Amy Coney Barrett- what in the actual F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The minute I see a post with “sweetie”, “hun” or similar, I know I’m dealing with a cocky idiot, regardless of political affiliation. Or a
‘Bless your heart”. All of you should just be quiet and let grown ups talk.
-DP

[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.

Your mediocre candidate, Barrett, is on tape defending McConnell’s choice not to have a confirmation hearing for Garland going on about how it would change the make up of the court.

‘ Barrett added: "We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court. It's not a lateral move."’

She’s mediocre and a hypocrite and so are any of you that support her nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But I also feel that most people with 7 children are weird, and don't want them to represent me. It was common in the past, but not so much after birth control became available. Having 7 children is an extreme choice. You might be "full quiver," anti birth control, I don't know. Especially when both parents are lawyers. So imagine you have 2 hours after work to spend with your kids before their bedtimes. Divide that time by 7. Kids want their parents when they are young. In absence of parent, siblings are conscripted into the role.

Angelina Jolie is a liberal woman with a lot of kids, including adopted. She is probably a nutter. I assume ego/narcissism/savior complex. She is really rich too, OK, and I also imagine she can choose her own projects and spends months on end with those kids if she wants to. But I am only guessing at this.

Angelina isn’t a liberal. Common misconception.

[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.

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.

Identity Politics is the Democrats’ brand. Why are you letting your brand go? That is very bad marketing from an organization whose very identity is in that brand.

[Anonymous]

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.

As the poster stated, shame isn’t within your capacity, nor apparently is the intellectual capacity to understand the physiology of a frontal lobe and heart beat.

[Anonymous]

The fact that ACB doesn't recuse herself tells me all I need to know about her. She wants the job for herself and has no consideration for what is best for the entire country. Kind of like Bretty. Any person with a conscience male or female would not this accept this appointment at this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article perfectly sums up the attitude of liberals insisting ACB has done anything in any way nefarious regarding the way she speaks about her adopted children. Guarantee: if she was a liberal, the very same critics would be praising her nonstop. You people are completely transparent, not to mention unhinged.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/16/barrett-children-adopted-racist-slur/

“These descriptions of Barrett’s remarks are remarkably uncharitable. To understand why she might tell a story involving Vivian’s strength, a humane observer might want to consider that when Barrett and her husband brought Vivian home, she was 14 months old yet weighed a mere 11 pounds. It wasn’t clear whether she’d survive. That Barrett would boast of her daughter’s ability to weight-lift as much as men isn’t a racially motivated dismissal of her intellectual accomplishments: It is a testament to the miracle of her life.

And these were the comments that supposedly reduced John Peter to a racist stereotype: “John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on J.P.’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, J.P. assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait.” It requires hyperpartisan dishonesty to interpret this description as something other than a loving mother describing the personality of her young child.

In the end, it was Barrett and her husband, not their critics, who chose to adopt two children from Haiti and raise them as their own and who made the courageous choice to raise their youngest son, eschewing the more common decision of abortion. For progressives to offer armchair judgments about Barrett’s family in an effort to delegitimize her illustrates their willingness to prioritize ideology above simple humanity.

It is a weak opinion piece that refutes nothing. In this young conservative woman's opinion, there are no legit grounds to criticize Barrett's family choices, and therefore the criticism is dishonest and partisan. And actually Barrett is perfect and wonderful. Because she says so, I guess.

That your opinion gets published in the Wapo doesn't make it true, or intelligent or scathing.

Trumpers have difficulty deciphering information and its contexts, thinking critically and seeing any issue from the other side.

On the contrary, liberals have great difficulty understanding that their opinions are not held by millions of Americans. When an opinion piece is published - whether in the WaPo, NYT, WSJ, etc. - it is a valid opinion, regardless of whether or not you agree. Some random, anonymous internet stranger announcing that a well-written and articulated opinion piece is somehow invalid because it doesn’t suit your narrative is a typical liberal move.

Oh, and the irony of your last sentence is something to behold.

What is a valid opinion? Are you saying that publication makes an opinion "more" valid? I mean, all opinions are valid ... like everyone has an anus. The Wapo may choose to publish an opinion piece because it is about a hot topic (check!), provides an alternate view (check!), is written reasonably well (check!). What I am saying is that does not make it a strong argument or better than say, my opinion, an internet stranger, that it was published.

That everyone has an anus is not an opinion. It’s a fact. Just so you know.

And we could turn all your statements around on you: your opinion is not any better or more valid than that of anyone else, including the author of that piece, whom I agree with.

Well, to be fair, not everyone has an anus. If that is your standard for a fact, there should be a qualifier on your facts.

[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.

What woman would you suggest?

[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.

These are the same white liberal moms who ask judges to review points when my adopted black daughter wins in her gymnastic meets. She will win athletic scholarships that will leave her debt free upon graduation.

