Big win for Trump
 |
| 50-48 |
Republican Steve Daines was busy attending his daughter's wedding and did not attend the vote today. Senator Murkowski agreed to vote "present" to offset his missing "yes" vote with what otherwise would have been her "no" vote. This is why the final total was 50-48 rather than 51-49.
It was sad to see that several people (who agreed to follow Senate decorum) had to be removed because of repeated protests. The one thing I guess has become a staple within the "resistance" crowd is a resistance to following the decorum, rules, and laws of our society.
79 comments:
A fantastic day for Conservaties and America.
Will he be impeached for lying under oath?
😀😀😀😀😀
Now we punish the Democrats at the poll for their sleazy last minute hit job.
Roger
Good luck with that one. Brett Kavanaugh is on the court and will remain on the court for as long as he wants to remain on it.
Now that he has been confirmed and the "fight" over...Look for the Democrats to throw Ford and the rest out with the bathwater and look for the next thing to "resist".
Too bad Democrats have no other message... it just confirms their intellectual issues these days.
https://twitter.com/PeterCozy
check out what this guy has done with lindsey graham. fucking awesome
The Bee Gees was the best.
Anenatti will get all the blame from the left.
And it's being pointed out that if schumer doesn't filibuster for such, we would not have kavanaugh now
Republicans have no particular love for kavanaugh. But what the left did to him rallied tens of millions behind him.
Dems better prop up ole ruth. Otherwise coney Barrett could be next.
The same left-wing that forced Schumer to die on that hill is the same one that is whinning about Kavanaugh's confirmation today.
Stupid is as stupid does.
We also learned that booker is no Obama. He's done for 2020.
Yeah but primaries with Spartacus will be awesome.
Roger said this day would never come.
File this along with "Kerry/Hillary"
In a landslide.
Let's all cheer that a rapey lying partisan hack is elevated to the Supreme Court after a Presidential-directed coverup. November is coming, and we'll be cleaning out a few of the jackasses.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been created by two Presidents who didn't get a majority vote to the Presidency.
I said several days ago that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by the Senate.
Given my history in projections, I was hoping to be wrong again.
Unfortunately I was correct.
Jane the coward = not_a_dumbass
You were wrong Roger, don't attempt to snake a win.
Philip Bump:
“[Kavanaugh] has a distinct honor: He will be the first justice
nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat
on the bench with support from senators representing less than half
of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of
the country.”
That was my first and only post today.
Actually 60% supported His nomination after the FBI investigation.
Sorry to spoil your fantasy facts.
Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution.
I have always been troubled by the originalist judicial philosophy. The President is not restricted from any actions short of impeachment. There are specific requirements and restrictions upon the President but executive orders directing branches of the executive branch to act in a partisan manner or in the case of the FBI and Department of justice is dangerous to freedom.
He will be the first justice
nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat
on the bench with support from senators representing less than half
of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of
the country.”
Yeah, liberals hate the constitution!
https://coldheartedtruthblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/bottom-line-constitution-is-unpopular.html
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been created by two Presidents who didn't get a majority vote to the Presidency.
It's just a statement of facts.
It's just a statement of facts.
Completely irrelevant facts!
That was my first and only post today."
Signed not_a_dumbass
I am enjoying the wound licking by the blog socialist.
Kavanaugh, though, has a distinct honor: He becomes the first justice nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat on the bench with support from senators representing less than half of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of the country.
Let’s walk through it.
Obviously, Trump got almost 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Clinton got about 48 percent of the votes cast for president. Trump got about 46 percent.
Senators representing less than half the U.S. confirm nominee opposed by most Americans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/06/senators-representing-less-than-half-us-are-about-confirm-nominee-opposed-by-most-americans/
Roger, ty, you make me laugh.
Again, Trump is not alone in failing to win the popular vote. President George W. Bush is the other recent president to have that same fate. And, like Trump, Bush was also fairly unpopular when he made his Supreme Court nominations. Trump, according to an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released this week, has the approval of only 41 percent of American adults. (That’s about where Bush was in late 2005 when he made his picks.)
