Sign in to follow this  
chinabald

I thought Kavanaugh would be the end of PP

Recommended Posts

Clearly this was a canard to show people that Kav wasn't as misogynistic as he showed himself to be in the hearings...... Essentially throwing him a softball for his first test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news.

Shitstain is gonna be pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

And that is why the left keeps losing.

Missed the mid term results did you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Yeah still waiting on that blue wave. Did you find it?

+40 seats in the house. Whoosh. Surf's up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we are still funding PP is an indication of the failure of Obamacare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dog said:

That we are still funding PP is an indication of the failure of Obamacare.

I don't recall the Democrats or Obama stating that abolishing Planned Parenthood would be a key indicator of success on the legislation. Mind pointing that out for us?

Our healthcare is far cheaper and more successful for more people than yours... and yet the government still finds NGO's to provide healthcare services. Funny that. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dog said:

That we are still funding PP is an indication of the failure of Obamacare.

Really?
how so?
That would be like saying, that" insurance companies paying hospitals is an indication of the failure of Obamacare."

Farking idiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dog said:

That we are still funding PP is an indication of the failure of Obamacare.

Actually more of an indictment of Republican efforts to repeal or replace anything that dares give healthcare to average & poor people. 

Who knew? Paul Ryan raised the deficit and didn’t accomplish shit on signature issues. He was a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And back on topic after Dog's attempt to derail, this from the source article sums up the issue.

Quote

This move could indicate that Roberts and Kavanaugh are loath to take take up an abortion-related question in the aftermath of Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation. The Court’s new junior justice has generally kept a low profile since taking the bench in October

 

After all, they didn't set federal precedent with this. They simply let some jurisdictions continue with their local decision/precedent which they can override later when the heat dies down. The Republicans can & will force the issue in another circuit's court. There really isn't anything to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next up..... Bitch McConnell.....

 Bend over Mr. McConnell..... Your ass is ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Not guilty said:

Look beyond a few dozen House races, and it's clear there is no blue wave sweeping across the country, toppling Republican power from coast to coast with a historic surge of opposition to the president's party.  The Democrats ended up with a real and significant net gain in the House. But they lost several seats in the Senate — not to mention some painful gubernatorial losses in critical swing states like Ohio and Florida. The GOP is going to expand on its majority in the Senate, with Ted Cruz defeating Beto O'Rourke in Texas, Mike Braun prevailing over Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Marsha Blackburn taking down Phil Bredesen in Tennessee, and Josh Hawley trouncing Claire McCaskill in Missouri. In Florida, Republican Ron DeSantis prevailed over liberal Democrat Andrew Gillum. In Ohio, Republican Mike DeWine won his contest with Democrat Richard Cordray.

Far less than Republicans won while Democrats held the presidency in 1994, 54 seats or 2010, 63 seats. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTFdxItaE5f5o_pZVZRk5

Who mentioned a blue wave? You claimed that ‘the left’ keep losing and I have simply pointed out that you are factually incorrect and that your red hats lost the house, and this is the first step towards your mushroom dicked lying POS President losing his freedom. Hopefully shortly after that he will lose his ass cherry in the shower block. You of course happily gave yours away playing the pig on the spit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 Hopefully shortly after that he will lose his ass cherry in the shower block.

That's a faint hope - even a gay rapist murderer well into a life bit wouldn't be that horny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Trump is still your president and will continue to be after reelection in 2020. 

Fuck I love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Not guilty said:

Look beyond a few dozen House races, and it's clear there is no blue wave sweeping across the country, toppling Republican power from coast to coast with a historic surge of opposition to the president's party.  The Democrats ended up with a real and significant net gain in the House. But they lost several seats in the Senate — not to mention some painful gubernatorial losses in critical swing states like Ohio and Florida. The GOP is going to expand on its majority in the Senate, with Ted Cruz defeating Beto O'Rourke in Texas, Mike Braun prevailing over Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Marsha Blackburn taking down Phil Bredesen in Tennessee, and Josh Hawley trouncing Claire McCaskill in Missouri. In Florida, Republican Ron DeSantis prevailed over liberal Democrat Andrew Gillum. In Ohio, Republican Mike DeWine won his contest with Democrat Richard Cordray.

