One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Kavanaugh hearings turned into a joke
Page <<first <prev 12 of 13 next>
Sep 6, 2018 16:51:48   #
acknowledgeurma
 
padremike wrote:
Least we forget, Ginsberg married two homosexuals before it was legal. She broke the law and later ruled on the changing of the same law. She obviously takes the progressive view of the SCOTUS as being a mini legislative branch when required.

Found in:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-justice-ginsburg-can-officiate-all-the-legal-same-sex-weddings-she-wants-928c07ed2a47/
"The same-sex weddings Ginsburg has officiated were all conducted in Washington, DC, where it was legal for the couples to marry."

You may doubt this source, if so, please provide dates and places where Ginsburg performed illegal marriages.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 16:53:06   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I tried your suggested google search and the third result from 1997 is:
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

You write, "[it is ironic, for this google search, that] it is next to impossible to find an entry that addresses this question prior to Nov 2016".
At first I supposed that you made the common confused synonymization of ironic and coincident. See:
http://cisl.edu/wordpress/lessons/coincidence-vs-irony-in-english.htm

But then I realized that you were leaving a hint that we should look for the hidden workings of the deep state in google search results.
You want us to see that google results, give a preponderance of recent events over older events, NOT because people living in the present moment might find more recent events more relevant.
No you want us to realize that the deep state controls google searches and is plotting ways to foil President Trump's agenda.
Thank you.
I tried your suggested google search and the third... (show quote)
Don't know how I missed that one, but I did. And it's a good article. Thank you for the coincidence-vs-irony article. In retrospect, I should have used coincidence. Any day you learn something is a good day. As for the last part, I wouldn't equate the way Google organizes search results as something coming from the deep state, because I don't consider Google part of the deep state. I believe the term deep state should be reserved for those involved in government (or who lobby or directly support them) who push for the US to become part of the NWO. I've seen enough instances of oddball Google search results that convince me that their aim is to push a liberal agenda. I lump them together with Facebook, Twitter, and a few others in their seemingly coordinated suppression of opposing voices.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 17:02:59   #
acknowledgeurma
 
JFlorio wrote:
Justice Ginsberg publicly insulted Trump. She gave her opinion that Trump is unfit to lead. Should she have to recuse herself on any cases that may come before her involving Donald Trump? Most Justices believe a sitting President can't be indicted. He can be removed by impeachment and then indicted.Otherwise you would have presidents preparing to defend themselves in court all the time. On the tax payer dime I might add.

So, should any Justice who has publicly complimented Trump (are there any?) recuse [their selve] on any cases that may come involving Donald Trump?

I think presidents should defend themselves all the time, preferably in frequent public press conferences.

Reply
 
 
Sep 6, 2018 17:11:34   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
Don't know how I missed that one, but I did. And it's a good article. Thank you for the coincidence-vs-irony article. In retrospect, I should have used coincidence. Any day you learn something is a good day. As for the last part, I wouldn't equate the way Google organizes search results as something coming from the deep state, because I don't consider Google part of the deep state. I believe the term deep state should be reserved for those involved in government (or who lobby or directly support them) who push for the US to become part of the NWO. I've seen enough instances of oddball Google search results that convince me that their aim is to push a liberal agenda. I lump them together with Facebook, Twitter, and a few others in their seemingly coordinated suppression of opposing voices.
Don't know how I missed that one, but I did. And ... (show quote)

Perhaps the "instances of oddball Google search results that convince [you] that their aim is to push a liberal agenda" is because as many "liberals" are fond of saying, "Reality has a liberal bias."

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 17:13:55   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
As a "free man" his mind is free to wander where it will. But as a public servant (a SCOTUS judge) one should not act on personal bias or even have the appearance of such. That is why when Kavanaugh joins SCOTUS (is there any doubt), the honorable action for him would be to recuse himself on issues of indictment regarding President Trump.

According to Title 28, Section 455, "...justices, judges, and magistrates should recuse themselves if they have a personal bias concerning anyone in the case, or independent knowledge of the facts in dispute; if they worked on the case as a private or government lawyer; or if they or close relatives have a financial interest in the case." I've been listening to Judge Kavanaugh and I don't believe I've heard anything that leads me to believe that he crosses any of those lines. You say the "honorable action" would be for him to recuse, but it would only be appropriate if he had personal bias. He's stated he does not. I suppose if you don't believe him, you vote not to confirm. But I expect he will be confirmed. I remember someone saying that judge Kavanaugh was answering these kinds of questions exactly like previous appointees before him have done. I believe if you could actually get him to agree to commit to a decision on an issue or promise to recuse on an issue before he is confirmed, you would have grounds to reject his confirmation.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 17:20:19   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
According to Title 28, Section 455, "...justices, judges, and magistrates should recuse themselves if they have a personal bias concerning anyone in the case, or independent knowledge of the facts in dispute; if they worked on the case as a private or government lawyer; or if they or close relatives have a financial interest in the case." I've been listening to Judge Kavanaugh and I don't believe I've heard anything that leads me to believe that he crosses any of those lines. You say the "honorable action" would be for him to recuse, but it would only be appropriate if he had personal bias. He's stated he does not. I suppose if you don't believe him, you vote not to confirm. But I expect he will be confirmed. I remember someone saying that judge Kavanaugh was answering these kinds of questions exactly like previous appointees before him have done. I believe if you could actually get him to agree to commit to a decision on an issue or promise to recuse on an issue before he is confirmed, you would have grounds to reject his confirmation.
According to Title 28, Section 455, "...justi... (show quote)

