🔥 | Latest

judicial branch: The president isn’t in charge of the executive branch, he’s in charge of the judicial branch, considering all of his friend’s trials he’s influenced
judicial branch: The president isn’t in charge of the executive branch, he’s in charge of the judicial branch, considering all of his friend’s trials he’s influenced

The president isn’t in charge of the executive branch, he’s in charge of the judicial branch, considering all of his friend’s trials he’s...

judicial branch: r/Justleftlikeababy u/EpicLedditorthatgetsallthepussy I just unsubbed from [frontpage sub] because it isnt good anymore as it used to be the [sub] has The United States is a federal republic in which the president, Congress and federal courts share powers reserved to the national government, according to its Constitution. The federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments. The executive branch is headed by the president and is formally independent of both the legislature and the judiciary. The cabinet serves as a set of advisers to the president. They include the vice president and heads of the executive departments. Legislative power is vested in the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch (or judiciary), composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, exercises judicial power. The judiciary's function is to interpret the United States Constitution and federal laws and regulations. This includes resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The federal government's structure is codified in the Constitution Two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have dominated American politics since the American Civil War, although smaller parties exist such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and the Constitution Party. Generally, the Democratic Party is also known as the center-left liberal party within the United States, while the Republican Party is also known as a center-right conservative party There are a few major differences between the political system of the United States and that of most other developed democracies. These include greater power in the upper house of the legislature, a wider scope of power held by the Supreme Court, the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive and the dominance of only two main parties. Third parties have less political influence in the United States than in other democratically run developed countries; this is because of a combination of stringent historic controls. These controls take shape in the form of state and federal laws, informal media prohibitions and winner-take-all elections and include ballot access issues and exclusive debate rules. There have been five United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Scholars from Alexis de Tocqueville to the present have found a strong continuity in core American political values since the time of the American Revolution in the late 18th century.Some of Britain's North American colonies became exceptional in the European world for their vibrant political culture, which attracted the most talented and ambitious young men into politics.[2] Reasons for this American exceptionalism included: Suffrage was the most widespread in the world, with every man who owned a certain amount of property allowed to vote. While fewer than 20% of British men could vote, a majority of white American men were eligible. While the roots of democracy were apparent, nevertheless deference was typically shown to social elites in colonial elections.[3] That deference declined sharply with the American Revolution TL:DR It isnt good anymore as it used to be This is not an airport... you dont need to announce your departure
judicial branch: r/Justleftlikeababy
 u/EpicLedditorthatgetsallthepussy
 I just unsubbed from [frontpage sub] because it isnt good anymore as it used to be the [sub] has The United States is a federal republic in
 which the president, Congress and federal courts share powers reserved to the national government, according to its Constitution. The
 federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments.
 The executive branch is headed by the president and is formally independent of both the legislature and the judiciary. The cabinet serves as
 a set of advisers to the president. They include the vice president and heads of the executive departments. Legislative power is vested in the
 two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch (or judiciary), composed of the Supreme
 Court and lower federal courts, exercises judicial power. The judiciary's function is to interpret the United States Constitution and federal
 laws and regulations. This includes resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The federal government's structure is
 codified in the Constitution
 Two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have dominated American politics since the American Civil War,
 although smaller parties exist such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and the Constitution Party. Generally, the Democratic Party is
 also known as the center-left liberal party within the United States, while the Republican Party is also known as a center-right conservative
 party
 There are a few major differences between the political system of the United States and that of most other developed democracies. These
