SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
18
60%
No
12
40%
 
Total votes : 30

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:45 am

Zarniwoop wrote:if the last few posts in this thread are read on a computer in the forest will they appear as dumb as they do now?

would it matter if a tree fell down next to the computer?

or on it?

My problem with the attitude displayed by GOP'ers and said on television by our President, is that there seems to be a disconnect happening that says inability to prove guilt means innocence is proven and the accuser is fair game for whatever attacks we feel like levying.

I don't know that she was lying. I don't know that he was lying. I count the case as unresolved. I guess that stance is seen as crazy now.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:49 am

Ken Carson wrote:Cannot believe this was not a Babeinbucland post.

It’s fine if you believe Ford, despite the lack of evidence. I have always maintained it is completely possible that it happened just as she stated.

I'm not taking her side. I'm saying the public reaction to his confirmation by Trump is to say this PROVES his innocence and that she made the whole thing up. I don't agree with that sentiment because IF it did happen, that's just adding a lot of insult to injury.

Read into it however you want though.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:53 am

I really do not see the point of continuing all this. He's now been sworn in twice and will be on the SCOTUS until he either dies or retires, so continuing this argument and trading speculation is pointless.

Image
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14751
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 673 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:12 am

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Cannot believe this was not a Babeinbucland post.

It’s fine if you believe Ford, despite the lack of evidence. I have always maintained it is completely possible that it happened just as she stated.

I'm not taking her side. I'm saying the public reaction to his confirmation by Trump is to say this PROVES his innocence and that she made the whole thing up. I don't agree with that sentiment because IF it did happen, that's just adding a lot of insult to injury.

Read into it however you want though.

My issue is that you attributed that to every Republican because the president said that. And there are Democrats and Independents who believe Kavanaugh (CNN polls had 13% of Democrats who believed Kavanaugh), so what do you do with those?

It’s not helpful.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:15 am

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:if the last few posts in this thread are read on a computer in the forest will they appear as dumb as they do now?

would it matter if a tree fell down next to the computer?

or on it?

My problem with the attitude displayed by GOP'ers and said on television by our President, is that there seems to be a disconnect happening that says inability to prove guilt means innocence is proven and the accuser is fair game for whatever attacks we feel like levying.

I don't know that she was lying. I don't know that he was lying. I count the case as unresolved. I guess that stance is seen as crazy now.

Again, you are painting with a broad bleeping brush. Lots of people on the right have called out Trump and said he shouldn’t be commenting like that. So how is that you make his comments reflective of the entire group?

Many people covered by your earlier statement who agree with you.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:29 am

Word coming down that Nikki Haley resigned. Will be interesting to see if this is somehow connected to the way Trump discussed the situation or if it's a completely separate issue.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:08 am

NavyBuc wrote:Word coming down that Nikki Haley resigned. Will be interesting to see if this is somehow connected to the way Trump discussed the situation or if it's a completely separate issue.

Probably nothing. There's so much tom foolery in this administration that at least some of these resignations have to just be people moving on.

We're so used to people resigning in disgrace these days that when somebody does, we all go "Oooo What did they do?"
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14751
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 673 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:29 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:Word coming down that Nikki Haley resigned. Will be interesting to see if this is somehow connected to the way Trump discussed the situation or if it's a completely separate issue.

Probably nothing. There's so much tom foolery in this administration that at least some of these resignations have to just be people moving on.

We're so used to people resigning in disgrace these days that when somebody does, we all go "Oooo What did they do?"


I think Lindsay Graham is eyeing the AG spot, which would explain his recent shift to more of Trump-backer in the past few weeks (even before the BK stuff).

Haley would be a natural replacement for his Senate seat since Haley was the former Governor of South Carolina.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13765
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 556 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:53 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Probably nothing. There's so much tom foolery in this administration that at least some of these resignations have to just be people moving on.

We're so used to people resigning in disgrace these days that when somebody does, we all go "Oooo What did they do?"


I think Lindsay Graham is eyeing the AG spot, which would explain his recent shift to more of Trump-backer in the past few weeks (even before the BK stuff).

Haley would be a natural replacement for his Senate seat since Haley was the former Governor of South Carolina.

Whatever gets Graham out of the Senate sooner is fine with me.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14751
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 673 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:54 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.


lol fair warning, this is a pretty vulgar post:

bro. here's the thing. I can tell you, back in my Halo-playing, mountain dew drinking, high school days, we used to joke on and on and on about "Eiffel towering" a girl, or "tea bagging" people, or giving a girl an "arabian gas mask", or doing a "dale earnhardt", or a "harry houdini" - all 20 or so of us that regularly hung out - probably said/used those terms in the thousands. How many times do you think any of us actually did ANY of that? You know the answer: ZERO. Zero freaking times did any of us actually do any of the ridiculous crude sexual acts that we, as 14-19 year old boys, regularly joked about every day. Zero. But we joked about it EVERY. DAMN. DAY. It was the type of **** that was so prevalent in our retarded (pardon me, BIBL, but its a very apt description of our mindset) late-teen lexicon. And every. Last. Bit of it. Was bullshit. Its all inside jokes. Its all fake, posturing, BULLSHIT. And EVERYONE talked like that in high school. Everyone. We knew because you'd get on Halo online and talk ****, and every other dude our age is saying the same dumb bullshit. We'd go visit our buddy that lived in a different state, once we got to college, and these dumbasses used the exact same type of bullshit language, and just like us, it was allllll bullshit! You think any of us (who were decent at pulling tail in our own right) had ANY ability to pull off a threesome!? I mean what an astronomical ridiculous notion that any of us were suave enough to pull that **** off, that any girl would do that with us - but we sure as **** talked like we did. And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!? LOL

This isn't some freakin revelation. To all the 20 year old+ guys out there white-knighting about this ****: you've either completely blacked out 5-10 years of your memory, or you're being completely disingenuous, or you were part of some incredible minority of guys that I still have yet to meet in person (who seem to only exist on the internet), who never talked like that in their late teens - or you were an INCREDIBLY sheltered christian kid (maybe 5% of the guys out there?). The rest is fake ass pearl clutching (thanks, whoever said that term a couple pages back, its perfect)

I mean, give me a fuckin break about all this...

You seem to have totally missed my point. I agree with this for the most part. If **** was inside jokes about sexual acts don't lie about it. He's supposed to be the highest authority in the land when it comes to proving the truth and/in the law. He's telling lies IN THE PROCESS of trying to prove that he's fit for the job. That is disqualifying for me.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:56 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
well we all know you're a saint, Buc2


a cocaine dealing, DAS-bombing saint


I agree with your premise beard. I too said many of those things and worse. I've successfully completed some as well, but my point about him lying was not that he had done them or that he was a predator for saying stuff, but the he was withholding the truth about blacking out, what those terms were, the amount he parties, etc. When I mentioned it after the case I was referring to the fact that he did technically lie, but none of it can be really proven.

I understand why he didn't say, "My friends and I would use those terms because they were funny"... to garner, "You think sexually assault is funny". etc. Obviously he's blacked out multiple times, to argue otherwise is incredibly naive (stop dread), but that doesn't mean he committed assault just because he did. Some have an issue with him not being completely truthful in general.

^^This is my point
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:07 pm

deltbucs wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
lol fair warning, this is a pretty vulgar post:

bro. here's the thing. I can tell you, back in my Halo-playing, mountain dew drinking, high school days, we used to joke on and on and on about "Eiffel towering" a girl, or "tea bagging" people, or giving a girl an "arabian gas mask", or doing a "dale earnhardt", or a "harry houdini" - all 20 or so of us that regularly hung out - probably said/used those terms in the thousands. How many times do you think any of us actually did ANY of that? You know the answer: ZERO. Zero freaking times did any of us actually do any of the ridiculous crude sexual acts that we, as 14-19 year old boys, regularly joked about every day. Zero. But we joked about it EVERY. DAMN. DAY. It was the type of **** that was so prevalent in our retarded (pardon me, BIBL, but its a very apt description of our mindset) late-teen lexicon. And every. Last. Bit of it. Was bullshit. Its all inside jokes. Its all fake, posturing, BULLSHIT. And EVERYONE talked like that in high school. Everyone. We knew because you'd get on Halo online and talk ****, and every other dude our age is saying the same dumb bullshit. We'd go visit our buddy that lived in a different state, once we got to college, and these dumbasses used the exact same type of bullshit language, and just like us, it was allllll bullshit! You think any of us (who were decent at pulling tail in our own right) had ANY ability to pull off a threesome!? I mean what an astronomical ridiculous notion that any of us were suave enough to pull that **** off, that any girl would do that with us - but we sure as **** talked like we did. And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!? LOL

This isn't some freakin revelation. To all the 20 year old+ guys out there white-knighting about this ****: you've either completely blacked out 5-10 years of your memory, or you're being completely disingenuous, or you were part of some incredible minority of guys that I still have yet to meet in person (who seem to only exist on the internet), who never talked like that in their late teens - or you were an INCREDIBLY sheltered christian kid (maybe 5% of the guys out there?). The rest is fake ass pearl clutching (thanks, whoever said that term a couple pages back, its perfect)

I mean, give me a fuckin break about all this...

