How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[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?

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.

Set it up a long time ago. Time to update.

And I'm quite sure the Founders would not approve of McConnell and his BS.

[Anonymous]

BUMP!!

It’s very funny and telling that on the day of a scotus confirmation hearing, this thread has fallen out of the top items page.

Haha, sorry crazed ACB haters! This wonderful woman left you with nothing to say.

[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.

wow, what radical liberal rulings did the Warren and Burger courts issie that need to be fixed? De-segregation? Does the GOP need to put blacks back in their place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mazie Hirono has to be the biggest idiot on the Judiciary Committee.

I wish ACB would give Mazie a nice big eye roll, just as Mazie did to her. But Barrett is classier than that.

No, she’s not. She is sht all over RBG’s legacy.

Hilarious, using your children as props is mega or MAGA-classy.

The children of every other recent nominee with children have attended their hearings. So what’s your point again?

Not during a pandemic, they didn't. Let those poor kids stay home.

Right, right - COVID is incredibly dangerous to kids! They should definitely have missed this historic occasion! You are SO right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUMP!!

It’s very funny and telling that on the day of a scotus confirmation hearing, this thread has fallen out of the top items page.

Haha, sorry crazed ACB haters! This wonderful woman left you with nothing to say.

Ummm. I think people are letting Amy Covid Barrett insert foot in mouth over and over again. Many Cult 45 is making you sweaty and fevered at the brow? I hear they have drive-in testing for that...but alas, no vaccine...and soon you will have no health insurance...

I don’t understand this at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mazie Hirono has to be the biggest idiot on the Judiciary Committee.

I wish ACB would give Mazie a nice big eye roll, just as Mazie did to her. But Barrett is classier than that.

No, she’s not. She is sht all over RBG’s legacy.

Hilarious, using your children as props is mega or MAGA-classy.

The children of every other recent nominee with children have attended their hearings. So what’s your point again?

Not during a pandemic, they didn't. Let those poor kids stay home.

Right, right - COVID is incredibly dangerous to kids! They should definitely have missed this historic occasion! You are SO right.

Science illiteracy is serious. Seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? A legitimate question. Someone should have asked Kavanaugh. Someone should ask her if she always obeys her husband and if she has ever had sex for pleasure because her religion days women have sex only to procreate.

Barrett's voice is more annoying than laura trauvalen.

Dumb take.

+1
God, these people are stupid. How many women posting here would ever come anywhere near a Supreme Court nomination? The jealousy is clearly eating them up.

[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.

wow, what radical liberal rulings did the Warren and Burger courts issie that need to be fixed? De-segregation? Does the GOP need to put blacks back in their place?

I think what we’re saying is...leave it up to the states, right? Maybe AAs will self-deport to liberal states and then right-wing militias will take over certain states and secede....civil war...an Underground Railroad of women seeking reproductive healthcare...

[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.

Or covid.

It’s a done deal. Too bad the Dems agreed to fund the government. If they had shut it all down this hearing would not be take place. Look for the Dems to roll over and pay nice in the next senate. No need to stand up and fight.

Agreed. Why are they even bothering to show up. Would be much more powerful to let the republicans push her through with just republicans attending the hearing. They accomplish nothing by participating in a charade and only make it seem normal.

I certainly wish some of them had stayed home. Mazie Hirono and Blumenthal, for instance. What absolute twits.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the process. Could someone please explain to me how Supreme Court nomination confirmation process works and if they'll be able to go through with it?

she is doing very well.

very smart. clearly more knowledgable than the democrat minions.

she will be a great addition to the supreme court

Doubt she’ll be confirmed. Nice try, though.

Why? Does Feinstein have another stunt up her sleeve?

+1
Let’s see what 11th hour circus she can muster up this time.

[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.

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

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or covid.

It’s a done deal. Too bad the Dems agreed to fund the government. If they had shut it all down this hearing would not be take place. Look for the Dems to roll over and pay nice in the next senate. No need to stand up and fight.

Agreed. Why are they even bothering to show up. Would be much more powerful to let the republicans push her through with just republicans attending the hearing. They accomplish nothing by participating in a charade and only make it seem normal.

I certainly wish some of them had stayed home. Mazie Hirono and Blumenthal, for instance. What absolute twits.
DP

Of course you pick on the brown woman in defense of the judge who says it's ok to use the n-word at work, you racist f**k.

[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.

Well good thing Barrett’s religious views don’t have anything to do with her interpretation of federal laws.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or covid.

It’s a done deal. Too bad the Dems agreed to fund the government. If they had shut it all down this hearing would not be take place. Look for the Dems to roll over and pay nice in the next senate. No need to stand up and fight.

Agreed. Why are they even bothering to show up. Would be much more powerful to let the republicans push her through with just republicans attending the hearing. They accomplish nothing by participating in a charade and only make it seem normal.

I certainly wish some of them had stayed home. Mazie Hirono and Blumenthal, for instance. What absolute twits.
DP

Of course you pick on the brown woman in defense of the judge who says it's ok to use the n-word at work, you racist f**k.

OMG, you are unhinged. The “brown woman”? Honey, I don’t care if she’s a purple alien. She’s a complete idiot. And you conveniently ignored the white man I included. I guess any criticism of “brown women” is far more dramatic, right? I’m embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well good thing Barrett’s religious views don’t have anything to do with her interpretation of federal laws.
DP

Yes, Barrett's racist and hateful interpretations make that plain to see.