A very well deserved win for whom?

Definitely not for you as an ordinary american citizen.

Something, something negative Nancy...

Sorry man, I consider it rational not to shit in my house when I am trying to force the neighbor to move.

If if you are ok with the Pyrrhic victories its up to you. The overwhelming majority of people are not.

Lmao what? How is it being a “negative Nancy” to oppose a partisan who would support sweeping increases in the power of the government and especially the executive branch?

Not for women. Looks like METOO is dead

Why do you hate due process?

Metoo shot tuselves in the foot trying to push their cause on such an important platform as a supreme court nomination. Their mistake. It ultimately hurt their cause. They should have stayed with the agenda they already had wich was destroying the hollywood elite. They flew too close to the sun on wings made of wax.....

The other problem is if he didn't win then those who falsely accused him would also been justified in falsely accusing any man on the planet and should be 'believed' in the pretense of no evidence and just feelings.

It still amazes me that Democrats tried using baseless allegations to stop his confirmation and not his extremely disturbing judicial record and views.

Why's that?

Whats your vision of a conservative led supreme court, and a republic controlled government?

Someone shadow banned (not Eliotes)

Open the comments on Ceddit, it'll usually show who.

I don't care to root for elected or selected officials. Ever.

So, you're an anarchist?

In an ideal world, I'd love it. Given the current system - I just don't root for them.

thought the vote was at 4:30, did enough speak out that they would vote yes already?

Last countdown was 49-51 in favour of yes. Even if one backtracks, Pence will brake the tie.

Break not brake

Thank you. I always get those two confused.

This isn't a team sport. If you feel real joy because "your team" won, you are part of the problem.

MAGA.

Question:

Assuming that Trump wins the next presidency race, do you think that he will change the political landscape so drastically that there won't be corruption anymore? If not, do you think that all the oppressive laws and decisions that were made during the Trump presidency, under the guise of fighting corruption, will be recalled once he leaves office?

All in all, why are you happy that you "are making america great again" when in reality you, at BEST, make america good for 6 more years and a hell after that? Why are you proud about it?

Build the wall.

Oh, random reply generator.

I hope you sell your accounts for more than 10 bucks.

Grab em by the Supreme Court.

Awesome! More NSA spying and more executive orders! Fuck the constitution!

And kiss the 1st amendment goodbye as well.

the partisan charade was created to cloud legit questions about Kanavaugh past record on constitutional rights.

I havent heard much about his actual policies because of the Dr Ford shitstorm. How does he oppose the 1st amendment? I've heard a lot about hom and the 4th (because he was a creator of the Patriot Act) but not the 1st.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION Judge Kavanaugh has not participated in many significant First Amendment speech or association cases. His jurisprudence suggests that, where the precedent is clear, he faithfully applies the law. Where the case law offers ambiguity, however, he has shown a willingness to restrict speech rights. See, e.g., Bryant v. Gates, 532 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2008); DKT International v. USAID, 477 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Anti-SLAPP In Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous panel holding that: (1) a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction may not apply D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act special motion to dismiss provision, but it must instead apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) under D.C. law, questions cannot constitute defamation. Yasser Abbas, the son of the president of the Palestinian Authority, alleged that a Foreign Policy Group article defamed him by questioning whether he benefited from government corruption. The Foreign Policy Group moved to dismiss the lawsuit under D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, which allows a defendant to file a special motion to dismiss “any claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.” Id. at 1332.1 Judge Kavanaugh held that the Anti-SLAPP Acts’ pretrial dismissal provisions are procedural rules that conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which establish the exclusive standards for granting pre-trial judgment to defendants in federal civil litigation. Id. at 1333–36. The First, Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have applied anti-SLAPP acts’ pretrial dismissal provisions to federal proceedings, while the Seventh and D.C. Circuits have refused to apply the provisions. 19 Federal Practice & Procedure § 4509 nn.128–33 and accompany text (2d ed.2014). Although Kavanaugh refused to apply the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act to dismiss the lawsuit, he dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because the defendants’ questions about whether Abbas benefited from corruption could not constitute defamation under D.C. law. Id. at 1337–39. Kavanaugh wrote that allowing a defendant to be held liable for asking questions would “necessarily ensnare a substantial amount of speech that is essential to the marketplace of ideas and would dramatically chill the freedom of speech in the District of Columbia.” Id. at 1339.