You seem to have totally missed my point. I agree with this for the most part. If **** was inside jokes about sexual acts don't lie about it. He's supposed to be the highest authority in the land when it comes to proving the truth and/in the law. He's telling lies IN THE PROCESS of trying to prove that he's fit for the job. That is disqualifying for me.

Just the fact that Trump nominated him is probably disqualifying for you. Just say it and be done.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:12 pm

Buc2 wrote:
deltbucs wrote:You seem to have totally missed my point. I agree with this for the most part. If **** was inside jokes about sexual acts don't lie about it. He's supposed to be the highest authority in the land when it comes to proving the truth and/in the law. He's telling lies IN THE PROCESS of trying to prove that he's fit for the job. That is disqualifying for me.

Just the fact that Trump nominated him is probably disqualifying for you. Just say it and be done.

^^^This guy :roll:

deltbucs wrote:I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part. I think it's bullshit to me that judges can be partisan to begin with. That said, I think the (R)'s should get to nominate their guy before the midterms. That said, **** this guy. What this hearing shows is that the truth isn't the most important thing to him. If he didn't sexual assault the woman, good. Let the facts prove it. Instead this guy is lying his ass off up there. I couldn't give a **** if he got blackout drunk and had a 3-some 50 years ago in high school, but don't ****ing lie about it...or ask if someone else has ever gotten blackout drunk. Again...I want the (R)'s to have a chance to confirm someone, but pick someone else. If you want to be on the Supreme Court, the truth should be of more importance to you.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 pm

SCOTUS is hearing arguments as to which cases to hear


Gorsuch and Sota making a great team against executive power


https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/09/gors ... ngress-for



I want to have Gorsuch’s babies

(No homo?)
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 302 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:49 pm

I love Gorsuch.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:00 am

I hear some Dems are jumping ship.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10458
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:15 am

mdb1958 wrote:I hear some Dems are jumping ship.

Can you scout some more small school DTs?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:37 am

Ken Carson wrote:
mdb1958 wrote:I hear some Dems are jumping ship.

Can you scout some more small school DTs?



Dont fret, I'm sure Libs will be able to homeschool and the private schooling will go whack.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10458
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Alpha » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:09 am

Buc2 wrote:Just the fact that Trump nominated him is probably disqualifying for you. Just say it and be done.


Screw that!

I'm shocked you were able to free your hand from jerking Drumph off, to type this "response".

Or maybe you're ambidextrous...or just blowing him. Whateves...
Alpha
 
Posts: 4235
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:58 am

Alpha wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Just the fact that Trump nominated him is probably disqualifying for you. Just say it and be done.


Screw that!

I'm shocked you were able to free your hand from jerking Drumph off, to type this "response".

Or maybe you're ambidextrous...or just blowing him. Whateves...

Get back in yer bottle.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:58 pm

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) on Thursday referred lawyer Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick — one of the women who accused now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of misconduct during his confirmation proceedings — to the Department of Justice for a criminal probe, alleging that they made “materially false” statements to Grassley’s committee as it investigated the allegations.

Swetnick said in a September affidavit that Kavanaugh attended a 1982 house party during which she says she was gang raped — an accusation Kavanaugh vehemently denied and said was from the “Twilight Zone.” Grassley said he is asking the Justice Department to look into whether Swetnick and Avenatti potentially conspired to give materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b252bc13c5
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:07 pm

Civil asset forfeiture case going before the SC in November based on a case out of Indiana where a man had his $42k Land Rover forfeit after pleading guilty to selling $240 worth of heroin. Indiana has a max penalty of $10k for the offense. The defense is arguing that the eigth amendment provides protections against such a penalty. This could be an interesting one.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:41 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Civil asset forfeiture case going before the SC in November based on a case out of Indiana where a man had his $42k Land Rover forfeit after pleading guilty to selling $240 worth of heroin. Indiana has a max penalty of $10k for the offense. The defense is arguing that the eigth amendment provides protections against such a penalty. This could be an interesting one.



If Gorsuch wasn't on the bench, it wouldn't be all that interesting...the other 3 R's have a long standing record of giving far too much power to local authorities in cases like these...I'm guessing Kavanaugh will be a big state guy too given his other rulings.


That isn't to say the decision won't be overturned (as I don't know the full details)...but the likelihood increases with Gorsuch.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 302 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:41 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Civil asset forfeiture case going before the SC in November based on a case out of Indiana where a man had his $42k Land Rover forfeit after pleading guilty to selling $240 worth of heroin. Indiana has a max penalty of $10k for the offense. The defense is arguing that the eigth amendment provides protections against such a penalty. This could be an interesting one.



If Gorsuch wasn't on the bench, it wouldn't be all that interesting...the other 3 R's have a long standing record of giving far too much power to local authorities in cases like these...I'm guessing Kavanaugh will be a big state guy too given his other rulings.


That isn't to say the decision won't be overturned (as I don't know the full details)...but the likelihood increases with Gorsuch.

Agreed. I'm hoping this one gets overturned because it's such an abuse of power.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:01 am

I had predicted this way back before Janus...it looks like it is coming to fruition:

June's Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) freed public sector workers from being required to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. It was kind of a big deal, and a single sentence in Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion hints at what might be the next major legal fight over American unionism. "The State may require that a union serve as exclusive bargaining agent for its employees," Alito wrote. He then called that arrangement "a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts."

...

There are already some relevant cases in the pipeline. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represented Mark Janus in his lawsuit, has two ongoing challenges to exclusive representation requirements in Minnesota and Washington state. Both plaintiffs argue their First Amendment right to freedom of association is being violated. According to Patrick Semmens, a vice president of the legal defense group, Alito's nod to the issue indeed "strengthens those cases."

In a post-Janus world, some unions might have an incentive to agree. One of the arguments AFSCME made against Janus was that releasing nonmembers from having to pay dues would create so-called "free riders"—workers who do not contribute to an association but are nonetheless protected by it, thanks to exclusive representation laws.

Allowing for competition among unions might alleviate that worry. Striking down exclusive representation would allow labor organizers to give the boot to free-riding employees. Meanwhile, workers would be free to form new unions that might better represent their members' interests.




To me it seems like this would be a hard one to argue against even for big pro-union folks:

1.) It help move to eliminate the free rider folks that unions are so worried about
2.) It would help the "working man" because if one union isn't doing a good job, they will have choice to associate with another union....thus unions would have to work harder to win employees good benefits in order to retain them...to me that seems a great thing
3.) People would have freedom to join unions that more align with their values rather than a one size fits all thing



As far as I know, striking down the state requirement does NOT say a single union can't represent all workers of a certain class and that all negotiations must go through that single entity (for union members and non-union members alike)...so if workers still want to have a single union they still have that power. It simply means that the state can't require it.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 302 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:26 am

Unions are a bit of a double edged sword. In my industry, there's 2 groups that aren't actually unions but do have their purpose Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) and Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE). Both have membership dues and offer certification courses and tests. People that apply with those certifications are given higher consideration and often get better starting pay. The only thing they are missing is bargaining power, which is why salaries in other states have outpaced Florida which has union busting laws on the books.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:14 pm

SCOTUS to hear this case next year


The case regarding whether or not a Maryland war memorial in the shape of a cross goes against a separation of church and state was accepted for final review by Supreme Court justices on Friday.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 302 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:02 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:SCOTUS to hear this case next year


The case regarding whether or not a Maryland war memorial in the shape of a cross goes against a separation of church and state was accepted for final review by Supreme Court justices on Friday.

That's ridiculous that anyone even took that to court.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:45 pm

“Munro-Leighton was interviewed by investigators on Thursday in which she "admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter,'" Grassley's office said.”


Lol.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:26 pm

“On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a 414-page document presenting its summary report and exhibits regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In the 28-page summary of its findings, the committee explained that after speaking with 45 individuals and taking 25 written statements, it did not find "any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations" against Kavanaugh.“




La di da.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 106 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests