How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

Joni Ernst had a D&C, but want to deny other women the right to a D&C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

Graham started the whole process yesterday by saying, "We're not going to persuade each other. The GOP will vote yes, the Dems will vote no."

The fact that he would say that demonstrates how broken the system is. Thanks, GOP, for turning this into a worthless poopshow, and admitting that you don't really care to vet this woman.

Implicit in your post is that the Dems don’t really care to vet this woman either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

Graham started the whole process yesterday by saying, "We're not going to persuade each other. The GOP will vote yes, the Dems will vote no."

The fact that he would say that demonstrates how broken the system is. Thanks, GOP, for turning this into a worthless poopshow, and admitting that you don't really care to vet this woman.

Implicit in your post is that the Dems don’t really care to vet this woman either.

Yes, they don't care to vet this woman right now, because this nomination should never have happened. I don't blame them. This should have been left until January. Most Americans agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

A principled catholic woman is a religious freakdom? You’ve never been to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Malaysia eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

A principled catholic woman is a religious freakdom? You’ve never been to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Malaysia eh?

You have provided the perfect segue to the topic of the other thread. The OPs post:

"https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/amy-con...UPsq7rLKs__TNJAjzqVG0iPQdEzD5s

He's right. Republicans are complete and total hypocrites (on this, and many other matters)."


If she were from one of those places, the GOP would never have nominated her and they would have no qualms about blaming it on her religion.

Hypocrites.

And the GOP are the ones hammering on about her religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

A principled catholic woman is a religious freakdom? You’ve never been to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Malaysia eh?

Catholic principles have no business in the interpretation of federal laws.

[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?

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.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Don't gaslight us. The reason it SEEMS like originalists are activists is because they have to be ACTIVE to fix all of the activism that subverted democratic majorities in the 1960s and 1070s with the liberal Warren and Burger courts. If the libs hadn't messed with it to start with and just passed amendments rather than "discovered rights" to change the Constitution by fiat, we wouldn't be here. There wouldn't even be a federalist society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

A principled catholic woman is a religious freakdom? You’ve never been to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Malaysia eh?

Catholic principles have no business in the interpretation of federal laws.

Then neither does foreign law and the UN's def. of "strange and unusual punishment" yet the activist libs love drawing on foreign law

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Don't gaslight us. The reason it SEEMS like originalists are activists is because they have to be ACTIVE to fix all of the activism that subverted democratic majorities in the 1960s and 1070s with the liberal Warren and Burger courts. If the libs hadn't messed with it to start with and just passed amendments rather than "discovered rights" to change the Constitution by fiat, we wouldn't be here. There wouldn't even be a federalist society.

There is nothing to fix. Originalist is just another word for a conservative who wants to protect the power of White Male Christians and maintain the system of oppression that keeps down everyone else. Including brainwashed women like ACB. I guess all you originalists want to bring back slavery and take the vote back from all but white males?

No thanks. I'd prefer to live in a country that tries to improve with time, not remain frozen in time, basing decisions on what they *think* the Founders meant more than two centuries ago. Originalists are nut jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Joni Ernst and Gardner are both on BIG trouble. If they switched votes. Dems in Colorado and Iowa should be burning up the phone lines to all their state offices as well as DC office.

A principled catholic woman is a religious freakdom? You’ve never been to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Malaysia eh?

She is as fringe a Catholic and someone who is part of ISIS is for Muslims.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Don't gaslight us. The reason it SEEMS like originalists are activists is because they have to be ACTIVE to fix all of the activism that subverted democratic majorities in the 1960s and 1070s with the liberal Warren and Burger courts. If the libs hadn't messed with it to start with and just passed amendments rather than "discovered rights" to change the Constitution by fiat, we wouldn't be here. There wouldn't even be a federalist society.

Since 1968, the GOP has won exactly 4 national votes by popular majorities and yet, have had 75% of the SCOTUS picks in that time.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Don't gaslight us. The reason it SEEMS like originalists are activists is because they have to be ACTIVE to fix all of the activism that subverted democratic majorities in the 1960s and 1070s with the liberal Warren and Burger courts. If the libs hadn't messed with it to start with and just passed amendments rather than "discovered rights" to change the Constitution by fiat, we wouldn't be here. There wouldn't even be a federalist society.

There is nothing to fix. Originalist is just another word for a conservative who wants to protect the power of White Male Christians and maintain the system of oppression that keeps down everyone else. Including brainwashed women like ACB. I guess all you originalists want to bring back slavery and take the vote back from all but white males?

No thanks. I'd prefer to live in a country that tries to improve with time, not remain frozen in time, basing decisions on what they *think* the Founders meant more than two centuries ago. Originalists are nut jobs.

Have you taken civics? We're talking about courts, not legislatures. The courts shouldn't be engaged in policymaking. The entire system of our republican form of government was set up so that the people could amend the constitution through a process, not by 5 unelected judges. That's what happened for 50 years in the mid 1950s.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Don't gaslight us. The reason it SEEMS like originalists are activists is because they have to be ACTIVE to fix all of the activism that subverted democratic majorities in the 1960s and 1070s with the liberal Warren and Burger courts. If the libs hadn't messed with it to start with and just passed amendments rather than "discovered rights" to change the Constitution by fiat, we wouldn't be here. There wouldn't even be a federalist society.

Since 1968, the GOP has won exactly 4 national votes by popular majorities and yet, have had 75% of the SCOTUS picks in that time.

So, what? The Constitution set up the system. If you truly believe that than Joe and the Dems should campaign on the theme that that founders were wrong.