Post: #126

(07-09-2018 09:20 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  The Liberal Snowflakes are triggered. Talk about an epic meltdown tonight!

Edit.

In the last election, a lot of Bernie Bros wore T shirts with a bunch of pictures of Bernie looking like the Mad Hatter. These pictures will be worthy choices for a 2020 updated Bernie shirt!

Post: #127

(07-09-2018 09:49 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 09:20 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  The Liberal Snowflakes are triggered. Talk about an epic meltdown tonight!

Edit.

In the last election, a lot of Bernie Bros wore T shirts with a bunch of pictures of Bernie looking like the Mad Hatter. These pictures will be worthy choices for a 2020 updated Bernie shirt!

I'm thinking I should make a subversive Bernie shirt with him looking especially crazy, and sell it to true believers!

Post: #128

(07-09-2018 09:20 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  The Liberal Snowflakes are triggered. Talk about an epic meltdown tonight!

Kind of a roundabout way for that tv host to say "they elected someone that supports their views." Like duh.

Post: #129

Break out the popcorn, boys...this is going to be a fun week!

Post: #130

The sad part is that I cannot tell if most of these people are being serious or just doing their job. Reality is so twisted these days that posts like above just seem like a parody. The act of doing something repeatedly and having it fail is insanity, and the left is looking like an asylum in the making, if not one already.

Post: #131

Who gives a flying fuck what Alyssa Milano has to say about anything? Those people likeing and retweeting that need to take a good look in the mirror.

Post: #132

I'd bet my left nut Ginsburg has ghost writers scripting her 'opinions'. My grandma is 81 I sure as fuck can't imagine her writing down a complex memo like a law professor. At that age remembering your daily schedule and cooking ingredients is impressive. There's no way in hell she's poring through even cliff notes of her assistants' research and contemplating it. They're just trying to keep her corpse animated past Trump which I hope the bitch goes comatose before then.

Post: #133

(07-09-2018 11:01 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I'd bet my left nut Ginsburg has ghost writers scripting her 'opinions'. My grandma is 81 I sure as fuck can't imagine her writing down a complex memo like a law professor. At that age remembering your daily schedule and cooking ingredients is impressive. There's no way in hell she's poring through even cliff notes of her assistants' research and contemplating it. They're just trying to keep her corpse animated past Trump which I hope the bitch goes comatose before then.

Almost seems like Weekend at Bernie's type stuff

Post: #134

(07-09-2018 11:07 PM)big poppa Wrote:  Almost seems like Weekend at Bernie's type stuff

Pretty much.

Post: #135

So we are now going to see Kavanaugh get Borked. That is a reference to Justice Bork who was nominated by Reagan but demagouged by the media. Ironically, Reagan then nominated Kennedy who became a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Don't believe the crap that Trump is being unfair. First, there is no rule that he has to be unfair. Second, Kavanaugh is a former clerk of Kennedy and it is quite traditional to apppoint a former clerk of the retired justice. The fact that Kavanaugh might be the conservative that Kennedy was supposed to be is not Trump's problem, its just communist whining.

Post: #136

(((Ruth Bader Ginsburg)))

Post: #137

It’s telling when the left has a meltdown over someone who says something so basic: that he will stick to the original meaning of the Constitution.

Post: #138

Kavanaugh cooperated with the Vince Foster coverup. He's a swamp creature who has leverage. He'll be confirmed after the Democrats hold their temper tantrum rituals.

He should even be seated during the next term. Only election-year considerations would delay things.

Only question, is what dirt does the swamp have on this swamp creature?

Post: #139

What was Kavanaughs role with the Vince Foster coverup?

Post: #140

They all have ghost writers called clerks. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy actually.

District and appellate judges have a single clerk I believe. Supremes have 4 each.

Post: #141

(07-10-2018 06:12 AM)Hypno Wrote:  So we are now going to see Kavanaugh get Borked.

The Democrats had a 54-46 advantage in the Senate at that time. Two Democrats did vote for Bork. So, the Democrats now, likely aware that 2-3 or three of their colleagues will have to vote for Kavanaugh, probably will focus their efforts on trying to get 3-4 moderate Republicans to vote against.

Post: #142

People speak about media-friendly themes like abortion, guns and impeachment but Kavanaugh has other agendas too.

He supports ISPs editing content as well as NSA surveillance.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018...ourt-pick/

Quote:Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

Net neutrality violates ISPs' right to edit the Internet, judge wrote.

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)

While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.

Wheeler's rules—which prohibited blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—were upheld by the DC Circuit in a 2-1 panel decision in June 2016, and again when the full court denied the broadband industry's petition for an en banc rehearing in May 2017.

