Brett Kavanaugh Senate Kabuki Theater

Well, I'm going to go enjoy a beer, an IPA to be precise, to celebrate. Sort of ironic how the progressives are now, so it seems by their vitriol, suddenly for the repeal of the 21st Amendment as well as the 2nd.
 
maybe i missed something, but i noted most not applauding during introductions by DT of McConnell and Grassey .. thought it was showing impartiality... could be wrong....

but RBG looked like she was propped up....
 
Last edited:
It's not over folks, Pelosi want FOIA but Congress is exempt and POTUS has Executive Privilege.
Today CT Sen. Blumenthal called for "an investigation of the investigation".;)
If they gain control they will have subpoena powers.
 
Button Pusher said:
It's not over folks, Pelosi want FOIA but Congress is exempt and POTUS has Executive Privilege.
Today CT Sen. Blumenthal called for "an investigation of the investigation".;)
If they gain control they will have subpoena powers.
Click to expand...

IMG_4384.JPG
 
Button Pusher said:
It's not over folks, Pelosi want FOIA but Congress is exempt and POTUS has Executive Privilege.
Today CT Sen. Blumenthal called for "an investigation of the investigation".;)
If they gain control they will have subpoena powers.
Click to expand...
And who would conduct this investigation of the investigation? Someone impartial from the outside? Oh, wait, the Russians!
 
chiefjason said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we are arguing about the founding, then 1868 is not nearly close enough to make the case.

On December 18th of 1776, North Carolina drafted it's first State Constitution. But on the preceding day, it adopted the North Carolina Declaration of Rights, to which the State Constitution was then appended.

In 1776, the provision regarding the Right of the People to Arms read thusly:

"XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Now, one could certainly argue that this particular provision is problematic as it restricts the bearing of arms to protecting the State, but it doesn't contain restrictions on age, sex, type of arm, or the manner in which they may be born (ie concealed or open).
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
Now, one could certainly argue that this particular provision is problematic as it restricts the bearing of arms to protecting the State,
Click to expand...
I could see a lawyer asking about the definition of protecting the State. I can see an argument easily being made about how that by definition extends to the people of the state.
 
I would tend to think it was totally a political motivation. The money is just a perk and offset for the fallout of threats and other things she will have to deal with. But, fully calculated as part of the equation.

I'd still like to see video of her teaching to see what her "normal" demeanor is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom