Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

Uh, Trump said out loud that he wants the SC to confirm his presidency in a contested (or "contested") election.

Can you even hear yourself?

No, he said he wants nine justices in place in case the SC has to decide the election, rather than have it go 4-4. But your version makes for some great outrage, amirite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

Uh, Trump said out loud that he wants the SC to confirm his presidency in a contested (or "contested") election.

Can you even hear yourself?

Anonymous wrote:She has only been a judge for 3 years?! That is crazy to be a Supreme Court judge with only 3 years experience! Why are they not making that in itself more of an issue???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Yeah, as far as I know, she doesn't have a blended family.

Why did PP call it a blended family? hmm...

Because she adopted kids and PP misused the term.

Yeah, it's been pointed out that PP misused the term. We knew that. What we don't know is *why* PP chose to use that term. I'm guessing that PP, like ACB, thinks its ok to use racial slurs against POC, as long as they do it with a smile on their face so nobody's feelings are hurt.

WTF?? The term “blended family” was misused. There was nothing nefarious intended. But trust a nutty liberal to twist it into something it’s not.
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want them to overturn Roe, I wanna see what Republicans will campaign on after Roe, let’s just get this out if the way.

I think it's pretty clear - securing access to white babies by outlawing contraceptives. Allowing states to swoop in and declare women unfit so that their children can be taken from them, banning gay marriage, banning gay adoption....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Yeah, as far as I know, she doesn't have a blended family.

Why did PP call it a blended family? hmm...

Because she adopted kids and PP misused the term.

Yeah, it's been pointed out that PP misused the term. We knew that. What we don't know is *why* PP chose to use that term. I'm guessing that PP, like ACB, thinks its ok to use racial slurs against POC, as long as they do it with a smile on their face so nobody's feelings are hurt.

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.

To apply it, you must be able to interpret it. To interpret it, you must be knowledgeable of it. To provide an opinion, you should at a minimum have credibility in doing each of those things. She doesn’t.

Kamala is a better suited scotus.

Oh wait - you were serious?? Barrett is a serious Constitutional scholar.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

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.

To apply it, you must be able to interpret it. To interpret it, you must be knowledgeable of it. To provide an opinion, you should at a minimum have credibility in doing each of those things. She doesn’t.

Kamala is a better suited scotus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how the right keeps claiming religious persecution and litmus when tey are the only ones bringing it up.

Same with court packing. It is only the right talking about it and bringing it up.

People on the left have repeatedly talked about court packing.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) signaled openness on Wednesday to expanding the Supreme Court amid what she called a “crisis of confidence” created by Republicans in the nation's high court.

Bloomberg reported that Harris, asked in Nashua, N.H., whether she would support adding as many as four justices to the bench, said she was "open" to the conversation.

"I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court,” the 2020 presidential candidate said, according to Bloomberg.

Harris also expressed openness to limiting how many justices one president can nominate and applying term limits to justices, according to the news outlet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/443841-harris-open-to-adding-seats-to-supreme-court


And, as for religious freedom........ "The dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern." - Dianne Feinstein

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. Democrats want the SC to make policy. THEIR policy. They seem unable to grasp that policy is not the role of the SC.

Uh, Trump said out loud that he wants the SC to confirm his presidency in a contested (or "contested") election.


Au contraire mon freir, she can only hear herself in her echo chamber of lunacy. She hears no one else.
Can you even hear yourself?

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.

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.