Amy Coney Barrett- what in the actual F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

Like I said when it comes to the GOP, integrity is like so five minutes ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all say nasty things but none of you have adopted kids of your own.

I have two internationally adopted children and my husband and I are both attorneys so I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. Adopted children need so much time and attention to deal with the loss, grieving, and trauma. This is not a one time thing, this is at every developmental stage and especially in the teen years dealing with self identity. I can’t phantom any large family being able to do this well. My grandmother had 7 kids and my father and his siblings love to trade stories of how little attention they got as a joke. With adopted kids that would not be funny. Putting that first issue aside, I just feel terrible for what her adopted children are going to read as they get older. ACB clearly needs a lot more adoption education training on how to talk about her children but more importantly how NOT to talk about them.

Except that, I’m quite sure she and her husband have had many conversations with their children about how they would like to be portrayed in the media. Obviously, she is not going to say anything about them that they wouldn’t approve of first. But sure, continue making absurd assumptions about her, all because you don’t want her confirmed.

The irony here is that her kids are going to read horrible threads like this one if they do any googling. I hope you a$$holes know that YOU are the ones putting out horrible and untrue things about the Barretts - not them. So congratulations. Nicely done.

Yep. I’m SURE that a 10 year old and a 13 year old have the foresight and the courage to tell their Mom not to say anything that could adversely impact them in a decade or two. /S

I don’t want her confirmed.
That’s completely separate from my anger at the way she’s presenting her too-young-to-fight-back Black children to the world.

Lol: And there’s no irony in using profanity in a thread that you expect the kids to read?

If they do read it, I hope they see a community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them, and I hope their view is that this is much ado about nothing. I also hope that my concerns about the difficulties that many Black kids adopted by white families face turn out to be irrelevant for them. I wish all of them well as a family — even as I express my concerns re: the very public hubris of Ms Barrett.

You are a true piece of work. Smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous. “A community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them”?? No, honey. That’s not what you want, nor what they will see when they read this thread - and they will. They will see a group of painfully hostile people, saying and assuming the very worst about their mother. They will read your atrocious comments and question their place in this family - something that they never had to question before because they knew they were loved and valued. One thing you said was correct: this is indeed, much ado about absolutely nothing. Only a liberal with a clear axe to grind would take the words of a loving mom and turn them into something hurtful. You should truly be ashamed of yourselves, though I’m quite certain “shame” isn’t within your capacity.

And we’re sure a frontal lobe and a human heart don’t beat within you, either.

Nor you, sweetie. What have you ever done for humanity other than spout liberal talking points that someone else came up with on social media? Poser.

Oink oink misogynist pig alert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

You’re cute. Are you 12? You obviously didn’t bother to watch the hearings or you would know she answered all questions about her own writings and decisions, as well as super-precedents like Brown. As a sitting judge, she is not *allowed* to answer hypotheticals or abstract questions - like EVERY NOMINEE BEFORE HER. How many times must this be explained to you twits? Do you plan on just spouting lies and hoping that ignorant people will believe you?

THE GINSBURG STANDARD: No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews…And No Special Obligations

‘Judges…Are Bound To Decide Concrete Cases, Not Abstract Issues’
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

As outside special interest groups and advocacy organizations pledge to impose ideological and policy litmus tests on President Trump’s nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, take a look back at what current Supreme Court Justices, including four appointed by Democrat Presidents, said during their confirmation processes about such attempts. As Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 2/7/2017)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all say nasty things but none of you have adopted kids of your own.

I have two internationally adopted children and my husband and I are both attorneys so I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. Adopted children need so much time and attention to deal with the loss, grieving, and trauma. This is not a one time thing, this is at every developmental stage and especially in the teen years dealing with self identity. I can’t phantom any large family being able to do this well. My grandmother had 7 kids and my father and his siblings love to trade stories of how little attention they got as a joke. With adopted kids that would not be funny. Putting that first issue aside, I just feel terrible for what her adopted children are going to read as they get older. ACB clearly needs a lot more adoption education training on how to talk about her children but more importantly how NOT to talk about them.

Except that, I’m quite sure she and her husband have had many conversations with their children about how they would like to be portrayed in the media. Obviously, she is not going to say anything about them that they wouldn’t approve of first. But sure, continue making absurd assumptions about her, all because you don’t want her confirmed.

The irony here is that her kids are going to read horrible threads like this one if they do any googling. I hope you a$$holes know that YOU are the ones putting out horrible and untrue things about the Barretts - not them. So congratulations. Nicely done.

