How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I was predisposed to at least like her even if I don't agree with her judicial point of view, but I am heartily sick and tired of Saint Amy.

She can't express and opinion on whether the President has the absolute authority to pardon HIMSELF? Ben Sasse asks her a Constitutional law softball and she flails around? "Forgotten" disclosures about her record keep trickling out? She was also a part of the Bush recount? Come on.

She's a bought and paid for Federalist Society stooge. These hearings are an embarrassment and an insult to the public's intelligence.

This is a stupid reason to believe she's biased. Use real reasons.

Baker & Botts (Yes, Jim Baker) was and is an enormous firm. She was 2 years past her clerkships. A third year who worked in the appellate practice. She is unlikely to have had a choice and was used for scutwork. That she had clerked for Scalia was useful but, at that point, rather minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

+1
And it’s pretty remarkable that she didn’t have to consult *any* books or notes - for three days straight.

Who needs any books or notes when all she says is, essentially, I can't answer that.

Not impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

Um, I’m a lawyer from a middling law school ranked slightly higher than ND, and I know the president can’t unilaterally change the election date, and I’m a patent lawyer.

I'm the PP. Where in the previous poster's comment does it say anything about the President unilaterally changing the date of the election? I'll wait.

- DCUM lawyer from an even more middling school who isn't smart enough to pass the patent bar, but has mastered reading comprehension

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

Um, I’m a lawyer from a middling law school ranked slightly higher than ND, and I know the president can’t unilaterally change the election date, and I’m a patent lawyer.

I'm the PP. Where in the previous poster's comment does it say anything about the President unilaterally changing the date of the election? I'll wait.

- DCUM lawyer from an even more middling school who isn't smart enough to pass the patent bar, but has mastered reading comprehension

Well, gee whiz, Amy Klobuchar asked her that exact question...and she couldn’t answer it, but maybe you are hard of hearing. Put on the CC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

+1
And it’s pretty remarkable that she didn’t have to consult *any* books or notes - for three days straight.

Go back and look at Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings. No notes either. Did Gorsuch consult a bunch of notes? Kavanaugh? This is no big deal, so the ACB supporters need to shut it on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

Pro-death of mother lifers? I don’t know many like you, thankfully. I will pray for your daughters.

PP here and I’m pro-choice. But I think it’s disgusting how Democrats like you have smeared this woman for her personal beliefs. And that you’re fear mongering that somehow she will attempt to overturn Roe. She won’t. And you know it.

No, Boris. I don’t believe you are pro-choice, no. It’s absolutely disgusting how you lie about her record and her public statements. She believes Roe and Griswald were wrongly decided. She doesn’t believe they are binding precedent. She is being put forward precisely because she has said this over and over again.

I don’t care what you believe. I’m a pro-choice Republican, deal with it. I’ve lied about nothing, including her record. She never stated her opinion on either Roe or Griswold, precisely because of the chance they may one day be revisited. This has been discussed and posted about many times, yet you seem completely unable to comprehend The Ginsburg Rule. It’s a shame you have such trouble understanding what are actually simple and common sense concepts. Clearly, you didn’t graduate first in your class, as Barrett did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

You can't have it both ways. She is a superstar with no notes, at the same time she cannot recollect simple facts in the textbooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

Pro-death of mother lifers? I don’t know many like you, thankfully. I will pray for your daughters.

PP here and I’m pro-choice. But I think it’s disgusting how Democrats like you have smeared this woman for her personal beliefs. And that you’re fear mongering that somehow she will attempt to overturn Roe. She won’t. And you know it.

No, Boris. I don’t believe you are pro-choice, no. It’s absolutely disgusting how you lie about her record and her public statements. She believes Roe and Griswald were wrongly decided. She doesn’t believe they are binding precedent. She is being put forward precisely because she has said this over and over again.

I don’t care what you believe. I’m a pro-choice Republican, deal with it. I’ve lied about nothing, including her record. She never stated her opinion on either Roe or Griswold, precisely because of the chance they may one day be revisited. This has been discussed and posted about many times, yet you seem completely unable to comprehend The Ginsburg Rule. It’s a shame you have such trouble understanding what are actually simple and common sense concepts. Clearly, you didn’t graduate first in your class, as Barrett did.

She ought to be smeared for her beliefs. The staunchest upholders of the patriarchy are some women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

+1
And it’s pretty remarkable that she didn’t have to consult *any* books or notes - for three days straight.

