New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Please Vote

J

Jen

Senator
And never forget:

44763663_2115858452061861_4808154267976204288_n.jpg
 
Jen said:
And never forget:

44763663_2115858452061861_4808154267976204288_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Sen. Chuck Grassley asks DOJ to investigate Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick

Within her written statement submitted Sept. 26 to the Judiciary Committee, Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys" during the early 1980s while students were in high school or college.

During an Oct. 1 interview with NBC News, Swetnick back-tracked or contradicted key parts of her testimony, Grassley said.

In subsequent interviews, Avenatti likewise cast serious doubt on or contradicted the allegations while insisting that he had thoroughly vetted his client, Grassley said.

_______

DON'T let this kind of FARCE occur again.
VOTE RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
afella said:
His nomination pushed me to vote straight Democrat this go around. I haven't voted for a Democrat in 10 years for a house seat, Senate seat or president. I wish I could vote libertarian this go around as well, but the GOP has made it nearly impossible to do so.

So absolutely I will be voting.
Click to expand...
So, facts and evidence and corroboration from witnesses is unimportant to you, got it.
 
Marcus Aurelius said:
So, facts and evidence and corroboration from witnesses is unimportant to you, got it.
Click to expand...

I dont care. And didnt care about that. As far as I was concerned he was innocent until proven guilty.

So I looked at the facts. The facts point point to kavanaugh being a remnant of the Bush white house and a key architect of the patriot act and warentless meta data collection of US citizens.

His support for the suppression of the 4th and 5th amendment was more than enough reason for me to oppose his nomination and confirmation. We all lost as US citizens because of his confirmation.

Trump showed his true colors with his nomonation. Just like Obama and Bush did.
 
Tor-Pete-O said:
Of course not.

He's a boot licking leftist. Facts mean nothing to him or them.

And don't believe for a second he hasn't voted dimocrat in years. Lefty lies. It's what they do.
Click to expand...


Nope I just love the constitution and hate to see it being eroded due to piss poor nominations.
 
afella said:
I dont care. And didnt care about that. As far as I was concerned he was innocent until proven guilty.

So I looked at the facts. The facts point point to kavanaugh being a remnant of the Bush white house and a key architect of the patriot act and warentless meta data collection of US citizens.

His support for the suppression of the 4th and 5th amendment was more than enough reason for me to oppose his nomination and confirmation. We all lost as US citizens because of his confirmation.

Trump showed his true colors with his nomonation. Just like Obama and Bush did.
Click to expand...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide

Order in Klayman v. Obama, No. 15-5307 (D.C. Circuit Nov. 20, 2015) (per curiam) (concurrence)

In a brief concurrence to an order denying a request for rehearing en banc, Kavanaugh expressed his view that the metadata collection program then authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. He indicated that the collection of such information from third parties, such as telecommunications companies, does not constitute a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes under relevant Supreme Court precedent. Even if it did, Kavanaugh argued, such collection would be justified under the “special need” exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements due to the “critically important special need” of preventing terrorist attacks on the United States.

United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Circuit 2010) (en banc) (dissent)

In Jones, Kavanaugh joined a dissent arguing that the government’s warrantless use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to track an individual’s vehicle was not a Fourth Amendment violation under the Supreme Court’s precedent in United States v. Knotts. He wrote separately, however, to posit that the government’s placement of the GPS device on the defendant’s car without a warrant could itself constitute a physical intrusion in violation of the Fourth Amendment violation. (Notably, in reviewing Jones, the Supreme Court—in an opinion written by Justice Scalia—adopted Kavanaugh’s approach.)
_______

sounds reasonable to me.
 
Marcus Aurelius said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide

Order in Klayman v. Obama, No. 15-5307 (D.C. Circuit Nov. 20, 2015) (per curiam) (concurrence)

In a brief concurrence to an order denying a request for rehearing en banc, Kavanaugh expressed his view that the metadata collection program then authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. He indicated that the collection of such information from third parties, such as telecommunications companies, does not constitute a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes under relevant Supreme Court precedent. Even if it did, Kavanaugh argued, such collection would be justified under the “special need” exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements due to the “critically important special need” of preventing terrorist attacks on the United States.

United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Circuit 2010) (en banc) (dissent)

In Jones, Kavanaugh joined a dissent arguing that the government’s warrantless use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to track an individual’s vehicle was not a Fourth Amendment violation under the Supreme Court’s precedent in United States v. Knotts. He wrote separately, however, to posit that the government’s placement of the GPS device on the defendant’s car without a warrant could itself constitute a physical intrusion in violation of the Fourth Amendment violation. (Notably, in reviewing Jones, the Supreme Court—in an opinion written by Justice Scalia—adopted Kavanaugh’s approach.)
_______

sounds reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

His position sounds very unreasonable to me. Then again I'm on the fringe, I dont see a major threat to our country from anything we could face right now. I value freedom to be far greater than any minuscule gain we achieve by suppressing it for security.

I disagree with his position and always will.
 
afella said:
His position sounds very unreasonable to me. Then again I'm on the fringe, I dont see a major threat to our country from anything we could face right now. I value freedom to be far greater than any minuscule gain we achieve by suppressing it for security.

I disagree with his position and always will.
Click to expand...
As is your right. Difference between me an the most of the left, is that most of them would tell me I am going to hell for disagreeing with them.
 
afella said:
Nope I just love the constitution and hate to see it being eroded due to piss poor nominations.
Click to expand...
Too funny.

This man is a strict constitutionalist. That's EXACTLY why he was nominated. If you truly "love" the Constitution then you'd be thrilled he was seated. But.......as we know leftists like you are not honest. You can't even be honest on this subject.

Name one single verdict or opinion he rendered that was "piss poor".......in your esteemed opinion.

Better yet find us a verdict or opinion that he rendered that somehow violates the Constitution, Mr. Constitution lover.
 
Jen said:
And never forget:

44763663_2115858452061861_4808154267976204288_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I was voting mostly democrat this time until THIS happened.

I was enraged that Democrats went after this good man. They screwed up. Vote against the "me-too" movement.

Stay away from social issues. Vote for fiscal responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top