No, don’t be coy. That’s not your issue with him. I respect you. Just be honest, you don’t like his politics.https://twitter.com/johnlegend/status/1045538352324177920 …
-
-
Agree w/John. It’s about Kavanaugh. I’m a Democrat, but I didn’t have a problem with Gorsuch’s confirmation. He came across as independent, impartial, intelligent, and completely capable. It’s about character.
#CharacterMatters -
You had no problem with it?? Glad to know you're cool with the outright THEFT of a Supreme Court seat.
-
THAT in itself was a problem. Refusing Merrick Garland was a problem. But Neil Gorsuch’s character is in no way equivalent to Brett Kavanaugh.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It IS about all of it. It’s about a man who was NOT a good person as a teenager, who has chosen to LIE about his past rather than take responsibility for it. It is about responsibility and accountability, both of which are sorely missing from this SCOTUS nominee.
-
Exactly. And I urge everyone who worked in DC at lower levels from 1997-2003 that knows this guy and who he really is, to go directly to any FBI field office and report what you know. Tell everything. It’s time.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It _is_ about all of it, _but_ one thing that _isn't_ being discussed by the media at large is
#WhoPaidKavanaughsDebts He owed substantial money...and has a history of repeatedly owing substantial amounts of money ...and living well above salary. That debt magically disappeared. -
It is vitally important to
#BelieveWomen/#BelieveSurvivors. It is important to investigate all allegations.However,a financial paper trail going back decades (there is one) is often an easier (may not be the word I need) case to make,& respectfully,can't be rattled on the stand.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
John if you can show me in the Constitution where it explicitly states a woman has a right to an abortion I will vote for a democrat in 2020 and oppose BK’s nomination.
-
There is also no explicit right to privacy in the constitution but it is treated as a right. Ready to do away with that?
-
1/ The Bill of Rights, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person
-
Privacy of the person=right of a woman to privately decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You’re asking where in the Constitution does it explicitly say women have the right to an abortion? Are you trying to be funny? When the Constitution was written, women didn’t
-
even have the right to vote or own property. In fact, women WERE property.The framers of the Constitution anticipated change, which is why they made the constitution amendable. If you’re saying something can only be law or honored as such if it’s part of the original constitution
-
you are ridiculous. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that abortions are legal. Period. That is now the law of the land. Anything in the constitution can be amended. That means added to or removed. The framers created the constitution as a guideline, not as something set in stone
-
Ok a few points. The framers did anticipate change and thus created an amendment process. However, the right to an abortion is not an amendment. Abortion was a right created out of thin air in 1973. It has no constitutional basis.
-
Looking to The Constitution for abortion rights is idiotic because abortion wasn’t a debate in the 18th c. (It existed but it wasn’t a debate) so why would the framers have included it? If you’re looking to The Constitution, as I mentioned in my first response, it is in the bill
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Like S.E., I respect your stance too, but I think both sides are having a hard time having objective reality to the situation.
-
I disagree. Kavanaugh never should have been nominated. Even McConnell knew that. Regardless of what was said at the hearing today, his display, which was surly, childish, belligerent and, in Grahams words re Sotomayor, a "temperament problem," is disqualifying.
-
Couldn’t agree more. His display was anything but a measured, reasonable, non-partisan Judge. He was hyper partisan and entitled. I deserve this and you can’t take it from me was my take. There really is not a more qualified candidate??
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/2 Guess what folks, Democrats have the ability to see situations in their totality not just snippets. As a Democrat (and a woman) I dread having another conservative judge as SCOTUS. As a fair minded intellectual I do not want THIS man on the bench.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.