I'm sure anyone who was relying on his perceived biases would have grounds to reject his confirmation, were he to promise to recuse, just as those who reject his perceived biases have grounds to reject his confirmation.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 17:27:06   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
Justice Ginsberg publicly insulted Trump. She gave her opinion that Trump is unfit to lead. Should she have to recuse herself on any cases that may come before her involving Donald Trump? Most Justices believe a sitting President can't be indicted. He can be removed by impeachment and then indicted.Otherwise you would have presidents preparing to defend themselves in court all the time. On the tax payer dime I might add.
Thank you JFlorio. An excellent point all the way around.

Reply
 
 
Sep 6, 2018 17:27:09   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Ridiculous. As partisan as this country has become that's all they would do. I guess my example went right over your head, purposefully I am sure.
acknowledgeurma wrote:
So, should any Justice who has publicly complimented Trump (are there any?) recuse [their selve] on any cases that may come involving Donald Trump?

I think presidents should defend themselves all the time, preferably in frequent public press conferences.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 17:28:22   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I'm sure anyone who was relying on his perceived biases would have grounds to reject his confirmation, were he to promise to recuse, just as those who reject his perceived biases have grounds to reject his confirmation.
And I think that's right where we are now. Thanks for the challenging interplay.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 18:14:18   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
So, should any Justice who has publicly complimented Trump (are there any?) recuse [their selve] on any cases that may come involving Donald Trump?

I think presidents should defend themselves all the time, preferably in frequent public press conferences.
Innocence is presumed, so no, a person that compliments an innocent person should not be treated the same as someone who insults an innocent person.

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 18:33:30   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
Thank you JFlorio. An excellent point all the way around.


Thank you. Looks like our lib. purposefully acts obtuse. Or not.

Reply
 
 
Sep 6, 2018 23:02:13   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Super Dave wrote:
Innocence is presumed, so no, a person that compliments an innocent person should not be treated the same as someone who insults an innocent person.

So, I guess you presume Hillary Clinton is an innocent person...?

As I recall Ginsburg did not accuse Trump of a crime, from:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html

"He is a faker," she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

Ginsburg's comments came in a previously scheduled interview related to my research for a book on Chief Justice John Roberts. I took a detour to raise the reverberations from her criticism of Trump to The Associated Press and The New York Times in recent interviews. "I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," she had said in the Times interview published Monday.

Here is an article that criticized her frankness:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump-toobin/index.html
It ends with:
"...Ginsburg's statements have set a precedent that the court as an institution will want to avoid.
Imagine if all nine justices announced their presidential preferences in the advance of each election. Imagine further that they took sides in primary battles, too. It's folly to pretend that judges and justices have no political views, or that their legal views are entirely separate from their judicial philosophies. But there is value in at least formal neutrality in these most partisan battles. Any smart lawyer -- or smart citizen -- can see that. So, in short order, will Ginsburg."

I once said to a lawyer, "Isn't our legal system supposed to bring justice?"
The lawyer replied, "Our legal system is not intended to bring justice, but only an end to conflict."

Reply
Sep 6, 2018 23:44:39   #
Sicilianthing
 
Peewee wrote:
Dems are throwing temper tantrums as hearing opens up this morning. Their true colors are showing for all to see in living color. They just lost the mid-terms.


>>>>

Kavanaugh and his wife are both SES Employees
I’ve posted Topics about SES in the past...
Not a good idea to put this guy on the bench.
He’s taken the life long oaths of the Grand Master and the British Accredited Registry which serves the Privy Council and Crown/s

I’m OUT
I’m not changing my mind about this clown.

No way
No Deal
Trump screwed up by picking from the Swamp and not vetting enough.
He’s a RAT a CFR Default operative...



Reply
Sep 7, 2018 01:48:24   #
acknowledgeurma
 
JFlorio wrote:
Ridiculous. As partisan as this country has become that's all they would do. I guess my example went right over your head, purposefully I am sure.

While I appreciate that your toss was purposefully over my head (after all, who wants a in the head), but it seems you may need to throw a bit lower if you want me to catch it.
You wrote, "...that's all they would do." Think of all the trouble Presidents might stay out of if they spent all their time talking to the people and answering our questions.
I was kind of impressed by Sen. Sasse's opening remarks, where he excoriated Congress for relinquishing its law making authority to the executive and judicial branches.

Reply
Sep 7, 2018 01:56:50   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
Found in:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-justice-ginsburg-can-officiate-all-the-legal-same-sex-weddings-she-wants-928c07ed2a47/
"The same-sex weddings Ginsburg has officiated were all conducted in Washington, DC, where it was legal for the couples to marry."

You may doubt this source, if so, please provide dates and places where Ginsburg performed illegal marriages.


When I see the words Think and Progress used together I start to doubt the article before I even start to read it. Why? Because George Soros created that place, along with Media Matters at the same time with the same reason for both. Their purpose for existence has always been to "destroy" Fox News and they have tried very hard to do it. As I call it, Stink Progress, does belong to Soros.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 12 of 13 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.