How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please we all know she wants to do away with Roe vs Wade that is what her job is period. Well beside pardoning Trump and giving him the election.

Two things.
1. Clearly she is not qualified today she could not answer simple questions about the constitution. Yet her white notebook was empty.
2. Her non disclosures are not mistakes. She claims she is fastidious at work well then why didn't she turn in the appropriate paperwork???

We "libs" know exactly who she is. And for a job interview lifetime appointment she isn't a good fit. And I personally would be ok with a conservative just not her! She is Typhoid Mary. If she can not stand up for her children and wear a simple mask in public ie Rose Garden then no she's not qualified! She spread the virus to her kids school. She's a great human as well. NO!

ACB to you:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

[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.

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.

As another PP said, you are certifiable. Wolk spoke movingly about Judge Barrett’s empathy and humanity. Perhaps you could learn something from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

[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.

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.

Another accessory.

Look at ACB's actions. She DGAF about women. She doesn't even respect them enough to think they have a right to bodily autonomy.

[Anonymous]

She is a Fedarilist Society appointee. She came through their pipeline. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Exactly! She’s is mediocrity at its best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

...in Hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

I don't like her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

This, this, this. I'm beyond pissed they're not focusing on her lack of credentials. Kagan and Sotomayor were far more qualified and still could not hold a candle to RBG's credentials and accomplishments. This choice is insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

This, this, this. I'm beyond pissed they're not focusing on her lack of credentials. Kagan and Sotomayor were far more qualified and still could not hold a candle to RBG's credentials and accomplishments. This choice is insulting.

I don't get the lack of attention to this at all. Isn't this really the most fundamental point, that your credentials should be exceptional to earn a seat on the Court? Not merely adequate, which I'm even having a hard time seeing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please we all know she wants to do away with Roe vs Wade that is what her job is period. Well beside pardoning Trump and giving him the election.

Two things.
1. Clearly she is not qualified today she could not answer simple questions about the constitution. Yet her white notebook was empty.
2. Her non disclosures are not mistakes. She claims she is fastidious at work well then why didn't she turn in the appropriate paperwork???

We "libs" know exactly who she is. And for a job interview lifetime appointment she isn't a good fit. And I personally would be ok with a conservative just not her! She is Typhoid Mary. If she can not stand up for her children and wear a simple mask in public ie Rose Garden then no she's not qualified! She spread the virus to her kids school. She's a great human as well. NO!

ACB to you:

Apparently your fundie cult doesn’t let you see movies! This character was an immoral bitch....Freudian slip?

[Anonymous]

This was a total and complete failure by the Dems. Thanks Feinstein! Great job! Way to throw the republicans. Even better vs kavanaugh hearing. Would have been better if the Dems just boycotted the hearing. I guess this is the best we can hope for.

[Anonymous]

You are going to see her get bi-partisan support. Slam dunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are going to see her get bi-partisan support. Slam dunk.

Which Democrat is going to vote for her?