Brett Kavanaugh Senate Kabuki Theater

Fighting nationalists is deeply instinctual for marxists (and fighting American nationalism is natural for neocons), which is why the left and media (and even his own party during the primary, and some even afterward), went into rabid dog attack mode when Trump rode to victory on an America-first platform.

Take away his nationalist views and you eliminate the fervor and hatred of Trump down to normal levels of hatred for Republicans (which, as we have seen in the case of neocon John McCain, can become almost love when he is contrasted with a nationalist).

What made Trump improbably successful on an America-first agenda in a country where a large % of the host population has been indoctrinated to hate itself is that he is a force of nature. And the article talks about some of the aspects of his character that make him so resolute in the face of endless mockery, vitriol, hatred and demonization.

But what animates the opposition is not the man, but the message. Remember, he was a Hollywood celebrity before he started talking this (dangerous to marxist agenda) America-first message. He just happens to be the right messenger for this time, but eventually, to preserve America, we will need more nationalists in government and other aspects of public life.

Absolutely. This racist, misogynist has employed more women and people of color (to the point of being awarded for it) than most of his peers. It wasn't until he ran for president that the left started attacking him.
 
I can see why. The 2nd does not say concealed. At that time no one concealed. Later on in time to conceal was frowned upon and was considered nefarious.

Now we conceal to keep the sheeple heads from exploding.
If we are going to be honest with ourselves, most state constitutions read this way too. Ours has read that way since 1868 at least. I'm fine changing that. But it's an opinion based on a lot of case law.

So becuase the infringement is old and government courts have agreed it's ok for a long time then it's less an infringement?

No where in the Second can I find a caveat in the nature of the word "bear" that denotes acceptable and unacceptable methods. And while I will grant you that it was more often than not brigands carried weapons concealed on their person for nefarious purposes, a great many landed gentry carried pocket pistols in the 18th Century as well, and may flintlock pocket pistols still exists from the period that were carried by both the aristocracy and artisan folks as a means of protection.
 
I say change the Constitution of the State ro protect that right. BUT then the feds will just strike it down as they do with anything else we all vote on in our state to add to the constition.
 
Think this SCOTUS thing is over?? Wait till Dems get back in control of congress and the white house. All they have to do is pass legislation increasing the number of supreme court seats to 9 or more, and then fill the new vacancies with their people. There's nothing in the constitution that limits the number of SCOTUS seats to 9, or any number for that matter. Looks like it's already being discussed.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...e-supreme-court-by-adding-two-liberal-judges/
 
Think this SCOTUS thing is over?? Wait till Dems get back in control of congress and the white house. All they have to do is pass legislation increasing the number of supreme court seats to 9 or more, and then fill the new vacancies with their people. There's nothing in the constitution that limits the number of SCOTUS seats to 9, or any number for that matter. Looks like it's already being discussed.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...e-supreme-court-by-adding-two-liberal-judges/

Yep, they would have to pass a law to reset the number of justices; the Judiciary Act of 1869 set 9 justices. There is a minimum of 6. FDR tried to get legislation to increase the number, but it never went through.

Of course, when dems get both houses and the White House, if they have the numbers they can pass a new law to increase the numbers. But for new law, unlike procedural votes, they will require, what, 60-something in the senate and 3/4 of the house? Unlikely, but definitely possible. But you are right in that there's nothing in the Constitution to limit the number.
 
You assume the liberal base operates on fact and reason rather than feelings and emotion. If claims are accepted without analysis, they can never be recognized as lies.

The liberal base has been driven by a constant media narrative. As long as someone pays for the protests that the media adoringly endorses, much of the enthusiasm will be sustained in the hardcore base.
It's a narcissistic view, they can never be wrong. Some here believe many on the left will acknowledge the wrong done in the last few weeks and see the light. But, I believe most will feel justified and double down.
Look at that writer that tweeted, At least we ruined his life, talking about Kavanaugh. She accepts that the accusations were harmful to an individual, not just to a party, but feels fully justified in doing it.

ETA
Which, by the way, at the risk of sounding completely sexist, is totally a female perspective.

ETA - https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-im-just-glad-we-ruined-brett-kavanaughs-life
 
Last edited:
It's a narcissistic view, they can never be wrong. Some here believe many on the left will acknowledge the wrong done in the last few weeks and see the light. But, I believe most will feel justified and double down.
Look at that writer that tweeted, At least we ruined his life, talking about Kavanaugh. She accepts that the accusations were harmful to an individual, not just to a party, but feels fully justified in doing it.

Which is all the more reason we should vigorously oppose any actions they take to further this farce. Voters should flock to the polls in November to send a clear message that this action is not condoned.
 
Now the distraction has gone back to an old favorite-
No more abortions.
Their handlers are now squawking; Well, since arch-nazi Kavanaugh is now on the SC, you know that they'll overturn Roe V. Wade and return women to the back alley and coat hangars. You must continue the resistance! These old white men need to be hit and hit often...at work, at home, at the restaurant...never stop! We must never relent and get to a place of harmony and understanding and tolerance so it is necessary to destroy these people by any means available.
 
