How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[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.

Except that she stated, “no man is above the law.” So that covers any and all questions regarding the president. Period.
DP

[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 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!

True. Sarah Palin was charismatic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine any job she would deserve from this interview. It’s one thing to say that there are things she can’t comment on, but she hasn’t shown enough knowledge of the law to be hired as an associate or a law clerk.

Right, right... it’s not as if she’s talked for hours and hours each day about the intricacies and minutiae of her decisions, writings, and the Constitution - completely from memory. No, she’s definitely not an extremely skilled academic and judge. Nope, not her!

Your desperation is so obvious. And pathetic.

I am an educator, and the Constitution is written at an elementary school level. If a 5th grader can understand it, a lawyer must be able to do so.

[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.

Except that she stated, “no man is above the law.” So that covers any and all questions regarding the president. Period.
DP

You are sooo funny. Period.

[Anonymous]

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.

ACB is waiting for the day to overturn Roe.

[Anonymous]

ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

[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.

I have a bridge to sell you, supposed pro-choice woman.

“Supposed”? It’s remarkable how you wackos think anyone pro-choice couldn’t possibly support this accomplished woman. I guess you really do only pay lip service to your cries for “diversity”. The left definitely does NOT welcome diversity of thought. That’s abundantly clear.

[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.

Also, it’s literally her job to teach this stuff. I would hope she is knowledgeable without notes. I also hope that if I had to answer questions about my job (a standard, boring Fed job but I know it well) in a Senate hearing I would sound reasonably intelligent.

[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.

Wow. That's a big nothingburger of a defense...because you can't defend her.

On the contrary, I’ve defended her quite a bit - and very specifically. But what it honestly comes down to is what I stated, above. The fact that Trump nominated her means that not one of you numbskulls can (or will) see past your spiteful noses long enough to recognize how talented she is. You’re blinded by your Trump hatred. At least now we all know that when you sanctimoniously insist on “diversity,” you do NOT include anyone who is not a liberal, first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have a bridge to sell you, supposed pro-choice woman.

“Supposed”? It’s remarkable how you wackos think anyone pro-choice couldn’t possibly support this accomplished woman. I guess you really do only pay lip service to your cries for “diversity”. The left definitely does NOT welcome diversity of thought. That’s abundantly clear.

I would believe you if we were talking about Barbara Larsen, but not a candidate who doesn’t believe birth control is settled law. Nyet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

Completely agree.

[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.

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

Only stupid people don’t understand why she can’t answer certain questions, such as hypotheticals. Hint: it’s been explained several times already. Keep up.

Not impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can hold whatever opinions you wish, as can I. Just wanted to note that she has never presented herself as a “paragon of moral virtue.” She is simply living her life the way SHE sees fit. It’s amazing the amount of anger some of you have toward a woman who has different personal views than you. It’s becoming more and more obvious what you think of ANYONE who doesn’t agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine any job she would deserve from this interview. It’s one thing to say that there are things she can’t comment on, but she hasn’t shown enough knowledge of the law to be hired as an associate or a law clerk.

Right, right... it’s not as if she’s talked for hours and hours each day about the intricacies and minutiae of her decisions, writings, and the Constitution - completely from memory. No, she’s definitely not an extremely skilled academic and judge. Nope, not her!

Your desperation is so obvious. And pathetic.

I am an educator, and the Constitution is written at an elementary school level. If a 5th grader can understand it, a lawyer must be able to do so.

You’re saying this brilliant judge and academic - who teaches Constitutional Law - doesn’t understand the Constitution?

[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.

ACB is waiting for the day to overturn Roe.

We are well aware that’s the looney way your mind works. But no. That’s not how the SCOTUS works.