How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

U.S Supreme Court appointment system is the worst I have seen. Why the hell are justices confirmed based on political affiliation and philosophy??? This is not justice, it’s just hired hands if the politicians and corporations.

[Anonymous]

Under “originalism,” Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t have had the opportunity to become an attorney or judge, much less be a SCOTUS nominee.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under “originalism,” Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t have had the opportunity to become an attorney or judge, much less be a SCOTUS nominee.

^^^ This. But don't expect Trumpsters to acknowledge this.

[Anonymous]

How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

What facts? All I've seen is her deferring to her aides and she "doesn't make policy", so she can't answer a question. You don't need notes for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

What facts? All I've seen is her deferring to her aides and she "doesn't make policy", so she can't answer a question. You don't need notes for that.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

You don’t need notes, if you have no intention of providing a substantive response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, he said he wants nine justices in place in case the SC has to decide the election, rather than have it go 4-4. But your version makes for some great outrage, amirite?

Curiously, eight justices in place and 4-4 was just fine and dandy for his last election.

What election? Trump won in 2016 with no need for the SC to rule at all. Are you aware of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

You don’t need notes, if you have no intention of providing a substantive response.

Except that she’s given substantive answers to every question. As you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

Q: Is intimidation at the polls illegal
ACB: no answer
Questioner: Reads the law to ACB

I'm freaked out that a cult member who sees men as "heads" to her is a judge at all. FFS, she's a figurehead. Just nom the man whispering in her ear.

[Anonymous]

Barrett > Blumenthal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

You don’t need notes, if you have no intention of providing a substantive response.

Except that she’s given substantive answers to every question. As you know.

No, but she ducks and weaves with grace. I’ll give her that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

When you answer every question with "I cannot answer that because judges" then you don't need notes. When she is challenged on stark issues, like Klobachar, Whitehouse and others have done, she flails. Badly.

[Anonymous]