Trump's SCOTUS

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

He lied under oath.

Prove it. Evidence.

Are we talking Pizza-gate evidentiary standards?

[Ph64]

He lied under oath.

Prove it. Evidence.

Are we talking Pizza-gate evidentiary standards?

He'll no, we've just gone through 2+ weeks of that.

[C-Mag]

Since ooky is not here, nuke has to give us the other side of the story.

It's odd Ooky was a no show for the Kavanaugh Rape Trial.

If that was ooky?

[JohnDonne]

He lied under oath.

Prove it. Evidence.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying

Let’s begin with Kavanaugh’s denial.

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

It turns out he did though, according to his own calendars, with most of the same people Ford says were there.

He is deceptive and manipulative throughout the hearing, and the article goes into great detail on these points. If you want to know how Bill Clinton Weasley this guy is, read the article.

[Otern]

Let’s begin with Kavanaugh’s denial.

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

It turns out he did though, according to his own calendars, with most of the same people Ford says were there.

He is deceptive and manipulative throughout the hearing, and the article goes into great detail on these points. If you want to know how Bill Clinton Weasley this guy is, read the article.

"A gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation" can mean a gathering with a little bit of attempted rape. So not really a lie, even if he did attend a party where those people attended, which has also not been proven.

[C-Mag]

MAGA getting support in the UFC. Tonight two winning Fighters threw out Pro Trump Support in post fight interviews with Joe Rogan.

Immediately after winning Nik Lentz threw a shout out to Brett Kavanaugh.
https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1 ... vanaugh%2F

The other one is funnier, I posted it in the International Sports Bar

[C-Mag]

[Otern]

Now that it's all over, what's Kavanaugh's philosophy really? None of it came up during the hearings, even though that's what's important.

Is he an originalist, like Scalia? Or is he just a tool for the republicans.

Seems like no matter where on the political spectrum you stand, originalism seems like the best philosophy for the supreme court. A constitution is practically worthless if its interpretation can be changed according to the political climate. While with the originalist philosophy, they need to go through the amendment process to change the constitution, or follow it like it was intended.

[Montegriffo]

A constitution can be worthless if you can't change it due to the political climate.

[Otern]

A constitution can be worthless if you can't change it due to the political climate.

I'd say that's what makes a constitution valuable. You're not supposed to be able to change it with a minor majority. A constitution function as a check to rash democratic decisions, it's supposed to be really hard to change. It's what protects against mob rule.

If the original meaning doesn't apply, the constitution can be rendered worthless through changes in attitudes, culture, language, whatever.

Norway is pretty bad at following the original intent, which has made our constitution practically worthless. We joined NATO, even though it was against our constitution. And recently, the new gun law had three clear breaches on the constitution, without any opposition.

If anyone want to change the constitution, sure, go ahead, through the proper channels. But a constitution should be the supreme law of the land, and it shouldn't change its meaning based on who's got the majority in parliament at any moment.