Bowsite.com

CHAOS: KAVANAUGH HEARINGS KICK OFF WITH BELLIGERENT, SHRIEKING DEMOCRATIC HECKLERS, CALLS TO ADJOURN

The partisan junk stinks. Very frustrating to see that. I get the frustration over the Garland nomination, that was bogus (you can flame me for that, but it was bogus. It's the equivalent to the BS claim of the dem's right now that given all the investigations around Pres. Trump Kavanaugh shouldnt have a shot until things are settled)...

I'm not sure how I feel about Kavanaugh. If I read/watch Fox Et Al I realize that Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Jesus Christ all were his friends and wished they could be like him... If I watch/read the "rest" I get a bit nervous about his relatively pro business, thus anti environment approaches and some other things... but we shall see. As a human being he seems decent, and that may be the biggest thing for me at this point in government. I can disagree with people I believe are good human beings and be ok with it... Through the hearings perhaps more info will come along and we can better understand what our court will look like and whether that feels good or less good... In time, things swing... It's physics.

The guy is going to get through, so if people are ticked off about it, stop acting over the top, and quietly walk into the booth in November of 18 and 20 and change everything around it.

The funny thing about all of this is that Kavanaugh will easily be confirmed with a handful of Dems voting for him.

I think you're right Mark. Fortunately, there are actually a few in the Democratic Party, that take their assignment seriously, and are able to rise above "Political Posturing".

"Capitol Police just released name of female protester at Judicial hearing. It was Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly shouted "It was supposed to be MY pick! The FBI and DOJ told me it would be mine!"

"Capitol Police just released name of female protester at Judicial hearing. It was Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly shouted "It was supposed to be MY pick! The FBI and DOJ told me it would be mine!"

Believe that again because if we allow these lunatics to take Congress all will be lost forever. Talk it up with all your friends and neighbors of like mind and drive them to the polls if you must. Don't sit this one out sleeping because we will all be caught sleeping forever. This VOTE is deadly serious because all could be swept away.

The Rock

Something is not right.

They released only a few thousand pages of background info and zero from his time with the GW Bush admin. You knew that and chose to lie anyway. Tsk tsk.

Ted Cruz's Opening Statement: Kavanaugh Should Be Confirmed Based on His Eloquent Defense of the Bofa Doctrine Alone —Ace of Spades

Great opening by Ted Cruz.

Here is a breakdown of the statement, so you can go to any part that interests you:

First Cruz talks about "what this hearing is about and what it is not about," proving that the Democrats have offered no substantive objections to Kavanaugh, as no such objections can plausibly exist, and so turn to "pounding the table" and making beef over silly procedural objections about how many documents they've received.

Then he says "But let's talk about those documents for a moment," and notes that 480,000 pages of documents have been produced, which is greater than the number of pages produced for the last five Supreme Court nominees combined.

Then he talks about the documents that haven't been produced. These, Cruz says, are almost all documents authored by other people which were merely collated and passed to President Bush by Kavanaugh in his capacity as Staff Secretary, and therefore tell us nothing about Kavanaugh's thinking or beliefs. Further, Cruz says, because these are presidential advisers' communications to the president, they are strictly protected from disclosure by the law. Thus, he concludes, the Democrats are demanding documents precisely because they know these documents cannot be produced at all.

Then he asks, "So what is this hearing all about?" He says it's all about the Democrats being unhappy about the voters' considered choice in 2016, and wanting to overturn that. But he notes that this was the first election since Eisenhower which occurred with an open Supreme Court seat in play, and thus the next Supreme Court nominee indirectly on the ballot. And he notes that the issue of judicial appointments was vigorously contested by both Trump and Hillary Clinton, the issue being asked about in every single debate, and with both candidates stating the type of judge they would nominate.

Cruz points out that Trump took the "unprecedented" step of publishing a list of his likely Supreme Court picks. He implies without directly stating that Kavanaugh was on this list. (Kavanaugh was in fact on the short list.)

Therefore, Cruz concludes, Kavanaugh has something he calls "super-legitimacy" as a Supreme Court nominee, as the voters were already told that he might well be a Supreme Court choice by Trump and chose to elect Trump. Cruz calls this a de facto "referendum" on the acceptability of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice.

Finally, Cruz points out that progressives use the courts to win policy fights they cannot win at the ballot, and points out that America has been debating big policy issues that the left would like to win via the courts. And in the face of that, they chose Trump, who promised to appoint constitutionalists. He specifically notes that every Democrat Senator voted to gut the First Amendment, and that many Democrat Senators voted to repeal the Religious Freedom Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, and that almost every Democrat wants to effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

Huge debates about which virtually every voter was aware -- and every voter was aware what kind of candidates each nominee would select. So again, Cruz concludes, the Democrats are simply trying to undo the will of the American people.

And DICK Durbin was complaining that several thousand documents were marked "committee only".... No sh*t Sherlock!!! Kavanaugh set on the Appellate Court for the D.C. Circuit. He undoubtedly had ruled on many cases that involved classified information!!!! Durbin needs to have his first name tattooed across his forehead! The low life putz.

All you really need is his rulings.

In the end (and the lady in the interview discussed this) all you need are the, what is it, like 120~ rulings in federal court. Look at those. Were his rulings consistently pro X Y or Z? There's all you need to know about how the guy will vote.

Review that, make your choice, move on.

Would the dem's know Kate Steinle's father? I'd be surprised if they knew Kate Steinle

Kavanaugh: There are millions & millions & millions of semiautomatic rifles that are possessed

She knows that her public is "uninformed"...so she twists things to fit the Circus !

