And you want this guy to pick?
Joe would off shore the SCOTUS job to China.
No thanks. Landslide MEGA 2020

Having situations where lapdogs rubber stamping nominees because they're on the same side is "check and balance"?

I absolutely believe if the situation is reversed, I fully expect the same shenanigans from the Democrats abusing their power. That's politics and there lay the core issue.

The SCOTUS should be as apolitical as possible. A system where the people or the other parties CAN get no say by design... that's madness. That's a broken system that need to be fixed.

The founding fathers or the Constitution may have faith in the system. But today, there's ample proof that their faith is misplaced. Hyper-partisanship has FUBAR everything in Washington.

The fact that a President can get 3 partisan judges in one term to the SCOTUS is madness. No matter the leaning.

Take the selection power away from the President. Why should a SCOTUS judge be a Presidential pick in the first place? It should belong to the people.

I think a fair minded party SHOULD pack the court to fix the system. However, the method need to be different than the President nominate/Senate approve process currently in place. Use a lottery type of system is an option. House/Senate Republicans and Democrats each gets to choose the same amount of nominations (vetted by both sides) and then the selection is done by lottery. That'll ensure some form of randomized fairness, and the judges aren't so overly partisan.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

Merrick Garland was sidelined due to political blocking. Politics is mean and he lost. If it was a like for like (Sotomayor , Kagan) no one would argue and no Republican did. Republican let these go to the SCOTUS with ease.




Kavanaugh replaced a moderate ( Kennedy ), which tilts the supreme court to the right for once in a long time.

Next might be Ginsburg. At 85 and looking frail. A hard liberal stepping down and being replace by a moderate would make replacing Kavanaugh look G rated.

Replacing with a conservative would be an XXX storm by the left.

How low will the Democrats for for the next SCOTUS pick?

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

No one can confirm her testimony because all that she named refuted it-.. Guess this escapes the logic cells of the leftest brain.

Democrats never contradicted the latest FBI report. There is no there there. So they went with more smear and innuendo.

Conservatives are not spinning emotions, Democrats are. You "have to believer her" On what grounds? No one confirms her story.

Facts are 10 say one thing and Ford say the opposite. ..

Welcome to the new SCOTUS Kavanaugh.

I heard that RBG is disgusted by the Democrat tactics used. Can we say SCOTUS pick #3? Do you think Democrats can pull this sleazy slanderous stunt again?


Democrats are loosing bigly on every issue, Trade, NAFTA, Korea, Paris Climate accord, etc, Most of these are nothing more than major American Job killers and Trump is calling BS for what it is and bring jobs back. 4.2% GDP growth ,, unemployment down to 3.9,% lowest in 39 years.

Damning a man for some nebulous event when he was 17-- just for political points. Disgraceful.

What a sad spectacle for all to see--- Democrats using Ford and Kavanaugh pawns to derail a good/ decent morally just man.


Blasey Ford believes 1 POV

Many many others state the opposite, under oath, penalty of law.


Who do you believe?


WE will have a new SCOTUS.

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

She says it took her six days of hard thinking and speaking to her attorney before she decided she believed that she was positive it was Kavanaugh. Again, no other witnesses are backing her up and the couple that did say they heard of some sort of incident involving a plastic penis and a party think they heard Kavanaugh's name mentioned but they weren't present at the party.

I have to say, there was far more credible information against Clarence Thomas and a panel led by Democrats voted to pass him on to the senate. It is worth investigation? Maybe, but how do you prove it? Both accusers admit they were heavily intoxicated at the time and both have no credible witnesses. If you do have an investigation and he is found innocent, would a Democratic senate even still consider him for SCOTUS? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Sadly, it looks like he may be fucked even if he isn't guilty.

Even if they did, it wouldn't show evidence that he assaulted her. She has no worries about an FBI investigation because there is no evidence to find. Literally none, other than the marriage counselling thing you mentioned.

I'm sorry, but simply accusing someone of assault doesn't mean it happened. I don't know what her reasons are and I don't know if he did assault her, I just know that as long as we have no evidence he couldn't be convicted by a court in the nation. If he couldn't be convicted, he shouldn't be held accountable as far as his future career goes. I recall that it used to be innocent until proven guilty, not the way it is now.

I am worried he will end up fucking up Roe v Wade and I support legal abortions, but at the same time, I can't say he should be barred from the opportunity of his lifetime based on a simple accusation from someone who went 36 years without mentioning it to anyone other than her husband and marriage counselor.

Anita Hill had a much better case versus Clarence Thomas and the Democrats still voted him into SCOTUS.

With a soon-to-be 6-3 Corporate Conservative SCOTUS in place, I would not put money on maintaining a legal route to abortion and already civil liberties of women & LGBTQ have begun to be stripped away, with more on the way. There will be no Velvet Revolution here; buckle up.

True, the constitution has some screwed up parts. However, there is a process in place to make or change amendments. If the bulk of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment, using the methods in place to do so, so be it. I'd give my guns up in that case. If the legislature decides to pass an unconstitutional law as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act, then they aren't getting them. The problem with unconstitutional laws, by the way, is that SCOTUS can always wink at the bill of rights and say that it is constitutional. I don't care for that, but again, it is a legal interpretation of the document if they do it. I'd give up my guns if that happened.

I don't even really have an issue if we go back to the assault weapon ban of the 90's. I get that we can make some changes and cut down on these incidents. I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision. You give someone due process to avoid being on the list, like we do to people accused of felonies before they are convicted, no problem. But as it stands, our President is just tossing an idea out there that absolutely violates multiple rights and people are eating it up like it was candy.

You can blame whomever you like. I will never vote for Hillary, which means I will be voting Libertarian this year. If that means Trump wins, then so be it. An inexperienced president is MUCH less of a threat than a corrupt one.

The worst harm Trump could do would be picking crappy SCOTUS judges, realistically an inexperienced President doesn't have that much power over anything else if Congress is against him/her. Look at Obama, other than the few years he had a Democratic led Congress, he has mostly been limited to presidential decrees that really don't do much.

Now a corrupt president that is motivated and knows how to work the system, that is an entirely different animal. I have no issues in saying that Hillary is the most corrupt person I have seen in the running for President since Nixon, and we all know how well that turned out. She is by far worse than Trump, who is just an idiot. Her husband was just as bad, his support of the deregulation policies of the late 1990s in regards to Wall Street directly led to the 2008 Depression.

*quality

We have 4 years of this and at least one scotus judge that can interpret the constitution, or 4 years of the worst possible person to run for president in...ever.

The sad thing is, I could be referring to either presumptive nominee. Either way. expect another Wall St. crash and/or mini-Depression again.