[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!

Especially if you look at Ginsburg’s children and the OMG grandchildren.

[Anonymous]

Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP lawyer who keeps saying you don’t know the child is yours until the adoption is final-

Don’t they also stress that the kids aren’t dogs and you don’t get to try them out and return them if it doesn’t work? The kid in this case was already stateside. Things could go awry but the parents should be committed at that point. You don’t get to return or rehome your intended children-weird it even seemed like an option to her.

It isn’t that you don’t know the child is yours; it is that you are explicitly told that legally that child is not your child until a court blesses it and you need to understand that until finalizing the child can be taken from your family for any reason at all and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

Again, life is not easy and neat. Everybody on both sides of the political aisle agrees that an unexpected pregnancy can be and often is paradigm shattering event for a woman. I don’t understand the critique that she had a human reaction in that particular moment and she was honest and candid about it. Would you rather she hide the truth or pretend it didn’t happen? And of course, the situation was compounded by the fact that she was already in the middle of a stressful event (taking custody of a child she was trying to adopt). I don’t doubt that some people would have a perfect emotional response in such a moment, but having been through the process myself and knowing others in the community that have been through the process, I would venture that many (perhaps most) would have reacted as she did.

Aer. S

The court does not "bless" you. The court finalizes the adoption.

Yes, I would rather that she had the presence of mind to understand that second guessing her near-final adoption bc she was having another child is not a talking point. She may as well have said that she found out she was having twins and deliberated for three hours whether to abort one.

Okay. Well, if you listen to the interview the story is a lot more complicated than portrayed here. Listening to her in her own words, prior to the Haiti earthquake she and her husband had been led to believe the adoption wasn’t happening. Post-earthquake they were told some state department red-tape would be lifted but it wasn’t entirely clear they would be able to adopt. During this time the child was in Florida but there was still some confusion as to whether they would be able to clear the process. Then they got the go ahead that they would clear diplomatic red tape and they had to decide whether they were going to adopt or not (the reference of going to Florida to kick him up) while simultaneously finding out they had an unexpected pregnancy.

she shouldn't have shared the story. You know who's life was more complicated??? Her kids. Adoptive parents like her looooooove to center themselves. It's disgusting.

Last I checked, it was considered a good thing to be open about adoptions and adoption stories. Honestly, I have like 10 adopted kids in my circle and I know the details of them all. It is much better than when all this was swept under the rug. There is nothing to be ashamed of in adopting or being adopted.

As for the comments, the older child was thought not ever able to walk due to severe malnutrition, so of course her parents are proud she has overcome that and is strong and healthy. And the younger had severe PTSD from the orphanage and earthquake he lived through, so of course they are proud he is outgoing and happy-go-lucky. It is a huge achievement and shows how much he has been loved by his adoptive family. Her other kids haven’t been through any ordeals so their descriptions are more run of the mill.

This is where you are dead wrong. It's fine to be open about adoption in general, but not about the child's story. That is adoption 101. You can see how deep-seated the christian fundamental approach to aoption permeates in society that even the most liberal person does not get adoption.

My kids have known about their adoption since day 1. I don't shy away from questions about it with them. I don't broadcast their stories all over social media, and certainly not on a job interview. I ask their permission on what they want to share. it's not that hard.

This poster is correct. Modern perspectives on this say that the child's "story" (mean why they were available for adoption, how they were found, the conditions they experienced before they came into your family, etc) is theirs to tell. For example, I know one friend whose (adoptive) daughter's birth mom was a teen who got pregnant after hooking up with someone for casual sex. She claimed to not know the guy's name, so he could not be consulted about the adoption. Those details are for the child to learn, at an older age, and share as SHE deems fit. Not for every family friend and relative to know and spread as the girl is about to enter adulthood. Think of a kid who was conceived through rape (it happens) OR was born in prison. These details can be turned against adult adoptees and should be shared as THEY wish.

Well trained adoptive parents are taught this.

If that were so true your friend sucks as an adoptive mom, given you seem to know the details of her kid’s story. I can’t believe you even thought to type this without a thought toward self-reflection! WTF.

+1. My siblings don't even know my child's story. When my child is old enough and chooses to share, she will on her own. I don't share with my friends either

[Anonymous]

Angelina isn’t a liberal. Common misconception.

I don't know -- the causes she works for align better with liberal causes. She's a humanitarian and she has spoken out against Trump and his policies. I will say this for Jolie - it appears that she has worked hard to protect the privacy of her children. As far as I know, she didn't share info about the adopted kids other than what countries they came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

Which is obviously why there is record voter turnout, which will lead to massive Democrat party failures.

[/s]

[Anonymous]

So she's not embraced by the pussy hate liberal crew?

Working mom of 7 in a high-profile job
Two adopted, one with special needs

And she's still ripped.