Anonymous wrote:[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am truly embarrassed for you. Stop peddling conspiracy theories. ACB is an extremely well-respected judge. She did not discuss how she would rule on these issues with Trump or anyone from his administration, and she swore to this during the hearing. That you don’t believe her only illustrates how absurd and desperate you are.
DP

She has been a judge for 3 years. That is not long enough to be "well respected."

That is embarrassing.

And Kagan was NEVER a judge! Does that embarrass you too?

Ignorant comment. Kagan was Solicitor General, a position dubbed the "10th SC Justice" because the office is in the SC and so much time is spent arguing before the Court. She was Dean of Harvard Law and Professor before that, infinitely more impressive than Barrett with her thin resume and lack of an impressive publication record.

+1

Unimpressed by the hearings and her resume. She answers hypotheticals from the Rs but not from the Ds. She is ignorant on current matters. She looks uncomfortable in her seat and knows very well she is not worthy of filling it. She is an above average law professor from a good law school, a dime a dozen. Fervently hope she does not get confirmed. She has a mean and stubborn streak which is extremely well hidden but will come out after a few years on the court.

Even her supporters are defensive about the fact that there is not *one* exceptional aspect of her resume. She is beyond mediocre compared to RBG’s accomplishments, even at the same age. This is a straight ideology hire, and as such nothing to be proud of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. ACB unequivocally condemned racism and discrimination of any kind. I guess you detractors can’t keep claiming otherwise.

Sure, Jan. That’s why she wrote an opinion stating an employer’s use of the n-word does not create a hostile work environment for Black employees.

During his probationary employment period, Smith challenged and failed to follow directions, was confrontational, engaged in unsafe conduct, and received unsatisfactory evaluations. He filed internal and union complaints, alleging abusive language, docking his hours, and racial discrimination. The Illinois Department of Transportation discharged Smith. Smith sued the Department under Title VII, arguing that it had subjected him to a hostile work environment and fired him in retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination … Given the extensive evidence that Smith was not meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations, a reasonable jury could not find that the Department fired him because of his protected activity rather than for his poor performance nor could a reasonable jury have resolved the hostile work environment claim in Smith’s favor.

One of incidents Smith included in his case as evidence of his allegedly being subjected to race-based harassment that created a hostile work environment was his claim that a former supervisor named Lloyd Colbert called him the N-word.

Barrett dismissed that claim in her opinion, but not by flatly stating that “Being called the n-word does not constitute a hostile work environment.” Barrett’s point was much more nuanced. According to Barrett, at the time Smith said he was called “stupid ass n******” by a former supervisor, his relationship with his supervisors had long since become a contentious one for a multitude of reasons, and that single incident was not sufficient to support a claim of a racially-hostile work environment:

Because Smith introduced no evidence that his supervisors swore at him because he was black, the profanity that he describes does not establish a hostile work environment under Title VII.

Smith describes one incident, however, that plainly constitutes race-based harassment: Colbert, one of his former supervisors, called Smith a “stupid ass ni[]” after finding out that Smith had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. Nichols v. Mich. City Plant Planning Dep’t, 755 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[W]hile there is no ‘magic number of slurs’ that indicates a hostile work environment, an ‘unambiguously racial epithet falls on the more severe end of the spectrum.’” (citation omitted)). That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment. Huri, 804 F.3d at 834. And he must make this showing “from both a subjective and an objective point of view.” EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 903 F.3d 618, 625 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, he must show not only that a reasonable person would find the workplace hostile or abusive as a result of Colbert’s slur, but also that he himself perceived it that way. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998).

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. ACB unequivocally condemned racism and discrimination of any kind. I guess you detractors can’t keep claiming otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. ACB unequivocally condemned racism and discrimination of any kind. I guess you detractors can’t keep claiming otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:Oh look. ACB unequivocally condemned racism and discrimination of any kind. I guess you detractors can’t keep claiming otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats continue to ask her her opinion, knowing that as a sitting judge, she can’t provide it?? Oh wait, I know. So they can blab on about their issues. They know she can’t answer, but they like to make it appear that she *won’t* answer. Very manipulative.

Why does she respond to hypotheticals from Republican senators?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So no one has asked her about the cult she belongs to?

Why is she skating on this?

1. Because it is not a cult.
2. Because it would be applying a religious test to holding public office - something strictly forbidden by our constitution.

Having said that, i am a little surprised that Mazie Hirono didn't go there, given her previous ignorant comments.

Anonymous wrote:

So no one has asked her about the cult she belongs to?

Why is she skating on this?

Anonymous wrote:

So no one has asked her about the cult she belongs to?

Why is she skating on this?

Anonymous wrote:She's amazing. So much class.

Anonymous wrote:
So no one has asked her about the cult she belongs to?

Why is she skating on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am truly embarrassed for you. Stop peddling conspiracy theories. ACB is an extremely well-respected judge. She did not discuss how she would rule on these issues with Trump or anyone from his administration, and she swore to this during the hearing. That you don’t believe her only illustrates how absurd and desperate you are.
DP

She has been a judge for 3 years. That is not long enough to be "well respected."

That is embarrassing.

And Kagan was NEVER a judge! Does that embarrass you too?

Ignorant comment. Kagan was Solicitor General, a position dubbed the "10th SC Justice" because the office is in the SC and so much time is spent arguing before the Court. She was Dean of Harvard Law and Professor before that, infinitely more impressive than Barrett with her thin resume and lack of an impressive publication record.

+1

Unimpressed by the hearings and her resume. She answers hypotheticals from the Rs but not from the Ds. She is ignorant on current matters. She looks uncomfortable in her seat and knows very well she is not worthy of filling it. She is an above average law professor from a good law school, a dime a dozen. Fervently hope she does not get confirmed. She has a mean and stubborn streak which is extremely well hidden but will come out after a few years on the court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats continue to ask her her opinion, knowing that as a sitting judge, she can’t provide it?? Oh wait, I know. So they can blab on about their issues. They know she can’t answer, but they like to make it appear that she *won’t* answer. Very manipulative.

Why does she respond to hypotheticals from Republican senators?