I don't think this University of Alabama professor has much in common with most Alabamians. This piece reminds me that all Federal funding for law students (and thus law schools) should be ended. We have enought lawyers. Let people work after college and save for law school and take private loans for law school.
The New York Times has given up any semblance of being a newsgathering organization. They are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the demonrat party and its communications arm.
Panicked Libs are floating court-packing plans too.
If they get majorities + White House expand POTUS to 15 judges.
Imagine if we tried to impeach Kagan, Wise Latina, and Senile RBG. Even I would disapprove, no matter how much I despise those anti-American judicial activists. The left would freak out and riot in the streets - again. They would be wise to avoid taking the step against justices who uphold the rule of law. Unfortunately, leftists are never wise. By definition.
Delusional nonsense. They said the same thing after Clarence Thomas was confirmed, and the Democrats never uttered a peep about impeaching him even when they were well positioned to do so.
Maybe go back to reading for the law and being an intern for a lawyer like Abe Lincoln did.
Or Democrats could just smother him with a pillow as they’ve done in the past
Alcee Hastings, when he was a judge WAS impeached ( by the House, but he then had to have a trial in the Senate, at which point he was removed ); however, that was after a criminal trial, that took place in a state.
More like a barf alert
these fools are insane
NYT: “The case for impeaching (fill in the name of any politician not a democrat here).
Replacing all of these libs and newspapers with die hard communists from the old Soviet Union would make no difference.
I’ll admit I did not go to the NYT website to read the article. Does the author present a case for Kavanaugh’s impeachment—or is he simply saying that a democrat-controlled House can impeach if it feels like it.
Once again the Times shows its true colors. Once again, I feel vindicated in making the Times the villain (antagonist), in my political novel.
Hell! I even remember sitting down with an honest journalist when I was only 18, many years ago, and going through the day's edition of the Times, and seeing one item after another that was completely biased. They have been warring on the truth for generations!
They aren’t going to have to impeach Kavanaugh. I think he will testify, defend his innocence as best he can at this point and then tell them to eff themselves. I do not see this decent man putting his wife and two daughters through years of pain. Their lives have been destroyed by these harpies. We were out to dinner with some friends last night and two of them were lawyers. They both agreed that this is what Kavanaugh will likely do.
A little bit ago, Gillibrand was being interviewed, ranting in an escalating hysteria. She was almost incoherent, making ridiculous demands and I honestly think this is their plan to just get Kavanaugh to withdraw.
New York Times writers ought to be strangled with their own intestines.
If Kavanaough is confirmed and the republicans do ok in the upcoming election, and the likely corruption of Hillary, and company is exposed, Democratic party as we know it today will be toast. They’re throwing hail marys all over the place and it’s easy to see why.
This is something I had not thought of. Should the Democrats get control of both House and Senate look for wholesale conveyor belt impeachment of conservative judges, maybe batch impeachments, even, from the Supreme Court to District Courts.
But, in the meantime, the Republicans hold power in the White House, the Senate, and the House and they can hold a vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh at their time of choosing. Should the Democrats take control of the House, do they really intend to bring impeachment charges against Justice Kavanaugh on the grounds that his good behavior extends to his high school years and rests on a specious allegation that could never be argued in any Court in this country. The trial in the Senate could be conducted over lunch with the obvious result.
Which constitution are they reading? There is another clause. It reads:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
The relative ease of computers has made people think that if they can type, they can write; and if they can write, any of their ridiculous, execrable opinions are valid. This pompous piece of crap is a prime illustration of such opinion inflation.