Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

Nope.

It actually is true that she muffed a total softball question by Senator Sasse asking her to name the five freedoms protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Would be awesome if BIden nominates a gay married justice with kids when he's president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ACB is waiting for the day to overturn Roe.

We are well aware that’s the looney way your mind works. But no. That’s not how the SCOTUS works.

She has advocated overturning Roe v. Wade multiple times in her academic career. That is why she's is the woman that the anti-abortion interest groups told Trump to nominate. As inexperienced and unexceptional as she is, she's the best woman they could find whom they would expect to overturn Roe, ACA, and Obergfell.

Anonymous wrote:
You can hold whatever opinions you wish, as can I. Just wanted to note that she has never presented herself as a “paragon of moral virtue.” She is simply living her life the way SHE sees fit. It’s amazing the amount of anger some of you have toward a woman who has different personal views than you. It’s becoming more and more obvious what you think of ANYONE who doesn’t agree with you.

Interesting that you are so eager to defend Judge Barrett, yet you are wholly unaware that she herself has written about the intersection of her Catholic morality and her approach o jurisprudence: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

I have no problem with people who disagree with me. I have problem with people who lack integrity. In the past, she's invoked her Catholicism as a reason that she might have to recuse herself from cases where her moral views prevent her from being impartial. When presented with a situation that is so clearly immoral, nevermind illegal, that it has been deemed an act of genocide...she calls it a "political debate". Is the first and foremost a secular judge? Or does she hold deep moral beliefs that sometimes mean she can't do her secular job?

Anonymous wrote:How are these proceeding going forward when we know the man who made the nomination had active Covid-19 when he did so and having Covid combined with the myriad drugs used to treat it most definitely affects brain function.

Because the Republicans don't care and a lot of them have covid, too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am an educator, and the Constitution is written at an elementary school level. If a 5th grader can understand it, a lawyer must be able to do so.

You’re saying this brilliant judge and academic - who teaches Constitutional Law - doesn’t understand the Constitution?

I'm the first poster and I'm saying she hasn't demonstrated any exceptional Constitutional expertise in these hearings. She's nothing special as a legal mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, you REALLY need to get out more. I’m the PP and a pro-choice woman. I take justices at their word when they swear to be impartial interpreters of the law.

I have a bridge to sell you, supposed pro-choice woman.

“Supposed”? It’s remarkable how you wackos think anyone pro-choice couldn’t possibly support this accomplished woman. I guess you really do only pay lip service to your cries for “diversity”. The left definitely does NOT welcome diversity of thought. That’s abundantly clear.

I would believe you if we were talking about Barbara Larsen, but not a candidate who doesn’t believe birth control is settled law. Nyet.

Except that this is what she said on the matter:

“I think Griswold is not going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples, all people, from using birth control,” Barrett said, adding that it’s “unthinkable any legislature would pass such a law.”

So you were saying, comrade?

How are these proceeding going forward when we know the man who made the nomination had active Covid-19 when he did so and having Covid combined with the myriad drugs used to treat it most definitely affects brain function.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ACB is waiting for the day to overturn Roe.

We are well aware that’s the looney way your mind works. But no. That’s not how the SCOTUS works.

She won't have to wait long. Nutjob statehouse committees have bills ready to go. They're about to have a 6-3 scotus. This is their dream come true. NP

Anonymous wrote:Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

Kind of.

The least of my worries.

Anonymous wrote:Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

Nope.

It’s interesting - I’m imagining the cries of “misogyny” if this nominee was a woman nominated by a Democrat and was receiving the same kind of disparaging remarks.

Liberals pounce on anyone criticizing liberal women. Conservative women, however, are always fair game.

What a conundrum.

Is it true she couldn’t name 5 things protected by constitution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Really? That's your big takeaway from this? Here's something that will blow your mind. The law is written in books so that we don't have to memorize it and can consult it when we have to analyze a particular issue.

- DCUM lawyer

+1
And it’s pretty remarkable that she didn’t have to consult *any* books or notes - for three days straight.

Go back and look at Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings. No notes either. Did Gorsuch consult a bunch of notes? Kavanaugh? This is no big deal, so the ACB supporters need to shut it on this.

Also, it’s literally her job to teach this stuff. I would hope she is knowledgeable without notes. I also hope that if I had to answer questions about my job (a standard, boring Fed job but I know it well) in a Senate hearing I would sound reasonably intelligent.

She sounded far more than “reasonably intelligent.” Your sad attempts to discredit her are only backfiring on you.

I’m just curious, are GOP senators sick with Covid really going to crawl in for in person vote?