Kavanaugh hearing once again in question as Christine Ford raises new concerns

[Highmark]

Just as expected.   She'll never testify.    

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-hearing-once-again-in-doubt-as-christine-ford-raises-new-concerns.html

[Rod]

Never under oath. I doubt she will at all. 

[Guest]

A three-ring circus. America sucks. 

[T1R9sledder]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Just as expected.   She'll never testify.    

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-hearing-once-again-in-doubt-as-christine-ford-raises-new-concerns.html

 

Always evolving story....pretty soon there 2 more accusers one from grade school and one nursery school....pretty soon the Dems will say Kavanaugh exposed himself to little girls when he was 1. He was running around with the other  kids without his diaper on.

[hwytohell]

I would expect another braying barnyard load to be put into the dem manure spreader for the  fields of the me(d)ia before Thursday.

[$poorsledder$]

delay, delay delay.......

[f7ben]

7 minutes ago, $poorsledder$ said:

delay, delay delay.......

This is a good thing

[Carlos Danger]

I think she maybe a bit squirrelly. In her defense the Dems in the Senate hung her out to dry.

[Mainecat]

[T1R9sledder]

8 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Thank you for your originality

[Highmark]

When back against the wall throw out sexual abuse allegations.....when you are really fucked bring in the N word.   That's coming in the next few days.  

[SnowRider]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

When back against the wall throw out sexual abuse allegations.....when you are really fucked bring in the N word.   That's coming in the next few days.  

And you know she is lying how....?? 

[Highmark]

 

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

And you know she is lying how....?? 

and you know she is not how? 

lets see 1 is willing to testify with no list of demands the other well not so much 

[Highmark]

14 hours ago, SnowRider said:

And you know she is lying how....?? 

Deductive reasoning, inference and common sense.

Dems held it back and leaked it to use her.

Never came forward in other prominent positions he was confirmed for.

No corroborating witness'.   ZERO.

She's a known Liberal with an agenda.

She wrote articles for a company that produces a abortion pill.

Can't remember basic facts like location.   Even said she didn't know what year but claimed she was 15.   Maybe she's just too stupid to know what year it was when she was 15.  

Dems won't turn over letter to Feinstein.

Story is different than what therapists notes say.

Said she would testify then changed her mind and made demands to cause further delays.  

Erased her entire social media footprint.

 

 

  

Edited September 26, 2018 by Highmark

[Skidooski]

[Snake]

15 hours ago, f7ben said:

This is a good thing

Read one sentence in an opinion and thinks he knows the man's ideals.

[f7ben]

5 minutes ago, Snake said:

Read one sentence in an opinion and thinks he knows the man's ideals.

When that one sentence can be summed up as....

"When faced with boogeymen who scare us I am perfectly willing to circumvent your rights for the illusion of safety."

 

That's all I need to know

....hes unfit

Edited September 26, 2018 by f7ben

[Highmark]

17 minutes ago, f7ben said:

When that one sentence can be summed up as....

"When faced with boogeymen who scare us I am perfectly willing to circumvent your rights for the illusion of safety."

 

That's all I need to know

....hes unfit

Can you point out the opinion that says or paraphrased it like that?

[f7ben]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Can you point out the opinion that says or paraphrased it like that?

I already did

[racer254]

3 hours ago, Snake said:

Read one sentence in an opinion and thinks he knows the man's ideals.

Even if he realizes that he may have went off the deep with this, he will never admit it.  I asked him plenty of times about it and he hasn't come up with any actual rulings by Kavanaugh.

[Highmark]

49 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I already did

So have I.   I agreed with him in almost every instance.   You have to remember ruling is not always what it seems.   The details must be looked at.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/

A roughly similar dynamic occurred with Kavanaugh’s dissent from denial of rehearing in United States v. Maynard, later reviewed by the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. Investigators placed a GPS device on the suspect’s car and tracked its location for 28 days. In an astonishing opinion for the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg created the “mosaic theory” by which the monitoring was not a search at first but over time became a search because the government collected a search-like amount of information. The en banc D.C. Circuit denied the petition for rehearing 5-4. Kavanaugh joined Sentelle’s dissent from denial of rehearing, which argued that the panel opinion was inconsistent with Supreme Court and other circuits’ precedents and deserved en banc review.

The most interesting part of Kavanaugh’s approach to Maynard is that he wrote a brief separate dissent that flagged an alternative ground for ruling that a search occurred. Maybe it was the installation of the GPS that was a search, Kavanaugh suggested, rather than its use. Fourth Amendment caselaw before Katz v. United States had held that physical intrusion onto property was a search. If that caselaw was still valid – “and I see no indication that it is not,” Kavanaugh added – then installing the GPS device could be a search because it was an unauthorized physical encroachment on to the property of the suspect’s car. “I do not yet know whether I agree with that conclusion,” Kavanaugh wrote, “but it is an important and close question” deserving en banc review. When the government petitioned for certiorari, the lawyers for the defense added Kavanaugh’s theory as a second question presented in their brief in opposition.

The Supreme Court took up Kavanaugh’s suggestion. The justices granted certiorari under the name United States v. Jones on the Fourth Amendment implications of both installing the GPS device and its use. The majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia essentially adopted Kavanaugh’s approach. Installing a GPS was deemed a search because the installation trespassed on to the car. Jones sharply changed Fourth Amendment blackletter law by recognizing two different ways of establishing a search: the Katz test and the pre-Katz trespass test that Kavanaugh had proposed. To be sure, Kavanaugh’s view didn’t come from nowhere. There had been something of a split on the question, and I agreed at the time that this should be the big question. But Kavanaugh was the one who best articulated the theory and teed it up for the justices.

[f7ben]

Just now, racer254 said:

Even if he realizes that he may have went off the deep with this, he will never admit it.  I asked him plenty of times about it and he hasn't come up with any actual rulings by Kavanaugh.

You are dumb as fuck

[f7ben]

Here are his fucking words you morons...if you dont instantly recoil from this statement you are braindead or a bootlicker or both 

 

“In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program"

[racer254]

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

You are dumb as fuck

You know you are off the res on your opinion about Kavanaugh and the 4th.  But keep up the good fight. 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by racer254