HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am SO glad Kamala Harri...

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 09:58 PM

 

I am SO glad Kamala Harris didn't boycott the Kavanaugh hearings


28 replies, 2275 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am SO glad Kamala Harris didn't boycott the Kavanaugh hearings (Original post)
EffieBlack Sep 2018 OP
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2018 #1
mcar Sep 2018 #2
sheshe2 Sep 2018 #3
R B Garr Sep 2018 #4
BigmanPigman Sep 2018 #5
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2018 #6
iluvtennis Sep 2018 #10
EffieBlack Sep 2018 #12
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2018 #17
EffieBlack Sep 2018 #19
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2018 #24
George II Sep 2018 #14
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2018 #18
George II Sep 2018 #20
Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2018 #25
bobbieinok Sep 2018 #7
haele Sep 2018 #23
bobbieinok Sep 2018 #27
Demovictory9 Sep 2018 #8
appalachiablue Sep 2018 #9
appalachiablue Sep 2018 #11
George II Sep 2018 #13
dsc Sep 2018 #15
Nanjeanne Sep 2018 #16
oasis Sep 2018 #21
Hekate Sep 2018 #22
FBaggins Sep 2018 #26
EffieBlack Sep 2018 #28

Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 10:02 PM

1. She's a former prosecutor

I love it when she gave Jeff Sessions a grilling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 10:13 PM

2. She is impressive

Every time I see her in action, I'm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 10:23 PM

3. That tweet.

Hot dayum, Kamala.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 10:25 PM

4. LOL, that is a great question. She is formidable! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 11:42 PM

5. What language is Kavanaugh speaking?

Whatever it is it isn't English.
"I'm not-I'm not think of any right now".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 11:51 PM

6. Really? Just me ..I know...but she did not

come off as 100% "speak from the core of your being" liberal to me. I want to get on her bandwagon, I do. Maybe just me but some in hearings sounded like their first agenda was how they looked/sounded based on future ambitions vs. an inate passion. For those of us who have it...it is so easy to identify.
Maybe it's just her cadence? Seems off to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:55 AM

10. It's the cadence of a lawyer / San Francisco AG/ California AG. She has the passion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:14 AM

12. This isn't the time or place for "passion"

 

She's a prosecutor pinning down a witness and creating a record. That takes cool and deliberateness. And she nailed it.

Check this out: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211100647

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:57 AM

17. Yes, I agree with that....I was thinking more

on the lines of a potential candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:03 AM

19. I'll worry about her "passion" if and when she becomes a candidate

 

Now, I want her to do her job. And she's doing it brilliantly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #19)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 08:12 AM

24. Ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:24 AM

14. I don't think any of the Democratic Senators are worried about their future ambitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:57 AM

18. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 03:12 PM

20. In the context of this hearing and their actions, yes really.

You think Harris' line of questioning was intended to forward any future ambitions? Can't any Democrat act in any manner to simply do his/her job and get the truth out?

I guess I'm just naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 12:09 PM

25. No, not naive. It's subtle. But, did make me feel

better just hearing Chris Cilliza say on MSNBC that you could tell Corey Booker and Kamala Harris have their eye on 2020

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 11:53 PM

7. Wasn't the big issue with Bork his views on privacy? That there was no right to privacy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbieinok (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 04:22 PM

23. That was one of them. He claimed to be a "Strict Constitutionalist"

Which means if it wasn't written down in Black on Tan on the Constitution, there could be no legal certainty on any court case relating to it...
These are some of the things Bork believed.
Privacy isn't spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore, there is no right to Privacy, except to protect from legal jeopardy under the 5th (protection of personal papers and property).
Congress not being able to make a law regarding Religion on the Federal level does not mean that States could not legislate a State Religion and enforce it.
Equal treatment under the Law does not require Integration. There was nothing Constitutionally wrong with Plessy V. Ferguson, and Brown v Board of Education was an overstep of Federal regulation.

And as Scalia, another so-called "Strict Constitutionalist" opined "So long as there wasn't any issues with the due process, there's nothing in the Constitution that protects an potentially innocent person from being executed for a murder s/he didn't commit if evidence was later uncovered that might exonerate them."

Bork was a right arrogant literalist bastard of privilege. Just like all the rest of those elitist Heritage Foundation scum.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haele (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 04:47 PM

27. He carried out Nixon's orders after N fired those who wouldn't (Sat Nite Massacre)

I don't remember that coming out in his confirmation hearing. I learned that later. Just like Kavanaugh, Bork participated in the dirty deeds of the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:02 AM

8. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:12 AM

9. K & R. Ace pro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 02:34 AM

11. "Can you think of any laws that give govt. power to make decisions about the male body?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:22 AM

13. The thought of boycotting the hearing was pointless. It would have accomplished....

...less than nothing. At least each of the Democratic Senators have an opportunity to point out all the the flaws of this nomination.

I'm itching to see what Leahy has to pull out of his bag of tricks today. He could blow Kavanagh out of the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:32 AM

15. I don't know when these laws were overturned

but for quite some number of years, men had to get a spouse sign off for a vascetimy in some states. That is the only thing I could have come up with. But boycotting would have been foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:34 AM

16. She is soooo running in 2020!

She has something on him. That was no arbitrary question. Verrrry interesting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 03:17 PM

21. She's a tough one. No nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2018, 03:19 PM

22. You and me both, Effie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 01:05 PM

26. Did we ever find out who she was talking about at Trump's law firm?

Haven’t been able to watch today and wondering if the “gotcha” jaws ever closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 09:30 PM

28. It doesn't matter

 

The point is that she got him to say on the record that he didn't discuss this with anyone at the law firm when it's likely she has some proof that he did. She didn't need to spring it on him during the hearing and give him a chance to clean up his testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread