.
1982: He v**es for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1983: He v**es against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1984: He v**es for the Mexico City Policy which bans federal funding for a******ns.
1987: He becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and leads the fight against Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, whom he said was opposed to Roe v. Wade.
1994: He says, “Those of us who are opposed to a******n should not be compelled to pay for them.”
1995: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n.
1997: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n.
2003: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n
2007: He criticizes the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth a******n, calling it “paternalistic.”
2008: He says he is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
2012: He says the government does not have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”
2019: He says he is opposed to the “Hyde Amendment” which bans the federal funding of a******n. Yet , he had v**ed FOR this bill in 1976
2020: He says he supports a******n “under any circumstances.”
There is no one in public life who has undergone such a dramatic t***sformation. He did not change because of science: it did not change its position on when life begins. It was Biden who changed, and he did so for totally political reasons.
1974: A year after Roe v. Wade was decided, he said the ruling had gone “too far” and that a woman seeking an a******n should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
1976: He v**es for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of a******ns.
1981: He introduces the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving a******n.
1982: He v**es for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1983: He v**es against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1984: He v**es for the Mexico City Policy which bans federal funding for a******ns.
1987: He becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and leads the fight against Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, whom he said was opposed to Roe v. Wade.
1994: He says, “Those of us who are opposed to a******n should not be compelled to pay for them.”
1995: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n.
1997: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n.
2003: He v**es to ban partial-birth a******n
2007: He criticizes the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth a******n, calling it “paternalistic.”
2008: He says he is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
2012: He says the government does not have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”
2019: He says he is opposed to the “Hyde Amendment” which bans the federal funding of a******n. Yet , he had v**ed FOR this bill in 1976
2020: He says he supports a******n “under any circumstances.”
There is no one in public life who has undergone such a dramatic t***sformation. He did not change because of science: it did not change its position on when life begins. It was Biden who changed, and he did so for totally political reasons.
May 5, 2022 10:40:11 #
336Robin
Loc: North Carolina
He ran for President based on a support for Roe vs. Wade.
That is the only thing we need to know. He is consistent in what he said to get hired for the job he has.
He did not lie, then switch back. Today's Supreme Court Justices did just that and in my opinion they should be fired for lying on the oral part of their interview much of it which is recorded for the sake of posterity.
That is the only thing we need to know. He is consistent in what he said to get hired for the job he has.
He did not lie, then switch back. Today's Supreme Court Justices did just that and in my opinion they should be fired for lying on the oral part of their interview much of it which is recorded for the sake of posterity.
Bevvy wrote:
Joe Biden entered the senate in 1973, the same yea... (show quote)
May 5, 2022 10:55:31 #
336Robin wrote:
You have bought into the disinformation and you're basing your life on delusions that simply can't be proven true.
Now you see why we need a board to weed out disinformation. It's because some people want to believe the lies
and they don't possess the utzpah to figure out what the true is. It's a sad state, but appears to be true.
Now you see why we need a board to weed out disinformation. It's because some people want to believe the lies
and they don't possess the utzpah to figure out what the true is. It's a sad state, but appears to be true.
The only thing appearing to be true is your support of silencing anyone who disagrees with you and your ilk. You can't sustain your crap on merit, so you squash dissent.
There is this thing called the First Amendment. It was not put there for your convenience, nor can it be removed because some progressive gets butthurt.
May 5, 2022 11:02:06 #
Is it ok for a president to put his hand to a Bible and swear to uphold the constitution , then the very same day violate this oath?
Article 4, Sec. 4 of The United States Constitution makes it clear the Federal government must stop such an incursion of foreigners into the country exactly like the one we are seeing. Here is what was written by our Founding Fathers concerning our republican form of government.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Do we have a constitution or not ? Or only when it is convenient ? Instead of protecting against an invasion , the executive branch is leading an invasion
Article 4, Sec. 4 of The United States Constitution makes it clear the Federal government must stop such an incursion of foreigners into the country exactly like the one we are seeing. Here is what was written by our Founding Fathers concerning our republican form of government.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Do we have a constitution or not ? Or only when it is convenient ? Instead of protecting against an invasion , the executive branch is leading an invasion
May 5, 2022 11:44:33 #
336Robin
Loc: North Carolina
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
The only thing appearing to be true is your support of silencing anyone who disagrees with you and your ilk. You can't sustain your crap on merit, so you squash dissent.
There is this thing called the First Amendment. It was not put there for your convenience, nor can it be removed because some progressive gets butthurt.
There is this thing called the First Amendment. It was not put there for your convenience, nor can it be removed because some progressive gets butthurt.
I'm silencing anyone. Prove that.
May 5, 2022 12:00:13 #
336Robin wrote:
It's obvious that several of them lied to get themselves appointed and passed.
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
Should we remove them for a breach of oral contract?
I would certainly fire an employee who lied to me to get the job. Wouldn't you?
May 5, 2022 12:00:57 #
May 5, 2022 12:01:37 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.