Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

Pro-death of mother lifers? I don’t know many like you, thankfully. I will pray for your daughters.

PP here and I’m pro-choice. But I think it’s disgusting how Democrats like you have smeared this woman for her personal beliefs. And that you’re fear mongering that somehow she will attempt to overturn Roe. She won’t. And you know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I know right, poor women dying of abortions is our jam! Bring on the popcorn!

I am sure pp is a white male, they are the only ones happy about this.

Anonymous wrote:^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

I found it really distasteful that she was unaware that the constitution sets the date for voting for elections. But considering Thom Tillis said Election Day was November 11, and nobody corrected him, maybe the COVID was frying everyone’s brains...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

I know right, poor women dying of abortions is our jam! Bring on the popcorn!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

Pro-death of mother lifers? I don’t know many like you, thankfully. I will pray for your daughters.

Anonymous wrote:The confirmation is going swimmingly well, thank you. Within a week, ACB will be another outstanding scotus judge thanks to President Trump!

+1
It is so entertaining watching these poor liberal schlubs try to discredit ACB. They wouldn’t last five minutes in a debate against her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

I have been here long enough to know that this amount of conservative support is being driven by non regular DCUM folks.

Really. Why don’t you ask Jeff to confirm that by looking at IP addresses? Run along now, while the adults talk.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine any job she would deserve from this interview. It’s one thing to say that there are things she can’t comment on, but she hasn’t shown enough knowledge of the law to be hired as an associate or a law clerk.

Right, right... it’s not as if she’s talked for hours and hours each day about the intricacies and minutiae of her decisions, writings, and the Constitution - completely from memory. No, she’s definitely not an extremely skilled academic and judge. Nope, not her!

Your desperation is so obvious. And pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

I have been here long enough to know that this amount of conservative support is being driven by non regular DCUM folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know she’s completely amoral.

I find her repellent. A really bad person. Worse than Kavanaugh and that's saying something.

So much extremism here from the left. It would be frightening if it wasn’t so amusing.

^^ PP is correct. I'm a right leaning independent and I think that the nomination should have waited until after the election. However, Senate Dems asking her questions they know she shouldn't answer and criticizing her when she doesn't because they don't like that she was nominated at all is distasteful.

Anonymous wrote:So many ACB shills here. No classes at ND? Its quite striking the amount of support for her on this thread.

You mean it’s quite striking that there are actually people who disagree with you? Maybe step out of your very narrow bubble occasionally.

Anonymous wrote:Amazing! ACB thinks that being a judge prevents her from having an opinion on whether it's okay to do something the UN considers an act of genocide:

She's entitled to her views on what constitutes a political matter, I suppose. But all Republicans who are support this sham of a confirmation can please spare me the nonsense about ACB's morality and character. I wish he'd followed-up by asking whether she'd be willing to accept having her children forcibly removed from her care if she tried to enter Canada with them.

You are so dopey, it’s painful. One more time, for the people in the back: as a sitting judge, she MAY NOT give her opinion on ANY ISSUE that could potentially be litigated by her in the future. This, among just about every other issue the silly Democrats questioned her about, is something that has not been settled by law and to which she MAY NOT OPINE. Why can’t you people understand such a simple concept? Every nominee before her, including RBG and Kagan, states exactly the same thing; in fact, this refusal to offer opinions is called the Ginsburg Standard. Educate yourself.

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/09/04/2018/the-ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previewsand-no-special-obligations

Uh oh, looks like she got caught in another lie.

I can’t imagine any job she would deserve from this interview. It’s one thing to say that there are things she can’t comment on, but she hasn’t shown enough knowledge of the law to be hired as an associate or a law clerk.