How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[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.

+1
Liberals simply want to legislate from the bench. If this was a liberal nominee, they’d be fawning over her.

[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.

+1
Liberals simply want to legislate from the bench. If this was a liberal nominee, they’d be fawning over her.

Why don't you tell everyone how de-segregation is legislating from the bench?

[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.

+1
Liberals simply want to legislate from the bench. If this was a liberal nominee, they’d be fawning over her.

Why don't you tell everyone how de-segregation is legislating from the bench?

Since you appear to be obsessed with segregation and fear-mongering that it could ever return to the US, here’s what ACB had to say about Brown v Board of Education:

Brown, Barrett said under questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is among a handful of cases considered "super precedents" in the legal community because "it is unthinkable it would be overturned."

Barrett said Brown "is precedent." In a previously written article, she said that "it is super precedent" and that because "people consider it to be on that very small list of things that are so agreed upon by everyone, calls for its overruling do not exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/barrett-reveals-formula-reversing-landmark-rulings-n1243248

[Anonymous]

I am sure tomorrow they are going to light her up about Arthrex and the constitutionality of APJs at the Patent Office. This whole process is such a joke and only for the cameras when the American people honestly don’t GAF about any of this.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I loved how Marsha Blackburn pointed out the hypocrisy of her Democratic peers who criticized Barrett for never trying a case. She pointedly brought up Elena Kagan - who also has never tried a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved how Marsha Blackburn pointed out the hypocrisy of her Democratic peers who criticized Barrett for never trying a case. She pointedly brought up Elena Kagan - who also has never tried a case.

I don't think trying a case is a notch in the belt necessary for any appellate jurist. In fact, getting away from that dancing bear and stupid light show is a good idea. Anybody that has ever tried a case, even a "big one" in federal court, would probably tell you that.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Blackburn, she had the most insightful words of the day. And I’m pro-choice, btw. Edited for clarity.

“Some of our (Democratic) colleagues chose to mention this yesterday... Republicans don’t nominate enough female judges. But when we nominate a highly qualified woman for a Supreme Court vacancy, what is the very first thing they do? They turn their attack machine on. And then they start into the politics of personal destruction. And they attack you for not fitting into the paradigm of the left - because you’re pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion... and if you don’t buy into this agenda of the left, if you’re female, then they act as if you’re not a “real” woman. And I will tell you, quite frankly, that they do NOT believe that all women deserve to have the opportunity to have a seat at the table. It’s only “certain” women, and we have seen their liberal narrative play out today. Senator Hirono really tuned up on this when she suggested that you, of all people, would not support women in the workplace. And I will tell you this: as a woman who has worked in the private sector and then in public service - when comments like that are made, it discourages ALL women from trying to step forward and take the skills they have developed in one area of their life, and then use it as an opportunity to serve their nation, serve their community, because they don’t want the liberal attack machine pointed at them. ... It is so discouraging to me to see groups on the left say, “We want diversity.” But let that diversity come from a woman who is on the political right, and their heads explode.

I find it so interesting that they have tried to use this focus (Barrett’s personal faith) to evaluate your professionalism as a judge. They are doing to you *exactly* what they say they despise.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure tomorrow they are going to light her up about Arthrex and the constitutionality of APJs at the Patent Office. This whole process is such a joke and only for the cameras when the American people honestly don’t GAF about any of this.

I GAF about this. Since you clearly don’t, why bother watching or posting here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Blackburn, she had the most insightful words of the day. And I’m pro-choice, btw. Edited for clarity.

“Some of our (Democratic) colleagues chose to mention this yesterday... Republicans don’t nominate enough female judges. But when we nominate a highly qualified woman for a Supreme Court vacancy, what is the very first thing they do? They turn their attack machine on. And then they start into the politics of personal destruction. And they attack you for not fitting into the paradigm of the left - because you’re pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion... and if you don’t buy into this agenda of the left, if you’re female, then they act as if you’re not a “real” woman. And I will tell you, quite frankly, that they do NOT believe that all women deserve to have the opportunity to have a seat at the table. It’s only “certain” women, and we have seen their liberal narrative play out today. Senator Hirono really tuned up on this when she suggested that you, of all people, would not support women in the workplace. And I will tell you this: as a woman who has worked in the private sector and then in public service - when comments like that are made, it discourages ALL women from trying to step forward and take the skills they have developed in one area of their life, and then use it as an opportunity to serve their nation, serve their community, because they don’t want the liberal attack machine pointed at them. ... It is so discouraging to me to see groups on the left say, “We want diversity.” But let that diversity come from a woman who is on the political right, and their heads explode.

I find it so interesting that they have tried to use this focus (Barrett’s personal faith) to evaluate your professionalism as a judge. They are doing to you *exactly* what they say they despise.”

This is a great statement.. So true. And, glad that Blackburn pointed it out.

[Anonymous]

BS. The issue is her stance on how she treats women, not that she’s a woman herself.

Just because she has a vagina doesn’t mean she couldn’t do great harm to women.

[Anonymous]

Democrats are doing a terrible job. All they are doing for the most part are asking her questions about policy decisions, rather than questions about the law. Harris and a bunch of other lightweights were basically telling Barrett to ignore the constitution so that some people don’t lose their health insurance. For goodness sake, if the ACA is unconstitutional bc the Ds did such a terrible job writing it and rushing to pass it, appellate judges and SCOTUS are just supposed to ignore that? How about Congress does their job and does it well in the first instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Blackburn, she had the most insightful words of the day. And I’m pro-choice, btw. Edited for clarity.

“Some of our (Democratic) colleagues chose to mention this yesterday... Republicans don’t nominate enough female judges. But when we nominate a highly qualified woman for a Supreme Court vacancy, what is the very first thing they do? They turn their attack machine on. And then they start into the politics of personal destruction. And they attack you for not fitting into the paradigm of the left - because you’re pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion... and if you don’t buy into this agenda of the left, if you’re female, then they act as if you’re not a “real” woman. And I will tell you, quite frankly, that they do NOT believe that all women deserve to have the opportunity to have a seat at the table. It’s only “certain” women, and we have seen their liberal narrative play out today. Senator Hirono really tuned up on this when she suggested that you, of all people, would not support women in the workplace. And I will tell you this: as a woman who has worked in the private sector and then in public service - when comments like that are made, it discourages ALL women from trying to step forward and take the skills they have developed in one area of their life, and then use it as an opportunity to serve their nation, serve their community, because they don’t want the liberal attack machine pointed at them. ... It is so discouraging to me to see groups on the left say, “We want diversity.” But let that diversity come from a woman who is on the political right, and their heads explode.

I find it so interesting that they have tried to use this focus (Barrett’s personal faith) to evaluate your professionalism as a judge. They are doing to you *exactly* what they say they despise.”

This is a great statement.. So true. And, glad that Blackburn pointed it out.

Where did any of the democratic senators questions her about her personal faith?
The only people talking about her faith were republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are doing a terrible job. All they are doing for the most part are asking her questions about policy decisions, rather than questions about the law. Harris and a bunch of other lightweights were basically telling Barrett to ignore the constitution so that some people don’t lose their health insurance. For goodness sake, if the ACA is unconstitutional bc the Ds did such a terrible job writing it and rushing to pass it, appellate judges and SCOTUS are just supposed to ignore that? How about Congress does their job and does it well in the first instance.

How about republicans actually repeal it and replace it? Instead of running to the court to legislate?

[Anonymous]

ACB owned the democrats! She is many levels beyond them as an intellectual and in competence. Harris looked like a fool. ACB will be confirmed easily.