How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does her husband do? Where on earth in the dmv are they going to be able to support a family of 9 on the associate justice salary of 250k with a semi decent commute for her? I wouldn’t even want the damn job if it meant commuting from like Woodbridge everyday.

Her husband is a lawyer, with a fine enough pedigree to fit right in with a DC Big Law firm. They'll probably move into their cult's little enclave near the cult school, Trinity School at Meadow View.

[Anonymous]

I like her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like her. [/quote

I will pray for your daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll get nominated and approved for the seat.
That’s the process and it’s being followed.

What’s the big deal?

I know, right? Rich bitches like us have been stock-piling birth control pills for months, have had our frozen fetuses transferred to Canadian labs, have started off-site Abortion/Avortement savings accounts for our little Biancas and Bryces. I mean, poor women dying? We give "F" all. Fewer "takers," or "suckers and losers" as we like to call them.

R v w is not going to be overturned.

USA has a good 1000 other things to be more concerned about than week 8 abortions. Haven’t abortions and teen pregnancies been going down the last twenty years? Free brith control (if u can remember to take a pill a day), free day after Plan B pills. DNA tests so baby daddy pays up if you play that card. And then there’s always adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll get nominated and approved for the seat.
That’s the process and it’s being followed.

What’s the big deal?

I know, right? Rich bitches like us have been stock-piling birth control pills for months, have had our frozen fetuses transferred to Canadian labs, have started off-site Abortion/Avortement savings accounts for our little Biancas and Bryces. I mean, poor women dying? We give "F" all. Fewer "takers," or "suckers and losers" as we like to call them.

R v w is not going to be overturned.

USA has a good 1000 other things to be more concerned about than week 8 abortions. Haven’t abortions and teen pregnancies been going down the last twenty years? Free brith control (if u can remember to take a pill a day), free day after Plan B pills. DNA tests so baby daddy pays up if you play that card. And then there’s always adoption.

You are certifiable. Do you also believe in Qanon and unicorns?

[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.

Thank you! This was really eye-opening and I enjoyed listening to this testimony of support.

Um.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble understanding what Barrett actually is and isn't allowed to say. The responses from the media, senators, and DCUM are entirely partisan.

Full disclosure, I am against her confirmation due to the timing and the precedent established by Republican senators when Obama nominated Garland. And I don't kid myself about the reasons she was picked. But, given that this is indeed happening, I'd like to have some objective way to evaluate her answers (or lack there of). Is this too complicated a question to answer??

Barrett is not permitted to answer any questions regarding hypothetical or abstract situations. She may not opine on anything other than her own decisions and writings. She can’t give any hints as to how she might rule if a case could possibly be judged by her in the future. This is something that ALL nominees have done - refuse to give their opinions - and it’s widely known as the Ginsburg rule - “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” Democrats are trying to make it appear that she “didn’t want” to answer questions, or was being evasive. She is simply remaining impartial, as any responsible judge would do. And notice that Democrats were the only ones asking her hypotheticals and questions about non-super-precedents. This was by design, to make her appear unwilling to answer. The reality is that she could not answer them. Republicans had better luck because they asked her about her OWN decisions and writings, as well as super-precedents, all of which she is free to discuss - and did, at length.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

[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.

Thank you! This was really eye-opening and I enjoyed listening to this testimony of support.

Um.

Do you have something intelligent to share? Guess not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you! This was really eye-opening and I enjoyed listening to this testimony of support.

Um.

Do you have something intelligent to share? Guess not.

Did you ... actually watch the clip, or ...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Wow. No words for this.
When you resort to hyperbole and outright lies, you have no argument.

+1
You are correct - all they have are hyperbole and lies. They realize they have nothing on ACB, so they resort to immature insults and outright lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they are not. Not in the same way. Nobody asked Biff Kavanaugh who does the laundry for example. The implicit sexism in that statement is that who is doing the "women's work" in her house. It was disgusting.

Whatever. Good thing she has a sense of humor and merely laughed. You know, like a normal person without a chip on their shoulder.

[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.

Thank you! This was really eye-opening and I enjoyed listening to this testimony of support.

Wolk is a member of the Federalist Society. Per the Federalist Society, “Laura enjoys thinking and writing about constitutional law, public policy, and the sanctity of life. She has co-authored a book chapter on the Catholic Church’s teachings concerning abortion as well as articles on assisted suicide and the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.” This woman is not an impartial observer. She strikes me as one of the props that Barrett trots out - like her two adopted children - to make her look compassionate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What specific "serious, thoughtful" contributions has she made to the field of law? What specific interpretations has she contributed? Please name at least three.

She has 7 children! That’s enough! And she’ll ban abortion and take sponge bob off the air because he and squidbert are gay!!!! She’ll stop the war on Christmas!!!!

It’s Squidward. Just thought you should know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand being concerned for the future of Roe v. Wade and for those in other states but Scalia, an originalist, said that abortion was a matter to be left to the states. Terrifying women who live in Blue states that they should be transferring embryos to Canada or stockpiling birth control pills puts you in the category of the hysterical. Unless you think that the governments of DC, Virginia or Maryland are likely to be a very conservative red sometime soon, outlawing IVF, contraception, or abortion are not likely around here. But ymmv.

+100
The PP to whom you were replying is probably sleeping off her hangover. Your reasonable post is wasted on her.

[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.

Thank you! This was really eye-opening and I enjoyed listening to this testimony of support.

+1