How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.

She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dems are fear mongering again on pre-existing conditions. Yawn...

Where's the written guarantee from the GOP that they'll protect them???

The GOP is suing to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions as well as abolish the ACA, stripping millions of Americans of health insurance.

You may not fear that, but I sure do. I have preexisting conditions. I need health insurance to stay alive.

Yawn as much as you want. I hope a fly lands in your mouth and lays eggs, maggot.

Plus, the Supreme Court issue is the ridiculous notion that it is unconstitutional for Congress to enact a law to regulate health insurance. This I how loony Republicans have become, to claim that Congress is not permitted to regulate commerce.

The issue is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce, that is clear. The issue is whether what Congress did in ordering individual people to purchase something is unconstitutional (revisiting the previous issues since Congress changed the penalty for failure to purchase coverage to zero) and if that individual mandate is unconstitutional whether the whole ACA is unconstitutional or if that individual provision is severable. So no, the provision being challenge is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

Of course the individual mandate is not unconstitutional, but even in Republican fairyland where regulating commerce is unconstitutional if Obama did it, of course it is severable. Throwing out the whole law over the mandate is a dishonest legal argument that should have been rejected out of hand. It is ridiculous and brings dishonor to the federal judiciary that it even got to the Supreme Court. In essence, it is an argument that Democrats are not permitted to regulate commerce, because severability would never be questioned if this were not Obama’s law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.

She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.

Who is attacking her for being a mom? Women on the court are great whether they are mothers or not, however, women on the court who discriminate against women are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.

She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.

Nobody attacked her for being a mom. She was lightly criticized for using her 7 children as a shield against scrutiny of her beliefs and her thin record. Why is 7 important? Would a woman with 8 children be more qualified? Would a woman with 3 children be less qualified?

[Anonymous]

It sounds as though the media are resigned to Justice ACB.

However, didn't some Republican Senators declare that they would not vote to confirm before the election? Are they in sufficient numbers to push back the Senate vote to after the election, and in that case, depending on Senate races, would there be a chance that Republicans not have enough votes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.

She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.

Nobody attacked her for being a mom. She was lightly criticized for using her 7 children as a shield against scrutiny of her beliefs and her thin record. Why is 7 important? Would a woman with 8 children be more qualified? Would a woman with 3 children be less qualified?

I'm sure you didn't, but there was definitely another thread where folks were saying she either wasn't qualified, or is a bad mother. Totally unnecessary and misogynist. We live in a society where women still get "mommy tracked". I'm glad ACB hasn't been, though I don't want her on the SCOTUS.

Talking about one's children is normal. Who cares? There are four days of hearings. Her record will be discussed.

[Anonymous]

They have the votes.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has seven kids. And don’t you dare forget it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-has-seven-kids-dont-you-dare-forget-it/

Rare was the Republican on the committee who was able to deliver an opening statement without referring to the seven children in the Barrett family. This feat of parenting seemed to leave them gobsmacked with admiration and utterly mystified as to how a two-parent household with significant financial resources was capable of wrangling such a large brood without the missus showing up with oatmeal on her clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dems are fear mongering again on pre-existing conditions. Yawn...

Where's the written guarantee from the GOP that they'll protect them???

The GOP is suing to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions as well as abolish the ACA, stripping millions of Americans of health insurance.

You may not fear that, but I sure do. I have preexisting conditions. I need health insurance to stay alive.

Yawn as much as you want. I hope a fly lands in your mouth and lays eggs, maggot.

Plus, the Supreme Court issue is the ridiculous notion that it is unconstitutional for Congress to enact a law to regulate health insurance. This I how loony Republicans have become, to claim that Congress is not permitted to regulate commerce.

The issue is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce, that is clear. The issue is whether what Congress did in ordering individual people to purchase something is unconstitutional (revisiting the previous issues since Congress changed the penalty for failure to purchase coverage to zero) and if that individual mandate is unconstitutional whether the whole ACA is unconstitutional or if that individual provision is severable. So no, the provision being challenge is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

Of course the individual mandate is not unconstitutional, but even in Republican fairyland where regulating commerce is unconstitutional if Obama did it, of course it is severable. Throwing out the whole law over the mandate is a dishonest legal argument that should have been rejected out of hand. It is ridiculous and brings dishonor to the federal judiciary that it even got to the Supreme Court. In essence, it is an argument that Democrats are not permitted to regulate commerce, because severability would never be questioned if this were not Obama’s law.

