• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue would Kavanaugh support an investigation?

If Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue would Kavanaugh support an investigation?

  • Total voters
    21
Aristaeus said:
What if he shot someone in Washington, D.C.?
Click to expand...

Republicans would say, "sure he murdered someone, but tax cuts, the economy, judges, deregualtion. Don't worry, we got this".
 
Rogue Valley said:
Kavanaugh has been touted by the ultra-conservative Federalist Society. That should tell you plenty.
Click to expand...

calling the Federalist Society "ultra conservative" pretty much proves you haven't a clue about that group
 
Howard the Duck said:
If Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue would Kavanaugh support an investigation? Would he support charges or a trial? Is a President above the law?

Would/could he expand the law and vote on the supreme court that the president can pardon for state crimes, too?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Honestly, HD. That would be a matter for NY, right?
Regards,
CP
 
Howard the Duck said:
Yes, but Kavanaugh doesn't think a president is able to be investigated either civilly or criminally while in office.
Click to expand...

here is what he said


"The nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots."

do you disagree with this

one of the problems of these threads is that many of the posters arguments are based on the fact they hate Trump and they think that is sufficient to base a valid argument against Judge Kavanaugh
 
bearpoker said:
Republicans would say, "sure he murdered someone, but tax cuts, the economy, judges, deregualtion. Don't worry, we got this".
Click to expand...

Exactly. Plus he, she or them, had it coming. C'mon! Stop these silly games and let's work together to rebuild this nation!
Regard's,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
I know I'm late to the party, but what is a Federalist Party member? Other than the arcane Federalist Party, what does it mean today?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Federalist SOCIETY. They are a bunch of super ultra right wing lawyers who essentially seek to overturn all American jurisprudence since 1803.

They are way, way, way out of the mainstream.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Federalist SOCIETY. They are a bunch of super ultra right wing lawyers who essentially seek to overturn all American jurisprudence since 1803.

They are way, way, way out of the mainstream.
Click to expand...

I trust your definition of main stream. That description of them sounds a bit scary! Who then would belong to that?
And further, if they have no real memory of those dreadful days, why would they belong to it? I sure would like for someone to tell me.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
I trust your definition of main stream. That description of them sounds a bit scary! Who then would belong to that?
And further, if they have no real memory of those dreadful days, why would they belong to it? I sure would like for someone to tell me.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

They are a recent phenomenon, think 1980 and on. They think like a sleeper cell, only now they just secured their 4th vote on the supreme court.
 
Howard the Duck said:
They are a recent phenomenon, think 1980 and on. They think like a sleeper cell, only now they just secured their 4th vote on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Oooophhh! I have not heard of them before, my fault.
I truly hope that the supreme, remember SUPREME Court, reads and interprets the Constitution with relevance and embedded intent. Why else do we need them, ol' chum?
Best Regards to my good friend HtD!
CP
 
Bullseye said:
None of this crap would get anywhere near the Supreme Court. To play your silly game I would guess murder meets the "high crimes and misdemeanors" test for impeachment.
Click to expand...

It absolutely would meet that criteria. And you are wrong. Any criminal charges would make its way through the courts quickly. Trump would easily move things to the federal courts due to inherent presidential questions.
 
Howard the Duck said:
It absolutely would meet that criteria. And you are wrong. Any criminal charges would make its way through the courts quickly. Trump would easily move things to the federal courts due to inherent presidential questions.
Click to expand...

What is a bit scary, is Presidential pardon. It is my understanding, that a President could pardon themselves, under current law., is that correct? If so, Thank God, Not just President Trump(who I support) but any President could pardon themselves and it is fortunate , that Jack the Ripper wasn't president! Yes, or am I all wet on this?

Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
What is a bit scary, is Presidential pardon. It is my understanding, that a President could pardon themselves, under current law., is that correct? If so, Thank God, Not just President Trump(who I support) but any President could pardon themselves and it is fortunate , that Jack the Ripper wasn't president! Yes, or am I all wet on this?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

We'll see. It's uncharted territory. They think Trump is a king. Maybe they are right.
 
Howard the Duck said:
It absolutely would meet that criteria. And you are wrong. Any criminal charges would make its way You didn't se that on CNN, did you?through the courts quickly. Trump would easily move things to the federal courts due to inherent presidential questions.
Click to expand...

By the way, I forgot to mention the guy(gal or whoever) pulled aa knife on the President! It was self defense. But, you didn't see that on MSNBC, did you? ;)
Regards,
CP
 
Howard the Duck said:
https://amp.slate.com/news-and-poli...r-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html
Click to expand...

It is astounding and a poor frightful portend to think that Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are somehow held in such esteem, or blindness. Neither of them is worthy of the robe, but benefited by some ethereal idea of representation. And then, a scholarly jurist such as Judge Kavanaugh is nailed to the cross. The Constitution is what it is. Why the fear of a particular Judge?
Regards,
CP
 
Howard the Duck said:
If Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue would Kavanaugh support an investigation? Would he support charges or a trial? Is a President above the law?

Would/could he expand the law and vote on the supreme court that the president can pardon for state crimes, too?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd hope not. If we know he did it there would be no need for investigation.
 
Howard the Duck said:
It absolutely would meet that criteria. And you are wrong. Any criminal charges would make its way through the courts quickly. Trump would easily move things to the federal courts due to inherent presidential questions.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm not going to feed your Trump Derangement Syndrome by arguing a ridiculous scenario. Have a good day.
 
A forum full of nut jobs. Well, I'm in the right place. I used to think I was kind of partisan, until I saw what partisan really is. And most of the nut jobs have nothing better to do than start idiotic threads trolling their particular brand of partisanship. I Looooove it. They make me look like a frickin' moderate. But let's cut the crap on this Supreme Court nominee stuff. There is NO SUCH THING as an "objective" nominee. Trump nominated a very conservative judge, and he will get seated on the court, unless he's got one hellava ghost in the closet. Republicans always go for conservative judges; no big surprise there. When liberals get in they push for liberal judges. Neither side gives a rat's ass how "qualified" they are; it's will they move the agenda forward? Are they political enough? Are they committed warriors on our side? that's all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom