Guess what, Al. You're not still in the Senate.
Too bad, so sad.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Bagster
Posted on 07/13/2018 8:39:05 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
There’s a big difference between a judicial ruling and stating an opinion.
If he’d had a discrete, agreeable affair with a someone in DC and not on his staff, he’d likely still be a Senator. His problem was trying to get the goods from someone who was not interested in him. Even if he was a Senator and she was a Playboy model, he was still a creepy jerk who got caught being one on camera. I agree that most Dems would just circle the wagons and wait it out until the media rode over the hill to chase the elephants away. His Party buddies didn’t think he was worth the effort.
Franken-Warren 2020
Please God, let it be so.
L
I don’t understand. Is Franken saying a judge doesn’t need a full command of the facts before judging?
His resignation should never have been accepted.
Sounds like Stewart has filled his diaper again.
Stick to sitting in your diaper dope.
Guess what, Al. You're not still in the Senate.
Too bad, so sad.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Bagster
Never will be in the Senate again. You qualify as a ‘has been’. AL Franken has been a serial groper. Probably still is.
Al can now go back to SNL and continue to write unfunny scripts.
1975 was the las time I watched SNL.
Who?
His time is past...
“I’m sorry Senator but I don’t pay attention to questions from losers like you”
Yes. When you think about the corruption and fraud that got this dumb turd into the Senate to help push the horrid Obamacare..its maddening.
also dead red ted kennedy’s stolen senate seat.
the rule in massachusetts flipflopped over whether the governor or voters would replace a senator. Republican governor? then it goes to voters, Democrat governor? then selected not elected
I guess this is the lie:
Kavanaugh then declared: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
How would you measure this? There have been 45 presidents (44 different individuals) and 100+ supreme court vacancies.
OK, Carter and a few others didn’t have any vacancies to fill. For the most part there is not a clear record on who all the President spoke to in making an appointment.
What constitutes a different background is highly subjective. Modern times have brought more specialization. Before say, the 1980’s, the high tech industry (however small it was) would not have cared who was on the court.
Also, is it not unusual for someone on the Judiciary Committee to not have a law degree?
The irrelevant sex offender gropes again.
And he’s still not funny
Conservatives are fine with the founders sense of judicial independence. What Conservatives reject is the Progressive and Leftist view of judicial independence that is independent of the bounds of the written Constitution; a view that permits them to write a new Constitution, one ruling at a time by judicial writ.
Conservatives also are fine with the founders sense of the judiciary as independent from the executive and the legislature. What Conservatives reject is the Leftist and Progressive view that accepts a judiciary that smashes the bounds of its minimal separate role, for sheer political motives and political intent, to act as super-executive and super-legislature all on its own.
Conservatives do not reject judicial independence. We do reject judicial supmremacy unbound by the limited role given it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.