Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

Of course it would.
Under the standard of due process there is no crime that can be corroborated.
But as you certainly noticed the democrats moved away from the “ crime” to talk about his love of beer and then his “ unseemly” temperament in defending himself.
But they drew the ill- advised last second Hail Mary play by throwing due process in the gutter and no matter how they explain it now they have greatly diminished their mid term election outlook.

Still refusing to admit the truth.

Multiple crimes were committed.

Drowning in Egypt would be too good for the lot of you.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

Of course it would.
Under the standard of due process there is no crime that can be corroborated.
But as you certainly noticed the democrats moved away from the “ crime” to talk about his love of beer and then his “ unseemly” temperament in defending himself.
But they drew the ill- advised last second Hail Mary play by throwing due process in the gutter and no matter how they explain it now they have greatly diminished their mid term election outlook.

Still refusing to admit the truth.

Multiple crimes were committed.

Drowning in Egypt would be too good for the lot of you.

Not taking it well I see.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Not only are you a Constitutional scholar, you're a master logician.

Thanks.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.” The presumption of innocence, she said, “is relevant to the advice and consent function.”



Senator Susan Collins
In support of the constitutional duty the US Senate has to provide Advice and Consent

[Yankguy1]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

[bankshot1]

Its cute that Sen. Collins is talking as if there was a legal process versus a purely partisan political process that was beyond tainted which Repubs employed to drive a prevaricating partisan sexual predator to the Supreme Court.

I wonder what she got in return for her vote.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

Two years ago the Senate gave advice. Win an election

[LarryBnDC]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

Two years ago the Senate gave advice. Win an election

Rejoice, go ahead and pop some corks!

Enjoy the thrill of victory for tonight and tomorrow. Enjoy it while it lasts...

[LarryBnDC]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

The GOP believes, “By any means necessary.”

I would remind them what Kavanaugh said, “What goes around comes around.”

Payback’s a bitch, but retribution is a motherfucker.

Just be ready for a Reichstag fire type event and don’t fall for it.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

The GOP believes, “By any means necessary.”

You got the wrong party. Feinstein’s Folly backfired.
The Blue Wave now looks like a tide at its ebb.

[LarryBnDC]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

The GOP believes, “By any means necessary.”

You got the wrong party. Feinstein’s Folly backfired.
The Blue Wave now looks like a tide at its ebb.

Merrick Garland

[REDSTATEWARD]

Well it's nice to know that after denying that it had such a duty two years ago you now acknowledge Congress' "constitutional duty to provide Advice and Consent".

The GOP believes, “By any means necessary.”

You got the wrong party. Feinstein’s Folly backfired.
The Blue Wave now looks like a tide at its ebb.

Merrick Garland

Hillary Clinton

[Driver125]

Its cute that Sen. Collins is talking as if there was a legal process versus a purely partisan political process

Yes…..so not only does she commit one of the bigger political betrayals of women we’ve seen in quite some time (as expected—-as is her style), she has the nerve to make a speech about it. Maybe she and the so-called Democrat Joe Manchin can tip a brew together after it’s all over.

[whiskeypriest]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

Of course it would.
Under the standard of due process there is no crime that can be corroborated.
But as you certainly noticed the democrats moved away from the “ crime” to talk about his love of beer and then his “ unseemly” temperament in defending himself.
But they drew the ill- advised last second Hail Mary play by throwing due process in the gutter and no matter how they explain it now they have greatly diminished their mid term election outlook.

You have no clue what due process is. None.  The only due process Kavanaugh might have been entitled to is notice and an opportunity to be heard, which he had even if his nomination was beaten, if due process attaches at all. Which I doubt. If it did, Merrick Garland could have sued his way onto the Supreme Court.

There.was no criminal penalty possibly arising from the hearing. And.even if there was, it is hardly a violation of due process to believe one witness over another. If you need a corroborating witness there would be no successful rape prosecutions.

[josh]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

Of course it would.
Under the standard of due process there is no crime that can be corroborated.
But as you certainly noticed the democrats moved away from the “ crime” to talk about his love of beer and then his “ unseemly” temperament in defending himself.
But they drew the ill- advised last second Hail Mary play by throwing due process in the gutter and no matter how they explain it now they have greatly diminished their mid term election outlook.

You have no clue what due process is. None.  The only due process Kavanaugh might have been entitled to is notice and an opportunity to be heard, which he had even if his nomination was beaten, if due process attaches at all. Which I doubt. If it did, Merrick Garland could have sued his way onto the Supreme Court.

There.was no criminal penalty possibly arising from the hearing. And.even if there was, it is hardly a violation of due process to believe one witness over another. If you need a corroborating witness there would be no successful rape prosecutions.

In addition, as the instructions to the jury state, if a witness has lied on some item in their testimony, you are permitted to disregard any statements they have made that do not have external support. Kavanaugh lied, so there is no reason to believe any of what he said.