Yep. I’m SURE that a 10 year old and a 13 year old have the foresight and the courage to tell their Mom not to say anything that could adversely impact them in a decade or two. /S

I don’t want her confirmed.
That’s completely separate from my anger at the way she’s presenting her too-young-to-fight-back Black children to the world.

Lol: And there’s no irony in using profanity in a thread that you expect the kids to read?

If they do read it, I hope they see a community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them, and I hope their view is that this is much ado about nothing. I also hope that my concerns about the difficulties that many Black kids adopted by white families face turn out to be irrelevant for them. I wish all of them well as a family — even as I express my concerns re: the very public hubris of Ms Barrett.

You are a true piece of work. Smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous. “A community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them”?? No, honey. That’s not what you want, nor what they will see when they read this thread - and they will. They will see a group of painfully hostile people, saying and assuming the very worst about their mother. They will read your atrocious comments and question their place in this family - something that they never had to question before because they knew they were loved and valued. One thing you said was correct: this is indeed, much ado about absolutely nothing. Only a liberal with a clear axe to grind would take the words of a loving mom and turn them into something hurtful. You should truly be ashamed of yourselves, though I’m quite certain “shame” isn’t within your capacity.

And we’re sure a frontal lobe and a human heart don’t beat within you, either.

Nor you, sweetie. What have you ever done for humanity other than spout liberal talking points that someone else came up with on social media? Poser.

Oink oink misogynist pig alert.

DP. Please do point out the “misogyny” in the above statement. We’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.

Aww. I’m so sorry you have trouble reading. Explains so much, though.

[Anonymous]

+1
Yep. But trust and believe, if Judge Barrett were liberal, the very same critics would be fawning over exactly the things they’re tearing her apart for. She’d be a hero to them - not only for adopting, but also for having a super-involved husband helping to raise their children so that she can pursue a very demanding career. But since she’s conservative (oh, and white, of course), she’s the devil incarnate. Classic liberal hypocrisy.

Libs don't do this false same-as/same-as crap. It is simpleminded. A liberal version of Amy Coney Barrett ... would not be Amy Coney Barrett in any way.

Liberals in this thread are in favor of following best practices when adopting. Liberals have been in support of women having careers for a long time. Liberals are in favor of policies that help women and families. How are we supposed to be impressed? Especially after RBG?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

You’re cute. Are you 12? You obviously didn’t bother to watch the hearings or you would know she answered all questions about her own writings and decisions, as well as super-precedents like Brown. As a sitting judge, she is not *allowed* to answer hypotheticals or abstract questions - like EVERY NOMINEE BEFORE HER. How many times must this be explained to you twits? Do you plan on just spouting lies and hoping that ignorant people will believe you?

THE GINSBURG STANDARD: No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews…And No Special Obligations

‘Judges…Are Bound To Decide Concrete Cases, Not Abstract Issues’
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

As outside special interest groups and advocacy organizations pledge to impose ideological and policy litmus tests on President Trump’s nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, take a look back at what current Supreme Court Justices, including four appointed by Democrat Presidents, said during their confirmation processes about such attempts. As Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 2/7/2017)

OMG haha. You are the idiot, you rude ignoramus. Judges can answer questions, even if somewhat abstract or hypothetical, especially IF she has written about them before. RBG talked very frankly about a woman's right to abortion during her hearing. And let it be clear, Barrett is no RBG. RBG was a brilliant, visionary jurist who fundamentally changed way in which Americans view the constitution as a document that protects women as much as it protects men. Barrett is a good jurist, but not nearly rising to the level of Ginsburg. She's the white female version of Thomas, the least qualified justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

You’re cute. Are you 12? You obviously didn’t bother to watch the hearings or you would know she answered all questions about her own writings and decisions, as well as super-precedents like Brown. As a sitting judge, she is not *allowed* to answer hypotheticals or abstract questions - like EVERY NOMINEE BEFORE HER. How many times must this be explained to you twits? Do you plan on just spouting lies and hoping that ignorant people will believe you?

THE GINSBURG STANDARD: No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews…And No Special Obligations

‘Judges…Are Bound To Decide Concrete Cases, Not Abstract Issues’
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

As outside special interest groups and advocacy organizations pledge to impose ideological and policy litmus tests on President Trump’s nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, take a look back at what current Supreme Court Justices, including four appointed by Democrat Presidents, said during their confirmation processes about such attempts. As Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 2/7/2017)

OMG haha. You are the idiot, you rude ignoramus. Judges can answer questions, even if somewhat abstract or hypothetical, especially IF she has written about them before. RBG talked very frankly about a woman's right to abortion during her hearing. And let it be clear, Barrett is no RBG. RBG was a brilliant, visionary jurist who fundamentally changed way in which Americans view the constitution as a document that protects women as much as it protects men. Barrett is a good jurist, but not nearly rising to the level of Ginsburg. She's the white female version of Thomas, the least qualified justice.

This is what the GOP does. They use identity politics to fill their spots. We had Thurgood Marshall who was brilliant. Thomas took his spot. We had RBG who was brilliant. Now we will have mediocre Amy. It is pretty gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1
Yep. But trust and believe, if Judge Barrett were liberal, the very same critics would be fawning over exactly the things they’re tearing her apart for. She’d be a hero to them - not only for adopting, but also for having a super-involved husband helping to raise their children so that she can pursue a very demanding career. But since she’s conservative (oh, and white, of course), she’s the devil incarnate. Classic liberal hypocrisy.

Libs don't do this false same-as/same-as crap. It is simpleminded. A liberal version of Amy Coney Barrett ... would not be Amy Coney Barrett in any way.

Liberals in this thread are in favor of following best practices when adopting. Liberals have been in support of women having careers for a long time. Liberals are in favor of policies that help women and families. How are we supposed to be impressed? Especially after RBG?

You cannot be serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all say nasty things but none of you have adopted kids of your own.

I have two internationally adopted children and my husband and I are both attorneys so I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. Adopted children need so much time and attention to deal with the loss, grieving, and trauma. This is not a one time thing, this is at every developmental stage and especially in the teen years dealing with self identity. I can’t phantom any large family being able to do this well. My grandmother had 7 kids and my father and his siblings love to trade stories of how little attention they got as a joke. With adopted kids that would not be funny. Putting that first issue aside, I just feel terrible for what her adopted children are going to read as they get older. ACB clearly needs a lot more adoption education training on how to talk about her children but more importantly how NOT to talk about them.

Except that, I’m quite sure she and her husband have had many conversations with their children about how they would like to be portrayed in the media. Obviously, she is not going to say anything about them that they wouldn’t approve of first. But sure, continue making absurd assumptions about her, all because you don’t want her confirmed.

The irony here is that her kids are going to read horrible threads like this one if they do any googling. I hope you a$$holes know that YOU are the ones putting out horrible and untrue things about the Barretts - not them. So congratulations. Nicely done.

Yep. I’m SURE that a 10 year old and a 13 year old have the foresight and the courage to tell their Mom not to say anything that could adversely impact them in a decade or two. /S

I don’t want her confirmed.
That’s completely separate from my anger at the way she’s presenting her too-young-to-fight-back Black children to the world.

Lol: And there’s no irony in using profanity in a thread that you expect the kids to read?

If they do read it, I hope they see a community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them, and I hope their view is that this is much ado about nothing. I also hope that my concerns about the difficulties that many Black kids adopted by white families face turn out to be irrelevant for them. I wish all of them well as a family — even as I express my concerns re: the very public hubris of Ms Barrett.

You are a true piece of work. Smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous. “A community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them”?? No, honey. That’s not what you want, nor what they will see when they read this thread - and they will. They will see a group of painfully hostile people, saying and assuming the very worst about their mother. They will read your atrocious comments and question their place in this family - something that they never had to question before because they knew they were loved and valued. One thing you said was correct: this is indeed, much ado about absolutely nothing. Only a liberal with a clear axe to grind would take the words of a loving mom and turn them into something hurtful. You should truly be ashamed of yourselves, though I’m quite certain “shame” isn’t within your capacity.

And we’re sure a frontal lobe and a human heart don’t beat within you, either.

Nor you, sweetie. What have you ever done for humanity other than spout liberal talking points that someone else came up with on social media? Poser.

Oink oink misogynist pig alert.

DP. Please do point out the “misogyny” in the above statement. We’ll wait.

There’s only one of you. We think. But using a gendered diminutive is misogyny.

Only one of who? People who disagree with you?? If you actually believe that, your echo chamber is narrower and more airtight than previously suspected. I’m not the “sweetie” poster, but sarcastically using that term is far more palatable than the insults liberals love to sling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

She could have said something other than happy go lucky and good athlete. I'm sure they have other skills and abilities.

But, why is she even talking about her kids and not about how she would interpret the law? That's what I want to hear about. Any rich person can adopt a couple kids.

Wow, aren't you a snob. And let me guess, you're a Democrat. You're the reason that thousands of Americans are getting into massive debt with college educations that they simply should not have started. Believe it or not, people can have productive and happy lives without a law degree. Athletic ability is still a gift. And being easy going is also a gift, especially in today's society where the mob is so vicious.