It's all about the Show!

2). Kavanaugh confirms that he once believed that a president could fire a prosecutor criminally investigating him. He refuses to say if he still believes it. Why?

This hearing is a farce.

This hearing is a farce."

What other SCOTUS nominee has provided answers to those types of questions?

This must be your first time paying attention to how this works.....

On Fox News last night, Shannon Bream was interviewing a Democrat about Kavanaugh. He admitted that Kavanaugh is HIGHLY qualified to sit on SCOTUS. They are just worried about how he would rule on things...... Bet they hate it when one of their own tells the truth......

Aside from Nixon of course

Putz is just annoying and the sad thing about him is how he owns some on the forum. Trolls are one thing but being obsessed with him or any other troll is really sad

Putz is not worth the effort it takes to respond to him on a regular basis. BUT some just have to I guess.

The Supreme Court's days as a super-legislature are over, and Democrats aren't happy about it

On Day Two of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a number of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to be sizing themselves up for black judicial robes.

If they weren’t doing that, they were lamenting the fact that someone of their own great wisdom couldn’t sit on the Supreme Court — the highest legislature in the land, they seem to think — and rule the country from their lifetime position.

Democrats placed themselves one after another into Kavanaugh’s seat on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to second-guess rulings, which is only natural for those who think the courts are there to make policy decisions. Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., complained that Kavanaugh had, in an opinion on D.C. gun control laws, deemed that semi-automatic rifles are in “common use” and thus not, under Supreme Court definition, something the D.C. government could ban. Feinstein was weirdly outraged about this characterization, given that private citizens in the U.S. own something on the order of 50 or 60 million such rifles, and possibly more.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., complained that Kavanaugh had dissented from an emergency ruling that ended up rushing a minor migrant girl in the care of the U.S. government off to get an abortion without parental consent. Durbin also complained about Kavanaugh’s interpretation of a complicated Supreme Court case that had deemed illegal immigrant workers unable to vote in workplace unionization elections.

For Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the problem was that Kavanaugh had written an opinion favoring two mergers in the grocery and health insurance industries.

All these opinions about Kavanaugh’s rulings have one thing in common: They come from politicians who seem to think judging is a lot like what they do for a living. But judges don’t make policy, and the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature. That’s why a good judge who decides cases based on law and precedent will not like all the outcomes of the cases he hears.

Federal judges don’t run for their seats or make promises on how they will vote. And they are not supposed to make rulings that set the policies that affect millions of Americans. Policy is supposed to be a function of the democratic process, not something created by a lifetime-appointed nine-person oligarchy.

Democrats are upset about where the Supreme Court has been heading not because it isn’t doing its job, and not because it is overly partisan, but because they don’t like the fact that cases going there are increasingly being decided based on the Constitution and the law and not on motivated reasoning in search of liberals’ pet causes.

Democrats look back wistfully to the era before 2006, when they could at least often count on the courts to stymie conservative reform using such motivated reasoning. That hasn’t been the case as often lately, and they’re not happy.

They can’t just come out and say that after years of treating Supreme Court rulings as a form of Holy Writ — and also with two-thirds of Americans approving of the Supreme Court as an institution. So they mislead people. For example, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said in Wednesday's hearing that the problem with the Supreme Court is that it has taken a hash, partisan turn under Chief Justice John Roberts and now consists of one narrow 5-4 decision after another. But this is fake news. In Roberts' 13 years, the court has produced 172 5-4 or 4-4 decisions, according to the Supreme Court database. In the 13-year period between 1970 and 1982, there were more than 330 such narrow split decisions. And the results are similar for any 13-year period between 1970 and 1990. You'll get similar results. Are we in an especially partisan era on the court? Not at all.

The good news is that the Supreme Court has been and likely will continue moving back in the direction of providing predictable, law-based and Constitution-based rulings, rather than moving forward the Left's agenda. That's why the Democrats are fuming.

This is another reason why Trump is the first "People's President" in ages. He has shown that he holds the interests of the common citizen over the political elites.

I can’t decide if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more like Captain Pike or Stephen Hawking in this clip. Let’s just call her Captain Hawking.

This is painful to watch.

I let you all decide if is Fake News.

The vote to confirm still set for Tue?

Christine Blasey is a far left wing activist who spent all weekend deleting her social media accounts. I didn’t name her because that wouldn’t have been nice, but this is straight activism on her part.https://t.co/fLNiSezpgx https://t.co/T1ORi6jFib

— Mike Cernovich ???? (@Cernovich) September 16, 2018

This is an interesting tidbit. It could mean absolutely nothing, and certainly isn’t proof of reprisal, but I don’t think it should be dismissed out-of-hand. Is it simply a coincidence?

This Ford lady is most likely a hard lefty. She most likely abhors Kavanaugh’s politics. Maybe it didn’t take much to get her to participate in a smear campaign.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Mother, a Judge, Presided Over a Foreclose Case Involving Christine Blasey Ford’s Parents

Which brings me to this link.

From the article:

"...Louisiana Republican Rep. Clay Higgins introduced a resolution that would require members of Congress to be drug tested once every term.

Higgins introduced House Concurrent Resolution 135 Thursday, saying “I have observed some behavior that would cause one to wonder,” in an interview with USA Today. “Elected officials in Washington, D.C., should be subject to the same kind of random drug screenings that blue-collar, working-class Americans have to endure,” he said in a statement to CBS News..."