Kavenaugh Hearing Travesty. Dems Obstruct throughout

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

^^

One of the boards leaders in inappropriate comments about women.

Not all women.
Just the one who are What I call them.
I thought women were equal now?
That mean they are immune from the truth?

I divide it up between POS men and POS women pretty much more towards the men.

Just your comment made no sense at all.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Open misogyny, Trump supporters comparing their own movement with the Reich (still not sure if that was accidental), He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they'd still support him because liberals are mean...

Its more like people, in the ether of this epic win(?), feel they can finally kick back and let the their true colors show.

Misogyny....yup...that's it...say unfavorable things about one or two liberal women, and you're labeled a misogynist.

The positive things said about conservative women get completely washed over...you're a misogynist anyway...

What world do YOU live in buddy?

Accuse someone of sexual assault...you're AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY.

Criticize one or two women, you're AUTOMATICALLY A MISOGYNIST.

As for the REICH thing...I'm sure your interpretation is, as always, spot on.

REICH REICH REICH REICH REICH!!!

Happy now?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

Due to the political platform that they chose to come forward on, yes, I believe that they lied; of course, with the help of an additional few co-conspirators.

Two (2) $64,000.00 questions have never been answered, and probably never will.

1. Who leaked Ford's letter at the "11th hour"? (Did DiFi have a break-in at her office?)

2. It's always been claimed that Ford wanted to remain anonymous and not come into the spotlight. If this is really true, why did she sign her letter to DiFi in the first place?

Ford's allegations where so transparently phony from the git go -- right around the third or fourth delay with the judiciary committee.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Misogyny....yup...that's it...say unfavorable things about one or two liberal women, and you're labeled a misogynist.

The positive things said about conservative women get completely washed over...you're a misogynist anyway...

His comments about women in the car thread...

The comments about the former first lady...

The comments about Trump's pornstar friends...

Its not limited in scope.

Glad to see you pop in to defend him though. You really want me going through this board pulling posts from people here making my point? It's not hard.

[Andy Asaro]

Many women saw Kavanaugh as unfairly accused, could be 'our husbands, our sons': Trump counselor

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/many-women...142003042.html

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Its not limited in scope.

Like his big bandwagon of alt-right buddies here, Tom’s feeling liberated

Twitter

[Burls]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. Wanna-be constitutional scholar on what all that context says of which you boast that surrounds my one sentence and how all that context mandates senate action on presidential court nominees.

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”.

There is not one thing in this clause that mandates Senate action! What the clause actually does, however, is mandate the authority to act with the Senate on certain presidential appointments. Big difference! (In fact, note carefully the verb vest. You may want to get yourself up to speed on its definition before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)

Since the Senate is not required to exercise its constitutional authority, the constitution implicitly gives the Senate the discretion to act or not act -- to exercise its authority or not exercise it.

Ummmm.

One point by point analysis is enough, Boxcar.
You're too deeply wedded to your questionable interpretation of the Constitution and the crude exegetical strategy that underlies it.
The interpretation you erroneously think is obviously correct was not even considered by anyone for the first two and a half centuries after the Constitution was written.
Then Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell put it forward, purely to further their partisan agenda.
Their basic rationale, like yours, was that if you can't prove my interpretation wrong, by pointing to a specific chapter and verse, then it must be right.
Aren't we the lucky ones that such razor sharp legal minds saw something in the Constitution that was there to be seen, even though the best legal scholars had completely missed it for two and a half centuries?
Hardly.

Here's the basic issue.
The reason that the interpretation you are trying to sell was not even considered by any legal scholars for the first two and a half centuries after the Constitution was written is because they came to the text with an adequate understanding of its overall implications.
People who know what they are doing approach the study of the US Constitution from within a comprehensive interpretational framework.

When legislation is being drafted, especially legislation that pertains to the roles of various parts of the government, the guiding assumption is that the individuals who come to occupy the relevant offices within these parts of the government will act in good faith and will conduct themselves with at least a modicum of decency, always putting the interests of the country first.
That's understood ... by everyone.
Well, everyone until very recently.