Go back and look at Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings. No notes either. Did Gorsuch consult a bunch of notes? Kavanaugh? This is no big deal, so the ACB supporters need to shut it on this.

So funny. Are you by chance one of the posters who mocked Kayleigh McEnany for using a binder in her pressers - even though it was shown that *every* press secretary before her also used binders? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous]

Seems like Barretts daughter found DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

You can't have it both ways. She is a superstar with no notes, at the same time she cannot recollect simple facts in the textbooks.

DP. She could not recollect ONE fact. ONE. Meanwhile, she was able to recollect from memory hundreds of details that most would need in-depth notes on. Whatever. Keep nitpicking about nothing, it really makes no difference whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The confirmation is going swimmingly well, thank you. Within a week, ACB will be another outstanding scotus judge thanks to President Trump!

+1
It is so entertaining watching these poor liberal schlubs try to discredit ACB. They wouldn’t last five minutes in a debate against her.

I agree that she is smart woman, however, they fact that you support her doesn’t make you smart.

Lol she is not smart enough to understand your comment PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I know right, poor women dying of abortions is our jam! Bring on the popcorn!

I am sure pp is a white male, they are the only ones happy about this.

Wow, you REALLY need to get out more. I’m the PP and a pro-choice woman. I take justices at their word when they swear to be impartial interpreters of the law.

Why? Seriously. Did you take Trump at his word when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? Aside from the fact that Barrett is not yet a justice, what would make you take any and all proposed justices “at their word when they swear to be impartial interpreters of the law”? I’m struck by you willingness to take this way beyond your assertions about Barrett to, apparently, anyone nominated, or at least to anyone sworn in.

So you don’t believe justices will be impartial when they swear an oath to be so? You didn’t believe RBG or Kagan or Sotomayor either, I take it? Who, exactly, DO you believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I was predisposed to at least like her even if I don't agree with her judicial point of view, but I am heartily sick and tired of Saint Amy.

She can't express and opinion on whether the President has the absolute authority to pardon HIMSELF? Ben Sasse asks her a Constitutional law softball and she flails around? "Forgotten" disclosures about her record keep trickling out? She was also a part of the Bush recount? Come on.

She's a bought and paid for Federalist Society stooge. These hearings are an embarrassment and an insult to the public's intelligence.

You would be saying exactly the same thing about anyone Trump nominated, period. Nothing new under the sun.

Nope. While I think Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to some extent are the same they both had lengthy judicial records and Gorsuch actually worked at the best appellate firm in arguably the entire country before being appointed to the 10th Circuit. Kavanaugh was too political to ever be appointed tot eh federal bench and his temperament at his hearings soured me on him, but he has experience. Barrett has none of that - a short tenure at a law firm that merged with Baker Botts and then Notre Dame. She's the Sarah Palin of the judiciary. Sandra Day O'Connor she is not.

A Sarah Palin she is not... that actually made me laugh. Nice try!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing! ACB thinks that being a judge prevents her from having an opinion on whether it's okay to do something the UN considers an act of genocide:

She's entitled to her views on what constitutes a political matter, I suppose. But all Republicans who are support this sham of a confirmation can please spare me the nonsense about ACB's morality and character. I wish he'd followed-up by asking whether she'd be willing to accept having her children forcibly removed from her care if she tried to enter Canada with them.

You are so dopey, it’s painful. One more time, for the people in the back: as a sitting judge, she MAY NOT give her opinion on ANY ISSUE that could potentially be litigated by her in the future. This, among just about every other issue the silly Democrats questioned her about, is something that has not been settled by law and to which she MAY NOT OPINE. Why can’t you people understand such a simple concept? Every nominee before her, including RBG and Kagan, states exactly the same thing; in fact, this refusal to offer opinions is called the Ginsburg Standard. Educate yourself.

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/09/04/2018/the-ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previewsand-no-special-obligations

I see you lack reading comprehension skills, despite call others "dopey". Two things:
- She had no issues agreeing with Sen. Tom Tillis about needing to maximize voter turn out by providing safe voting processes, though that might also be an issue she has to rule on.
- I agree that it's her prerogative to call some things "political" rather than moral questions. I disagree that you get to refuse to take a stance on a moral issue, calling it political, and still present yourself as a paragon of moral virtue.

Not that it matters. She'll be confirmed. But I can still hold the opinion that she's clearly selling her soul in exchange for this seat. If you care about American democracy, it should concern you that many of us feel that way.