Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She just said she's open to overturning precedent.
So? Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent and was overturned. It happens with some degree of frequency.
Here's a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:ACB is schooling Feinstein. She is imperious and impervious.
She's dodging answering the questions.
And doing it in a very artful and tasteful manner!! Dodging par excellence.
Welcome to SCOTUS hearings. This is what they are now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.
She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.
Nobody attacked her for being a mom. She was lightly criticized for using her 7 children as a shield against scrutiny of her beliefs and her thin record. Why is 7 important? Would a woman with 8 children be more qualified? Would a woman with 3 children be less qualified?
Yes, because women who are not mothers are un-women, obvi.
The 7 kids count against her in my eyes.
Interesting.
Back when Scalia went through confirmation, not one person thought that him having 9 kids counted against him.
It was 1986. You remember then? I mean, I was five. Also it was a different time politically when the GOP tried to nominate qualified ideologues instead of lying cheating unqualified nuts.
Yep. Remember it well.
I get that you don't want her confirmed. But, calling her a "lying cheating unqualified nut" is a flat out lie. She is eminently qualified. And, that makes you mad because there is no reason not to confirm her.
She has lied on her forms and is willing to accept a cheating GOP seat.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't want ACB to be confirmed, but I actually think, all else being equal (meaning aside from her judicial philosophy and beliefs on abortion), naming a mother of 7 to the SCOTUS is great for women. I've seen posters on here attacking her just for being a mom.
She's obviously very smart and accomplished. I don't want her on the court, but I think it's great someone like her could be on the court.
Nobody attacked her for being a mom. She was lightly criticized for using her 7 children as a shield against scrutiny of her beliefs and her thin record. Why is 7 important? Would a woman with 8 children be more qualified? Would a woman with 3 children be less qualified?
Yes, because women who are not mothers are un-women, obvi.
The 7 kids count against her in my eyes.
Interesting.
Back when Scalia went through confirmation, not one person thought that him having 9 kids counted against him.
It was 1986. You remember then? I mean, I was five. Also it was a different time politically when the GOP tried to nominate qualified ideologues instead of lying cheating unqualified nuts.
Yep. Remember it well.
I get that you don't want her confirmed. But, calling her a "lying cheating unqualified nut" is a flat out lie. She is eminently qualified. And, that makes you mad because there is no reason not to confirm her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:ACB is schooling Feinstein. She is imperious and impervious.
She's dodging answering the questions.
Anonymous wrote:ACB is schooling Feinstein. She is imperious and impervious.
Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of ACB, but sheesh, how many men would have been praised for how well their kids sat still and been asked how he does it? Over and over again.
Anonymous wrote:Amy killing it so far.
Anonymous wrote:She just said she's open to overturning precedent.