Anonymous wrote:ACB is putting on a tour de force confirmation hearing. A qualified woman of faith with a blended family.

Who you got? 😏

She has a blended family? Are some of the children hers from a previous marriage and some of them her husbands from a previous marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Wait: you want the Supreme Court to make policy? Why?

What the hell do you think the highest court in the land with lifetime appointments is for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Economist, she is least popular SC nominee in recent history:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-popular-supreme-court-nominee-in-recent-history

I've subscribed to the economist from 1988 until November 2016 when their apolitical free market approached changed to globalism with leaders who protected it. PP just proved why I deleted my subscription.

+100

+200

Think they’ll come back to the light? Or forever tainted? Used to be my favorite subscription

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Economist, she is least popular SC nominee in recent history:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-popular-supreme-court-nominee-in-recent-history

Well, she did say that it's ok to use the n-word at work...

What??? Cite on that?

It's earlier in this thread.

But it's worth a refresher:

Appears that she made a sound legal decision.

If you're racist, sure.

+1
That is appalling.

Does she think black people are happy to be called the n-word or something? Based on historical precedent of slavery and segregation?

I think the fact that she is a mother to a black child makes it okay.

/s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

Like the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that was invalidated by the Citizens United decision?
Like when the Supreme Court struck down most of the Voting Rights Act?
Like when the Supreme Court gave the election to George Bush?

Funny how the conservatives on the Court always "interpret" the Constitution in support of their desired policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Wait: you want the Supreme Court to make policy? Why?

The Supreme Court doesn't "simply apply the law". They decide issues that are not clear. Otherwise why bother to have a Supreme Court?

ACB is putting on a tour de force confirmation hearing. A qualified woman of faith with a blended family.

Who you got? 😏

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Wait: you want the Supreme Court to make policy? Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

I’m beginning to suspect that she got her law degree from a home school.

Everybody needs to send a "Minion"doll to ACB's office!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

That's not what the Supreme Court is for. Does she know that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

Like the law about postponing elections?

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not here to destroy the ACA" - ACB

She is humble and fair even while Coons tries otherwise.

+1
She has stated over and over that the role of a justice is not to make policy. It is simply to apply the law, as already written. She is right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bam. ACB nailed Klobuchar with RBG’s own words. Nicely done.

I'm so glad that "owning" a "lib" Senator with a deceased Justice's words, when that Justice has been dead not even a month, is giving you such joy, and is now apparently the purpose of Senate confirmation hearings and the highest court in our country. Do you even hear yourself?

What are you nattering on about? The point was that she very aptly paraphrased a revered justice’s words regarding giving her personal opinions: “No hints, no previews, no forecasts.” Klobuchar couldn’t argue with that. Why on earth are you?

Are you cool with her aptly paraphrasing that it's ok to call black people the n-word at work?

The fact that you’re twisting her actual words to suit your obviously biased narrative is so telling. Take your outrage out of the picture and read her decision - a decision, btw, that was the MAJORITY.

Not twisting her words at all. The decision may have been the majority, but the dismissal of the vilest racial perjorative is all hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the Economist, she is least popular SC nominee in recent history:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-popular-supreme-court-nominee-in-recent-history

Well, she did say that it's ok to use the n-word at work...

What??? Cite on that?

It's earlier in this thread.

But it's worth a refresher:

Appears that she made a sound legal decision.

Agreed. Honestly, I think her detractors take the most scandalous sound byte and run with it - looks like they didn’t even bother to read her own words.

You think black people are happy to be called the n-word? Do you call them that?

Do you always start arguments with idiotic strawmen? Apparently so.

This case/decision is an example of why originalism is a jurisprudence of immense privilege, why it aligns with right wing causes, and why I detest it.

Absent some explicit evidence that was apparently lacking in the record - the person testifying "being called the n-word upset me and made my work environment hostile" - the originalist jurist is free to conclude that being called the n-word isn't per se evidence of a hostile work environment.

Either the jurist really believes that, which is shocking and not good, or the jurist is unwilling to let the law breathe even a little to help a marginalized group while staying within the spirit and intent of the law. "Of course being called the n-word would result in a hostile work environment."

Originalism is antithetical to progressive values. Many of my conservative friends loathe any case law or any statute that might help equalize the playing field for a marginalized group. and that's before you get into the effect of white evangelicalism.