Unable to appreciate the venerable historical tradition that this great legal document is situated in,
completely dismissing the centuries-long set of shared moral and social presumptions within which the American Constitution has historically been interpreted,
mindlessly wrenching this famous text from the substantial cluster of background assumptions that constitute its recognized interpretational framework,
Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell treat it like a cheap, poorly-drafted rulebook,
looking for cheesy loopholes that will enable them to game the system.
That's not why the US Constitution was written.

That's an insult to this great, great document and all it has stood for.
I can't imagine how the framers of the Constitution would have reacted to the tawdry exegetical gymnastics employed by Grassley and McConnell.
I'm thinking they would have shouted 'Have you no decency!' as Mitch and Chuck were dragged off to the stockades.

For whatever reason, you've bought into this ahistorical, chip-on-the-shoulder, absurdly strict exegetical strategy for mangling the intended meaning of the US Constitution, as well.
You say:
Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. Wanna-be constitutional scholar on what all that context says of which you boast that surrounds my one sentence and how all that context mandates senate action on presidential court nominees.[sic]

Later you say:
There is not one thing in this clause that mandates Senate action! What the clause actually does, however, is mandate the authority to act with the Senate on certain presidential appointments. Big difference! (In fact, note carefully the verb vest. You may want to get yourself up to speed on its definition before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)[sic]

I say:
Maybe you should stop carrying your pocket-sized US Constitution around.
It's for adults.
Or at least stop voicing your crude misinterpretations of it.
You don't want to give this great document a bad name.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Two (2) $64,000.00 questions have never been answered, and probably never will.

1. Who leaked Ford's letter at the "11th hour"? (Did DiFi have a break-in at her office?)

2. It's always been claimed that Ford wanted to remain anonymous and not come into the spotlight. If this is really true, why did she sign her letter to DiFi in the first place?

Ford's allegations where so transparently phony from the git go -- right around the third or fourth delay with the judiciary committee.

This is so obvious if you just apply Occam's Razor to the question; it was obviously Dr. Ford, Phd. herself who leaked the letter. If and when someone on the newspaper, "accidentally" leaks the source, we'll have the answer.

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Tom

Quit making stuff up to suit your biased opinions, Burls.
Are you trying to emulate your hero 0bama Drama Queen?
As Boxcar posted, that is not in the constitution.
Stop lying to people.

Rub some sour grape juice on it - it will take the sting out.

Hi Tom:
This comment nicely explains why it makes a lot more sense for me to just post memes.
Why bother carefully wording something when it will just be deliberately mangled?

Memes
Memes
Memes
Memes

Memes
Memes
Memes
Memes

Memes
Memes
Memes
Memes

Memes
Memes
Memes
Memes

Memes
Memes
Memes

Wonderful Memes ...

[Burls]

[Lemon Drop Husker]

My entire lifetime the Dems have had control of the Supreme Court.



Never bothered me a bit.


Now that the Supreme Court holds a 5-4 advantage for Republicans, all hell is breaking loose.


Roe V Wade isn't getting overturned tomorrow. Justice will still be justice.


Quit ****ing losing your marbles Dems. Yes, I get it, you aren't in power anymore. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Burls

Ummmm.

One point by point analysis is enough, Boxcar.
You're too deeply wedded to your questionable interpretation of the Constitution and the crude exegetical strategy that underlies it.
The interpretation you erroneously think is obviously correct was not even considered by anyone for the first two and a half centuries after the Constitution was written.
Then Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell put it forward, purely to further their partisan agenda.
Their basic rationale, like yours, was that if you can't prove my interpretation wrong, by pointing to a specific chapter and verse, then it must be right.
Aren't we the lucky ones that such razor sharp legal minds saw something in the Constitution that was there to be seen, even though the best legal scholars had completely missed it for two and a half centuries?
Hardly.

Here's the basic issue.
The reason that the interpretation you are trying to sell was not even considered by any legal scholars for the first two and a half centuries after the Constitution was written is because they came to the text with an adequate understanding of its overall implications.
People who know what they are doing approach the study of the US Constitution from within a comprehensive interpretational framework.

