How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACB is schooling Feinstein. She is imperious and impervious.

Yes, she is. I used to like Feinstein. But after the stunt she pulled at the last confirmation hearing, I don't trust her.
And, most of her questions she is asking today CANNOT be answered. Feinstein wants a progressive activist on the court.

[Anonymous]

THis may have already been discussed, but what's with her voice? Is that a 'submissive wife voice'? She sounds like a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The 7 kids count against her in my eyes.

Interesting.
Back when Scalia went through confirmation, not one person thought that him having 9 kids counted against him.

Did every Senator mention them at every opportunity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She just said she's open to overturning precedent.

So? Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent and was overturned. It happens with some degree of frequency.

Here's a list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Brown v Board was unanimous. Would anything Barrett wants overturned be done unanimously?

Hypothetical question. Cannot be answered.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THis may have already been discussed, but what's with her voice? Is that a 'submissive wife voice'? She sounds like a child.

Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THis may have already been discussed, but what's with her voice? Is that a 'submissive wife voice'? She sounds like a child.

Several pages back I was the first poster to mention how grating her voice was. Another poster told me it was misogynistic, which it usually is. But her voice truly is shrill and grating, independent of her views and other substantive issues. I was told to stop bringing her voice up, and I did, but I am glad to see others notice it too on these last few pages. I thought it was just me.

Now that I've heard her voice even more, it sounds uptight, reserved, and repressed, and incongruous with this heavyweight legal scholar who is going to make the Court 6-3.

We will probably be hearing it a lot so we should get used to it.

[Anonymous]

There is NO legal justification for delaying an election. It is bound by the US Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Since her interpretation of the Constitution is frozen in 1789, I'd like to know how that squares with the right to gay marriage in Obergefell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB is schooling Feinstein. She is imperious and impervious.

Yes, she is. I used to like Feinstein. But after the stunt she pulled at the last confirmation hearing, I don't trust her.
And, most of her questions she is asking today CANNOT be answered. Feinstein wants a progressive activist on the court.

Feinstein is way too old. I don't care if that's ageist. Her stupid "dogma" comment in 2017 gave the GOP so much ammo and to be honest was really offensive. Just retire already and let someone like Katie Porter or Adam Schiff have your seat.

[Anonymous]

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.

She has been successful due to her husband's maiden aunt who basically raised the children. Honestly, the maiden aunt should have been front and center, along with the children, in the hearing. Enough of the SUperwoman myth. Feminists have long argued that when you build your career on the back of someone else (often an undocumented immigrant who is paid off the books), you're not really exhibiting "feminism" because feminism is about female solidarity, not one woman exploiting another's (in the case probably unpaid) labor so that she can be the man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She is actually demonstrating a good understanding of the judicial function and comportment, canons of construction, legal precedent and Supreme Court history.

Go off though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THis may have already been discussed, but what's with her voice? Is that a 'submissive wife voice'? She sounds like a child.

Several pages back I was the first poster to mention how grating her voice was. Another poster told me it was misogynistic, which it usually is. But her voice truly is shrill and grating, independent of her views and other substantive issues. I was told to stop bringing her voice up, and I did, but I am glad to see others notice it too on these last few pages. I thought it was just me.

Now that I've heard her voice even more, it sounds uptight, reserved, and repressed, and incongruous with this heavyweight legal scholar who is going to make the Court 6-3.

We will probably be hearing it a lot so we should get used to it.

You would’ve LOVED Abraham Lincoln’s voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fienstein just said her vote depends on ACB's responses to her questions. HA HA!!! Like she won't vote the party line no matter what ACB says.

Umm you realize the GOP Senators were falling over themselves to approve Trump's nominee BEFORE THE PERSON WAS EVEN ANNOUNCED, right? To say nothing of their hypocrisy in trying to ram this nomination through as people are already voting after blocking Garland for 9 months.

[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.

She has been successful due to her husband's maiden aunt who basically raised the children. Honestly, the maiden aunt should have been front and center, along with the children, in the hearing. Enough of the SUperwoman myth. Feminists have long argued that when you build your career on the back of someone else (often an undocumented immigrant who is paid off the books), you're not really exhibiting "feminism" because feminism is about female solidarity, not one woman exploiting another's (in the case probably unpaid) labor so that she can be the man.

Interesting. Tell us more.