How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Of course it is. You clearly need to go back to civics class.

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares what professors of music, sociology, medieval studies and librarians think about her nomination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how the right keeps claiming religious persecution and litmus when tey are the only ones bringing it up.

Same with court packing. It is only the right talking about it and bringing it up.

People on the left have repeatedly talked about court packing.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) signaled openness on Wednesday to expanding the Supreme Court amid what she called a “crisis of confidence” created by Republicans in the nation's high court.

Bloomberg reported that Harris, asked in Nashua, N.H., whether she would support adding as many as four justices to the bench, said she was "open" to the conversation.

"I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court,” the 2020 presidential candidate said, according to Bloomberg.

Harris also expressed openness to limiting how many justices one president can nominate and applying term limits to justices, according to the news outlet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/443841-harris-open-to-adding-seats-to-supreme-court


And, as for religious freedom........ "The dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern." - Dianne Feinstein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bam. ACB nailed Klobuchar with RBG’s own words. Nicely done.

I'm so glad that "owning" a "lib" Senator with a deceased Justice's words, when that Justice has been dead not even a month, is giving you such joy, and is now apparently the purpose of Senate confirmation hearings and the highest court in our country. Do you even hear yourself?

What are you nattering on about? The point was that she very aptly paraphrased a revered justice’s words regarding giving her personal opinions: “No hints, no previews, no forecasts.” Klobuchar couldn’t argue with that. Why on earth are you?

Are you cool with her aptly paraphrasing that it's ok to call black people the n-word at work?

The fact that you’re twisting her actual words to suit your obviously biased narrative is so telling. Take your outrage out of the picture and read her decision - a decision, btw, that was the MAJORITY.

Not twisting her words at all. The decision may have been the majority, but the dismissal of the vilest racial perjorative is all hers.

Except that she didn’t dismiss the vile pejorative at all. She acknowledged it: “The n-word is an egregious racial epithet.”

So? I don't call Trump a POS because I think that's a compliment.

[Anonymous]

Why does she need to lie? She should just say yes I will over tune Roe, ACA, etc. Why play these games? The Court is just another political forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

We know that liberals don't believe this is what the court is for. PP is correct. You believe the court is there to write law.

[Anonymous]

I wish the Republicans and media would focus on the voter suppression that is actually happening and is an actual threat to our democracy, rather than a hypothetical about packing the court. (Especially as the GOP are total hypocrites on pushing through Barrett.)

[Anonymous]

I really want them to overturn Roe, I wanna see what Republicans will campaign on after Roe, let’s just get this out if the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really want them to overturn Roe, I wanna see what Republicans will campaign on after Roe, let’s just get this out if the way.

I think it's pretty clear - securing access to white babies by outlawing contraceptives. Allowing states to swoop in and declare women unfit so that their children can be taken from them, banning gay marriage, banning gay adoption....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

We know that liberals don't believe this is what the court is for. PP is correct. You believe the court is there to write law.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative who is not a liar.

For ACB to say otherwise is a good sound bite but is simplistic. And disingenuous. Or maybe she really is that dumb. Who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want them to overturn Roe, I wanna see what Republicans will campaign on after Roe, let’s just get this out if the way.

I think it's pretty clear - securing access to white babies by outlawing contraceptives. Allowing states to swoop in and declare women unfit so that their children can be taken from them, banning gay marriage, banning gay adoption....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really want them to overturn Roe, I wanna see what Republicans will campaign on after Roe, let’s just get this out if the way.

I don’t. Think of all the poor women who would be forced by circumstances to give birth - and without medical insurance. Just terrible.

These forced birthers have a sick blood lust for the deaths of pregnant women who don’t want to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Wait: you want the Supreme Court to make policy? Why?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish the Republicans and media would focus on the voter suppression that is actually happening and is an actual threat to our democracy, rather than a hypothetical about packing the court. (Especially as the GOP are total hypocrites on pushing through Barrett.)

Yes and while they are at it, I wish they would focus on getting our kids back to school, pandemic relief out to avoid evictions, and leaving ACA alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Wait: you want the Supreme Court to make policy? Why?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

Uh, Trump said out loud that he wants the SC to confirm his presidency in a contested (or "contested") election.

Can you even hear yourself?