• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
Nope, i knew it was easy for the Democrats to lay those false charges for an impeachment out there. To get a conviction? No way, not guilty.
Sorry snowflake, but he was convicted. Guilty. Impeached. Forever. The Senate’s process is removal. That did not happen, but still Impeached forever. Let me say it again, convicted, guilty and Impeached!
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,327
2,851
126
Sorry snowflake, but he was convicted. Guilty. Impeached. Forever. The Senate’s process is removal. That did not happen, but still Impeached forever. Let me say it again, convicted, guilty and Impeached!
Oh no, the opposing political party had control of the House. Oh the humanity!

I posit such things as an incomplete Impeachment are of no consequence anymore, and merely a function of political division.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
Sorry snowflake, but he was convicted. Guilty. Impeached. Forever. The Senate’s process is removal. That did not happen, but still Impeached forever. Let me say it again, convicted, guilty and Impeached!
An impeachment is not being found guilty. Try to read and comprehend the Constitution for a change. You can say "impeached, but not found guilty" Well, you could if you weren't so willing to lie.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,669
274
126
You mean the very, very young Trump before he banned Epstein for life from his buildings? Yes, i saw it.
you are still at it?
reading too much q?
IF Epstein didn't go to trumps buildings anymore it would have been because epstein was now the one getting the girls and trump would go to epstein mansion.
or maybe epstein tried something on ivanka, and the cheeto got upset because she was only his
 
  • Haha
Reactions: blackangst1

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,634
1,013
126
Was just rewatching that PBS Frontline SUPREME REVENGE.


Where the past several Republican US Supreme Court nominations going back to Thomas have, as did Amy Barrett, refused to answer questions from Democrat senators by claiming an “hypothetical”. Obviously, the established republican US Supreme Court nominee playbook. And we might want to also YouTube the subject THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY while your at it. Reversal of established law as decided by past US Supreme Court rulings is not only the determination of justices like Barrett, and Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, that goal has an entire society standing behind it to ensure this happens. The Federalist Society. This is no guessing game, we know exactly what will happen once Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. And the sad thing here, even clueless Donald Trump may regret how his own US Supreme Court rulings might adversely affect Donald Trump himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,306
5,322
136
Good show. Moscow Mitch's sense of offense would be easier to understand if Bork had full republican support. He didn't. Also, Bork helped bork himself.

Not like he got swiftboated.

Mitch McConnell is a threat to democracy in the way Trump is a threat to national security. The oil and vinegar of treason; they work well together even if they don't mix.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
You mean the very, very young Trump before he banned Epstein for life from his buildings? Yes, i saw it.
Looks like an old Trump with Paul Manafort and Lev Parnas. But you go on ahead making excuses and support the guy who fucks his own daughter. Says a lot about you
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
You mean the very, very young Trump before he banned Epstein for life from his buildings? Yes, i saw it.
Just means tRump has known Jeffery for a long time. Banned him. Now that is a funny line. We all know it would impossible for him to “survive” if he was never to set foot in a tRump property. I cannot stop laughing at this statement.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
An impeachment is not being found guilty. Try to read and comprehend the Constitution for a change. You can say "impeached, but not found guilty" Well, you could if you weren't so willing to lie.
Impeachment is a process of the House. Once impeached, you are forever impeached. The trial in the Senate is for removal. You can call it guilty or innocent, but there is nothing that states in the Constitution that this trial is about guilt or innocence. Interesting that the guy who says:
You mean the very, very young Trump before he banned Epstein for life from his buildings?
wants to give me a lesson about lying. This is a very humerus account, sadly humerus though, sadly.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
ACB belonged to a group who were against belt buckles because it called attention to the crotch.

Do we really want this kind of person on the SC?
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,093
131
106
I do not see how any Senator could support ACB after she was unable to answer whether or not a President could prevent someone from voting because of race. She cited the Constitution but never did answer the question. She will be the Don's Handmaid on the court.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
That's incorrect. The house impeached Trump, the trial occurs in the senate. Trump wasn't convicted of anything.
It is not. Here’s a graphic for you. Although it does not jive totally with what The Constitution says. In the impeachment proceeding the House is like the Grand Jury, but not really. The Senate decides on the removal. Unlike the Grand Jury, the impeachment never goes away. A civil servant, like the President, you are impeached. That never changes. The Senate, if they vote in agreement, is not a guilty or not guilty, it is about agreement and removal. Might want to research things a bit more.

Here is a complete outline by NYT. Nothing there says anything about guilty or innocent. In this case, even tRump admitted to doing it by putting out the transcript. The Senate proceedings are about agreement and removal.


Here is another:
“Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”


 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,450
3,545
136
Trump repeatedly berates judges for ruling in ways he disagrees with, even before he was president. During the 2015 campaign he proudly declared that his “judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare. ”. The reasonable inference is that Trump expects his judicial appointments to rule in his favor. Trump thinks he should prevail in all litigation. Therefore he expects his appointees to find in his favor. Surely this is obviously a reasonable conclusion.

It is next shown that Mr. Trump wants nine justices on the Supreme Court because he thinks the 2020 election will be disputed there. The quotes are not taken out of context

“I think it’s very important. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices. And I think the system is going to go very quickly. I’ll be submitting at 5 o’clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of all positions. And I think we should go very quickly. You see the Republicans are very united. As far as timing is concerned, we were elected. We have a lot of time. One justice was picked in 19 days — 19 days. We could do four at that rate or five. Now we have a lot of time. No, before the election, and then you have after the election too. But in terms of time, we go to Jan. 20. But I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam. The scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-0 or 9-0, but just in case it would be more political than it should be. I think it’s very important to have a ninth justice.”
There is this "President" calling the elcetion a "scam" perpetrated by his opponents. The President, has stated out in the open his "conflict of interest" - he picks a Supreme Court Justice, and he predicts that Justice will decide whether the President continues to be President, and he expects that Justice to rule in his favor. These are all reasonable motives that further the President’s self-interest… it presents a clear conflict of interest and a significant possibility for a corrupt bargain:

“I appoint you, you rule that I get re-elected.”

Whether or not that bargain was actually entered into, or whether it could be enforced upon a Justice Barrett, I think the appearance of impropriety is too detrimental to justify her participation in a case that decides this election.

Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power should he lose. He has expressed his desire to install a justice in expectation of election-related disputes being resolved by the court — and it is plain that he expects that justice to rule on his behalf. His comments suggests a desire to replace the democratic process with a judicial one, controlled by a court whose partisan orientation runs against present estimates of the national popular orientation. Trump’s nomination of Barrett to the SC is not about principles, precedent, ideas or theories of constitutional interpretation; it’s about the GOP exercising power via America’s counter-majoritarian institutions to ram through unpopular proposals.

A highly unpopular and impeached Trump is now attempting to lock in his party’s unpopular policies for generations using the force of the nation’s undemocratic institutions to do it.

Barrett should recuse herself with a big Fuck You! , This nomination is cheapened with the way Trump and the Republicans are tearing down the integrity of our election process.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
Looks like an old Trump with Paul Manafort and Lev Parnas. But you go on ahead making excuses and support the guy who fucks his own daughter. Says a lot about you
You got proof ? If not it's the same type of lie that is repeated routinely in this forum. So......... proof? Yes, i thought so.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY