How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would be awesome if BIden nominates a gay married justice with kids when he's president.

Then Senator Kennedy can ask that nominee who does the laundry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

yes!! And folks are defending her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that this is what she said on the matter:

“I think Griswold is not going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples, all people, from using birth control,” Barrett said, adding that it’s “unthinkable any legislature would pass such a law.”

So you were saying, comrade?

She doesn't know much about state legislatures and Governors, including Indiana. Evangelicals have taken over in several states. Mike Pence would have signed that law when he was Governor of Indiana.

[Anonymous]

She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would be awesome if BIden nominates a gay married justice with kids when he's president.

Well he will get at least two shots at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the first poster and I'm saying she hasn't demonstrated any exceptional Constitutional expertise in these hearings. She's nothing special as a legal mind.

The opinion of some anonymous poster means zero. Especially compared to the legal experts who have praised Barrett’s exceptional grasp of the law.

[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.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are these proceeding going forward when we know the man who made the nomination had active Covid-19 when he did so and having Covid combined with the myriad drugs used to treat it most definitely affects brain function.

The GOP is crazed with power and they have their eye on full on fascism as the law of the land. They don’t care about the fact that Trump is high as a kite to look healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Interesting that you are so eager to defend Judge Barrett, yet you are wholly unaware that she herself has written about the intersection of her Catholic morality and her approach o jurisprudence: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

I have no problem with people who disagree with me. I have problem with people who lack integrity. In the past, she's invoked her Catholicism as a reason that she might have to recuse herself from cases where her moral views prevent her from being impartial. When presented with a situation that is so clearly immoral, nevermind illegal, that it has been deemed an act of genocide...she calls it a "political debate". Is the first and foremost a secular judge? Or does she hold deep moral beliefs that sometimes mean she can't do her secular job?

If you’re referring to the separation of families at the border, that is an issue that could very well be debated in the SCOTUS at some point in the future - which is exactly what she said and precisely why she can’t opine on it. The Ginsburg Rule has been cited over and over on this thread. Why can’t you acknowledge that all nominees have invoked this “rule” during their hearings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

Nope.

It actually is true that she muffed a total softball question by Senator Sasse asking her to name the five freedoms protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

She forgot one of the freedoms. Meanwhile she spent the day educating the committee and viewers at home on the intricate ways in which the Constitution works and on the nuances of various cases and opinions. I have no problem with her having a minor brain fart along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that this is what she said on the matter:

“I think Griswold is not going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples, all people, from using birth control,” Barrett said, adding that it’s “unthinkable any legislature would pass such a law.”

So you were saying, comrade?

She doesn't know much about state legislatures and Governors, including Indiana. Evangelicals have taken over in several states. Mike Pence would have signed that law when he was Governor of Indiana.

So you’re going to go with a hypothetical rather than admit you were wrong when you said she “doesn’t believe birth control is settled law.” She obviously does believe that.

[Anonymous]

Religion, speech, press, petition, assembly is her person, woman, man, camera, tv and she effed it up! LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

[Anonymous]

Lots of arm chair law center grads in here. Entertaining to read for sure.