This is all Constitutional. I understand why the founding fathers wanted to protect the states and give them power in the federalist system. But it isn't democratic and it's given the minority party influence on the Supreme Court for decades.
The only cure is to amend the Constitution and remove the electoral college system and replace just the office of the President with a majority vote outcome.
I would like to see a charismatic candidate for the Democratic party campaign on the subject of the philosophy of majority rule.
Roger,
You do realize that the way it works in the United States is that you have to win States. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests a "national popular vote" matters...
Oh wait! I forgot! But you just reminded me... again!
You hate the Constitution!
https://coldheartedtruthblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/bottom-line-constitution-is-unpopular.html
Irrelevant because your side won because of the truth.
The only cure is to amend the Constitution and remove the electoral college system and replace just the office of the President with a majority vote outcome.
Well Roger, that would take an actual amendment, which would require two thirds of the States to ratify.
I don't suppose you have an idea of how difficult it would be for two thirds of the States to agree to give up their Constitutional states rights?
I bet you must hate that, huh?
Scott I am perfectly aware that the Constitution is written to protect the states. Part of the reason for the electoral college was designed to protect the slave states from the majority of the Americans in the larger cities from exerting themselves upon the slave States.
Once again you think that I don't know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
You are afraid of majority rule.
The states in the middle west will never support the amendment.
Federalism is imperfect. But it is the longest organized Democratic government in history. I'm not afraid to give the majority rights.
Yes, they knew that sometimes a political movement could get a person elected who presented a clear and present danger. But in this case we made a mistake of epic proportions.
A minority vote imposed Trump and allowed him to influence the Supreme Court for decades or longer.
You are afraid of majority rule.
I don't believe you have any clue how the Constitution works, or why it is he way it is. States rights are not about undercutting "majority rule". State's rights are about providing a degree of autonomy.
The founding fathers understood that there would be disagreement within the United States in how things should work. They inherently predicted that we would see what we are seeing today.
Which are a country divided by different cultures. Those differences are leading to clashes.
The founders wanted those different cultures to exist.
That is why they created strong states rights to allow for some autonomy.
The problem today is that a minority of the States (Coastal States) would like to tell the majority of states (the rest of the country) how to behave. For reasons (which I have never quite understood) liberals are insecure about their beliefs and therefor demand that others believe the same.
This is why liberals are so upset with the nomination and confirmation of a conservative Justice. By nature, Kavanaugh will follow the constitution, not the liberal mantra.
Bottom Line Roger:
Democrats need to win more States. That will require Democrats to move away from the core liberalism that only exists in the coastal states. While it may be "popular" in the polling, there are a great deal of people who will oppose Coastal liberalism basically on principle.
Again, Trump is not alone in failing to win the popular vote. President George W. Bush is the other recent president to have that same fate. And, like Trump, Bush was also fairly unpopular when he made his Supreme Court nominations. Trump, according to an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released this week, has the approval of only 41 percent of American adults. (That’s about where Bush was in late 2005 when he made his picks.)
Senators representing less than half the U.S. confirm nominee opposed by most Americans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/06/senators-representing-less-than-half-us-are-about-confirm-nominee-opposed-by-most-americans/
You fear majority rule.
Your side lost the Civil war.
You're trying to restore the rights to impose restrictions upon race religion and freedom of speech and press.
And disguise them in "Constitutional" rhetoric because the evil liberals must be stopped.
Roger
In a Federal Republic, the idea is not to have "majority rule".
Rather the idea of a Federal Republic is to allow for States to have the autonomy to provide their own citizens with the laws that they would like to live by.
Unless there is a Federal Constitutional issue in play, the Federal Government is supposed to concede to the States to make their own laws.
For me, I couldn't give a bigger rip how California wants to run their state. If you want to eliminate the idea of genders, and have everyone go to the bathrooms in the middle of the hallway, then more power to you.
