search
top

Feinstein v. Kavanaugh

19 Responses to “Feinstein v. Kavanaugh”

  1. Joe says:

    The Lackey for Chinese Spies is truly disgusting.

    She actually tried to assure that “common use” can’t be defined by ownership………Kavanaugh should’ve unleashed a Mic-Drop; “Excuse me, Mrs Lackey for Chinese Spies, ownership is the basis of use”.

    • TS says:

      She’s basically saying the onwers don’t use them except when they shoot up schools “hundreds” of times. *eyeroll*

  2. Steve says:

    Like Seb and his Levi’s, Feinstein is enemy since the 90’s. She was on point though despite the suspicions that she’s slowly losing it. Must’ve taken her go pills for the hearing.
    Well, I know the nominee has to keep the ripples to a minimum but I would have liked to see him erring towards the shore a little more on his response to common use.
    He has Trumpian hair.
    He knows he’s being ushered in – his body language and verbal patterns say he’s having fun and basking in the moment of his career success (note his self-reflective quips with a smile). That would annoy the shit out of me as a senator, because it gives lie to the idea that this is any more than a formality, but whatever. He’s not a man concerned about this hearing, and knows it will take some externality beyond his control to derail him, not his performance here. He’s obviously well prepared for the booby traps he knew he’d have to dodge.
    You never really know who you’re getting on 2A, but I’m looking forward to this.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      And if the ripples aren’t entertaining enough, just wait for the whimsical screams of the lunatics in the back of the room every few minutes.

  3. aerodawg says:

    That’s a light weight vs an 800lb gorilla if I’ve ever seen it

  4. CarlosT says:

    They should just skip directly to the votes. No one has any doubts about how they will decide.

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s my opinion as well. There’s hardly anything that’s more Kabuki theater than a confirmation hearing. We even see the candidate maintaining the fiction that judges aren’t allowed to have opinions on legal matters not before them. We all know judges have opinions, and I’d like to hear them. “Well, you see, I have to follow precedent. That’s not to say I agree with the precedent.” Nonsense. You have an opinion on it. Out with it. If you’re not going to talk about that, just hold the fucking vote and put the whole charade out of its misery.

  5. The_Jack says:

    A hypothetical is I see a future SCOTUS giving down a ruling and one or more state gov would go “Yeah no, we see the court as illegitimate given X,Y,Z was part of the ruling thus we will refuse to comply.”

    And then said states continue to jail people for violating a law that SCOTUS says is illegal.

    And then things get…. interesting.

    What does the Fed gov do? Especially if the executive at the time is… not a fan of said court ruling.

    (Note that I didn’t say which states, which parties, which judges, or which laws)

    • Mike Q says:

      The last example of a state government ignoring SCOTUS resulted in Ike sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock AR.

    • Chris says:

      look up ex parte Merryman.

      In a showdown vs the chief justice and POTUS, the president wins.

      If a 50s era Democrat had been in office instead of Ike, the solid south could have laughed off court rulings.

      • The_Jack says:

        Yeah…. hence my statement just before the parenthetical about if the Executive at the time doesn’t agree with the ruling.

        • Joe says:

          Exactly. Say someone like,……Elizabeth Warren.

          The Left knows that as long as Trump has a GOP Senate between now, and possibly 2024, he WILL get 1 of the 2 Liberal SCOTUS Judge Seats between Ginsburgh and Breyer and will be able to replace a Conservative Judge Retirement.

          If Trump has a GOP Senate from 2019 through 2020, and can flip the Breyer and/or Ginsburgh Seats, Gun Laws in States like,…California and Connecticut,…will be tossed out.

          Of course, a Democrat Party Controlled Executive and Legislative Branch, will back Democrat States in ILLEGALLY defying those potential SCOTUS Rulings.

          • The_Jack says:

            In this hypothetical defense attorneys will go “My client is being charged with X, but the Supreme Court rendered on Z that X is unconstitutional, thus ladies and gentlemen of the jury you must vote to acquit my client for these illegal charges.”

            Not to mention attorneys of people who have been convicted of X will be writing appeals.

            • Chris says:

              LOL. That’s why they are eradicating gun culture. A jury of your peers in downstate NY, Boston, Coastal Cali, etc won’t care what some racist nazis on SCOTUS said.

              Besides the state will offer plea bargains so most folks won’t roll the dice.

  6. JC_VA says:

    See how bad they are at the moment?

    Now imagine what they’ll be like when Ginsburg goes…

  7. RegT says:

    To illustrate Feinstein’s total hypocrisy, when she was mayor of San Francisco and telling the people of SF to turn in their handguns, she had _six_ handguns registered under her name in the California database for concealed weapon permits. [In CA, every firearm you ever carried concealed needed to be listed on your permit.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top