Amy Coney Barrett- what in the actual F?

[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.

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.

Oh do tell us more about identity politics! Tell us how Biden pledged to pick not the most qualified person he could find for his running mate, but specifically a “female POC.” Tell us all about Democrats and identify politics! Take your time. There’s a lot of ground to cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This comparison to RBG is bizarre. Is there something in the Constitution that states when a justice retires or dies, their replacement must share the same jurisprudence? If RBG had truly wanted someone who shared her philosophies, she could have retired during the Obama administration. She did not. This is not an Obama nominee. At some point, you’re going to have to stop pouting, face facts, and get over it.

[Anonymous]

Oh do tell us more about identity politics! Tell us how Biden pledged to pick not the most qualified person he could find for his running mate, but specifically a “female POC.” Tell us all about Democrats and identify politics! Take your time. There’s a lot of ground to cover.

More simpleminded same-as/same-as whatabout whataboutism about things that are not alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure can. And you can clearly see that the ABA gave her its highest ranking. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop, PP! You’re making too much sense and pointing out facts. This won’t go over well here.

[Anonymous]

This comparison to RBG is bizarre. Is there something in the Constitution that states when a justice retires or dies, their replacement must share the same jurisprudence? If RBG had truly wanted someone who shared her philosophies, she could have retired during the Obama administration. She did not. This is not an Obama nominee. At some point, you’re going to have to stop pouting, face facts, and get over it.

The comparison is bizarre because Barrett is second-rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This comparison to RBG is bizarre. Is there something in the Constitution that states when a justice retires or dies, their replacement must share the same jurisprudence? If RBG had truly wanted someone who shared her philosophies, she could have retired during the Obama administration. She did not. This is not an Obama nominee. At some point, you’re going to have to stop pouting, face facts, and get over it.

RBG replaced Whizzer White and the Court’s then swing vote. I don’t recall this discussion at the time.

[Anonymous]

Why are Republicans obsessed with Amy Coney Barrett's kids? To troll feminists

https://www.salon.com/2020/10/13/why-are-republicans-obsessed-with-amy-coney-barretts-kids-to-troll-feminists/

"But this is also just about trolling feminists. The implicit argument in hyping Barrett's big family along with her successful career is one that anti-choice activists have been making for a long time: Women don't really need contraception or abortion access in order to succeed socially and professionally, and feminists who say otherwise have a sinister agenda."

What do you think, trolls?

[Anonymous]

Nobody asked for this, but: Comparison of kid descriptions from 2017 to 2020:

2017

Emma: "Emma is 16. The first apple of our eye."

Vivian: "Vivian, directly next to Emma, is 13. Vivian is our miracle. Vivian joined our family… She was born in Haiti. She came home when she was 14-months-old, and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so weak we were told she might never walk normally or speak. Today Vivian is a track star, and I assure you she has no trouble talking."

Tess: "Tess, sitting next to Vivian, is also 13-years-old. Both in 8th grade. She’s one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know."

John Peter: "John Peter is 10. He was born in Haiti. He joined our family in 2010 when he was three years old after the devastating earthquake."

Liam: "Liam is 8. Typically curious 8-year-old."

Juliet: "And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old."

Benjamin: "Benjamin, our youngest, is five. He has special needs. That presents unique challenges for all of us. But I think all you need to know about Benjamin’s place in the family is summed up by the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling."

2020

Emma: "Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law."

Vivian: "Next is Vivian, who came to us from Haiti. When Vivian arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never talk or walk normally. But now she deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking."

Tess: "Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation."

John Peter: "John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait."

Liam: "Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad."

Juliet: "Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, one of which she recently submitted for publication."

Benjamin: "And our youngest, Benjamin, is at home with friends. Benjamin has Down syndrome and he is the unanimous favorite of the family. He was watching the hearing this morning, I'm told, and he was calling out our names as he saw the kids in the back."

[Anonymous]

Why are women afraid of such a successful woman? Madeleine Albright, please tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This comparison to RBG is bizarre. Is there something in the Constitution that states when a justice retires or dies, their replacement must share the same jurisprudence? If RBG had truly wanted someone who shared her philosophies, she could have retired during the Obama administration. She did not. This is not an Obama nominee. At some point, you’re going to have to stop pouting, face facts, and get over it.

The comparison is bizarre because Barrett is second-rate.

I’ll take the ABA’s rating over some random internet troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This comparison to RBG is bizarre. Is there something in the Constitution that states when a justice retires or dies, their replacement must share the same jurisprudence? If RBG had truly wanted someone who shared her philosophies, she could have retired during the Obama administration. She did not. This is not an Obama nominee. At some point, you’re going to have to stop pouting, face facts, and get over it.

RBG replaced Whizzer White and the Court’s then swing vote. I don’t recall this discussion at the time.

Very true. And White was considered a moderate conservative. I guess his replacement with a liberal justice is fine though. Liberal hypocrisy in full view!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are women afraid of such a successful woman? Madeleine Albright, please tell.

Excellent point. DCUM’s finest love to pretend conservatives are “afraid” of AOC et al. I guess, using their “logic,” liberals are terrified of Judge Barrett. Pretty amusing.

[Anonymous]

23:30, all of those descriptions tell me a little something about each of her children. Each one has a personal anecdote of some kind. It is absolutely astounding that you are creating a problem where there isn’t one. ACB is living her life to the fullest and with every pathetic post, you’re making clear that you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:23:30, all of those descriptions tell me a little something about each of her children. Each one has a personal anecdote of some kind. It is absolutely astounding that you are creating a problem where there isn’t one. ACB is living her life to the fullest and with every pathetic post, you’re making clear that you are not.

Presented with no commentary!