 include greater power in the upper house of the legislature, a wider scope of power held by the Supreme Court, the separation of powers
 between the legislature and the executive and the dominance of only two main parties. Third parties have less political influence in the
 United States than in other democratically run developed countries; this is because of a combination of stringent historic controls. These
 controls take shape in the form of state and federal laws, informal media prohibitions and winner-take-all elections and include ballot
 access issues and exclusive debate rules. There have been five United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular
 vote. Scholars from Alexis de Tocqueville to the present have found a strong continuity in core American political values since the time of
 the American Revolution in the late 18th century.Some of Britain's North American colonies became exceptional in the European world for
 their vibrant political culture, which attracted the most talented and ambitious young men into politics.[2] Reasons for this American
 exceptionalism included:
 Suffrage was the most widespread in the world, with every man who owned a certain amount of property allowed to vote. While fewer than
 20% of British men could vote, a majority of white American men were eligible. While the roots of democracy were apparent, nevertheless
 deference was typically shown to social elites in colonial elections.[3] That deference declined sharply with the American Revolution
 TL:DR It isnt good anymore as it used to be
This is not an airport... you dont need to announce your departure

This is not an airport... you dont need to announce your departure

judicial branch: 50 Question Constitutional Scavenger Hunt Complete using pages 232-252 of your textbook. Directions: Please answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper. For each answer, include the Article and Section where you found the answer. 1. How many Articles are in the Constitution? 2. Which article covers the legislative branch? 3. Which article covers the judicial branch? 4. How many total Amendments are there to the Constitution? 5. Which article covers the executive branch? 6. What's the minimum age for a Senator? 7. Which branch of government can declare war? 8. Name the 5,1st Amendment rights. 9. Write the Presidential "Oath of Office". 10. In what cases does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction? Which article constitution deals 12. What kind of government is guaranteed to the states? 13. Define treason. 14. Who determines where Congressional elections are held? 15. What's the role of the Vice-President in the Senate? 16. How long is a Presidential term of office? 17. For what can the President be impeached? 18. What role does the President play in the Military? 19. Which Article details the Supremacy of the National Government? 20. How many states need to ratify the Constitution before it became official? 21. Which Amendment grants a right to a speedy public trial? 22. What is the title of Article 4? 23. What is included in the Presidential Duties? 24. Who determines what day is Election Day? 25. How long is the term of a Senator? 26. Where do impeachment trials take place? 27. How many words are in the Preamble to the Constitution? 28. Name the 2 Houses of Congress. 29. What role does the President play in how a bill becomes a law? 30. Can a writ of habeas corpus be suspended? I am graduate of CHS. I glanced at this, and haven't studied. BRING IT.
judicial branch: 50 Question Constitutional Scavenger Hunt
 Complete using pages 232-252 of your textbook.
 Directions: Please answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper. For
 each answer, include the Article and Section where you found the answer.
 1. How many Articles are in the Constitution?
 2. Which article covers the legislative branch?
 3. Which article covers the judicial branch?
 4. How many total Amendments are there to the Constitution?
 5. Which article covers the executive branch?
 6. What's the minimum age for a Senator?
 7. Which branch of government can declare war?
 8. Name the 5,1st Amendment rights.
 9. Write the Presidential "Oath of Office".
 10. In what cases does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction?
 Which article
 constitution deals
 12. What kind of government is guaranteed to the states?
 13. Define treason.
 14. Who determines where Congressional elections are held?
 15. What's the role of the Vice-President in the Senate?
 16. How long is a Presidential term of office?
 17. For what can the President be impeached?
 18. What role does the President play in the Military?
 19. Which Article details the Supremacy of the National Government?
 20. How many states need to ratify the Constitution before it became official?
 21. Which Amendment grants a right to a speedy public trial?
 22. What is the title of Article 4?
 23. What is included in the Presidential Duties?
 24. Who determines what day is Election Day?
 25. How long is the term of a Senator?
 26. Where do impeachment trials take place?
 27. How many words are in the Preamble to the Constitution?
 28. Name the 2 Houses of Congress.
 29. What role does the President play in how a bill becomes a law?
 30. Can a writ of habeas corpus be suspended?
I am graduate of CHS. I glanced at this, and haven't studied. BRING IT.

I am graduate of CHS. I glanced at this, and haven't studied. BRING IT.