Far less than Republicans won while Democrats held the presidency in 1994, 54 seats or 2010, 63 seats. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTFdxItaE5f5o_pZVZRk5

You're supposed to credit a cut and paste, idiot. https://theweek.com/articles/806043/what-happened-democrats-blue-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Fuck I love this place.

Yeah - how stupid does NG have to be to not understand that you're an Australian?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's a faint hope - even a gay rapist murderer well into a life bit wouldn't be that horny.

There's just somthing about all that cottage cheese that I just couldn't get past...... Mentally.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah - how stupid does NG have to be to not understand that you're an Australian?

FKT

I'm not sure there is a lowest limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

Because I keep up where you retards live.

Wait. You support the Orange pussy grabber and you call ME a retard? Glass houses cupcake, glass houses. He is not MY president and he won’t be yours in 2020 either. He will be wearing an outfit the same colour as his complexion. And his won’t be the only butt hurting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

There's just somthing about all that cottage cheese that I just couldn't get past...... Mentally.....

image.png.786f6b526e62d6d424ef031c95d2cac4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I'm not sure there is a lowest limit. 

We need a survey to find the stupidest Trumpian on PA.

Then we will have a unit of measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at PJs with Squi lifting weights, what did I miss?  Not Guilty being an ass and getting that same ass handed to him?  So I missed nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP lawmakers call for autopsy on 'historic losses'

Source: The Hill

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) is calling on incoming House GOP campaigns chief Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and the rest of the leadership team to conduct an autopsy to find out what went wrong for Republicans in the disastrous 2018 midterms. 

In a “Dear Colleague” letter obtained by The Hill, Stefanik and other allies wrote Monday that the “disappointing results” of the November election “require an honest, transparent assessment of the structural operations and decision-making process that led to our party losing an historic number of seats.” 

The GOP, the lawmakers wrote, lost a number of seats in suburban and other areas that traditionally have backed Republican candidates. The number of female House Republicans will drop from 23 to just 13 next year. 

“We fell short across multiple demographics, including women, who represent a growing segment of America’s voting population,” Stefanik and others wrote. “Minimizing or ignoring the root causes behind these historic losses will lead us to repeat them.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/420651-gop-lawmakers-call-for-autopsy-on-historic-losses#.XA7gLY9RHWg.twitter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must be dumber than anyone thought if they need an autopsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

They must be dumber than anyone thought if they need an autopsy.

It's going to need some significant changes before the maggots eat the entire thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not guilty said:

Ahh so just another delusional libtard then? He will be in orange, like Hillary is going to win the election, he is going to be in orange, like he wouldn't make it through the first year, he will be in orange, like a blue wave, he will be in orange like Kavanaugh won't be on the SCOTUS, he will be in orange like Kavanaugh will destroy PP, he will be in orange like the repeal of the 2A, he will be in orange like the AWB... just let me know when you really really mean it this time.:rolleyes:

Or he will be in Orange like he promised Hillary would be? Or like many of his advisers now are? His revolving door administration has had more people leave than you have had identitys on here. But I can’t win. All the Aussie lefties in PA accuse me of being a extreme right winger, yet to you red caps I am a libtard. Tell me what do you admire most about him? His hair? His honesty? Maybe it’s his child like rants on Twitter? Or is it just that he banged one of your favourite actresses? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

GOP lawmakers call for autopsy on 'historic losses'

Source: The Hill

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) is calling on incoming House GOP campaigns chief Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and the rest of the leadership team to conduct an autopsy to find out what went wrong for Republicans in the disastrous 2018 midterms. 

In a “Dear Colleague” letter obtained by The Hill, Stefanik and other allies wrote Monday that the “disappointing results” of the November election “require an honest, transparent assessment of the structural operations and decision-making process that led to our party losing an historic number of seats.” 

The GOP, the lawmakers wrote, lost a number of seats in suburban and other areas that traditionally have backed Republican candidates. The number of female House Republicans will drop from 23 to just 13 next year. 

“We fell short across multiple demographics, including women, who represent a growing segment of America’s voting population,” Stefanik and others wrote. “Minimizing or ignoring the root causes behind these historic losses will lead us to repeat them.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/420651-gop-lawmakers-call-for-autopsy-on-historic-losses#.XA7gLY9RHWg.twitter 

And yet the shift wasn't that big compared to prior midterms.

Historic?  I guess so since it's a matter of record.

Bill Clinton lost 54 house and 10 senate seats in his first midterm.

Obama 63 house and 6 senate in his.

Trump lost 41 house and gained 2 senate.

Apparently every representative from NY is remarkably stupid regardless of party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

And yet the shift wasn't that big compared to prior midterms.

Historic?  I guess so since it's a matter of record.

Bill Clinton lost 54 house and 10 senate seats in his first midterm.

Obama 63 house and 6 senate in his.

Trump lost 41 house and gained 2 senate.

You guys just got fucked in the arse and all you can do is claim the guys dick wasn’t that big. Still I bet it made your eyes water...

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

And back on topic after Dog's attempt to derail, this from the source article sums up the issue.

 

After all, they didn't set federal precedent with this. They simply let some jurisdictions continue with their local decision/precedent which they can override later when the heat dies down. The Republicans can & will force the issue in another circuit's court. There really isn't anything to see here.

Or instead of editorializing and guessing the author could have pointed out that this is consistent with what kavanaugh said about abortion rights being settled law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Or instead of editorializing and guessing the author could have pointed out that this is consistent with what kavanaugh said about abortion rights being settled law. 

Which would have also been editorialising and guessing about why the case was rejected for consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You guys just got fucked in the arse and all you can do is claim the guys dick wasn’t that big. Still I bet it made your eyes water...

 

I love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You guys just got fucked in the arse and all you can do is claim the guys dick wasn’t that big. Still I bet it made your eyes water...

 

You know how to make a u-turn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Or instead of editorializing and guessing the author could have pointed out that this is consistent with what kavanaugh said about abortion rights being settled law. 

Except that the case has nothing to do with the feds paying for abortions, because they DONT. The case is whether the state can shut down a Medicaid provider of women’s health services (not including abortion.)

You’re usually not one of the dumb ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in court enough to know that sometimes judges get inconveniently boxed in by the facts. It frustrates their efforts to contort the ruling for less-than-honorable purposes. That was the revered, however dubious, skill of Scalia: the ability to loudly proudly spew a fancy word salad justification for his often freed-from-the-facts rulings. Kavanaugh lacks that skill. Perhaps because of alcohol damaged brain functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Except that the case has nothing to do with the feds paying for abortions, because they DONT. The case is whether the state can shut down a Medicaid provider of women’s health services (not including abortion.)

You’re usually not one of the dumb ones.

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

Still early and K may not be out the woods yet.  Be careful about premature exhilaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

What, and drop all the anti-abortion voters who flock to the Team R! banner?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

Isn't that why you rightwingers were so happy you got him? He'd eliminate abortion? Are you saying you got conned?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Still early and K may not be out the woods yet.  Be careful about premature exhilaration.

I get the feeling that Chief Justice Roberts has already kicked Justice Gorsuch in the nuts and told him to behave or else, and Boofer Boy may have wised up first thing. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, if nothing else. Aside from that, it's in Team R!s interest (as I pointed out earlier) to keep the abortion issue a hot-button rather than "solve the problem."

I admit, had doubts about Roberts when he was appointed, and I don't agree with everything he's said/done, but he's been a good Chief Justice and one of the factors holding the USA together instead of tring to pull it apart. Big +

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

PP is a medical provider of services. You know, pap smears, that sort of thing. What does that have to do with "women's rights"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

PP is a medical provider of services. You know, pap smears, that sort of thing. What does that have to do with "women's rights"?

Being the nations #1 provider of abortions somehow equates with women’s rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Isn't that why you rightwingers were so happy you got him? He'd eliminate abortion? Are you saying you got conned?

Nope. I 100% believed him when he said what he said about settled law. As a social moderate I’m not unhappy with this. Personally I think reversing Roe V Wade would be wrong. I don’t like abortion but I recognize that that ship has sailed and to over turn it would be a mistake. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yup, you are a "social moderate".

Doesn’t mean I have to fall for every canard the left uses when discussing abortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chinabald said:
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

PP is a medical provider of services. You know, pap smears, that sort of thing. What does that have to do with "women's rights"?

