• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Questions for Brett Kavanaugh, SCOTUS nominee

HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
We already know he won't answer any questions about Roe V Wade so excluding that one, what questions should the nominee be asked to flush out his judicial philosophy?

I'll start..

Does the government have the right to step in if a family refuses blood transfusions for their children when their condition is life threatening? If so why. If not, why not.

What lessons should we take from the Terry Schivo case?
 
I want to ask you all sorts of bullshit hypothetical questions about possible future cases. Are you stupid enough to answer them?

What? No, you're not? Thank you.
 
With your previous argument that ISPs have a first amendment right filter what passes through their network to end users would this allow ISPs as active manager of content instead of the passive pipes they were under NN to be sued for all copyright infringement taking place through their pipes?
 
Brett M. Kavanaugh thanked President Trump for his nomination to the Supreme Court on Monday night. Almost immediately, he made a thoroughly strange and quite possibly bogus claim.

“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-nominee-was-bizarre/?utm_term=.4ca4d0bf3d92
Click to expand...

My question: "Do understand why you are a throwaway nominee and that Trump is using you?"
 
imported_tajmahal said:
I want to ask you all sorts of bullshit hypothetical questions about possible future cases. Are you stupid enough to answer them?

What? No, you're not? Thank you.
Click to expand...
So I guess that's why Republicans judge candidates don't want to answer questions about Brown v Board of Ed? It's going to be a future case? You guys want to bring back separate but equal?

Terry Schivo isn't a hypothetical it is history.
 
Homerboy said:
So no interview or vetting? Are they hiring at your company? Asking for a friend...
Click to expand...
Of course you have interviews and vetting, but the idea that a forum bully is going to frame inane and gotcha questions to someone of Judge Kavanaugh's intellect and think he'd answer them is pretty funny.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Of course you have interviews and vetting, but the idea that a forum bully is going to frame inane and gotcha questions to someone of Judge Kavanaugh's intellect and think he'd answer them is pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Ahh, "gotcha" questions. How retro! I haven't heard that term since Sarah Palin.

Of course most people know those as "real questions". Compared to the hard hitting queries we can expect from republicans such as "what's your favorite color?" and "how much do you love puppies?"
 
I found this shit in my local Detroit News HILARIOUS today! Pure fucking comedy GOLD,

Right to Life of Michigan called on Stabenow and Peters on Tuesday to vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the high court, with President Barbara Listing arguing that Kavanaugh's record "shows fairness in applying the law as written."

"The only reason Sens. Stabenow or Peters could object to his nomination is because they don't believe he'll rule according to their wishes," Listing said in a statement.

"Judges exist to interpret the law as written, not cheat voters and elected officials out of their responsibilities. The job of U.S. senators is to thoroughly vet judicial nominees, not block them because they aren't biased enough."

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...s-stabenow-peters-kavanaugh-scotus/771655002/

Oddly enough, they never sent a similar letter to Republican senators when U.S. senators blocked Obama's pick...

Hypocrisy is they name Right To Birth twats...

I don't think the GOP should have been little bitches and blocked Obama's nominee so I also don't think the Democrats should do the same...

I would simply wait until they have control again and add 4 or 5 new Justices onto the Court...
 
Last edited:
imported_tajmahal said:
You're somehow opposed to people that use their computers for gaming and you want to take them over?

Authoritarian much?
Click to expand...

lol! I actually confused you for Incorruptible there and was simply suggesting that you (as Incorruptible) would be better off as a crypto-miner than the useless AI online trollbot function that you currently serve.

😀
 
Atreus21 said:
"Elections have consequences."

- Guess who.
Click to expand...

Goes along with Glenn's admission today: "Well the Republicans cheat, so that's how they win. What are you gonna do about it?"

See, republicans don't fucking care about law, ethics, morality, or simple rules. It's just about team sportsing.
 
I'd like to know when the Bush Presidential Library will be releasing all of Kavanaugh's emails from his time in the Administration. Did he lie to Durbin under oath??

#ButHisEmails
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top