How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Liked the red Handmaid’s dress btw. Nice touch. Gilead, here we come! If she’s comfirmed, Dems will pack the court. Our government is officially a laughing stock thanks to these two incompetent, greedy, self-serving parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liked the red Handmaid’s dress btw. Nice touch. Gilead, here we come! If she’s comfirmed, Dems will pack the court. Our government is officially a laughing stock thanks to these two incompetent, greedy, self-serving parties.

OMFG. THERE IS NO “BOTH SIDES.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Oh, honey.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This confirmation has nothing to do with intellect, but keep telling yourself that.

[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.

While they are doing a terrible job, they are putting the ACA anchor on the RNC and that is effective as a 2020 election ploy, since the outcome of this action was predetermined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, she was going to be confirmed easily as a fait accompli because the people funding her nomination and ad blitz are the same people who funded the GOP Senators. The system is currently rigged and needs to be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is just her opinion. The fact is, it is not agreed upon by everyone.

[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.

Young poster. Can someone share contextual background on this? TIA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about both parties actually do their job? I agree the republicans need to do more than turn to the courts but neither party is willing to compromise so here we are, with Democrats on the judiciary committee asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice whether she is willing to ignore the constitution and fix their sloppy work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about both parties actually do their job? I agree the republicans need to do more than turn to the courts but neither party is willing to compromise so here we are, with Democrats on the judiciary committee asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice whether she is willing to ignore the constitution and fix their sloppy work.

Hmmm. SCOTUS has ruled that the ACA is constitutional -you don't like that answer, so you want to change the composition of the court to have the ACA ruled invalid. We see you, fascista!

[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.

[Anonymous]

All the Dems are just using this time to spew political ad speach , harris had nothing to add except vote for biden harris. What a wasted opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the Dems are just using this time to spew political ad speach , harris had nothing to add except vote for biden harris. What a wasted opportunity.

+1 and I felt the same way about impeachment. We don’t have a functioning two party system under Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about both parties actually do their job? I agree the republicans need to do more than turn to the courts but neither party is willing to compromise so here we are, with Democrats on the judiciary committee asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice whether she is willing to ignore the constitution and fix their sloppy work.

Hmmm. SCOTUS has ruled that the ACA is constitutional -you don't like that answer, so you want to change the composition of the court to have the ACA ruled invalid. We see you, fascista!

Like many, my family will be directly effected if the ACA no longer exists. But rather than getting personal, like you so maturely did, I’d rather Congress did their job and didn’t ask SCOTUS to make policy decisions.