judicial branch: Create Your Own Constitution & Amendments: The first 10 need to be rights for individual citizens to protect them from a tyrannical TIgure government: 1. NO Now that you have fiqured out the geography of your conent, you neeq To en trr to +edont On too you don't have another "Lord of the Flies" situation la of 1le out how to govern it SO your hands! Select one of the countries in your continent, and create the written the following template: Expan dins gravim ar 7 2. 4 nee crs Orion My plan of government, based On Neluia ieotietelySo wiltheivery and choren CoUntr de t remaldy ves 3. M SEfenses apaingt the mather land . Sheal is iea いi Preamble: What are the goals and purposes of your government? (you must include at least 6) CTo imO ement Communsum Communisum To promote a good was) wLo hee law for ce To eliminate upper and lower cl\ass Tomake sure evenyone Articles: This is the rule book How is your government qoing to function? Which branch will have the (e various powers. (Be sure to include the power and process to declare war, and the power and process to pr make treaties with other nations, among other powers). to elmin at SNorking is opHon Oeath by hung er 7 Corsine is ilegal-will resul Not ice oreum avery day llega To actually cleaeffe Can be lazy t6 fs illegal ec 6. n forced labor Can, ni Seruick having l Article l: Your legislative branch (how will they make the laws, and other powers..) be (alled legislate Our Po114t0 i TLlesial 4. Coe cte feorle Ther Les needea Gant ilesict-exent nnoralies 10. M pties ar Article 2: Your executive branch (how will they carry out the laws, and other power...) brancs be tclled The ete Next you need to explain your economy: How will your government make decisions about the three basic economic questions: What to produce? Who will produce it? How will it be produced? feapte disNine in Cis needea) -no ecomony Ce nn.eLo しwe Article 3: Your judicial branch (how will they interpret the laws, and other powers..) hronch leave. righos hy たere. le アノを uiu fuse tines jadi ciel Our frodace herevィ-。 + rode ce est ouemnent N/A not fead by individuals What will be in the public sector by the government? What will be in the private sector run run and businesses? Article 4. States: How will your federal government share power with the states? How will states interact No. tria Sttes se dor- uery with each other? ek i trivete teda.st Oc oper stedt YA Souemnmet oannd フノ SOverGet (tedec overrate SOUE nen (tedes If we decide to join your country, what is our Pledge of Allegiance? an1 add to this constitution how will you amend it? Article S: If you need to change Noha9 or I Allegiance Lh an ged as pledye Yer feca alreedr to the hebula Article 6: Supremacy Clause: to Exranding The Sutrere leier. love teders thet we to the motherlane Ard Class rat ies! Article 7: How will we decide if want to ratify (approve, put into use) this constitution? we nee-よ rerrin To cenrNt. arprave NE LANCES CHECKS Mom: What did you do at school today? Me: Establish Communism
judicial branch: Create Your Own Constitution
 &
 Amendments: The first 10 need to be rights for individual citizens to protect them from a tyrannical
 TIgure
 government:
 1. NO
 Now that you have fiqured out the geography of your conent, you neeq To
 en trr
 to
 +edont
 On
 too
 you don't have another "Lord of the Flies" situation
 la
 of
 1le
 out how to govern it
 SO
 your hands! Select one of the countries in your continent, and create the written
 the following template:
 Expan dins
 gravim ar
 7
 2. 4 nee crs
 Orion My
 plan of government, based
 On
 Neluia
 ieotietelySo wiltheivery and
 choren
 CoUntr
 de t
 remaldy
 ves
 3. M
 SEfenses apaingt the mather land
 . Sheal is iea
 いi
 Preamble: What are the goals and purposes of your government? (you must include at least 6)
 CTo imO ement Communsum
 Communisum
 To promote
 a good was)
 wLo hee
 law
 for ce
 To eliminate upper and lower cl\ass
 Tomake sure evenyone
 Articles: This is the rule book How is your government qoing to function? Which branch will have the (e
 various powers. (Be sure to include the power and process to declare war, and the power and process to pr
 make treaties with other nations, among other powers).
 to
 elmin at
 SNorking is opHon
 Oeath by hung er
 7 Corsine is ilegal-will resul
 Not ice oreum avery day llega
 To actually cleaeffe
 Can be lazy
 t6
 fs illegal
 ec
 6.
 n forced labor
 Can, ni
 Seruick
 having
 l
 Article l: Your legislative branch (how will they make the laws, and other powers..)
 be
 (alled
 legislate
 Our
 Po114t0
 i TLlesial
 4.