And a senator actually asked her to introduce her 'well behaved' children. She was answering questions that she was legally allowed to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

You’re cute. Are you 12? You obviously didn’t bother to watch the hearings or you would know she answered all questions about her own writings and decisions, as well as super-precedents like Brown. As a sitting judge, she is not *allowed* to answer hypotheticals or abstract questions - like EVERY NOMINEE BEFORE HER. How many times must this be explained to you twits? Do you plan on just spouting lies and hoping that ignorant people will believe you?

THE GINSBURG STANDARD: No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews…And No Special Obligations

‘Judges…Are Bound To Decide Concrete Cases, Not Abstract Issues’
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

As outside special interest groups and advocacy organizations pledge to impose ideological and policy litmus tests on President Trump’s nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, take a look back at what current Supreme Court Justices, including four appointed by Democrat Presidents, said during their confirmation processes about such attempts. As Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 2/7/2017)

OMG haha. You are the idiot, you rude ignoramus. Judges can answer questions, even if somewhat abstract or hypothetical, especially IF she has written about them before. RBG talked very frankly about a woman's right to abortion during her hearing. And let it be clear, Barrett is no RBG. RBG was a brilliant, visionary jurist who fundamentally changed way in which Americans view the constitution as a document that protects women as much as it protects men. Barrett is a good jurist, but not nearly rising to the level of Ginsburg. She's the white female version of Thomas, the least qualified justice.

Ah well. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. She’s not somehow “competing” with RBG in any way. I admired Ginsburg as much as the next person, but this is not “her” seat. The ABA rates Judge Barrett as “well-qualified.” Enough said.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/why-amy-coney-barrett-got-a-well-qualified-rating-from-aba-standing-committee

Lawyers and judges who spoke with the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary had high praise for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett is “an intellectual giant” with a “staggering academic mind” who is “decent, selfless and sincere.” She has a “stellar judicial temperament” who shows no sarcasm in her questioning.

That kind of praise led the ABA standing committee to conclude that Barrett met the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, the three criteria used in its ratings of federal judicial nominees.

First, in the committee’s evaluation of Barrett’s integrity, lawyers and judges were uniform in their praise, Noel said in the prepared testimony. “Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.”

Noel offered some representative comments, including:

• Barrett “is incredibly honest and forthright.”

• Barrett “is exactly who you think she is,” and, “Nothing about her is fake.” She is “good, decent, selfless and sincere.”

• “A casual observer might think that she sounds ‘too good’ to be real, but she is very genuine.”

• Barrett is an “exemplar of living an integrated life in which her intellect, integrity and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly.”

Second, the committee found that Barrett’s professional competence exceeded the committee’s high standards for Supreme Court nominees.

“All of the experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars, and lawyers who have worked with or against Judge Barrett had high praise for her intellect and ability to communicate clearly and effectively,” Noel said in the prepared testimony.

These were among the comments he cited:

• “From an early age Judge Barrett’s scholarship was evident; an award-winning student, top of her class in college and law school, in addition to being an executive editor of the law review.”

• Barrett is “whip smart, highly productive, punctual and well-prepared.”

• “A brilliant writer and thinker,” Barrett is also “quite pragmatic.” She has a “friendly, collegial demeanor and is respectful of everyone.”

• Judge Barrett is “an intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth.”

• “The myth is real. She is a staggering academic mind.”

Third, Noel said lawyers and judges alike had praise for Barrett’s temperament. Some comments included:

• “She was always willing to be helpful and engage with others on a topic even when she had a different philosophy and when she writes in dissent, she is very collegial.”

• Barrett “never raises her voice and there is no hint of sarcasm in her questioning. She is also a good listener.”

• Barrett is “kind, caring and compassionate.” She is “extremely well-liked by faculty and students universally.”

• Barrett “has demonstrated stellar judicial temperament in all settings: She is often described as a ‘good listener’ who makes time for people, whether they are law students, law clerks, colleagues or friends.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1
Yep. But trust and believe, if Judge Barrett were liberal, the very same critics would be fawning over exactly the things they’re tearing her apart for. She’d be a hero to them - not only for adopting, but also for having a super-involved husband helping to raise their children so that she can pursue a very demanding career. But since she’s conservative (oh, and white, of course), she’s the devil incarnate. Classic liberal hypocrisy.

Libs don't do this false same-as/same-as crap. It is simpleminded. A liberal version of Amy Coney Barrett ... would not be Amy Coney Barrett in any way.

Liberals in this thread are in favor of following best practices when adopting. Liberals have been in support of women having careers for a long time. Liberals are in favor of policies that help women and families. How are we supposed to be impressed? Especially after RBG?

You cannot be serious.

