Home
Democratic Congressman Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida who’s running once again as a Democrat hoping to defeat incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis, said Friday that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached if they lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings.

https://mustreadalaska.com/congessm...elosi-schumer-say-justices-lied-to-them/

My thoughts after being crucified by the media/democrats during his confirmation, the liberals thought Kavanaugh would forget that?? Lol bunch of idiots..
Key West does things to the Human Anatomy..
I’ll bet it’s a Hole n One ..
I’ve always wondered if Charlie was the Head of the European Central Bank .
I’m Telling Ya ..
Hard to remember the democrats throwing a bigger tantrum and hissy fit than the overturning of Roe vs Wade.... this could get interesting before it is over...
Originally Posted by Sheister
Hard to remember the democrats throwing a bigger tantrum and hissy fit than the overturning of Roe vs Wade.... this could get interesting before it is over...

Gotta keep their dumbazz supporters preoccupied with being enraged by the "cause of the week" so they dont notice that inflation etc is hurting them!!!
Originally Posted by akrange
Key West does things to the Human Anatomy..
I’ll bet it’s a Hole n One ..
I’ve always wondered if Charlie was the Head of the European Central Bank .
I’m Telling Ya ..




To most crackers or long time Floridians, Charlie Crist brings nothing more than a snicker.
There’s a long line of Democrats, including Biden and Pelosi, that deserve impeachment before any of the 6 justices.
Why does the left always feel entailed to an abortion litmus test but the right never demands a gun control litmus test of the left? The right to have arms is actually in the constitution but abortion isn't. I think every democratic nominated judge should be forced to answer to a gun control litmus test. But of course our republican politicians are too big of pussies to demand anything.

Seriously though, where is the gun control litmus test?

Bb
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.



That was comprable to a politician and election year.

When are Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters Chucky Schumer held responsible for their demands for violence?

Yeah. Didn't think so..
ALL Court Opinions are settled precedent..............

Until they're NOT!

PROOF lies in the reality that people continue to file suit to change existing opinion and precedent....

If precedent was sacrosanct, why would anyone sue to change it????
Originally Posted by Muffin
ALL Court Opinions are settled precedent..............

Until they're NOT!

PROOF lies in the reality that people continue to file suit to change existing opinion and precedent....

If precedent was sacrosanct, why would anyone sue to change it????

Thank you for the clear thinking!
Charlie Crist is a maroon.
He picked the wrong justices. The leftist justices need to go.
Wanna bet that the left thinks -- 'the RIGHT to bear arms' is an individual and personal 'Right' -- is settled Law?????
Originally Posted by 79S
Democratic Congressman Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida who’s running once again as a Democrat hoping to defeat incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis
That sucks. Charlie is popular among Dems and could win against anyone but DeSantis. That keeps DeSantis out of the presidential race.
Another commie that needs to go away.
what is not settled, is what gender Crist is. Even he doesn't seem to know. He personally has changed positions more time than a Karma Sutra aficionado.
Originally Posted by local_dirt
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.



That was comprable to a politician and election year.

When are Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters Chucky Schumer held responsible for their demands for violence?

Yeah. Didn't think so..

Or their oath to support the Constitution.

How about the two dimocommies on the bench and their oaths. Seems I remember them indicating they would look at the constitution rather than rubber stamping everything a dimocrap POTUS pushed.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.
Barack Obama at one time said he was opposed to gay marriage (as if he wasn't already in one himself) but then changed his opinion and became in favor of same sex marriage. Obama said his thinking had "evolved". Does not Kavanaugh have the right to rethink a position and "evolve"?
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.
Barack Obama at one time said he was opposed to gay marriage (as if he wasn't already in one himself) but then changed his opinion and became in favor of same sex marriage. Obama said his thinking had "evolved". Does not Kavanaugh have the right to rethink a position and "evolve"?

As did Biden iirc.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.
He doesn't have to say squat. What is anyone going to do about? Bitch & moan. That's it.
the ones who should have been impeached were the justices who passed Roe Wade in the 1st place and called it 'constitutional'.
Originally Posted by Muffin
ALL Court Opinions are settled precedent..............

Until they're NOT!
Exactly. Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law till it wasn't. Sadly, Plessy was good law, and the ruling that overturned it (Brown v Board of Ed) was as bad and lawless a ruling as Roe.
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
the ones who should have been impeached were the justices who passed Roe Wade in the 1st place and called it 'constitutional'.
Bingo! Followed by a swift hanging.
Originally Posted by Muffin
ALL Court Opinions are settled precedent..............

Until they're NOT!

PROOF lies in the reality that people continue to file suit to change existing opinion and precedent....

If precedent was sacrosanct, why would anyone sue to change it????
Correct , STRSWilson is an idiot.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.

LOL

You fugking idiot.
If I was Kav I’d be looking over my Shoulder cuz the Maine Crab Trap is going to put Nor'easter on Him.
All 4ft of it ..
I’ve often wonder why all those NE politicians are all only 4ft tall that Crispy Coon ain’t 4ft..
Me too Charlie,, trying to be relevant and keep living on the dole
"Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Holmes, Jr. J., Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927)
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.

Actually this is a very pertinent question. My response would be that Kavanaugh listened to the arguments for and against and decided abortion was not a "right" as defined in the Constitution. It is not a matter for the federal government, it fell under the Tenth Ammendment and under state jurisdiction.
Justice Thomas has suggested three other cases be readjudicated which involves "rights" not defined in the Constitution. One is the "right"to birth control, one is the"right" for same sex marriage and I don't remember the third.
Politicians say one thing while campaigning and do something completely different after they get elected. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. And yes it would be refreshing to see someone like Boebert ask the next SC nominee " the Second Ammendment says shall not be infringed! How do you interpret that? " Would they say "I cannot described infringed?"
Originally Posted by local_dirt
Originally Posted by akrange
Key West does things to the Human Anatomy..
I’ll bet it’s a Hole n One ..
I’ve always wondered if Charlie was the Head of the European Central Bank .
I’m Telling Ya ..




To most crackers or long time Floridians, Charlie Crist brings nothing more than a snicker.
This.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.



Ah the old Libertarian speaks his BS. You are the type of people that caused all of what is going on right now. Oh, also just to add why Georgia is so F'uped right now. And yes, no wants to hear your babbling.
When the 'justice-in-waiting' rules on a case where she displays a very clear understanding of what a woman is should she also be impeached?????
Some years back I testified before the Florida Siting Board, of which he was the chairman. I asked a question that made him hide behind his computer. Most of the audience was smiling. 🤣
Originally Posted by 45_100
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.

Actually this is a very pertinent question. My response would be that Kavanaugh listened to the arguments for and against and decided abortion was not a "right" as defined in the Constitution. It is not a matter for the federal government, it fell under the Tenth Ammendment and under state jurisdiction.
Justice Thomas has suggested three other cases be readjudicated which involves "rights" not defined in the Constitution. One is the "right"to birth control, one is the"right" for same sex marriage and I don't remember the third.
Politicians say one thing while campaigning and do something completely different after they get elected. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. And yes it would be refreshing to see someone like Boebert ask the next SC nominee " the Second Ammendment says shall not be infringed! How do you interpret that? " Would they say "I cannot described infringed?"
Roe V Wade despite being 100% legislation from the bench has always been a litmus test for the left. Good luck getting confirmed if a potential SCJ said as much. Essentially forced to be dishonest in order to be confirmed and actually uphold the Constitution as their oath requires. The left couldn’t be more wrong in Constitutional law but they pretend to support the 2A as far as lip service when in front of the Senate seeking confirmation. The ONLY thing that matters is that correct constitutional law was interpreted.

Let’s impeach a few SCJ’s for blatantly lying when taking their oath to uphold the US Constitution.
Originally Posted by STRSWilson
I know no one wants to hear this, but he does raise an interesting point. Kavanaugh testified that Roe v Wade was settled precedent so he does have some explaining to do. While the decision was not a ban on abortion, Kavanaugh previous statements opens the door to some level of scrutiny.

If you wanna play that game….

I seem to remember the last confirmation nominee (Ketanji Brown???) said she couldn’t define the word “woman” I also remember some questionable answers from Kagan and Sotomayor….. you really want to crawl down that hole?
© 24hourcampfire