Six judges voted to deny the industry's petition for a rehearing, while Kavanaugh was among two dissenting judges. Kavanaugh's dissent said that "the net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated."

"The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers," Kavanaugh wrote.

The FCC's imposition of the rule was unlawful because "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule" or to impose common-carrier obligations on ISPs, Kavanaugh argued. But even authorization from Congress wouldn't have saved the net neutrality rules from Kavanaugh's dissent, because he also argued that the rules violate ISPs' First Amendment free speech rights.

Under Supreme Court precedents, "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market," Kavanaugh wrote. "Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court's precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment."
Judge: Like cable TV, ISPs “decide” which websites to transmit

Consumers generally expect ISPs to deliver Internet content in un-altered form. But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website, he wrote.

"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes."

Kavanaugh's argument did not address the business differences between cable TV and Internet service. Cable TV providers generally have to pay programmers for the right to carry their channels, and cable TV providers have to fit all the channels they carry into a limited amount of bandwidth. At least for now, major Internet providers don't offer a set package of websites—they just route users to whichever sites the users are requesting. ISPs also don't have to pay those websites for the right to "transmit" them, but ISPs have argued that they should be able to demand fees from websites.

Kavanaugh’s view rejected by fellow judges

DC Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan and David Tatel wrote an opinion disputing Kavanaugh's arguments. Here's how Srinivasan and Tatel responded to Kavanaugh's First Amendment claim:

"[N]o Supreme Court decision supports the counterintuitive notion that the First Amendment entitles an ISP to engage in the kind of conduct barred by the net neutrality rule—i.e., to hold itself out to potential customers as offering them an unfiltered pathway to any web content of their own choosing, but then, once they have subscribed, to turn around and limit their access to certain web content based on the ISP's own commercial preferences."

Also contrary to Kavanaugh's argument, Srinivasan and Tatel wrote that the FCC had the authority to reclassify ISPs as common carriers and impose net neutrality rules.

"[T]e Supreme Court, far from precluding the FCC's [net neutrality] Order due to any supposed failure of congressional authorization, has pointedly recognized the agency's authority under the governing statute to do precisely what the Order does," they wrote.

Srinivasan and Tatel cited the 2005 Brand X case that we've written about before; the case upheld the FCC's earlier declaration that cable Internet is an information service rather than a common carrier service. Brand X helped Wheeler's FCC defend the net neutrality rules because the Supreme Court decision supports the FCC's authority to define Internet service however it wishes, so long as it provides a reasonable justification.
Further Reading
To kill net neutrality rules, FCC says broadband isn’t “telecommunications”

"[T]he Court made clear in its decision—over and over—that the [Communications] Act left the matter to the agency's discretion," Srinivasan and Tatel wrote. "In other words, the FCC could elect to treat broadband ISPs as common carriers (as it had done with DSL providers), but the agency did not have to do so."

Srinivasan and Tatel also provided the two votes supporting the FCC's right to impose net neutrality rules in the 2016 version of the case. "Because a broadband provider does not—and is not understood by users to—'speak' when providing neutral access to Internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open Internet rules," they wrote at the time.

The net neutrality rules forbid ISPs from blocking lawful websites and did not apply when ISPs cooperated with emergency communications and law enforcement officials, public safety agencies, and national security authorities.

Judges also noted that the net neutrality rules only applied to ISPs that hold themselves out to consumers as "neutral, indiscriminate conduits" to the Internet. Technically, the rules allowed Internet providers to filter the Internet if they didn't act as a common carrier, as some services targeted at religious people have done. That exception supported the case that the rules did not violate the First Amendment and was narrow enough that it wasn't likely to be abused by major ISPs.
Kavanaugh’s support of NSA surveillance

In November 2015, Kavanaugh was part of a unanimous decision when the DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear a challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata. Kavanaugh was the only judge to issue a written statement, which said that "[t]he Government's collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment."

Even if this form of surveillance constituted a search, it wouldn't be an "unreasonable" search and therefore it would be legal, Kavanaugh also wrote.

"The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient 'special need'—that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement—that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty," Kavanaugh wrote. "The Government's program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program."

In a separate legal area that might be of concern to President Trump, Kavanaugh argued in a Minnesota Law Review article in 2009 that sitting presidents should not have to face civil suits or criminal investigations until after they leave office.

"The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office," Kavanaugh wrote at the time. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

If confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring effective July 31.