Conditions on Federal Funds In DKT International v. USAID, 477 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh joined the unanimous panel opinion by Judge Randolph upholding the government’s “anti-prostitution pledge” requirement for receiving certain federal funds. DKT International mounted a First Amendment challenge to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s requirement that private organizations receiving federal funds from the HIV/AIDS program certify that they have “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” Id. at 760. DKT argued that the certification requirement “violates the First Amendment because it constrains DKT’s speech in other programs for which it does not receive federal funds and because it forces DKT to convey a message with which it does not necessarily agree.” Id. at 761. The D.C. Circuit rejected both arguments. It held that the government may “constitutionally communicate a particular viewpoint through its agents and require those agents not convey contrary messages” and that the government’s programmatic goals for the HIV/AIDS funding would be “confused” if grant recipients “could advance an opposite viewpoint in their privately-funded operations.” Id. at 762–63. It also held that DKT was free to advocate its viewpoint in its privately-funded programs by “setting up a subsidiary organization” that could make the required certification to receive the federal funds. Id. at 764. The Supreme Court reached the opposite in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, 570 U.S. 205 (2013). Forums v. Government Speech In Bryant v. Gates, 532 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2008), a challenge to the Department of Defense’s regulations prohibiting discussion of any “political” issues in DoD’s Civilian Enterprise Newspapers (“CENs”), the panel characterized the case as about nonpublic forums. Kavanaugh concurred “to point out that . . . there is a far easier way to analyze this kind of case under Supreme Court precedents”: “[t]hese military-run newspapers and the advertising space in them are not forums for First Amendment purposes but instead are the Government's own speech.” Id. at 898. In other words, rather than accept the government’s characterization of the advertising section as a channel for others’ communication, Kavanaugh wrote separately to offer an alternative framing that would extend the government-speech doctrine and remove the First Amendment protection that the rest of the panel recognized applies to the forum at issue. Moreover, unlike the rest of the panel, he highlighted the fact that CENs are “military newspapers” and that, because “[the] law [of the military] is that of obedience,” id. at 899 (quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 744 (1974), “review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar 12 laws or regulations designed for civilian society,” id. at 899 (quoting Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986)). Net Neutrality In United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381 (2017), Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s denial of petitions for en banc rehearing of the case challenging the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. While his colleagues argued that the order did not implicate the ISPs’ First Amendment rights because it applied only to ISPs that have put themselves forth as neutral conduits to all online content, Kavanaugh maintained (correctly, in our view) that the order must be subject to intermediate scrutiny because ISPs may engage in editorial discretion, which is protected by the First Amendment. Kavanaugh wrote that this follows from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997). At the same time, he signaled that “the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider” those decisions, that “critics advance very forceful arguments” regarding how those decisions “constrain[ ] the Government’s ability to regulate the commercial marketplace,” and that “the Supreme Court [may] someday overrule or narrow the cases.” 855 F.3d at 418, 430. Judge Kavanaugh determined that the order failed intermediate scrutiny because the FCC failed to demonstrate (incorrectly, in our view) that ISPs possess market power, and his analysis appears to undervalue the government’s interests in “diversifying and increasing content,” which he states are “important . . . in the abstract.” Id. at 433.

1 “Like the various States’ anti-SLAPP laws, the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act makes it easier for defendants sued for defamation and related torts to obtain quick dismissal of harassing lawsuits.” Id. Under the Anti-SLAPP law, if a defendant makes a “prima facie showing that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest,” the plaintiff must demonstrate that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, the claim must be dismissed. While a special motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act is pending, discovery is stayed except for limited purposes. Id.

Just look at this shit.)

What time is the vote?

4:30

Thanks.

The allegations are probably false, but there are legitimate reasons to oppose him.

a well deserved win

For who?

Partisan hacks that think their political team ruining the Constitution is winning.

https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/

"Liberal tears are more important than my personal freedoms"

For people who still believe in due process.

That's who.

And a conspiracy to take away every citizens rights takes 5 steps forward.

He did not win yet. Jokes on the idiots that still don't know your not part of their club.

Given your username, this is a pretty embarrassing post OP, because as I see it, the Clintons just fucked you, and the rest of the American people.

The reason Brett Kavanaugh ignored crucial evidence when writing the Starr Report on Vince Foster's suspicious death, was to protect the Clintons from being implicated in Foster's murder.

Kavanaugh acted as the Clintons' puppet, and you have been utterly duped by this absurdly contrived Blasey Ford/Pink Pussy hat circus into assuming that because they made a song and dance about opposing Kavanaugh, he must be a great candidate. He is not, and you've just thrown Br'er rabbit in the Briar patch, as intended.

