How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Lindsey Graham, breaking more norms and rules.

Really, the GOP is digging a grave that will be as powerful as when Obi-Wan gave up his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore https://www.greaterfortwayneinc.com/gfw-inc-launches-onboard-fort-wayne-program-to-boost-talent-retention/
unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

I am a strong conservative, and I am not fond of her ability to respond well. The "no notes" discussion is laughable, as anyone who has a decent memory can do the same thing. She has taught for 15 years, she has probably used the same cases over and over, and knows well like the back of her hand.

This. I said this before but she is a professor. I would be more surprised if she couldn’t recall basic details of landmark cases from memory. I was also stunned that a law professor doesn’t know the protections in Amendment 1 by heart. I am not a lawyer and was just a basic political science major, but I could have schooled her in those sorts of basic questions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore https://www.greaterfortwayneinc.com/gfw-inc-launches-onboard-fort-wayne-program-to-boost-talent-retention/
unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

I am a strong conservative, and I am not fond of her ability to respond well. The "no notes" discussion is laughable, as anyone who has a decent memory can do the same thing. She has taught for 15 years, she has probably used the same cases over and over, and knows well like the back of her hand.

This. I said this before but she is a professor. I would be more surprised if she couldn’t recall basic details of landmark cases from memory. I was also stunned that a law professor doesn’t know the protections in Amendment 1 by heart. I am not a lawyer and was just a basic political science major, but I could have schooled her in those sorts of basic questions!

I’m a non-lawyer English major and I knew those.

[Anonymous]

She left out more information. For someone who pretends she's so smart and dots all her I's no this is ridiculous.

And today she could not answer key questions about her job.

She will get confirmed unfortunately and she will be Typhoid Mary. She will destroy us and Trump will be president because of her. The US will not recover.

She's horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine any job she would deserve from this interview. It’s one thing to say that there are things she can’t comment on, but she hasn’t shown enough knowledge of the law to be hired as an associate or a law clerk.

Right, right... it’s not as if she’s talked for hours and hours each day about the intricacies and minutiae of her decisions, writings, and the Constitution - completely from memory. No, she’s definitely not an extremely skilled academic and judge. Nope, not her!

Your desperation is so obvious. And pathetic.

I am an educator, and the Constitution is written at an elementary school level. If a 5th grader can understand it, a lawyer must be able to do so.

You’re saying this brilliant judge and academic - who teaches Constitutional Law - doesn’t understand the Constitution?

I am saying it's so easy to understand, you don't need a law degree to read and interpret it.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

+1
The display of stupidity that the Democrats have put on over the past three days was cringeworthy. I enjoyed seeing ACB keep her cool throughout.

If you want to talk about stupid, i would refer you to all the Republicans comments on her children. Sexist and irrelevant.

PP here. I agree, there was too much mention of her children. However, it is pretty remarkable that she’s been able to be so successful at her career while raising seven children. And that’s a fact. Male nominees are also asked about their children.

[Anonymous]

If you have not had a chance to see this woman's testimony, it is well worth the 5 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

As long as you don’t throw another temper tantrum if Trump wins.

I expect the same from you and your dear leader.

Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

It’s “Barrett.” And plenty of college-educated women will be voting for him.

Not really. Just the handmaiden who have surrendered their souls to the patriarchy for the crumbs they get tossed.

Funny, ACB doesn’t even come close to that description, but whatever you say!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

Of course you were glad to see Amy get salty. It’s what you guys live for.

And you live to see Kamala “get salty”. Your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

+1 I too very much enjoyed how Barrett responded to Harris. Harris was trying so hard to dominate and push Barrett to anger and Barrett did not take the bait.

+2
I think Harris was disappointed that she couldn’t get a rise out of Barrett - though she certainly tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have not had a chance to see this woman's testimony, it is well worth the 5 minutes.

It's nice that ACB was nice to this woman. But that does not qualify her to be on the SCOTUS. It does not erase her extreme views. It does not excuse her opposition to abortion, and her refusal to say that Roe V Wade is settled (or whatever you call it in law). Or her refusal to say that Medicare is settled!! She may be a nice person to those around her, but her views will inflict untold pain and suffering upon millions of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I know right, poor women dying of abortions is our jam! Bring on the popcorn!

I am sure pp is a white male, they are the only ones happy about this.

Wow, you REALLY need to get out more. I’m the PP and a pro-choice woman. I take justices at their word when they swear to be impartial interpreters of the law.

I have a bridge to sell you, supposed pro-choice woman.

“Supposed”? It’s remarkable how you wackos think anyone pro-choice couldn’t possibly support this accomplished woman. I guess you really do only pay lip service to your cries for “diversity”. The left definitely does NOT welcome diversity of thought. That’s abundantly clear.

I would believe you if we were talking about Barbara Larsen, but not a candidate who doesn’t believe birth control is settled law. Nyet.

Except that this is what she said on the matter:

“I think Griswold is not going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples, all people, from using birth control,” Barrett said, adding that it’s “unthinkable any legislature would pass such a law.”

So you were saying, comrade?

Fascist, please. She refused to say Griswold was settled law OR super-precedent. We all know you are not a lawyer, and have a very weak understanding of the legal system, Ted Cruz said yesterday that birth control is "abortion inducing drugs." So, fascist, bleat on.

If you’re trying to claim YOU are a lawyer and/or somehow have a strong understanding of the legal system, I’m sorry to break it to you - you aren’t and you don’t. Please stop trolling this thread with your garbage posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have not had a chance to see this woman's testimony, it is well worth the 5 minutes.

It's nice that ACB was nice to this woman. But that does not qualify her to be on the SCOTUS. It does not erase her extreme views. It does not excuse her opposition to abortion, and her refusal to say that Roe V Wade is settled (or whatever you call it in law). Or her refusal to say that Medicare is settled!! She may be a nice person to those around her, but her views will inflict untold pain and suffering upon millions of Americans.

Yes, she should be "nice" to all women and guarantee their right to bodily autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have not had a chance to see this woman's testimony, it is well worth the 5 minutes.

It's nice that ACB was nice to this woman. But that does not qualify her to be on the SCOTUS. It does not erase her extreme views. It does not excuse her opposition to abortion, and her refusal to say that Roe V Wade is settled (or whatever you call it in law). Or her refusal to say that Medicare is settled!! She may be a nice person to those around her, but her views will inflict untold pain and suffering upon millions of Americans.

Yes, she should be "nice" to all women and guarantee their right to bodily autonomy.

But fascist legal Barbie was nice to her! She was nice! And she has 7 children! Who needs separation of church and state, healthcare, and the environment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amy is a fundie judge who is loved by other fundies. What is so surprising about this? We cannot change each others minds and I have had to cut out fundie friends. Move on guys. Packing the court to rebalance is the only way out of this fundie nonsense.

Talk about needing to broaden your vocabulary! I’m about as far from “fundie” as one can get and I support her nomination. She is a serious and thoughtful legal scholar who will be an asset to the court. But keep on embarrassing yourself! Your ignorant posts are entertaining.