And yet it was the court RGB was on that agreed to review the case....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has seven kids. And don’t you dare forget it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-has-seven-kids-dont-you-dare-forget-it/

Rare was the Republican on the committee who was able to deliver an opening statement without referring to the seven children in the Barrett family. This feat of parenting seemed to leave them gobsmacked with admiration and utterly mystified as to how a two-parent household with significant financial resources was capable of wrangling such a large brood without the missus showing up with oatmeal on her clothes.

Where did the money come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dems are fear mongering again on pre-existing conditions. Yawn...

Where's the written guarantee from the GOP that they'll protect them???

The GOP is suing to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions as well as abolish the ACA, stripping millions of Americans of health insurance.

You may not fear that, but I sure do. I have preexisting conditions. I need health insurance to stay alive.

Yawn as much as you want. I hope a fly lands in your mouth and lays eggs, maggot.

Plus, the Supreme Court issue is the ridiculous notion that it is unconstitutional for Congress to enact a law to regulate health insurance. This I how loony Republicans have become, to claim that Congress is not permitted to regulate commerce.

The issue is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce, that is clear. The issue is whether what Congress did in ordering individual people to purchase something is unconstitutional (revisiting the previous issues since Congress changed the penalty for failure to purchase coverage to zero) and if that individual mandate is unconstitutional whether the whole ACA is unconstitutional or if that individual provision is severable. So no, the provision being challenge is not whether Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

Of course the individual mandate is not unconstitutional, but even in Republican fairyland where regulating commerce is unconstitutional if Obama did it, of course it is severable. Throwing out the whole law over the mandate is a dishonest legal argument that should have been rejected out of hand. It is ridiculous and brings dishonor to the federal judiciary that it even got to the Supreme Court. In essence, it is an argument that Democrats are not permitted to regulate commerce, because severability would never be questioned if this were not Obama’s law.

And yet it was the court RGB was on that agreed to review the case....

I didn’t criticize the Supreme Court for taking the case. They had to because of the partisan clown judge in Texas and the partisan clown judges in the 5th Circuit who accepted the idiotic argument because it was made by Republicans. Those joke rulings are the dishonor to the federal judiciary. Trump’s promise that his nominees will rule against ACA is what brings dishonor to the Supreme Court.

This is not even about the individual mandate. This case is stupider than that. The GOP argument is that the Republicans zeroing out the tax/penalty somehow invalidated the entire statute. Nobody took this bullshit argument seriously but Republicans have put some unqualified partisans on the bench who rule based on the parties rather than the law.

[Anonymous]

ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way she uses her children of color for political purposes is disgusting. I hope she has saved up for therapy...

I was nauseated to see her Black child sitting up front there with her this morning!! I wonder how that child felt about it? Did that child have any choice?

Later, I noticed, her kids were gone. Bored, no doubt, probably falling asleep, squirming. Not a good look for the SCOTUS pick who is supposed to be such a wonderful example of motherhood.

Wow. If this is all you've got..... judging her ability of being a mother on something you know nothing about.
This is quite the post.

It sounds like a Trumper pretending to be liberal. Skulduggery in ways large and small is all they have.

Nice try. Nope.
The liberals on this thread are truly disgusting. Calling an accomplished woman and mother of 7 vile, vicious, repulsive, and worse (some have been deleted) is just another Monday on DCUM.

She is a mother and has been successful professionally thanks to trailblazers like RBG and a smaller field of qualified candidates within the GOP. That does not make her morally superior or moral at all. She voted to exclude children of unmarried parents from a school. How is that pro-children or pro-life? Plenty of other examples of discrimination against women and children.

+1000. Trumpkins touting the fact that she’s a woman are laughable. She GOT to where she is in life due to women like RGB. If she were the daughter of Scalia (or if she were the beneficiary of legal rulings she supports rather than those of RGB and other women trailblazers and their supporters), she would never have even *gone* to law school, let alone be an appellate court judge. It’s laughable, hypocritical and completely beyond.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/justice-scalias-most-lasting-legacy-could-be-his-children%3f_amp=true

I have seen a lot of privileged boys and girls grow up with pressure, and step aside from the fast pace of life.

[Anonymous]

Someone needs to call out Mazie Hirono for her utter disrespect to Barrett during Barrett’s opening statement. Hirono dramatically sighed and rolled her eyes when ACB graciously noted (yet again) how grateful she was to RBG. Naturally, nothing about this in the news.

(around 11:07)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.

She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.

Nobody attacked her for being a mom. She was lightly criticized for using her 7 children as a shield against scrutiny of her beliefs and her thin record. Why is 7 important? Would a woman with 8 children be more qualified? Would a woman with 3 children be less qualified?

Yes, because women who are not mothers are un-women, obvi.