 Coe cte
 feorle Ther
 Les
 needea
 Gant
 ilesict-exent
 nnoralies
 10. M pties
 ar
 Article 2: Your executive branch (how will they carry out the laws, and other power...)
 brancs
 be
 tclled
 The
 ete
 Next you need to explain your economy: How will your government make decisions about the three basic
 economic questions:
 What to produce?
 Who will produce it?
 How will it be produced?
 feapte
 disNine in
 Cis needea)
 -no
 ecomony
 Ce nn.eLo
 しwe
 Article 3: Your judicial branch (how will they interpret the laws, and other powers..)
 hronch
 leave.
 righos hy
 たere.
 le
 アノを
 uiu
 fuse tines
 jadi ciel
 Our
 frodace
 herevィ-。
 + rode ce
 est
 ouemnent
 N/A
 not
 fead
 by individuals
 What will be in the public sector
 by the government? What will be in the private sector
 run
 run
 and businesses?
 Article 4. States: How will your federal government share power with the states? How will states interact
 No. tria
 Sttes
 se dor- uery
 with each other?
 ek
 i
 trivete
 teda.st
 Oc
 oper stedt
 YA
 Souemnmet
 oannd
 フノ
 SOverGet (tedec
 overrate
 SOUE nen
 (tedes
 If we decide to join your country, what is our Pledge of Allegiance?
 an1
 add to this constitution how will you amend it?
 Article S: If you need to change
 Noha9
 or
 I
 Allegiance
 Lh an ged as
 pledye
 Yer feca
 alreedr
 to the
 hebula
 Article 6: Supremacy Clause:
 to
 Exranding
 The
 Sutrere
 leier.
 love
 teders
 thet we
 to the
 motherlane
 Ard
 Class rat ies!
 Article 7: How will we decide if
 want to ratify (approve, put into use) this constitution?
 we
 nee-よ
 rerrin
 To
 cenrNt.
 arprave
 NE
 LANCES
 CHECKS
Mom: What did you do at school today? Me: Establish Communism

Mom: What did you do at school today? Me: Establish Communism

judicial branch: - atomtom65 2 points 21 hours ago The way I understand this lawsuit, is that even if the courts rule it unconstitutional, than the executive branch can file a lawsuit saying that the judicial branch is infringing on the separation of powers, which then will lead to articles of impeachment. In short, just because the SC deems it unconstitutional, doesn't mean Trump has to automatically go along with it. permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY F1 point 21 hours ago I'm sure he would try, but I don't think either house of Congress would co-operate. There's no doubt that this is all headed to a full-blown constitutional crisis one way or the other with Trump permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY - atomtom65 1 point 45 minutes ago The way I understand it, it's not that he can try, it's the executive branches right to sue for Infringement of separation of powers, essentially that is the process, However that act, allows the legislative branch to file for articles of impeachment of which would need a 2/3 majority in the house, which I think is a going to be tough to get. permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY [score hidden] 26 minutes ago I'm not clear what we're talking about here. Who would be getting impeached based on infringing the separation? permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY - atomtom65 1 point 21 minutes ago Trump would have articles of impeachment filed against him. If the SC designates something unconstitutional like him hiring a temp for AG, he has the constitutuonal option to not comply and counter sue for Infringement of separation of power, which I'm almost certain he would do, but because he isnt complying with the court order, it allows the house to file articles of impeachment which would need a 2/3 majority to work. Essentially this isnt a constitutional crisis, it's how the political process works, it's like a game of 4D chess. Anyhow, itll be interesting at least to see how it all works itself out. permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY score hidden] 3 minutes ago Ah. I thought you meant impeaching the judges or something At this point, I'm starting to think it's not a question of whether Trump is impeached as just how many times he's going to be impeached before the Senate finally does their job permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY
judicial branch: - atomtom65 2 points 21 hours ago
 The way I understand this lawsuit, is that even if the courts rule it unconstitutional, than the executive branch can file
 a lawsuit saying that the judicial branch is infringing on the separation of powers, which then will lead to articles of
 impeachment. In short, just because the SC deems it unconstitutional, doesn't mean Trump has to automatically go
 along with it.
 permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
 F1 point 21 hours ago
 I'm sure he would try, but I don't think either house of Congress would co-operate. There's no doubt that this is all
 headed to a full-blown constitutional crisis one way or the other with Trump
 permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY
 - atomtom65 1 point 45 minutes ago
 The way I understand it, it's not that he can try, it's the executive branches right to sue for Infringement of
 separation of powers, essentially that is the process, However that act, allows the legislative branch to file for
 articles of impeachment of which would need a 2/3 majority in the house, which I think is a going to be tough to
 get.
 permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
 [score hidden] 26 minutes ago
 I'm not clear what we're talking about here. Who would be getting impeached based on infringing the
 separation?
 permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY
 - atomtom65 1 point 21 minutes ago
 Trump would have articles of impeachment filed against him. If the SC designates something
 unconstitutional like him hiring a temp for AG, he has the constitutuonal option to not comply and counter
 sue for Infringement of separation of power, which I'm almost certain he would do, but because he isnt
 complying with the court order, it allows the house to file articles of impeachment which would need a 2/3
 majority to work. Essentially this isnt a constitutional crisis, it's how the political process works, it's like a
 game of 4D chess. Anyhow, itll be interesting at least to see how it all works itself out.
 permalink embed save parent edit disable inbox replies delete REPLY
 score hidden] 3 minutes ago
 Ah. I thought you meant impeaching the judges or something
 At this point, I'm starting to think it's not a question of whether Trump is impeached as just how many
 times he's going to be impeached before the Senate finally does their job
 permalink embed save parent report give gold REPLY
judicial branch: TFW 52% i 5:55 PM a reddit.com subreddi 5.0k points 10 hours ago CNN said in a statement that if "left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials." Recomme /r/fulln r/qualit /r/neutr /r/ world CNN appearsto have the First Amendment on their side. permalink reply 个 [-] I doubt it. It is debatable whether CNN itself could be banned. It is nearly unquestioned that they can ban a single correspondent. They are going to argue that his action of "putting hands" on the female intern has shown him to be a security threat and historically the judicial branch gives r/Ge the executive a pretty wide amount of discretion to do nearly whatever they want in the interest of security e 4430 points 9 hours ago moderators douglasm Kylde CandyMar Elderthed LuckyBdx ani625 ve gold reply 个 680 points 9 hours ago* This is a really good point. They didn't ban CNN, they banned one individual associated with CNN. It'll Bomosex be interesting to see how well the "putting hands on uster the intern" argument carries though. Curious if there are any other examples of this before E: intern to arqument lol RNews M hoosakiwi recently vie These our p The D . point perma t give gold reply 个 I2 points 9 hours ago LADIE firing c Grisha directo nation should 2409 р Then CNN should send another reporter in Jim's place and see what happen:s not necessarily replace Jim, but move him somewhere else that's important and political while the lawsuit is resolved, and let another CNN journalist try to get under the White House's skin. # Stop . point HIGH & First silhou the U. permalink ent report give gold reply 1706 points 9 hours ago * point Could CNN hire Colin Kaepernick to temporarily take Jim Acosta's place until the White House restores Jim's credentials? I also think James Comey would work. Would the White House releasing a fake, doctored tape as their supporting evidence have any bearing on the lawsuit? permalink embed save parent report give gold reply
judicial branch: TFW
 52% i
 5:55 PM
 a reddit.com
 subreddi
 5.0k points 10 hours ago
 CNN said in a statement that if "left unchallenged, the
 actions of the White House would create a dangerous
 chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected
 officials."
 Recomme
 /r/fulln
 r/qualit
 /r/neutr
 /r/ world
 CNN appearsto have the First Amendment on their side.
 permalink
 reply
 个
 [-]
 I doubt it. It is debatable whether CNN itself could be
 banned. It is nearly unquestioned that they can ban a
 single correspondent.