Being the nations #1 provider of abortions somehow equates with women’s rights. 

Planned Parenthood (if it is indeed true) not the #1 provider of abortions because that's what they want to do.

It's because every doctor willing to perform an abortion is a target of bible-thumper terrorists, and many of them just give up

-DSK

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

You are unable to distinguish between an error and a lie?

Why am I not surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

You are unable to distinguish between an error and a lie?

Why am I not surprised?

What error? The thousands of protesters who held up signs saying he would take away their rights. That error? How did that many people make the same error without someone having lied to them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chinabald said:

What error? The thousands of protesters who held up signs saying he would take away their rights. That error? How did that many people make the same error without someone having lied to them. 

And the thousands of right to life protesters were... lying? Have a go at the left assholes if it makes you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Planned Parenthood (if it is indeed true) not the #1 provider of abortions because that's what they want to do.

It's because every doctor willing to perform an abortion is a target of bible-thumper terrorists, and many of them just give up

-DSK

Also consolidation of medial services, a health industry trend of a couple decades now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And the thousands of right to life protesters were... lying? Have a go at the left assholes if it makes you feel better.

Were there right to life protesters saying he was going to end abortion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

Were there right to life protesters saying he was going to end abortion? 

lead_720_405.jpg

obviously not. with all those nicely printed signs they look as "grass roots" as "women for Kavanaugh".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chinabald said:

Being the nations #1 provider of abortions somehow equates with women’s rights. 

And has nothing to do with the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

These guys?

SJM-L-KAVREACT-1007-03.jpg

kavanaugh.jpg

29372417567_f9922fd673_b.jpg

HandmaidsProtestKavanaugh_810_500_75_s_c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if the case was about abortion. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

razr and razr others account are breaking down because Kavanaugh ended up not being the person they thought and now they can't admittt they are wrong. Poor poor libtards, I hope you get the help you need.

Kavanaugh is not the sort of man I'd want dating my daughter, and he will have plenty of time to erode personal rights. Give him a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not guilty said:

And again, like Trump was never getting elected, Kavanaugh was not getting on SCOTUS, like the blue wave,like Trump not making it a year? Keep crying wolf, we will keep laughing at you.

I'm sure you're disappointed. Although it's hard to figure why since the case had nothing to do with abortion.  You'll have another shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

lead_720_405.jpg

obviously not. with all those nicely printed signs they look as "grass roots" as "women for Kavanaugh".

I guess there were protesters on both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not guilty said:

Disappointed about what? RvsW is settled. I'm pretty happy.

Image this case had something to do with RvsW. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not guilty said:

WEll it does, but don't let facts get in the way of your anger. Don't you have some clouds to yell at?

What would I be angry about? I'll just point out your idiocy and go about my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

You seem to be angry with your life. Maybe you made some poor decisions? Maybe didn't get the love and attention you needed? That is why you come on the internet and release your rage against the people holding you back the right wing that is winning, the Rs that are beating the dumbocraps, the conservatives that are taking over the country while the little cry baby liberals whine about their "feels"

If ya got a point?  Make it - the baseless personal attacks undermine the utterer's credibility.   Flash says plenty enough of substance that you shouldn't have to resort to baseless BS personal shit to diminish his message. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I guess there were protesters on both sides. 

Yeah, I guess there were.  Abortion is one of those 50/50 issues depending on how the issue is raised.  Both sides get to bring it up but there is seldom any change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

It's the internet, he can grow a pair or he can go yell at clouds. I made my point and he thought he was going to discredit it with...

No proof or bases that I was disappointed, if he can't put his big boy pants on, then he should not get in the game.

Hey shit-slinger, show me where this non-acceptance of an appeal has anything to do with abortion. From the WaPo. Highlight is mine:
 

The cases, which the court has been pondering since September, have to do with whether individual Medicaid recipients who receive services from providers such as Planned Parenthood have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding to the providers.

 

Five regional courts of appeal have said they do, while one has said they do not. That is the kind of split that normally prompts the Supreme Court to act.

“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’ ” Thomas wrote.

Louisiana and Kansas, the two states at issue in the cases before the court, announced plans to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid after an antiabortion group released videos in 2015 it said showed Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of fetal tissue.

