FLAKE SPEAKS: The Senator Says US Can’t Have ‘Partisan’ Kavanaugh ‘On the Courts’ | Sean Hannity

Sen. Jeff Flake spoke-out Tuesday regarding potential Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh; calling the judge’s congressional testimony “sharp and partisan” and saying that type of behavior “can’t” be had on the highest court in the country.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.hannity.com//media-room/flake-speaks-the-senator-says-us-cant-have-partisan-kavanaugh-on-the-courts/

But he thinks it is ok to have the extremist Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. We need the judge who goes by the constitution and our laws not their personal feelings.

Kavanaugh’s partisanship came through loud and clear in his moment of rage. A case will never be ruled in a fair manner.

1 Like

Did those ladies bitch about the other side when they were in the confirmation hearings? Did they throw out conspiracy theories? Did they cry?

You can’t find a more partisan judge than Ginsburg. She is the one who cited foreign law in some of her writings rather than U.S. law and our Constitution. And I have been known to get angry when falsely accused of something so serious. It has also come out now that Dr Ford helped author a paper that includes retrieving memories through hypnosis, altering retrieved memories and generating false memories.

NEVER was a Senator more aptly named.

Is there any doubt about Flake’s allegiance anymore? It’s ok to have a extreme liberal on the court but someone who abides by the Constitution is partisan. It take a lot of huevos to make a statement like that. But then again he don’t care he’s trying out for the democrats’ spokesperson.

Pam, shame on you for your ignorance! You have no idea what you ‘think’ ur talking about! Elena Kagan is a Globalist. > RE: SHOCKING: ELENA Kagan 1981 Thesis she is a Marxist. The following is Discussion Amongst several DOD/ Present and Former special operations SF members. We did not do At all with the demonstrates. What are you what

Her PhD. thesis centers around supporting the exclusionary rule -
to exclude evidence gained from illegal searches - which I think
is right on. However, she puts it in the light that Supreme Court
decisions should be heavily salted with the justices personal
opinion to affect social change - which I think is totally wrong
and reflects the thinking in her BS thesis (we need a socialist
reformation). To say I don’t trust her and that I think she is a
socialist masked as a conservative is an understatement. There
are too many pro-socialist/sympathetic to socialist statements
that belie her core beliefs. This has been the trend in politics
for a while and is getting worse: having core socialist/Muslim
beliefs and acting just enough innocent to have a lame story that
the candidate is OK and isn’t what they really are. She needs to
be sacked, or we will have someone worse than Ruth Bader Ginsberg,
who is a socialist appointed by Clinton. Is there a pattern here?
And Ginsburg is and has been AGAINST the US Constitution!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don’t Use US Constitution As A Model | RealClearPolitics
In her own words, her sorry ideologically messed up ass was Sent to Egypt to support the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow of the Egyptian government. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/03/ruth_bader_ginsburg_to_egypt_dont_use_us_constitution_as_a_model.html
— On Wed, 6/2/10, Grose, Franklin L.
/<FRANKLIN.L.GROSE@saic.com>/
wrote:

Subject: RE: SHOCKING: ELENA Kagan 1981 Thesis

Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 11:52 AM

Unclassified no caveats:
Have you looked at her other thesis enough to form an
opinion? I read the intro, and didn’t find anything that
reflected anything beyond her compilation of facts, history,
and the opinions of others. I haven’t read the conclusion yet.
Frank


From: old school eagle [mailto:old_school_eagle@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wed 6/2/2010 12:40 PM
To: Larry Becraft
Cc: Loel Ewart; Mike Seibert; fgrose@saic.com; Grose,
Franklin L.
Subject: Re: SHOCKING: ELENA Kagan 1981 Thesis

Do you have reading comprehension problem? I wasn’t referring to their background, I was referring to the way the women acted in their respective confirmation hearings.