Kavanaugh has been given this SCOTUS job for services rendered to the Deep State, and he will continue his life's task of removing your liberties and protections afforded to you by the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Brett Kavanaugh ignored crucial evidence when writing the Starr Report

What are the chances he did it to save his own ass? Maybe he was in possession of information that would mark him for Arkancide so he was forced into the decision to self-preserve? And from there it was a slippery slope that continued its slide right through 9/11 and the Patriot Act?

I'm not trying to make excuses for him. I don't like him. I am just trying to understand the situation. I'm having a hard time believing that Kavanaugh and Ford are wittingly playing roles in an orchestrated event.

" I'm not trying to make excuses for him. "

-literally right after making excuses for him.

I'm trying to understand his motivations, not excuse him. Based on his judicial decisions and the record of how he has comported himself throughout his career, I don't think he should be confirmed. Why would I be trying to excuse him if I already don't think he's suitable for SCOTUS? I'm just trying to get a view of the bigger picture.

You have good point. Change a couple of facts or die. I mean the decision is probably easy for most people. You get instantly ridiculed by people here that cannot think all avenues of a situation and lack an anlytical mind. But I think this is a very real possibilty. It is indeniable that people that are around Hillary seem to die off like crazy.

Thank you. My hunch is that Kavanaugh probably knows where some of the bodies are buried (speaking metaphorically, but who knows?). And he has decided to play the game the way the game's played, rather than having been directly threatened. Seems consistent with the way he's lived the rest of his life.

People here are emotionally attached to their political positions. It is annoying and has devolved the quality of conversation to the unfortunate point where participation is a chore rather than a pleasure.

As a conspiracy theorist how do you support Kavanaughs appointment? Torture, spying, and okay with politicians crimes...?!?

Because half of the users of this sub are actually just pro trump, Clinton haters and not at all critical of the state itself. Criticisms of the state of have been dropped in favor of partisan “but at least we won” attitude.

Torture, spying, and okay with politicians crimes.

How do you know this isn't more partisan spin?

I think because they were the words that came out of his mouth?

Are you sure about that or are you trusting what you read in articles about him? If you look into it more carefully, Kavanaugh had nothing to do with the Bush doctrine on torture. You should learn about this thing called compartmentalization.

Dude I’m a conspiracy theorist, I don’t trust anyone in the government.

That's black-and-white thinking, which is not a good quality to possess if you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist. A free thinking person understands that there are good people even in a totally corrupt system. A free thinking person understands the fallacy of induction: just because government has failed us so far does not logically imply that it will fail us tomorrow. A free thinking person keeps an open mind about every individual in government, even if the majority of them are beyond compromised.

Nope at every corner they government has proven to be against the people. Even if there are good people in the government they have yet to take a stand.

What are you talking about, he is still ruined and the dems get to go into mid-term elections claiming Republicans put a "rapist" on the Supreme Court. Politics is still politics.

Hey /r/Conspiracy mods you ever gonna crack down on the shills and bots or does Spez have your balls in jar like the rest of Reddit?

How the fuck is this thread not removed but even manually mod-approved?

Because at least one mod here is an unabashed hardcore Trumpist and frequently posts their own delusional Clinton fanfic all the times, can't remember the username but it'll be pretty apparent if you see their posts.

It was a bait and switch, focus on the random rape claim so we do not actually look Into his professional history.

A false and transparent "conspiracy" strictly for appearance sake only to ensure that Kavanaugh, who's no doubt ruined many lives himself, will be in a position to perhaps ruin many times more before he's done.

Thanks.

" I'm not trying to make excuses for him. "

-literally right after making excuses for him.

Question:

Assuming that Trump wins the next presidency race, do you think that he will change the political landscape so drastically that there won't be corruption anymore? If not, do you think that all the oppressive laws and decisions that were made during the Trump presidency, under the guise of fighting corruption, will be recalled once he leaves office?

All in all, why are you happy that you "are making america great again" when in reality you, at BEST, make america good for 6 more years and a hell after that? Why are you proud about it?

Build the wall.

You have good point. Change a couple of facts or die. I mean the decision is probably easy for most people. You get instantly ridiculed by people here that cannot think all avenues of a situation and lack an anlytical mind. But I think this is a very real possibilty. It is indeniable that people that are around Hillary seem to die off like crazy.