How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol. Congress did it’s job! It’s the Republicans seeking to have Scotus overrule Congress.

[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.

Sorry you don't understand the genius of what Harris was able to do to the nominee yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress did its job. It passed the ACA which Obama signed.

It is now the GOP, with a different court and lack of congressional heft, asking a legitimate LAW to be overturned.

[Anonymous]

Amy Coney Barrett: I am a constitutional originalist.

… but I won’t say that every President should commit to a peaceful transfer of power after elections.

Which is literally the entire point of the Constitution. Originally. And Still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry you don't understand the genius of what Harris was able to do to the nominee yesterday.

I didn’t watch (so don’t yell at me like I’m a trumpster); what did she do? DP.

[Anonymous]

This seemed so far fetched I had to verify it myself. Indeed, the previous snapshot taken on 28 Sept, 2020 did not describee preference as “offensive”.

Webster's Dictionary has changed its definition of the term preference to include the new understanding that it is "offensive" as regards "sexual preference." This new definition was made in real time, after Senator Mazie Hirono claimed the long standing, inoffensive term, was offensive, on the Senate floor. This claim was made to discredit Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination, and for no other reason.

https://thepostmillennial.com/websters-dictionary-changes-definition-of-preference-to-match-democrats-attack-on-amy-coney-barrett/

[Anonymous]

We all know that Trump demands loyalty. He doesn't give anyone something for nothing. She will vote anyway he wishes. Another lying Trump POS Supreme Court Justice to join Thomas and Kavanaugh. I suppose the only good thing about her is that she hasn't raped anyone or subjected an employee to sexual harassment.

Like her new mentor Trump, we only know when she's lying when she speaks. She no more cried over George Floyd than she cried over Breanna Taylor. God have mercy on this country with this
Woman on the supreme court. In time she will take away our right to vote and make us officially 2nd class citizens
By forcing her extreme religious views

[Anonymous]

Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry you don't understand the genius of what Harris was able to do to the nominee yesterday.

I didn’t watch (so don’t yell at me like I’m a trumpster); what did she do? DP.

She hid behind a video call and basically parroted a campaign advertisement, no substance or questions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry you don't understand the genius of what Harris was able to do to the nominee yesterday.

I didn’t watch (so don’t yell at me like I’m a trumpster); what did she do? DP.

She hid behind a video call and basically parroted a campaign advertisement, no substance or questions

Nope. Wrong. Watch it and understand what she did to Judge Barrett.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

What a waste of time. What are the Dems thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. What are the Dems thinking?

That Supreme Court candidates shouldn’t be nominated by traitors and that the people who are nominated should be qualified. The GOP just wants to pack the court with unqualified but loyal loons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

Leahy is being disingenuous here. It is clear that the presidential pardon power says The President "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It is also been opined by the Supreme Court that they can be pre-emptive (i.e., before actually being charged), but it has not been considered whether the President can pardon himself. Regardless, because it is a pardon only for offences against the U.S., it looks like an admission of guilt, therefore a pre-emptive pardon that attempted to say it was only because of a prospective malicious prosecution would cause an additional aspect to the controversy. Also, whether "except in Cases of Impeachment" would be read broadly to mean anything that could give rise to an Impeachment (i.e. high crimes and misdemeanors of a President even where Impeachment is not a potential punishment because the person is no longer in office) or only to an actual Impeachment process.

I find the Constitutional issue here interesting.

[Anonymous]

She says it will "strain the canons of ethics" to give a straight up answer to "does the president have the authority to deny the right to vote on the basis of race.

Although the 15th amendment directly addresses this . . . the non-hypothetical rule is valid and I agree with it. Though, as with all other human rules, it has a point of ridiculousness. She just leaped feet first into the abyss of ridiculousness.