Planned Parenthood denied the allegations, saying the videos were heavily edited, misleading and discredited.

The organization sued in federal court, joined by individuals who said the efforts to cut funding violated a federal law that gives Medicaid patients the right to seek service from the accredited providers they choose.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, ruling in the Kansas case, said states have power in deciding which providers to fund. But “states may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the health care it provides,” a panel ruled.

The state asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling. “We regret today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that it fell one vote short of taking our case against Planned Parenthood,” Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) said in a statement.

Thomas mentioned the videos in his dissent.

“It is true that these particular cases arose after several states alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider,” Thomas wrote


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not guilty said:

awww you poor angry fella. Kavanaugh didn't go against PP like you "knew" he was going to do, now you scream at the clouds because you were wrong. I hope you get the help you need.

Wow, you really are divorced from reality. Sux to be you. Maybe if you laid off the steady diet of Dan Bongino you'd get some oxygen to that brain of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

awww you poor angry fella. Kavanaugh didn't go against PP like you "knew" he was going to do, now you scream at the clouds because you were wrong. I hope you get the help you need.

That it was PP is not pertinent to the decision - the question was about how/when/why States may defund payments to a medical provider.   In deciding not to hear the case, the Supremes decided that the lower courts were correct.

Flash is right in this case, though hearing Planned Parenthood and Abortion are sure ways to get people on both sides up in arms about things.  I think It's also accurate to say that Kavanaugh, if he did want to overturn Roe V Wade, could have voted differently.  This decision seems to indicate his respect for precedent and jurisprudence.  

I'll be happy if the ugliness of the confirmation was an anomaly - and that the *real* Kavanaugh is like the careful judge that his past behavior on the bench indicates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

I'll be happy if the ugliness of the confirmation was an anomaly - and that the *real* Kavanaugh is like the careful judge that his past behavior on the bench indicates. 

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why everyone is so amazed by this..I've only skimmed a few articles, but it would seem that this decision has nothing to do with abortion rights. Why wouldn't neo conservatives support funding for the vast majority of the services PP provides ?...an NGO that keeps the welfare bill down. 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/why-did-brett-kavanaugh-side-with-planned-parenthood.html

"But pro-choice advocates are reluctant to read too much into Kavanaugh’s vote. “I don’t think this is a harbinger of what’s to come,” says the ACLU’s Brigitte Amiri. “To the extent that people are saying that this shows where the Supreme Court, newly configured, is going to be on access to abortion questions, this case does not present that.”

That’s because the two cases the court declined to hear involve interpretations of Medicaid law, not the right to access an abortion or how states can regulate it. They involve challenges to moves in Kansas and Louisiana, among many other states, to prevent Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I don't know why everyone is so amazed by this..I've only skimmed a few articles, but it would seem that this decision has nothing to do with abortion rights. Why wouldn't neo conservatives support funding for the vast majority of the services PP provides ?...an NGO that keeps the welfare bill down. 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/why-did-brett-kavanaugh-side-with-planned-parenthood.html

"But pro-choice advocates are reluctant to read too much into Kavanaugh’s vote. “I don’t think this is a harbinger of what’s to come,” says the ACLU’s Brigitte Amiri. “To the extent that people are saying that this shows where the Supreme Court, newly configured, is going to be on access to abortion questions, this case does not present that.”

That’s because the two cases the court declined to hear involve interpretations of Medicaid law, not the right to access an abortion or how states can regulate it. They involve challenges to moves in Kansas and Louisiana, among many other states, to prevent Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services"

Spot on.

Wait for Dabs-Lite to chime in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chinabald said:

Sorry but we were told Kavanaugh would be the vote that eliminated women’s rights and the first chance he had to do chip away at them.  He didn’t. Someone was lying to us. 

No, someone took into account that he wants to keep his job and so took the next best option of delaying a decision on that matter until the heat over how he was appointed died down. It would be one thing if he accepted the case and then voted against the states. He didn't, he punted the decision down the road for better times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

No, someone took into account that he wants to keep his job and so took the next best option of delaying a decision on that matter until the heat over how he was appointed died down. It would be one thing if he accepted the case and then voted against the states. He didn't, he punted the decision down the road for better times. 

