Trump has chosen his Supreme Court nominee, source says

You think the Right doesn't engage in the same judicial shopping/tactics? And this isn't a new thing either. Legal opinions get overturned by other courts all the time. That's the whole point of the system that has a 'Supreme Court' to make the final ruling.

I don't know. Honestly. If there are some serious allegations/indictments that come of it, then likely it will have at least some level of impact. I fully believe that one of the 3 main reasons Hillary lost was due to Comeys announcement (on top of the lack of ground game in swing states, and the hubris from the Clintons and the Dems that was palpable from up here in Canada) so if something serious comes of it, I think people will notice.

 

The Mueller thing has fizzled out. People have become numb to it.

I blame the media for over hyping things.

Trumps approval rating is moving up, not down.

 

I fully agree that the Media has overhyped a Lot of things, which makes the important stuff slip through. I hope that the desensitization isn't fully complete though. I don't know where they go from here though. How does a media organization (or a bunch of them) 'reset' so to speak?

The media needs to just ignore Mueller until he comes out with something. One thing I appreciate about him and his team is how little we've heard from them directly.

The mid-terms are going to be very interesting, and your right, his approvals are ticking up. That seemed to be the strategy from the start though, just unload as much as possible up front, so that the public gets tired of hearing about them constantly.

 

Yes.

We shop for people who follow the law and the Constitution.

That IS the difference.

 

Pretty important difference that many on the left can't see the value of.

Looks like Bernie is taking it in stride...

 

All Trump has to do is offer him another lakeside house or something.

Maybe another nice college for his wife to ruin.

 

And what is the distinction you are attempting to make. Obstruction is a FELONY, PERIOD. What about committing that felony in a federal court and then a federal grand jury? What about if it also includes perjury and witness tampering? What if it is based on prima facie evidence?

Who was an admitted or accused felon that Trump then hired?

 

What is your evidence of his partisanship?

 

Or another 800 dollar coat, since he's a man of the people.

Socialism in action and so on.

 

So you think trump should be removed if he obstructed? I think it depends what he obstructed.
Nobody was an admitted felon when trump hired them.

 

Except he can't have obstructed, by definition, and all players including Rosenstein, Comey, and McCabe have admitted that.

You have ZERO case for obstruction.

You're going to have to find another windmill.

 

They all are.

 

None of them have said there was no obstruction, you’re making things up now

 

Kavanaugh was ultimately picked because of his legal opinion on whether a sitting president can be indicted/questioned:

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/1016488809691865088?s=21

 

So you say. Funny how your team is the paragon of virtue and the other team are dastardly villains who only cheat to win. Right.

 

Give us a list of the SCOTUS judges on the right that have not applied the Constitution and laws as written, then.

 

Oh but I'm afraid they have.

https://townhall.com/columnists/jac...f-justiceat-least-not-on-trumps-part-n2338887

Comeys own words under oath regarding any attempts to interfere are on the record, as are his notes detailing Trumps request for Comey to root out any Russian collusion.

McCabes own words under oath regarding any attempts to pressure the investigation are on record, as are his own failures which led to his firing.

Rosensteins recommendation to fire is also on record.

You've got nothing to work with here.

 

And none of them have said no obstruction occurred.

 

The FACT IS, Conservatives LEGISLATE their agenda, leftists ADJUDICATE THEIRS, because they could they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in HELL of passing their agenda through LEGISLATION, per the elected representatives of the people. The ACA being the ONLY recent exception to the rule.

They need ACTIVIST, LEFTIST JUDGES "coming to their rescue", or gay marriage wouldn't even be legal in California...remember Prop.87?

And abortion would be legal on a STATE-by -STATE basis...etc.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION would be ILLEGAL...except for leftist, hand selected judges.

This is why it is CRUCIAL to seat originalist Constitutionalists on the USSC to STOP the Judicial Fiat of LEFTIST JUDGES.

 

She's probably feeling some heat.

 

I'm sorry that you can't understand their comments or their actions.

You're welcome to keep slapping into the same windmill if you'd like. No skin off my back.

 

But that is not what he said. He said they can under current law but the law should be changed by congress to afford at least some minimal protection. And as with Clinton, President's cannot be prosecuted for criminal acts while in office they must be removed first.

 

As I thought you have none.

 

He’s gone on record saying it’s debatable whether a sitting president can be indicted/subpoena. If the special counsel chooses to indict or more likely, subpoena the president, that would undoubtedly go up to the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh could set a very dangerous/reckless precedent.

 

Lolz at the left...