How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She said she doesn’t know anyone who outright advocates undoing the concept of substantive due process...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amy killing it so far.

What? You have to be more specific. Healthcare? Roe v. Wade? Other people with her possible COVID germs? Any pretense that the Court is not becoming an extension of the Federalist Society? Her own integrity for lying on her Senate disclosures in 2016 and willingness to be confirmed during an election month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Katie Porter would be good. I’m afraid she might lose unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if it was anything approaching Daniel Day-Lewis's rendition of it in "Lincoln." Not everything has to be partisan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if it was anything approaching Daniel Day-Lewis's rendition of it in "Lincoln." Not everything has to be partisan

It’s not a partisan point. Lincoln is pretty widely revered across parties, as are his writings, despite the fact that he had a whiny, puny high-pitched voice. The voice of a SCOTUS Justice is pretty darn irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Barrett is channeling RBG to deflect.

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

I'd do the same (for now) - Dem woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barrett is channeling RBG to deflect.

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

I'd do the same (for now) - Dem woman

What does that say about a judge who signed her name multiple times to advertisements calling Roe v. Wade “barbaric“?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barrett is channeling RBG to deflect.

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

I'd do the same (for now) - Dem woman

What does that say about a judge who signed her name multiple times to advertisements calling Roe v. Wade “barbaric“?

Transparency on that particular quote re Roe, in this moment, is not in her best interest. She knew these questions would be asked and she planned to give canned answer. That I predicted. Again, I'm a dem. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barrett is channeling RBG to deflect.

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

I'd do the same (for now) - Dem woman

You're not a Dem woman. No "Dem woman" would be dumb enough to fall for ACB's memorized RGB quotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barrett is channeling RBG to deflect.

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

I'd do the same (for now) - Dem woman

You're not a Dem woman. No "Dem woman" would be dumb enough to fall for ACB's memorized RGB quotes.

DP. It’s not about “falling for it” it’s about deploying the tactic. Good grief you’re tedious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, she isn't. You conjured up nice word salad, though.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe abortions are good, I think they are horrible and I do believe life begins at conception. However I have had an abortion. I also recognize that my opinion on abortion is just that, an opinion and I respect that other people do not share it at all. I also believe that stem cell research is amazing and support the idea. This is me, a basic nobody out on internet land.

My sincere hope is that ACB is a sleeper for justice and not just a trump crony, that will do the right thing *if* she is confirmed. Something about her persona is authentic, other pieces she is throwing game out that people are falling for.

I’m more angry about the forced timing of this and Amy refusing to allow a confirmation. She would have garnered much more support from voters post-election if she showed that integrity. Right now, integrity is a trait so rare in politics, it is a soothing balm to our scorched skin.

Her words on the bench seem fair. My conflict: Is it possible to trust anyone from Trump? That is honestly the major bias I have against her. Is this someone that would remove my right to draw the line on what is acceptable or not in MY body? Why her and why now?

Life may begin at conception for some, but viability doesn’t occur until at least 24 weeks. There is no social security number assigned to a child in my womb. Opinions on abortion will always be controversial, as well as birth control.

A separation of church and state is critical. Can she uphold that?

I don’t know. These are interesting times.

[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.

Let's go back and figure out how many times they talked about the number of kids Gorsuch or Kavanaugh have during those opening statements. The GOP are so backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, she isn't. You conjured up nice word salad, though.

PP here and I agree. We can’t afford ignorance in a lifetime appointment. That is cementing complacency, she will always be a step behind as matters present themselves.

[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.

Please don't criticize something she cannot control. I am 40 and have struggled all my life with a high-pitched, "naive and childlike" voice. You can imagine what delightful first impressions I make. I'm a research scientist. It's hard for people, men especially, to take me seriously.