So serious! Let's argue about who is a more impressive woman/judge/person/mother-- Barrett or a hypothetical liberal Barrett, who does not exist! Or ... let's compare Barrett to RBG. I know, it is not flattering!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the devil incarnate because she is there because of dark money and because she wants to take away healthcare and women’s rights. And she is super cool with felons having guns. But voting? Oh no. Not the same thing. She sucks and is mediocre.

She is the personification of all that is wrong with the GOP.

Provide links to all of the bolded claims - in HER words. As for dark money, maybe take a look at your own party?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/521179-joe-biden-and-democrats-are-wallowing-in-dark-money-and-hypocrisy?amp

She doesn’t use words. She refused to answer any questions. That is why she is there. Because she’ll keep her mouth shut and do the GOP’s dirty work. She sucks. So much. And is SO mediocre. Such a fake pro-life person. It is disgusting.

You’re cute. Are you 12? You obviously didn’t bother to watch the hearings or you would know she answered all questions about her own writings and decisions, as well as super-precedents like Brown. As a sitting judge, she is not *allowed* to answer hypotheticals or abstract questions - like EVERY NOMINEE BEFORE HER. How many times must this be explained to you twits? Do you plan on just spouting lies and hoping that ignorant people will believe you?

THE GINSBURG STANDARD: No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews…And No Special Obligations

‘Judges…Are Bound To Decide Concrete Cases, Not Abstract Issues’
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations

As outside special interest groups and advocacy organizations pledge to impose ideological and policy litmus tests on President Trump’s nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, take a look back at what current Supreme Court Justices, including four appointed by Democrat Presidents, said during their confirmation processes about such attempts. As Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 2/7/2017)

OMG haha. You are the idiot, you rude ignoramus. Judges can answer questions, even if somewhat abstract or hypothetical, especially IF she has written about them before. RBG talked very frankly about a woman's right to abortion during her hearing. And let it be clear, Barrett is no RBG. RBG was a brilliant, visionary jurist who fundamentally changed way in which Americans view the constitution as a document that protects women as much as it protects men. Barrett is a good jurist, but not nearly rising to the level of Ginsburg. She's the white female version of Thomas, the least qualified justice.

Ah well. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. She’s not somehow “competing” with RBG in any way. I admired Ginsburg as much as the next person, but this is not “her” seat. The ABA rates Judge Barrett as “well-qualified.” Enough said.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/why-amy-coney-barrett-got-a-well-qualified-rating-from-aba-standing-committee

Lawyers and judges who spoke with the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary had high praise for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett is “an intellectual giant” with a “staggering academic mind” who is “decent, selfless and sincere.” She has a “stellar judicial temperament” who shows no sarcasm in her questioning.

That kind of praise led the ABA standing committee to conclude that Barrett met the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, the three criteria used in its ratings of federal judicial nominees.

First, in the committee’s evaluation of Barrett’s integrity, lawyers and judges were uniform in their praise, Noel said in the prepared testimony. “Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.”

Noel offered some representative comments, including:

• Barrett “is incredibly honest and forthright.”

• Barrett “is exactly who you think she is,” and, “Nothing about her is fake.” She is “good, decent, selfless and sincere.”

• “A casual observer might think that she sounds ‘too good’ to be real, but she is very genuine.”

• Barrett is an “exemplar of living an integrated life in which her intellect, integrity and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly.”

Second, the committee found that Barrett’s professional competence exceeded the committee’s high standards for Supreme Court nominees.

“All of the experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars, and lawyers who have worked with or against Judge Barrett had high praise for her intellect and ability to communicate clearly and effectively,” Noel said in the prepared testimony.

These were among the comments he cited:

• “From an early age Judge Barrett’s scholarship was evident; an award-winning student, top of her class in college and law school, in addition to being an executive editor of the law review.”

• Barrett is “whip smart, highly productive, punctual and well-prepared.”

• “A brilliant writer and thinker,” Barrett is also “quite pragmatic.” She has a “friendly, collegial demeanor and is respectful of everyone.”

• Judge Barrett is “an intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth.”

• “The myth is real. She is a staggering academic mind.”

Third, Noel said lawyers and judges alike had praise for Barrett’s temperament. Some comments included:

• “She was always willing to be helpful and engage with others on a topic even when she had a different philosophy and when she writes in dissent, she is very collegial.”

• Barrett “never raises her voice and there is no hint of sarcasm in her questioning. She is also a good listener.”

• Barrett is “kind, caring and compassionate.” She is “extremely well-liked by faculty and students universally.”

• Barrett “has demonstrated stellar judicial temperament in all settings: She is often described as a ‘good listener’ who makes time for people, whether they are law students, law clerks, colleagues or friends.”

You can really copy and paste! Congrats.