How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And...this is what happens when you rush a confirmation.

Any ACB supporters want to defend this?

Well before I even read further, let’s just note the source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alternet/
LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alternet/

Controversies

AlterNet has been given a mixed rating by Snopes.com fact checks, and was included in an initial index of "unreliable" news websites crafted by numerous media scientists and fact-checking groups.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/alternet-media-bias

You can vilify the platform, but try reading the actual court case and you will see the headline and story are accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

But she has 7 children, will outlaw abortion and put morals back in America!!!!

[Anonymous]

You mean impose HER morals on America.

[Anonymous]

OK guys, stupid question, but with all the Repubs bailing on Trump to save their skins, are there any R Senators who realize how vastly unpopular this confirmation is and who will actually defy it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK guys, stupid question, but with all the Repubs bailing on Trump to save their skins, are there any R Senators who realize how vastly unpopular this confirmation is and who will actually defy it?

...pffft, good one, hahahahaha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And...this is what happens when you rush a confirmation.

Any ACB supporters want to defend this?

Well before I even read further, let’s just note the source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alternet/
LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alternet/

Controversies

AlterNet has been given a mixed rating by Snopes.com fact checks, and was included in an initial index of "unreliable" news websites crafted by numerous media scientists and fact-checking groups.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/alternet-media-bias

You can vilify the platform, but try reading the actual court case and you will see the headline and story are accurate.

+1
Such sad, pathetic misogynists willing to overlook any level of cruelty in order to give religious nutjobs control of women’s bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean impose HER morals on America.

Impose her whackjob misogynist amorality on America, more like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

But she has 7 children, will outlaw abortion and put morals back in America!!!!

It is truly frightening.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, people are cool with her letting that rapist off the hook for the most ridiculously bad reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Serious question, is she less qualified on paper than Clarence Thomas? My understanding was he was only on the appeals court for a year and a half after having worked in the Reagan administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Serious question, is she less qualified on paper than Clarence Thomas? My understanding was he was only on the appeals court for a year and a half after having worked in the Reagan administration.

Clarence Thomas wasn’t particularly qualified, no. But discrimination in hiring AA attorneys was more rampant then. And they needed to search far and wide for an AA man who believed in reactionary policies and positions that disadvantaged AAs generally. This is why the Republicans have not considered a woman for the court since 1981. They had to search far and wide for a woman who’s operating position is pro-maternal death (e.g., cannot have a D&C after ectopic pregnancy).

[Anonymous]

Here is the story from salon. She absolved Sheriff David Clark of responsibility for his failure of oversight of his jail and its staff rapist
[twitter]https://www.salon.com/2020/10/16/watchdog-group-accuses-amy-coney-barrett-of-unconscionable-cruelty-in-teen-rape-case/[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the story from salon. She absolved Sheriff David Clark of responsibility for his failure of oversight of his jail and its staff rapist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Serious question, is she less qualified on paper than Clarence Thomas? My understanding was he was only on the appeals court for a year and a half after having worked in the Reagan administration.

True. It's interesting that the two least qualified conservative nominees were chosen to fill the seats of the two greatest liberal justices. It is a deliberate insult. At least Thomas went to the top-ranked law school in the country even if he did benefit from the affirmative action he now denounces. The affirmative action that got him his SC seat--no way would he have been considered at all if he were not a conservative Black judge. Just like Barrett would have been on exactly no one's list if she weren't a hard right conservative with a vagina.