He has the job. For life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chinabald said:

He has the job. For life. 

And he can be fired through impeachment. You do know that right?

Provoking an investigation from Democrats that uncovers more than the explicitly limited FBI one into his past might trigger one. I can understand not wanting to poke that bear so soon after slapping it in the face. You're understanding is generally lacking, so I'm not surprised it's beyond you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And he can be fired through impeachment. You do know that right?

Provoking an investigation from Democrats that uncovers more than the explicitly limited FBI one into his past might trigger one. I can understand not wanting to poke that bear so soon after slapping it in the face. You're understanding is generally lacking, so I'm not surprised it's beyond you.

Do you think there will be a super majority of the senate to fire him? 

Do you think it’s appropriate to begin impeachment on  a justice based on his/her decisions? You are suggesting this. 

BTW it’s your not you’re. I don’t typically correct grammar but when someone tries to act like they are intellectually superior. Well they get what’s coming.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chinabald said:

Do you think there will be a super majority of the senate to fire him? 

In two years time, if he provokes the Democratic voters by trying to repeal or drastically limit women's rights through the courts after his controversial appointment by Trump, I see it as a distinct possibility. Especially as I don't believe all Republicans would vote in lock-step against impeaching someone an investigation shows to have lied about his past sexual assaults (you know, the trigger for said impeachment process).

 

1 minute ago, chinabald said:

Do you think it’s appropriate to begin impeachment on  a justice based on his/her decisions? You are suggesting this. 

No, nor did I suggest that. I stated that provoking Democrats at this point would likely trigger a deeper investigation into the allegations that came to light during Senate interviews after he was nominated. If that investigation bore fruit, that would be the trigger for impeachment. You need to actually read what's written rather than imagine up arguments to battle against. You'll look just that little bit less stupid.

 

1 minute ago, chinabald said:

 BTW it’s your not you’re. I don’t typically correct grammar but when someone tries to act like they are intellectually superior. Well they get what’s coming.  

BTW, there is a comma after "Well" and before "they". I don't normally correct grammar, but when an idiot tries it on and then fucks up in the very next sentence.... well, they get what's coming to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That it was PP is not pertinent to the decision - the question was about how/when/why States may defund payments to a medical provider.   In deciding not to hear the case, the Supremes decided that the lower courts were correct.

Leaving a split circuit situation alone can't be deciding both sides of the split are correct, nor either of them. It's just leaving a split alone.

11 hours ago, chinabald said:

Being the nations #1 provider of abortions somehow equates with women’s rights. 

Yes. When people don't like the exercise of a right, they often attack those who provide or enable it somehow rather than those actually exercising it, who are usually quite numerous voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How can you take that poster seriously? NG regularly pegs the irony stupidity meter.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That it was PP is not pertinent to the decision - the question was about how/when/why States may defund payments to a medical provider.   In deciding not to hear the case, the Supremes decided that the lower courts were correct.

 Leaving a split circuit situation alone can't be deciding both sides of the split are correct, nor either of them. It's just leaving a split alone.

This. As much as it pains me to give Tom fuel, Clarence Thomas nailed it in his dissent - this was punted due to the politics of who the parties were. Certain folks didn't like how this would look / play out in the media and so punted the inevitable revisiting of the issue later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 6:58 PM, SloopJonB said:

They must be dumber than anyone thought if they need an autopsy.

Yeah, it was called a "Midterm".

Quote

Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races,[6][7][8] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergateelections of 1974.[8] This left Republicans in control of 26 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Tell me about that "Blue wave" again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 7:23 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

soreass lying and trolling for attention. sad little soreass.

I'm sorry raz'r..... What is he lying about?  Are you disputing the numbers for Bill and Barry's midterms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 1:59 PM, chinabald said:

I was told that Kavanaugh would set a woman’s right to choose back to the Stone Age. 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/10/planned-parenthood-kavanaugh/

Sorry, Philly, but this post is way funnier as a response here.

On 12/20/2018 at 6:23 PM, phillysailor said:

This is the penalty American women will pay for the histrionics of Lindsay Graham and the perfidy of Kavanaugh’s tears for squiggy and Lerp or whoever  his calendar buddies were. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this