Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

(06-29-2018 09:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Dem's #1 campaign issue should be mental illness, as it has become an epidemic within the Liberal population.

(06-29-2018 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Dem's #1 campaign issue should be mental illness, as it has become an epidemic within the Liberal population.

I'd just like to see an actual campaign issue from the left other than "Trump is literally Hitler"

(06-29-2018 10:08 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Dem's #1 campaign issue should be mental illness, as it has become an epidemic within the Liberal population.

I'd just like to see an actual campaign issue from the left other than "Trump is literally Hitler"

Very true. But I doubt it happens.

(06-29-2018 09:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It just gets more entertaining by the second....Love it.

Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

Keep reading here...

(06-29-2018 09:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It just gets more entertaining by the second....Love it.

Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

Keep reading here...

(06-29-2018 11:08 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  So let me get this straight..... We all can agree that the country is divided in a roughly 50/50 split.

That said, when the tables were turned and the "blue team" had control everything was honky-dory. However now that the Red side has control, it isn't?

(06-29-2018 12:21 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It just gets more entertaining by the second....Love it.

Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

Keep reading here...

I would love for her to provide specific examples of how the Constitution would be destroyed. Not the perverted version they seem to work off of, but the real one ratified by the Founders.

(06-29-2018 09:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It just gets more entertaining by the second....Love it.

Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

Keep reading here...

(06-29-2018 03:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 12:21 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

It just gets more entertaining by the second....Love it.

Quote:Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told MSNBC Wednesday that allowing President Trump to choose a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would mean the “destruction of the Constitution of the United States.”

“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks that he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris said on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appointing people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”

Sen. Harris’s claim that one of Trump’s judicial nominees “refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law” is an inaccurate characterization of judicial nominee Wendy Vitter’s confirmation hearing in April.

Vitter, the nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a manner not unusual for judicial nominees, declined to provide her personal views on Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearing. That meant that she declined to comment on Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, when asked if there were any cases that she could say “were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court,” Vitter clearly praised the reasoning behind Brown v. Board of Education as “the right decision.”

Keep reading here...

I would love for her to provide specific examples of how the Constitution would be destroyed. Not the perverted version they seem to work off of, but the real one ratified by the Founders.

I'm guessing she couldn't share the first thing about the Constitution.

(06-29-2018 04:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Interesting a strict "Constitutionalist" Judge will destroy the Constitution.

(06-29-2018 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:08 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  So let me get this straight..... We all can agree that the country is divided in a roughly 50/50 split.

That said, when the tables were turned and the "blue team" had control everything was honky-dory. However now that the Red side has control, it isn't?

Yep.

(06-29-2018 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Dem's #1 campaign issue should be mental illness, as it has become an epidemic within the Liberal population.

I'd just like to see an actual campaign issue from the left other than "Trump is literally Hitler"

(06-29-2018 05:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fake black mixed women, who phuck their way up the totem pole, then marry Euro heritage Caucasians.....................I kind of admire them, but not their leftist politics LOL.