 They are going to argue that his action of "putting
 hands" on the female intern has shown him to be a
 security threat and historically the judicial branch gives r/Ge
 the executive a pretty wide amount of discretion to do
 nearly whatever they want in the interest of security
 e 4430 points 9 hours ago
 moderators
 douglasm
 Kylde
 CandyMar
 Elderthed
 LuckyBdx
 ani625
 ve gold reply
 个
 680 points 9 hours ago*
 This is a really good point. They didn't ban CNN,
 they banned one individual associated with CNN. It'll Bomosex
 be interesting to see how well the "putting hands on uster
 the intern" argument carries though.
 Curious if there are any other examples of this
 before
 E: intern to arqument lol
 RNews M
 hoosakiwi
 recently vie
 These
 our p
 The D
 . point
 perma
 t give gold reply
 个
 I2
 points 9 hours ago
 LADIE
 firing c
 Grisha
 directo
 nation
 should
 2409 р
 Then CNN should send another reporter in Jim's
 place and see what happen:s
 not necessarily replace Jim, but move him
 somewhere else that's important and political
 while the lawsuit is resolved, and let another CNN
 journalist try to get under the White House's skin.
 # Stop
 . point
 HIGH
 & First
 silhou
 the U.
 permalink
 ent report give gold reply
 1706 points 9 hours ago
 * point
 Could CNN hire Colin Kaepernick to temporarily
 take Jim Acosta's place until the White House
 restores Jim's credentials?
 I also think James Comey would work.
 Would the White House releasing a fake,
 doctored tape as their supporting evidence have
 any bearing on the lawsuit?
 permalink embed save parent report give gold reply
judicial branch: Dear Mr Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate your comments on this matter Article II of the Constitution vests the United States Senate with the power to provide advice and consent for all Supreme Court nominees. As a former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice, I believe that evaluating Supreme Court nominees is one of our most important responsibilities in Congress. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and serve as the highest authority on the meaning of our laws and constitutional rights. It is our duty to ensure that nominees for the Supreme Court will display the highest levels of integrity and a commitment to interpreting our laws and Constitution as written, not according to their own personal or political views. On July 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has served with distinction for more than 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has authored more than 300 published judicial opinions-many of which have been adopted by the Supreme Court as the law of the land. This judicial record shows that he is a thoughtful and mainstream jurist who takes seriously his responsibility to interpret the law impartially. Prior to his service on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh served as a senior attorney in the White House Counsel's Office, staff secretary for President George W. Bush, and clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. He is a graduate of Yale Coliege and Yale Law School. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I participated in Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, where he displayed his respect for the Constitution, knowledge of our laws, understanding of judicial precedent, and commitment to an impartial judicial branch. Witnesses from across the political spectrum provided testimony in support of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation and praised both his personal character and record as a judge. Based upon his performance in these hearings and his professional record, I believe Judge Kavanaugh is exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. On September 27, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an additional hearing to investigate and assess allegations of misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh. At this hearing. Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied any involvement in the alleged misconduct, and the Judiciary Committee received additional statements from witnesses who corroborated Judge Kavanaugh's account. Additionally, at the request of President Trump and the Judiciary Committee, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is conducting a supplemental background investigation into these allegations and will provide Congress with a report on its findings. I believe we should take allegations of misconduct very seriously, which is why I support the thorough investigations being undertaken by the Judiciary Committee and the FBI. Based on his record of integrity as a father, husband, and public servant, I am confident this investigation will demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh did not engage in any misconduct. As a result, on September 28, 2018, I voted to advance Judge Kavanaugh's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee with the understanding that it will be considered by the full Senate following the conclusion of FBI's supplemental background investigation. I look forward to continuing Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation process and believe that he will serve with honor on the Supreme Court. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join together to ensure that this process treats every individual involved with respect, fairness, and decency. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me Sincerely JOHN CORNYN United States Senator
judicial branch: Dear Mr
 Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the
 United States Supreme Court. I appreciate your comments on this matter
 Article II of the Constitution vests the United States Senate with the power to provide advice and consent for all Supreme
 Court nominees. As a former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice, I believe that evaluating Supreme
 Court nominees is one of our most important responsibilities in Congress. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and
 serve as the highest authority on the meaning of our laws and constitutional rights. It is our duty to ensure that nominees for
 the Supreme Court will display the highest levels of integrity and a commitment to interpreting our laws and Constitution as
 written, not according to their own personal or political views.
 On July 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States
 Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has served with distinction for more than 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals
 for the D.C. Circuit, where he has authored more than 300 published judicial opinions-many of which have been adopted
 by the Supreme Court as the law of the land. This judicial record shows that he is a thoughtful and mainstream jurist who
 takes seriously his responsibility to interpret the law impartially. Prior to his service on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh
 served as a senior attorney in the White House Counsel's Office, staff secretary for President George W. Bush, and clerk for
 Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. He is a graduate of Yale Coliege and Yale Law School.
 As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I participated in Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, where he
 displayed his respect for the Constitution, knowledge of our laws, understanding of judicial precedent, and commitment to
 an impartial judicial branch. Witnesses from across the political spectrum provided testimony in support of Judge
 Kavanaugh's confirmation and praised both his personal character and record as a judge. Based upon his performance in
 these hearings and his professional record, I believe Judge Kavanaugh is exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme
 Court.
 On September 27, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an additional hearing to investigate and assess allegations of
 misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh. At this hearing. Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied any involvement in the
 alleged misconduct, and the Judiciary Committee received additional statements from witnesses who corroborated Judge
 Kavanaugh's account. Additionally, at the request of President Trump and the Judiciary Committee, the Federal Bureau of
 Investigation (FBI) is conducting a supplemental background investigation into these allegations and will provide Congress
 with a report on its findings. I believe we should take allegations of misconduct very seriously, which is why I support the
 thorough investigations being undertaken by the Judiciary Committee and the FBI. Based on his record of integrity as a
 father, husband, and public servant, I am confident this investigation will demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh did not engage
 in any misconduct. As a result, on September 28, 2018, I voted to advance Judge Kavanaugh's nomination out of the
 Judiciary Committee with the understanding that it will be considered by the full Senate following the conclusion of FBI's
 supplemental background investigation.
 I look forward to continuing Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation process and believe that he will serve with honor on the
 Supreme Court. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join together to ensure that this process treats every
 individual involved with respect, fairness, and decency. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United
 States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me
 Sincerely
 JOHN CORNYN
 United States Senator
judicial branch: Remembering Ruby Ridge August 21, 1992 Federal Agents scouted the Idaho forest for a place to ambush Randy Weaver, a man they suspected of selling ilegally modified weapons. They first encountered the suspecf s teenage son and his triend in the woods, and engaged them in a firefight, killing Samuel Weaver. The following day, while surrounding the lanily s secluded home, Federal snipers wounded Randy Weaver and shot his wife in the head as she held their infant daughter. The Feds kept the property under seige for 10 days until the family surrendered. Weaver was later acquitted of all serious charges. Never forget Ruby Ridge Libertarian-i.redd.it 11h 5360 (82%)-1236 comments 1131 10h My favorite part was when they won a lawsuit against the cops and the cops said they would never pay someone who killed one of them. TLDR they paid 314 5h Also unmentioned is the fact that randy weaver was "suspected" of selling illegally modified firearms because the FBI entrapped him and got him to cut some shotguns to~1/4 less than legal length They then used this violation to demand/ blackmail him to become a confidential informant by infiltrating the Aryan brotherhood. He had attended several AB rallies but was not a member Also his son was 14 years old Also they spent 1 and 1/2 years and $3 million setting up this "raid" on a single family residence https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/weaver.shtml No. On Oct. 24,1989, Weaver sold two shotguns whose barrels arguably measured 1/4 inch less than the 18 inch length determined arbitrarily by Congress to be legal The H&R single-barrel 12-ga. and Remington pump were sold to a good friend who instructed Weaver to shorten the barrels. The good friend" was an undercover informant working for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), who later told reporters he was in it "mainly for the excitement." Eight months after he sold the shotguns, Weaver was approached by two BATF agents with an offer-spy on the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist hate group head-quartered in northern Idaho, or go to jail. Weaver refused to become a government informer, and-six months later-he was indicted on the shotgun charge 97 4h Fucking disgusting 49 3h Yes but thank god it is America. Our institutions and ideals: Separation of powers and freedom of the press, made it so the judicial branch to could eventually rule against the tyranny; and our press and freedom of speech is functional otherwise you and I would never hear about this if it happened elsewhere in the world America is still the greatest country there ever is and ever was. History will always have tyranny and assholes, but I hope people want to protect what has separated America from other nations in history and our people and our way of life: our freedom, justice and pursuit of happiness. 22 more replies 92 2h Oh, so they were trying to trick him into committing a crime so they could blackmail him into becoming an informant to help them spy on Americans Fuck the Aryan Brotherhood, but the federal government should not be able to do any of these things. Police and the Feds shouldn't have special protections. They should have twice the punishment because they're in a position of power When Leftists tell you to trust the FBI, remind them of this
judicial branch: Remembering Ruby Ridge
 August 21, 1992 Federal Agents scouted the Idaho forest for a place to
 ambush Randy Weaver, a man they suspected of selling ilegally modified
 weapons. They first encountered the suspecf s teenage son and his triend in
 the woods, and engaged them in a firefight, killing Samuel Weaver. The
 following day, while surrounding the lanily s secluded home, Federal snipers
 wounded Randy Weaver and shot his wife in the head as she held their infant
 daughter. The Feds kept the property under seige for 10 days until the family
 surrendered. Weaver was later acquitted of all serious charges.
 Never forget Ruby Ridge
 Libertarian-i.redd.it 11h
 5360 (82%)-1236 comments
 1131 10h
 My favorite part was when they won a lawsuit
 against the cops and the cops said they would
 never pay someone who killed one of them. TLDR
 they paid
 314 5h
 Also unmentioned is the fact that randy weaver
 was "suspected" of selling illegally modified
 firearms because the FBI entrapped him and got
 him to cut some shotguns to~1/4 less than
 legal length
 They then used this violation to demand/
 blackmail him to become a confidential
 informant by infiltrating the Aryan brotherhood.
 He had attended several AB rallies but was not a
 member
 Also his son was 14 years old
 Also they spent 1 and 1/2 years and $3 million
 setting up this "raid" on a single family
 residence
 https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/weaver.shtml
 No. On Oct. 24,1989, Weaver sold two
 shotguns whose barrels arguably measured
 1/4 inch less than the 18 inch length
 determined arbitrarily by Congress to be legal
 The H&R single-barrel 12-ga. and Remington
 pump were sold to a good friend who
 instructed Weaver to shorten the barrels. The
 good friend" was an undercover informant
 working for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
 and Firearms (BATF), who later told reporters
 he was in it "mainly for the excitement."
 Eight months after he sold the shotguns,
 Weaver was approached by two BATF agents
 with an offer-spy on the Aryan Nations, a
 white supremacist hate group head-quartered
 in northern Idaho, or go to jail. Weaver refused
 to become a government informer, and-six
 months later-he was indicted on the shotgun
 charge
 97 4h
 Fucking disgusting
 49 3h
 Yes but thank god it is America. Our
 institutions and ideals: Separation of powers
 and freedom of the press, made it so the
 judicial branch to could eventually rule
 against the tyranny; and our press and
 freedom of speech is functional otherwise
 you and I would never hear about this if it
 happened elsewhere in the world
 America is still the greatest country there
 ever is and ever was. History will always
 have tyranny and assholes, but I hope people
 want to protect what has separated America
 from other nations in history and our people
 and our way of life: our freedom, justice and
 pursuit of happiness.
 22 more replies
 92 2h
 Oh, so they were trying to trick him into
 committing a crime so they could blackmail
 him into becoming an informant to help them
 spy on Americans
 Fuck the Aryan Brotherhood, but the federal
 government should not be able to do any of
 these things. Police and the Feds shouldn't
 have special protections. They should have
 twice the punishment because they're in a
 position of power
When Leftists tell you to trust the FBI, remind them of this

When Leftists tell you to trust the FBI, remind them of this