Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

+1
The display of stupidity that the Democrats have put on over the past three days was cringeworthy. I enjoyed seeing ACB keep her cool throughout.

She’s been amazing. She’ll make an amazing justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

+1
The display of stupidity that the Democrats have put on over the past three days was cringeworthy. I enjoyed seeing ACB keep her cool throughout.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

Of course you were glad to see Amy get salty. It’s what you guys live for.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That she lied about, yes. Kavanaugh perjured and now Ms. Thang perjured, too. “Oh, I thought that wasn’t important.” “I just didn’t understand what that group did when I spoke to them on five separate occasions.” Liar. I guess that’s what Trump would nominate - people drunk on their power and smug enough to lie with a straight face.

I don’t know who saw the relevant bit with Senator Kamala Harris and Amy, but I thought this was interesting:

I was glad to see Judge Barrett have a steely edge to her voice when responding to Kamala’s attack mode. Kamala would not let up and I was happy to see Judge Barrett calmly answer without breaking a sweat.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s “Barrett.” And plenty of college-educated women will be voting for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

+1
The display of stupidity that the Democrats have put on over the past three days was cringeworthy. I enjoyed seeing ACB keep her cool throughout.

If you want to talk about stupid, i would refer you to all the Republicans comments on her children. Sexist and irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As long as you don’t throw another temper tantrum if Trump wins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

+1
The display of stupidity that the Democrats have put on over the past three days was cringeworthy. I enjoyed seeing ACB keep her cool throughout.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, by that logic, we had a bunch of Democrats asking a bunch of stupid questions that had nothing to do with that document, should never be answered when observing the way these hearings are intended to operate, and otherwise talking directly at the cameras for CNN. I guess none of them are capable of reading the Constitution since it is so easy to understand. Shameful! LOL

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why can't you acknowledge that this particular nominee has a different public record with respect to how she thinks about her moral beliefs and her role as a secular jurist?

Also, the Ginsburg rule isn't what you claim it is: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628711698/the-reality-of-the-ginsburg-rule

And, most importantly, can you please point me to active litigation on the issue of family separation that makes it likely to appear before the SCOTUS? I am not aware that the Administration (or anyone) is appealing the 2018 injunction. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy