Posted on 12/04/2019 5:11:11 PM PST by Kaslin
I’ve just been catching up on this since work, but from what I’ve heard so far, the testimony today was too damn similar in style to Schitt’s “parody” in the first hearing.
He’s obviously written the Hollywood movie script (to be on HBO before next November) and the actors are reading it perfectly
Guarantee that dig at Barron came straight from Schitt’s perverted pedophile imagination
Everything the average American needs to know about the ivory tower was generously provided today by this carpet munching hag.
UGH! Mr. Robinson, if I hear one more leftist selfishly and cheaply invoke the words “Constitution”, “oath”, or “Democracy” - in my presence - then I’m spending a night in jail.
> “So is it any surprise that this babe has a vendetta?”
Uh ... “babe”?
Rush was uncareful. This is nothing resembling a babe.
This Stanford vagina is so SOOOO ugly, she could be nothing other than a liberal.
Stanford used to have a sterling reputation. Used to. What say you, Victor Davis Hanson?
we dodged a bullet . She would be a terrible SCOTUS judge.
We sure dodged a bullet there. She would have made RBG look like a centrist!
She does look to be a Ruth Bader-Meinhof clone.
Remember when a Harvard Law Degree meant something? What a club of morons.
The report Schiff just release curiously tied President Trump and VP Pence together with some statements that everything mean President Trump did, Pence was also party too. So they may be trying to remove them both. Next in line? Nancy Pelosi.
Learned on Mark Levin’s show tonight this “professor” has NEVER passed a bar exam, not in CA where she teaches, or anywhere else. And she thinks she’s a great teacher... high and hoity toity attitude above everyone else there, as specializing in the “law of democracy”. There being NO such thing, it’s fairly clear the “law of the mob” is not our Constitution. She’s an anti-Constitutionalist, which makes her a Marxist at the least and an anarchist at the most.
Describes herself as “radically bisexual”..... good God what a hag.
We didn’t just dodge a bullet in 2016. We dodged a MOAB. Thank you, Lord!
That Democrat wet dream will NEVER happen.
She would have been a potential SCOTUS associate justice???
This is enough to make me believe in divine intervention!!!
Contact
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
Phone: 650 723.2465
Fax: 650 725.0253
TALKING POINTS An angry misinformed Stanford Law School professor brought to 12/4/19 Wednesday’s impeachment hearings a remarkable dimension of ignorance that is nothing short of mind-boggling.
Stanford Law School Professor Pamela S Karlan had apparently colluded with Judiciary member Cong Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) who urged Stanford Law School Professor Pamela S Karlan to comment when Jackson Lee drew a parallel between President Donald Trump and a monarch.
“What comparisons can we make between kings, that the framers were afraid of, and the president’s conduct today?” Jackson Lee calculatedly asked Stanford Law School Professor Pamela S Karlan, called to testify as a constitutional law expert.
Stanford Law School Professor Pamela S Karlan replied “Kings could do no wrong because the king’s word was law, but contrary to what President Trump says, Article II does not give him the power to do anything he wants,” Karlan said. “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he cannot make him a baron,” she continued.
REALITY CHECK Barron Trump’s name has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH NOBILITY. Barron Trump is named after Barron Hilton, of Hilton Hotel fame, a close friend of President Donald Trump. The name Barron originated from the Old French and was often used as a nickname for a peasant who aspired to land ownership.
It is disconcerting to read that Stanford Law School Professor Pamela S Karlan has been on the Stanford Law School faculty since 1998, is an expert on constitutional law and the Supreme Court, and has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court.
I would strongly suggest Stanford Law School students drop classes taught by Prof Karlan lest the future lawyers jeopardize legal careers by an unfortunate exposure to classes taught by a clearly unqualified Prof Karlan.
She has argued cases before the us supreme court. She must be admitted somewhere.
Looks like the great one misspoke. Or maybe scotus has its own reasons for letting her practice there
Am I the only one that sees that she looks like Nadler with a wig?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.