Why are you so damned concerned that people in Kansas or Tennessee don't want the same laws in their state?
Why do you insist on pushing your beliefs on others?
I'm not trying to force Tennessee to tax or how to run the state.
The Constitution guarantees rights across all of the states. Marijuana is legal in California. I'm not trying to impose the California law upon Minnesota.
You are ignoring the first ten amendments that impose restrictions upon every state. The freedom of speech etc.
You would support the Supreme Court would withdraw the power of the Court to decide if state laws are Constitutional. Marbury vs. Madison. It's not written in the Constitution. The Court decided that it had the authority to restrict states from passing laws contrary to the Constitution
You are ignoring the first ten amendments that impose restrictions upon every state.
You mean the bill of rights?
Which provides individual rights such as guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms?
btw... you should read the 10th Amendment sometime.
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.
— Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 (excerpt)
What are you babbling about Roger?
God knows.
I was thinking the same thing about you.
You have been claiming that the state of California has the authority to impose its laws upon Tennessee or other states.
For me, I couldn't give a bigger rip how California wants to run their state. If you want to eliminate the idea of genders, and have everyone go to the bathrooms in the middle of the hallway, then more power to you.
Why are you so damned concerned that people in Kansas or Tennessee don't want the same laws in their state?
Why do you insist on pushing your beliefs on others?
We have been guaranteeing certain rights in every state.
Marbury vs. Madison. Decided that no state can impose any laws that are contrary to the Constitution as decided by the Supreme Court. It is not original intent. It was a decision by the Supreme Court.
The hard right conservatives have been trying to reverse the decision for decades.
The generational Shift or shall we say Tranformational Change of The US Supreme Court has effeminate Roger acting like he is bleeding.
Part of the reason for the electoral college was designed to protect the slave states from the majority of the Americans in the larger cities from exerting themselves upon the slave States.
Lord you the biggest ignorant dumbfuck on the board. Were you smoking your bongs during history and civics class?
At the time the Constitution was adopted the biggest most populous and powerful states in the union were the slave states of Virgina, Maryland, North and Souht Caroline. And since the 3/5th clause of the constitution gave them even more influence in the House of Representatives the smaller states insisted on a mechnisim to balance out their power.The senate and the electoral college were created to prevent these slave states from dominating the politics of the union. It certainly wasn't created to protect the slave states.
The express purpose of equal sufferage in the senate and the electoral college was to prevent the country from being dominated by any one state or region.
You want the affairs of the country to be controlled by California and New York. That's not going to happen.
We need to again thank Harry Reid for making the closurer vote only need be 51.
Effeminate Alky. We are a Republic. You know so little.
You are ignoring the first ten amendments that impose restrictions upon every state.
Those "restrictions" weren't imposed on the states until the passage of the 14th amendment. Before that the Supreme Court ruled the bill of rights only applied to the actions of the federal government.
Hillary is for a change to the US Constitution electoral college.
Go figure.
Marbury vs. Madison. Decided that no state can impose any laws that are contrary to the Constitution as decided by the Supreme Court
Roger stop trying to be an expert, you keep making an ass out of yourself.
Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review of acts of Congress.
It had nothing to do with the states.
Majority rule is three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.
We are united States of America. States.
The electoral college gives the each voter in Wyoming the equivalent of 9 votes compared to a voter in California.
California 39 million
Wyoming 590,000
Alky math always wrong.
Your 9/1 ratio is way off.
Alky knows so little about the US Constitution.
"The electoral college votes are based on the number of senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives (roughly one for every 500,000 people) per state. ".
Think purportionally.
California has 52 electoral votes Wyoming 3. (the minimum)
Any idea why alky is on a two day hate feast of the US Constitution?
A Warning from Allen D
"Because I am a liberal Democrat, I want to see the House flipped to my party as an important check and balance between the executive and legislative branches. But what I don’t want to see is a Democratic House abuse its authority by conducting vengeful impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.
I have no problem with an objective, preferably bipartisan, inquiry into how to improve the confirmation process. There is much that can be done to make it better. But an investigation of 36-year-old charges against a sitting justice would be an abuse of the powers of Congress.
Such an investigation would simply be partisan payback for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Nor is it likely to produce much new information about what did or did not happened in house in Maryland in about 1982, when Christine Blasey Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh has denied sexually assaulting Ford or anyone else."
California has 52 electoral votes Wyoming 3. (the minimum)
Which makes their 2 senate votes disproportionate to the total....Oh well.... Any one run the total of the poplulations of yes vote senators to no???? I have....any one want the number????? It won't bother you because you won bigly.....!!!!! LOL
Go ahead. I'd like to see them.
Roger stop trying to be an expert, you keep making an ass out of yourself.
one can only conclude that roger's been bullshitting us about his 137 IQ the whole time.
Roger
Look at gay marriage for example, and see if your logic holds up. 37 states voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman... including California.
Why was it so important for you to have "your" beliefs override the citizens of the states that voted against your beliefs?
I have no issue with gay marriage and voted in those regards in our own election here in Minnesota. But for a variety of reasons (that you would never understand) I believe that it would be wrong for me to demand that everyone else accept my beliefs, especially if I attempt to expand my beliefs to areas where it is a small minority belief.
The courts have been used by the liberals to overturn these sorts of social issues. There was no attempt to win these arguments at the ballot box, or convince states to change their laws. These people went straight to court.
Why would you believe that to be, Roger...
Other than they wanted to "force" their beliefs onto the rest of the country without having to garner the actual votes to do so?
Gay marriage legislation is not "slavery". Someone who was gay in Tennessee was free to move to another State if they wanted different laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes marriage a Federal issue. It had always been left to the States.
While I may agree with the concept of same sex marriage, that belief should not super-cede the explicit text of the 10th amendment, which clearly states that these issues (that are not designated to the Federal Government) are left to the states.
I do not like the "logic" that the implicit use of one portion of the constitution should be used to invalidate the explicit language of other portions. I especially don't like it when this implicit > explicit logic is used as an excuse for the Federal judiciary to get step into a social issue argument and attempt to settle it with a judicial ruling.
These things are always best left up to the people to decide.
liberals seem to live by two fundamental rules -
- they believe they have the right to force the rest of us to succumb to every one of their wishes wants, and desires by deeming them to be basic human rights...
- and they always seem to want to change the rules every time they lose.
trump wasn't the president elect for five fucking minutes and liberals were calling for the abolition of the electoral college.
Why does CA have the right to impose higher CAFE standard than the fed and rest of country is forced to take up CA green inniciatices because auto manufacturers can’t gear up for 2 sets?
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Why does CA have the right to impose higher CAFE standard than the fed and rest of country is forced to take up CA green inniciatices because auto manufacturers can’t gear up for 2 sets?
because every single time CA get's to bully the rest of the country they seize upon it.
"one can only conclude that roger's been bullshitting us about his 137 IQ the whole time."Rat
A given. He is wrong so often.
He assured us Bret would not be confirmed.
File that with Kerry/Hillary in a landslide.
CA continues to loss population.
Next us census will show a loss in power in the US House.
Why does CA have the right to impose higher CAFE standard than the fed
Aren't you all an advocate of states rights???? They also have a population of almost 40 million which is 4x the size of GA....
They also have a population of almost 40 million which is 4x the size of GA....
with a cumulative IQ of around equal that of Georgia!
And 10 times the IQ of anyone growing up in shithole Jersey, where they spent their youth eating lead based paint chips.
And 10 times the IQ of anyone growing up in shithole Jersey,
I see you remain as stupid as ever and has nothing to add....fucking loser asshole....LOLOLOL Sure didn't grow up in jersey, but you come from the bigoted hillbilly state of georgia....you should try not making up shit....it's all you ever do.....
Post a Comment