Anonymous wrote:

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 am saying it's so easy to understand, you don't need a law degree to read and interpret it.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

The fact that you used “supposed” to sarcastically qualify my pro-choice stance told me all I needed to know about your political affiliations. I stand by my statement: the left does not welcome diversity of thought. Ever.

Again with "the left". No one can take someone like you seriously talking about "diversity of thought". Crazy righties like you are the epitome of close minded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you’re referring to the separation of families at the border, that is an issue that could very well be debated in the SCOTUS at some point in the future - which is exactly what she said and precisely why she can’t opine on it. The Ginsburg Rule has been cited over and over on this thread. Why can’t you acknowledge that all nominees have invoked this “rule” during their hearings?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

The fact that you used “supposed” to sarcastically qualify my pro-choice stance told me all I needed to know about your political affiliations. I stand by my statement: the left does not welcome diversity of thought. Ever.

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

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.

You demonstrate by your hyperbolic response to my post, which said nothing about my political affiliations, that you are the wacko. You are clearly a Fox-watching Trump troll. Just dying to find some made-up reason to slam "the left".

I can still choose to disagree with her stances on the Constitution and the law no matter how "accomplished" you think she is. Embracing diversity does not equal tolerating people whose views and words and deeds would be harmful to many innocent people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

I don't know that that is true. Sandra Day O'Connor came right out and said she was personally opposed to abortion as "birth control" in her confirmation hearings. But she didn't overturn Roe in her rulings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/here-s-what-women-justices-said-about-roe-v-wade-in-their-hearings-93857349997
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-supreme-court-justice-sandra-day-oconnor-helped-preserve-abortion-rights

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.

Anonymous wrote:Trump thinks Barret will get college educated women to vote for him! I think it's just the opposite and I hope they also vote against all Republicans down ballot.

Anonymous wrote:She will be the first pro-life judge on the Court. She has given numerous talks against abortion in her legal career. Enough said.

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.

So funny. Are you by chance one of the posters who mocked Kayleigh McEnany for using a binder in her pressers - even though it was shown that *every* press secretary before her also used binders? Asking for a friend.