Post: #143

(07-10-2018 12:22 PM)Rotten Wrote:  Kavanaugh cooperated with the Vince Foster coverup. He's a swamp creature who has leverage. He'll be confirmed after the Democrats hold their temper tantrum rituals.

He should even be seated during the next term. Only election-year considerations would delay things.

Only question, is what dirt does the swamp have on this swamp creature?

His finances are eyebrow raising given his upbringing, cv, and network.

Post: #144

(07-11-2018 09:12 PM)floor7 Wrote:  His finances are eyebrow raising given his upbringing, cv, and network.

Totally. $200,000 in debt on baseball tickets?? Who does that?

By the way, this reminds me of a fond memory: One job i had, we were recruiting for a new finance manager. And I extended an offer to this VERY hot young woman with a smoking body and great caboose. That wasn't the reason i selected her - she was very bright and hard-working. Anyway, we had to do a credit check on her, because this was a finance role and that's what you do with people who are managing money. And my HR person came back and said "You can't hire Jane (not her real name; her real name was Jennifer) because she has TERRIBLE credit"! And so I asked her for details, because i was really didn't want to lose this candidate and was hoping I could rationalize it away. And do you know what this little hottie was spending money on? Lingerie! She ran up a huge balance on her Victoria's Secret credit card!

I spent a LOT of time that week thinking about her in lingerie.

We hired her, and she became one of my best employees. Mature, professional, hard-working, zero drama. A young hot chick. Go figure!

Post: #145

The deep state will not go down quietly. Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville writes "I’m not sure what this means, but my first thought is that he doesn’t trust people in DOJ headquarters to handle it."

Rosenstein Asks Prosecutors to Help With Kavanaugh Papers in Unusual Request

Quote:WASHINGTON — Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement. While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.

But in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors “who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.” Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday.

Post: #146

(07-12-2018 08:25 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:12 PM)floor7 Wrote:  His finances are eyebrow raising given his upbringing, cv, and network.

Totally. $200,000 in debt on baseball tickets?? Who does that?

By the way, this reminds me of a fond memory: One job i had, we were recruiting for a new finance manager. And I extended an offer to this VERY hot young woman with a smoking body and great caboose. That wasn't the reason i selected her - she was very bright and hard-working. Anyway, we had to do a credit check on her, because this was a finance role and that's what you do with people who are managing money. And my HR person came back and said "You can't hire Jane (not her real name; her real name was Jennifer) because she has TERRIBLE credit"! And so I asked her for details, because i was really didn't want to lose this candidate and was hoping I could rationalize it away. And do you know what this little hottie was spending money on? Lingerie! She ran up a huge balance on her Victoria's Secret credit card!

I spent a LOT of time that week thinking about her in lingerie.

We hired her, and she became one of my best employees. Mature, professional, hard-working, zero drama. A young hot chick. Go figure!

Not saying it is what I would do. But it could be something as simply as buying season tickets in suites. Those things arent cheap. If him and 10 friends were going in on season tickets, and he simply paid for the tickets and then they all paid him back, it accounts for it. No idea this happened, but I know people who spend the same amount on football tickets.

Post: #147

I would like to see any subsequent nominations Trump makes to the Supreme Court should be non-lawyers. Particularly when replacing Ginsburg. Lawyers will, of course, but the Constitution does not specify only lawyers can serve in the US Government branches. Part of draining the swamp is breaking the culture of credentialism and kickbacks and Ivy League societies. To further recommend this approach, there is a much bigger pool of reliable Trumpist / Nationalist candidates.

Post: #148

From Avudhuta's post it sounds like he is a typical "corporations are people too. In fact they are the best people because they hoard the most money" big business Republican (which is why I never voted in a presidential election before Trump, been voting age since 2006.)

Post: #149

(07-12-2018 09:34 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  The deep state will not go down quietly. Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville writes "I’m not sure what this means, but my first thought is that he doesn’t trust people in DOJ headquarters to handle it."

Rosenstein Asks Prosecutors to Help With Kavanaugh Papers in Unusual Request

Quote:WASHINGTON — Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement. While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.

But in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors “who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.” Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday.

It sounds like (((Rosenstein))) is using his office as "opposition research" to undermine the president. The President has made his nomination, he doesn't need any assistance at this point.

Post: #150

(07-13-2018 05:07 AM)Hypno Wrote:  It sounds like (((Rosenstein))) is using his office as "opposition research" to undermine the president. The President has made his nomination, he doesn't need any assistance at this point.

Sorry if this is a naive question, but why does Rosenstein still have a job in a republican administration? He's not some junior "career" person at DOJ...he's at the senior-most levels that usually go to the party in power.

What am i missing?