"In an with The New York Times published Sunday, the Supreme Court justice said her husband, who died in 2010, would have said, “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.’
‘I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.’
““He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.””
Only Democrat-appointed Justices are allowed to be politically biased.
I am probably more cynical than most, but I don’t understand why people get so riled up over Supreme Court nominations and confirmations.
I always ask 1 simple question. How is your life going to change?
The answer is - it isn’t.
None of these positions really matter in the long term. Big money and status quo controls the long term directions. Just enjoy the ride peons and peasants like me.
The great Devil’s Triangle conspiracy now explained. Unless Kavanaugh’s schoolmates are time traveler’s trying to cover for him, it would look as if they invented their own meaning…
Okay so no yelling that you found but SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS. I suppose that’s about right. I don’t think that’s bad, but you do apparently…
How should someone speak and act in his situation? If you’re up for a promotion at whatever it is you do and have done for 30+ years without a whiff of bad conduct and then someone comes along and accuses you of gang rape, attempted rape and gross sexual assault in the distant past without any corroborating evidence (along with the Senate Judiciary Committee Dems calling him “evil”)…
What tone of voice would you take? Lemme guess… Polite, measured and cordial with smiles for miles?
“A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.”
I love the fact that in this scenario, the political system is the radioactive substance LOL.
Hold on–you mean there’s a chance he might actually be innocent? Man, I’ll bet that makes you guys wish you’d had enough faith in him to allow an actual investigation. That way, you could have avoided the one that will be performed by the Dem-controlled House next year.
That yearbook needs further decoding? Seriously though, I really don’t think they’d be so foolish. They aren’t going to try to impeach him or whatever.