Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:51%
Wow

This is like how trump celebrates 51% approval.

The highest mark he’s ever seen, much high than his usual low 40s. Sad.

I know right? And yet he’s still YOUR president 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

People didn't really pay much attention to the hearings and the media consensus was that she presented herself well. But, really, after Bart O'Kavanaugh, anyone was going to look good in comparison.

Unless you are a far-right conservative, she is going to be a complete disaster. She is more extreme than Scalia. Mark my words, she will end up being the most mocked and despised woman in the country before this is all over.

And watch the election stuff - the Court already has 4 Justices who are willing to defer completely to state legislatures if they try to change the rules as to how their electoral college delegates are chosen. I see no reason to think she won't be the 5th.

And yet when polls find that most Americans favor safe and legal abortions - you say the polls are crazy because they don't fit with your "die, sluts" approach to reproductive health. How odd....
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

"A total of 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, but within that there's a lot of nuance — 26% say they would like to see it remain in place, but with more restrictions added; 21% want to see Roe expanded to establish the right to abortion under any circumstance; 16% want to keep it the way it is; and 14% want to see some of the restrictions allowed under Roe reduced. Just 13% overall say it should be overturned."

Anonymous wrote:51%
Wow

This is like how trump celebrates 51% approval.

The highest mark he’s ever seen, much high than his usual low 40s. Sad.

51%
Wow

This is like how trump celebrates 51% approval.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

LOL!
Seems the American people don't agree with you.

Donald Trump...uniting Americans...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the story from salon. She absolved Sheriff David Clark of responsibility for his failure of oversight of his jail and its staff rapist

If she followed the law, isn’t that what we want? It was a unanimous verdict by 3 judges, she happened to be one of them. As much as it sucks, 3 judges saw it the same way, legally.

The senior Reagan appointed judge wrote the decision but that is not applying the law. Just because training materials tell guards they can’t have sex with inmates does not free the county from responsibility when a guard repeatedly rapes an inmate. The jury found the county negligent and partly at fault. These judges overruled the jury’s finding of facts, not a point of the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Actually, I think Harriet Miers might have been...but GWB (rightly) pulled her nomination.

Yes, that was a stupid nomination but good that he saw sense and pulled it. Dems were not smart about this one. Instead of focusing on ideology, which was a losing proposition, they absolutely should have hammered again and again that Barrett does not have adequate credentials.

I think it was political strategy. They didn't have the votes to block her nomination, so the goal was to use the hearings to get the best clips from a GOTV perspective. I think that's also why, as a PP pointed out, they focused more on generalities than on her specific legal writings (however thin those might be). Politically, I think it was probably good strategy...at least until Feinstein blew it by praising Graham.

I get what you're saying but insisting upon her inadequate credentials would have better reinforced the overall illegitimacy of the process imo, and was the only thing that could have potentially changed a few Repub minds (if at all possible). Otherwise isn't it just pointless political theatre? And were there even really any great GOTV clips that came out of this?

NP. Agree. Though it was nice to see young kids protesting on the hill this weekend, yelling that they are old enough or months/years away from voting people out. Trump alone is a GOTV clip. His entire presidency.

I agree more should be continually reminded about her credential for a lifetime appointment as a person that “interprets” a law she has never defended and is alarmingly blasé about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

omg.

Lol

“ David Marcus is The Federalist’s New York correspondent.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Actually, I think Harriet Miers might have been...but GWB (rightly) pulled her nomination.

Yes, that was a stupid nomination but good that he saw sense and pulled it. Dems were not smart about this one. Instead of focusing on ideology, which was a losing proposition, they absolutely should have hammered again and again that Barrett does not have adequate credentials.

I think it was political strategy. They didn't have the votes to block her nomination, so the goal was to use the hearings to get the best clips from a GOTV perspective. I think that's also why, as a PP pointed out, they focused more on generalities than on her specific legal writings (however thin those might be). Politically, I think it was probably good strategy...at least until Feinstein blew it by praising Graham.

I get what you're saying but insisting upon her inadequate credentials would have better reinforced the overall illegitimacy of the process imo, and was the only thing that could have potentially changed a few Repub minds (if at all possible). Otherwise isn't it just pointless political theatre? And were there even really any great GOTV clips that came out of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Actually, I think Harriet Miers might have been...but GWB (rightly) pulled her nomination.

Yes, that was a stupid nomination but good that he saw sense and pulled it. Dems were not smart about this one. Instead of focusing on ideology, which was a losing proposition, they absolutely should have hammered again and again that Barrett does not have adequate credentials.

I think it was political strategy. They didn't have the votes to block her nomination, so the goal was to use the hearings to get the best clips from a GOTV perspective. I think that's also why, as a PP pointed out, they focused more on generalities than on her specific legal writings (however thin those might be). Politically, I think it was probably good strategy...at least until Feinstein blew it by praising Graham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Actually, I think Harriet Miers might have been...but GWB (rightly) pulled her nomination.

Yes, that was a stupid nomination but good that he saw sense and pulled it. Dems were not smart about this one. Instead of focusing on ideology, which was a losing proposition, they absolutely should have hammered again and again that Barrett does not have adequate credentials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her.

Yep. Me too. She’ll be a good addition to the court.

An associate professor with 3 years in the bench? Sure, she’s *exceptional.*

Did you know that CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts had even less than three years on the bench? Did you know that Justice Kagan had NO prior judicial experience? Now you do.

John Roberts was a highly accomplished lawyer who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan was Solicitor General.

This is absolutely no comparison between Roberts and Kagan, on one hand, and Amy, on the other. She is mediocrity at its finest. Shameful.

An associate professor whose publications have had virtually no impact in the field. No litigation experience, only 3 years on the bench. She is the least qualified nominee in modern history.

Actually, I think Harriet Miers might have been...but GWB (rightly) pulled her nomination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the story from salon. She absolved Sheriff David Clark of responsibility for his failure of oversight of his jail and its staff rapist

If she followed the law, isn’t that what we want? It was a unanimous verdict by 3 judges, she happened to be one of them. As much as it sucks, 3 judges saw it the same way, legally.