Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the process. Could someone please explain to me how Supreme Court nomination confirmation process works and if they'll be able to go through with it?

she is doing very well.

very smart. clearly more knowledgable than the democrat minions.

she will be a great addition to the supreme court

Doubt she’ll be confirmed. Nice try, though.

Why? Does Feinstein have another stunt up her sleeve?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the process. Could someone please explain to me how Supreme Court nomination confirmation process works and if they'll be able to go through with it?

she is doing very well.

very smart. clearly more knowledgable than the democrat minions.

she will be a great addition to the supreme court

Doubt she’ll be confirmed. Nice try, though.

check back in a few weeks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Or covid.

It’s a done deal. Too bad the Dems agreed to fund the government. If they had shut it all down this hearing would not be take place. Look for the Dems to roll over and pay nice in the next senate. No need to stand up and fight.

Agreed. Why are they even bothering to show up. Would be much more powerful to let the republicans push her through with just republicans attending the hearing. They accomplish nothing by participating in a charade and only make it seem normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? A legitimate question. Someone should have asked Kavanaugh. Someone should ask her if she always obeys her husband and if she has ever had sex for pleasure because her religion days women have sex only to procreate.

Barrett's voice is more annoying than laura trauvalen.

Dumb take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the process. Could someone please explain to me how Supreme Court nomination confirmation process works and if they'll be able to go through with it?

she is doing very well.

very smart. clearly more knowledgable than the democrat minions.

she will be a great addition to the supreme court

Doubt she’ll be confirmed. Nice try, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Or covid.

Yup. And so many if these up by yer bootstraps fools won’t wear a mask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Or covid.

It’s a done deal. Too bad the Dems agreed to fund the government. If they had shut it all down this hearing would not be take place. Look for the Dems to roll over and pay nice in the next senate. No need to stand up and fight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mazie Hirono has to be the biggest idiot on the Judiciary Committee.

I wish ACB would give Mazie a nice big eye roll, just as Mazie did to her. But Barrett is classier than that.

No, she’s not. She is sht all over RBG’s legacy.

Hilarious, using your children as props is mega or MAGA-classy.

The children of every other recent nominee with children have attended their hearings. So what’s your point again?

Not during a pandemic, they didn't. Let those poor kids stay home.

Anonymous wrote:Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

Or covid.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the process. Could someone please explain to me how Supreme Court nomination confirmation process works and if they'll be able to go through with it?

she is doing very well.

very smart. clearly more knowledgable than the democrat minions.

she will be a great addition to the supreme court

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

Graham started the whole process yesterday by saying, "We're not going to persuade each other. The GOP will vote yes, the Dems will vote no."

The fact that he would say that demonstrates how broken the system is. Thanks, GOP, for turning this into a worthless poopshow, and admitting that you don't really care to vet this woman.

Far from a done deal. All it takes is a couple maverick/heroic Republican senators to say no to this religious freakdom.

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?

We know that liberals don't believe this is what the court is for. PP is correct. You believe the court is there to write law.

According to Republicans, the SCOTUS is supposed to be full of activist judges to overturn laws they do not like. They do their typical projection by saying it is the liberals who want activist judges, but, as is usual with them, they accuse the other party of what they are the ones doing.

They want judges to push their activist, conservative agendas to overturn laws, even when doing so is not in keeping with what the majority of the American people actually want.

They want judges to do things like say corporations are the same as individuals.

The GOP are simply FOS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mazie Hirono has to be the biggest idiot on the Judiciary Committee.

Oink oink oink, misogynist pig.

Ooh, I’ll be sure to use this every single time you liberals bash women you don’t like (ie conservatives). Hypocritical pig.
DP

Well, you are using sexist language to demean a learned senator of color...I critique Amy Covid-B on her record. Never called her dumb, so oink oink on.

You’re talking to different people, as indicated by the DP. At any rate, I agree with the PP. Mazie is a complete idiot and always has been.

Now do tell - how is calling her an idiot any different from Democrats calling conservative women “idiots, stupid, dumb,” and worse? You’ve been calling Barrett “Amy COVID-B”. I take it you think you’re cute, but in reality you’re just showing yourself to be the moron you really are.

Well, she was the reason for a superspreader event. Them's the facts. DP.

Really? Please post those “facts” stating she was responsible for the COVID spread at that event.

DP...would there have been a Rose Garden event if she had declined to have it or declined the appointment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just handled Corey nicely on the racial epithet case.

Because it's couldn't possibly be a hostile work environment if they called you the N-word AFTER they had already decided to fire you.

Did you even hear her response?? She clearly stated that the use of the n-word was not even introduced as evidence for the man trying to make the “hostile work environment” case. He based his claim on the use of expletives toward him (NOT the n-word) because of his poor work performance (driving the wrong way). The n-word was uttered after his termination proceedings had begun. He did not tie that word in to the evidence presented for his hostile workplace claim. As a PANEL, they were constrained to decide the case based on the evidence before them. The panel made clear that one use of the n-word would have been enough to establish a hostile workplace claim - IF the case had been pled that way. It was not.

The law doesn’t care what your emotions are.