When legislation is being drafted, especially legislation that pertains to the roles of various parts of the government, the guiding assumption is that the individuals who come to occupy the relevant offices within these parts of the government will act in good faith and will conduct themselves with at least a modicum of decency, always putting the interests of the country first.
That's understood ... by everyone.
Well, everyone until very recently.

Unable to appreciate the venerable historical tradition that this great legal document is situated in,
completely dismissing the centuries-long set of shared moral and social presumptions within which the American Constitution has historically been interpreted,
mindlessly wrenching this famous text from the substantial cluster of background assumptions that constitute its recognized interpretational framework,
Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell treat it like a cheap, poorly-drafted rulebook,
looking for cheesy loopholes that will enable them to game the system.
That's not why the US Constitution was written.

That's an insult to this great, great document and all it has stood for.
I can't imagine how the framers of the Constitution would have reacted to the tawdry exegetical gymnastics employed by Grassley and McConnell.
I'm thinking they would have shouted 'Have you no decency!' as Mitch and Chuck were dragged off to the stockades.

For whatever reason, you've bought into this ahistorical, chip-on-the-shoulder, absurdly strict exegetical strategy for mangling the intended meaning of the US Constitution, as well.
You say:
Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. Wanna-be constitutional scholar on what all that context says of which you boast that surrounds my one sentence and how all that context mandates senate action on presidential court nominees.[sic]

Later you say:
There is not one thing in this clause that mandates Senate action! What the clause actually does, however, is mandate the authority to act with the Senate on certain presidential appointments. Big difference! (In fact, note carefully the verb vest. You may want to get yourself up to speed on its definition before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)[sic]

I say:
Maybe you should stop carrying your pocket-sized US Constitution around.
It's for adults.
Or at least stop voicing your crude misinterpretations of it.
You don't want to give this great document a bad name.

So, tell me, Burly, what was the Constitution's "guiding assumption" about Congress' law-making authority: How many laws and over what time does the Constitution require Congress to pass? Shirley, if the Constitution mandates congressional enactment, then the Constitution spells that out for us, right? The framers of the Constitution certainly knew how to very specifically and explicitly mandate presidential action on laws enacted by Congress. So where is the text in the Constitution that mandates congressional action?

Also, the framers of the Constitution knew how to explicitly mandate specific powers (authority) to the three branches of government. So, again, why were the framers silent on mandating specific actions? This is the best you've got: "guiding assumptions"?

And once again, you are a duplicitous equivocator. In your last post to me on this specific topic, you accused me of dishonestly lifting one sentence out of the Constitution out its context. But now after I quote the pertinent article and section of the Constitution in its fullness, you move from that and criticize my exegesis of the document, which is moving the goal posts again -- this time to interpretative methodology.

This is what you liberals do. You hog-tie and cripple the Rule of Law by either ignoring laws or by employing the method of interpretation known as eisegesis. Eisegesis allows one to read anything into the text of a law to make it say whatever the interpreter wants it say. Another dishonest practice. In fact, the megabytes of irony is that that method of interpretation virtually ignores context, since context is unimportant to anyone who reads in their ideas or presuppositions into a text. But hey...you libs have the market virtually cornered on dishonesty!

So....where in the Constitution is the mandate for Senate action in its "advise and consent" roles for presidential appointments? Chapter and verse, please.

As far as legal scholars go and their opinions -- just remember, the other side is loaded with legal scholars who disagree. And then, of course, you know how the old proverb goes regarding "opinions", right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Whosonfirst

This is so obvious if you just apply Occam's Razor to the question; it was obviously Dr. Ford, Phd. herself who leaked the letter. If and when someone on the newspaper, "accidentally" leaks the source, we'll have the answer.

As I basically said earlier, Ford's allegation stunk worse than a septic tank coming out the chute. At no point did anything she say have a ring of truth to it.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Burls

Hi PA:

Greyfox was including a patently false empirical claim in his case.
I pointed that out.

If ignorance is bliss, you are delighted with your comments here.
You obviously didn't watch the video I posted presented by the factual feminist Christina H. Sommers in post #2437.