We must never relent and get to a place of harmony and understanding and tolerance so it is necessary to destroy these people by any means available.

I believe that's an Islamic principal as well.
Not very inclusive, is it? o_O
 
Last edited:
Now the distraction has gone back to an old favorite-
No more abortions.
Abortion has always been the core issue. Democrats have nurtured Roe V Wade as their signature judicial achievement for 45 years. It is the center of their campaign to represent women. It has produced billions of dollars and millions of votes for the Democrats. Even the potential loss of a friendly Supreme Court for all of their other issues pales in comparison to the potential loss, or even curtailment, of abortion "rights."
 
Abortion has always been the core issue. Democrats have nurtured Roe V Wade as their signature judicial achievement for 45 years. It is the center of their campaign to represent women. It has produced billions of dollars and millions of votes for the Democrats. Even the potential loss of a friendly Supreme Court for all of their other issues pales in comparison to the potential loss, or even curtailment, of abortion "rights."

I still don't see the whole "my body" argument for the Roe vs. Wade case. If a multicellular (or single celled for that matter) organism was found outside of Earth, it would be identified as a living organism. Somehow they have attempted to remove the human characteristic of an embryo in an attempt to justify killing millions of children each year.

It would just be better if they were honest about it and said they would rather take this life than be inconvenienced.
 
So becuase the infringement is old and government courts have agreed it's ok for a long time then it's less an infringement?

No where in the Second can I find a caveat in the nature of the word "bear" that denotes acceptable and unacceptable methods. And while I will grant you that it was more often than not brigands carried weapons concealed on their person for nefarious purposes, a great many landed gentry carried pocket pistols in the 18th Century as well, and may flintlock pocket pistols still exists from the period that were carried by both the aristocracy and artisan folks as a means of protection.

Just pointing out you are fighting significant case law, constitutional precedence, and opinions dating back to the founding of this country or close to it. It's the exact same things we look to for support of our arguments for gun rights. You want a Constitutionalist on the bench, you are going to have to deal with the good and the bad of looking at original documents from the early years of our country. And one of those is the negative light that concealed carry was seen in.

I say change the Constitution of the State ro protect that right. BUT then the feds will just strike it down as they do with anything else we all vote on in our state to add to the constition.

The Feds have not bothered any other state that has Constitutional Carry. Get the law changed first to permitless carry. Then amend Article 1, Section 30 of the NC Constitution. That's the most likely route for NC.
 
So he just appointed an all female SCOTUS clerk staff.

Worst

Mysogonyst

Ever

LMAO

Bad for women huh? How about a historical move for women. First time it's ever happened. I guess the left doesn't think that counts.
 
I still don't see the whole "my body" argument for the Roe vs. Wade case. If a multicellular (or single celled for that matter) organism was found outside of Earth, it would be identified as a living organism. Somehow they have attempted to remove the human characteristic of an embryo in an attempt to justify killing millions of children each year.

It is nearly impossible to understand the argument in Roe v Wade because it is applied so inconsistently in the law. A person is supposed to have a "privacy" right to control their body, but that right strangely vanishes if the government wants your blood or DNA to try to prove a crime. Women want exclusive control over the decision to have a baby, but want to hold men financially responsible for the woman's decision for the following 18 years. As previously noted, it is murder to kill an unborn "fetus" unless a woman consents, in which case it is a "medical procedure."
 
It is nearly impossible to understand the argument in Roe v Wade because it is applied so inconsistently in the law. A person is supposed to have a "privacy" right to control their body, but that right strangely vanishes if the government wants your blood or DNA to try to prove a crime. Women want exclusive control over the decision to have a baby, but want to hold men financially responsible for the woman's decision for the following 18 years. As previously noted, it is murder to kill an unborn "fetus" unless a woman consents, in which case it is a "medical procedure."

That inconsistency proves it is wrong. If it were consistent, they would have a chance to defend their claims.

Don't get me wrong, I believe their are appropriate times it ahshou be applied, but from my experience it has been for nothing less than convenience.
 
Associate Justice RBG is not applauding at the ceremony when President Trump entered the room with Kennedy and Kavanaugh..:mad:
She is wearing gloves.
 
Last edited:
That inconsistency proves it is wrong. If it were consistent, they would have a chance to defend their claims.

Don't get me wrong, I believe their are appropriate times it ahshou be applied, but from my experience it has been for nothing less than convenience.

The Constitution, laws and history should not be tortured to try to justify something that society should deal with at the polls.
 
Or how enthusiastically Thomas was clapping, as in hell to the 3rd yeah. RBG looked like a bad Disney animatron sagging this way and that, to an out of sync control program. "Welcome to the Hall of Dessicants..."

Anybody notice the 4 that DID NOT CLAP when Trump stated innocent until proven guilty?!?!?! WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
Does Ginsburg know what the Constitution is?
Sure she does. It's a document establishing ideas for limited government that stand in the way of what she and her fellow marxists view as progress toward their collectivist utopia, and must therefore be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom