How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

SCOTUS justices ultimately decide for themselves if they need to recuse and she could commit to recusing herself right now if she wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is a link for those that missed it (myself included):

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

And no one with a brain believes her. That is the problem. She has accepted a nomination to a,lifetime appointment under these circumstances. That proves her to be every bit as craven and political animal as Trump.

+1 MILLION

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is a link for those that missed it (myself included):

Why don’t you just spell it out for those of us who don’t have time to decode your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

And no one with a brain believes her. That is the problem. She has accepted a nomination to a,lifetime appointment under these circumstances. That proves her to be every bit as craven and political animal as Trump.

We know Trump. Trump would not have nominated her without assurances of her loyalty. I don't believe ACB when she says that no one representing Trump or the White House has talked to her about election questions, the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or other issues about which Trump has publicly promised the right wing that the Justices he appoints will rule on their side.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

“I can’t believe leopards are eating my face!” says woman who voted for the “Leopards Eating Your Face Party”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is a link for those that missed it (myself included):

Why don’t you just spell it out for those of us who don’t have time to decode your point?

I posted the link because I missed the hearing, I didn’t make the point of an additional message. I will say in reading the articles online there was a lot of discussion on the genius of the photos in the back, the book I Dissent”, which I’m going to assume was to show the hypocrisy and irony of a woman being in a position because of a woman that died fighting for her right; and despite any claim of good intention and blah blah blah, ACB ignored Ruth’s dying last wish. It is the highest form of dishonor and disrespect not just to the court, but to the woman that laid a foundation for her to even have a voice in court, and the u fairness of supporting a confirmation hearing right now going completely against that.

[Anonymous]

Also, it contradicts the persona she is trying to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

And no one with a brain believes her. That is the problem. She has accepted a nomination to a,lifetime appointment under these circumstances. That proves her to be every bit as craven and political animal as Trump.

We know Trump. Trump would not have nominated her without assurances of her loyalty. I don't believe ACB when she says that no one representing Trump or the White House has talked to her about election questions, the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or other issues about which Trump has publicly promised the right wing that the Justices he appoints will rule on their side.

Of course you don't believe her.
You are so accustomed to the democrats and the democrats' nominees being partisan hacks that you cannot fathom anybody actually being independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

And no one with a brain believes her. That is the problem. She has accepted a nomination to a,lifetime appointment under these circumstances. That proves her to be every bit as craven and political animal as Trump.

We know Trump. Trump would not have nominated her without assurances of her loyalty. I don't believe ACB when she says that no one representing Trump or the White House has talked to her about election questions, the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or other issues about which Trump has publicly promised the right wing that the Justices he appoints will rule on their side.

Of course you don't believe her.
You are so accustomed to the democrats and the democrats' nominees being partisan hacks that you cannot fathom anybody actually being independent.

She isn't independent. She is funded by the Federalist Society and is a tool of the right wing/Koch machine.

[Anonymous]

I mean, if she cannot remember she voted absentee a mere 4 years ago, how can she be judged to have a sharp mind?

[Anonymous]

Any freshman taking poli-sci 101 or first year law student can do this without giving it a second thought.

She really isn't that smart or sharp.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Senator Sasse understands the irony of talking about the unfairness of different sets of rules?

[Anonymous]

I would love for someone to ask how she gets her news. What sources? How often?