How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No.

Your response is bizarre. You realize that many, many different people post here anonymously, don't you?

My post about the notes stands.

[Anonymous]

[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.

I don't know that that is true. Sandra Day O'Connor came right out and said she was personally opposed to abortion as "birth control" in her confirmation hearings. But she didn't overturn Roe in her rulings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/here-s-what-women-justices-said-about-roe-v-wade-in-their-hearings-93857349997
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-supreme-court-justice-sandra-day-oconnor-helped-preserve-abortion-rights

[Anonymous]

Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

And 15 million people have already voted. For a guy who won by 80,000 votes who has lost supporters in nearly every demographic group, he's really running out of time.

[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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

[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.

I don't know that that is true. Sandra Day O'Connor came right out and said she was personally opposed to abortion as "birth control" in her confirmation hearings. But she didn't overturn Roe in her rulings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/here-s-what-women-justices-said-about-roe-v-wade-in-their-hearings-93857349997
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-supreme-court-justice-sandra-day-oconnor-helped-preserve-abortion-rights

+1
Justices are allowed their personal opinions. The point is keeping them separate when evaluating and interpreting the law - which they all take an oath to do.

[Anonymous]

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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

The fact that you used “supposed” to sarcastically qualify my pro-choice stance told me all I needed to know about your political affiliations. I stand by my statement: the left does not welcome diversity of thought. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

As long as you don’t throw another temper tantrum if Trump wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

It’s “Barrett.” And plenty of college-educated women will be voting for him.

[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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

The fact that you used “supposed” to sarcastically qualify my pro-choice stance told me all I needed to know about your political affiliations. I stand by my statement: the left does not welcome diversity of thought. Ever.

Again with "the left". No one can take someone like you seriously talking about "diversity of thought". Crazy righties like you are the epitome of close minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why can't you acknowledge that this particular nominee has a different public record with respect to how she thinks about her moral beliefs and her role as a secular jurist?

Also, the Ginsburg rule isn't what you claim it is: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628711698/the-reality-of-the-ginsburg-rule

And, most importantly, can you please point me to active litigation on the issue of family separation that makes it likely to appear before the SCOTUS? I am not aware that the Administration (or anyone) is appealing the 2018 injunction. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

[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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

The fact that you used “supposed” to sarcastically qualify my pro-choice stance told me all I needed to know about your political affiliations. I stand by my statement: the left does not welcome diversity of thought. Ever.

Again with "the left". No one can take someone like you seriously talking about "diversity of thought". Crazy righties like you are the epitome of close minded.

You almost squeaked by with a point, but then you couldn’t keep from bungling it. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

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 am saying it's so easy to understand, you don't need a law degree to read and interpret 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 am saying it's so easy to understand, you don't need a law degree to read and interpret it.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL