PDA

View Full Version : Should Kavanaugh hire Hillary Clinton to trash his accuser?



genglandoh
09-16-2018, 06:40 PM
After all Hillary has the most experience.

S.V. Airlie
09-16-2018, 06:55 PM
Asking really bizarre questions again I see Geng!

ljb5
09-16-2018, 06:56 PM
You once wrote a post about the example you want to set for your three boys.

Is this really it?

LeeG
09-16-2018, 07:23 PM
obviously we should wait for the will of the people

SMARTINSEN
09-16-2018, 07:31 PM
Geng with a hit and run troll. No interest in honest discussion, just one more example of the endless bad faith of the Republicans.

Sad.

Hugh Conway
09-16-2018, 07:41 PM
Like his hero Donald Trump has a stupid tweet for every future occasion, Geng has a stupid thread for every future occasion.

Paul Pless
09-16-2018, 07:55 PM
Sad.bigly

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 08:06 PM
Aren't the Clintons on a Trump Party retainer already?

Jimmy W
09-16-2018, 09:41 PM
Many are saying that Trump is already working on getting 130 Gs to her.

skuthorp
09-17-2018, 12:03 AM
Can he find another dodgy lawyer…………….. Huh, of course he can………….

Garret
09-17-2018, 05:30 AM
If he wants to hire someone good at wrongly trashing people, he should hire Bannon.

However, looking at his views, he doesn't need any help trashing people or the legal system.

Tom Montgomery
09-17-2018, 08:20 AM
This is an example of why I have him on my ignore list.

LeeG
09-17-2018, 09:03 AM
Kavanaugh’s one abortion case.



https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/brett-kavanaughs-one-abortion-case

In October 2017, I went to court to stop the Trump administration from blocking a young immigrant from obtaining an abortion. She had crossed into the United States the month before and discovered she was pregnant soon after. She never had any doubt about what she wanted to do. But the Trump administration had other plans for her.

Her plea, which I relayed to a three-judge appeals panel, was: “Please stop delaying my decision any longer.” That panel included Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and her plea went unheeded.

In the only abortion case heard by President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh issued a decision that would have forced Jane to further delay her abortion, almost a full month after she first sought it. Ultimately, the full appeals court reversed his decision, ending the government’s obstruction in the dramatic case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/columnists/kavanaugh-abortion-roe-v-wade-trump.html

Shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump, uniquely attentive to his debt to the religious right, appointed the anti-abortion activist E. Scott Lloyd to head the Office of Refugee Resettlement, despite Lloyd’s lack of relevant experience. The position gave Lloyd authority over unaccompanied minors caught crossing into the United States, authority Lloyd exploited to try to stop pregnant migrants from getting abortions.

Last year, thanks to Lloyd’s interference, a 17-year-old from Central America had to wage a legal battle to end her pregnancy. Known in court filings as Jane Doe, the girl learned she was pregnant while in custody in Texas, and was adamant that she wanted an abortion. In keeping with Texas’s parental consent law, she obtained a judge’s permission, helped by a legal organization called Jane’s Due Process. Jane’s Due Process raised money for the abortion, which was scheduled for the end of her first trimester.

But under Lloyd’s direction, the shelter where she was being detained refused to cooperate. Doe went back to court, and a federal judge ruled in her favor, issuing a temporary restraining order against the government. The administration appealed, and the case, Garza v. Hargan, went to a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. One of the judges was Brett Kavanaugh.
.
.
We shouldn’t expect a Trump nominee, however personally decent his friends say he is, to care about women’s wishes. Kavanaugh’s defenders insist that he’s the sort of judge any Republican would appoint, and they are correct. Still, it’s a particularly bitter insult that women stand to lose reproductive autonomy thanks to the minority presidential victory of a louche misogynist.

Politicians sometimes say that they are personally opposed to abortion, but believe it should be legal. Trump and some of his enablers reverse that formulation.

The president, who does not, according to two of his lovers, wear condoms, has declined to say whether he’s ever been involved with an abortion. According to court papers unsealed on Friday, Elliott Broidy, former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, also refused to wear condoms during sex with his mistress, Shera Bechard, then demanded she get an abortion when she became pregnant. According to the unsealed papers, Broidy admired Trump’s “uncanny ability to sexually abuse woman and get away with it.”

Duncan Gibbs
09-17-2018, 09:07 AM
I find the notion that anyone could possibly joke about rape sickening.

Geng' should hold his head low in utter shame, and beg our collective forgiveness for such an unchristian and putrid attempt at humour.