# Amy Coney Barrett releases GREAT opening statement for Confirmation hearing, DEMS FLIP



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 12, 2020)

Funny how an intent to follow the Constitution as written finds the Democrats on the opposite side.

479592798-Read-Barrett-s-opening-remarks.pdf

READ: Amy Coney Barrett releases GREAT opening statement for Confirmation hearing, DEMS FLIP | News Thud


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Her opening statement was wonderful. She is a constitutional originalist and yet, is compassionate and fair. Schumer's and the other comments were parrot-like and very unfair.


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.



I is old-----I remember when JFK  was going to be a flunkie for the Pope.    It does unnerve me that the issue of  abortion rights and  "civil union"  rights have NOT BEEN DEBATED-----but so far I see no indication that those rights are going away in a republican administration


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.



Whoa there doggie.  Abortion is not a "right", nor is health care. They are what you call "privileges."

As fort gay rights, they have the same right to vote or own a firearm, as you or I.

And nobody is denying anyone of their right to vote, unless you consider all the voting fraud the Democrats are engaged in.


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.
> ...


The attempts will be made to undo everything the right hates about American liberty whether you support it or not.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 12, 2020)

abortion is a  "privilege?"


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.



Unpopular with whom?


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Murdering unborn babies is "American liberty"?

Man, you got that one all wrong.


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


"Murdering babies" is currently a right American women have. If the right will take away any right no right is safe.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



The Second Amendment is safe.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

fncceo said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Maybe we should arm the babies, to protect themselves against their murderous Democrat mothers.

Does anyone have the number for the NRA hot line?


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


Maybe the right should mind their own business.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



When someone wants to snuff out helpless defenseless lives, it becomes my business too. Wouldn't you become involved if someone was trying to kill your next door neighbor? At least call the police or something?

It's just basic human compassion, man. Something we Americans are well-known for.


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

fncceo said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


Well there's that. Crazy people can have guns but they'll have no access to mental health care.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Crazy people can not have firearms. Who told you that?

There is a specific question of the BATFE Form 4473 that asks "Have you ever been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution?" 

You are also prohibited from owning or posessing a firearm if you're a pot smoker, so that would probably exclude you.


----------



## occupied (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


There is not an ounce of compassion in the right's abortion fight or there would be a some effort to provide for all the unwanted babies we already have. How many drug addicted babies have you adopted?


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Probably not near as many as you've spawned.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Let anyone have all the guns or mental health care they can pay for.


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 12, 2020)

The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.

Barrett's nomination is problematic. She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals, and she has been an activist, who has failed to disclose her activism. Add to this the fact the republicans have totally repudiated their previous position that a justice should not be approved during an election year. 

Something appears to be rotten in Denmark.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate,



That the right to vote cannot be abridged due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude is ensconced in The Constitution.   As for the other two, they certainly are up for debate as there is not Constitutional wording that expressly mentions them.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals



Girl Scouts?


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> 
> Barrett's nomination is problematic. She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals, and she has been an activist, who has failed to disclose her activism. Add to this the fact the republicans have totally repudiated their previous position that a justice should not be approved during an election year.
> 
> Something appears to be rotten in Denmark.



Well goody for you. You keep your "right" to murder your offspring and bugger your neighbor, as long as you agree to my right to arm myself being "not up for debate" and with no other person's opinion being necessary.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> ...



Unlike abortion and same sex marriage, which aren't expressly mentioned in The Constitution.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

fncceo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



You are absolutely right. Among other inalienable rights, are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The left would argue with me, but I consider that an unborn child being conceived of two American citizens, should also be protected under the constitution, and not be deprived of that right to live.

An obvious example is in a case where a pregnant mother is murdered: The person who committed that murder can also be charged, tried, and convicted of the murder of the unborn child.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.


Those are YOUR fears, not reality.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


There is not an ounce of compassion in the loss of innocent life in the fight to kill that which is inconvenient.


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> ...


 IF you are a member of a legitimate militia. Are you a member of the National Guard? Furthermore, nobody ever interfered with your right to have a gun. Only what kind of a gun and where you can take it is in question.

Nobody is "murdering" their offspring, and whatever your sexual proclivities are, you have a right to pursue them in private with a consenting adult. I've even heard that some people like BJs. Nobody interferes with what you do in private, or really cares. Marriage refers to one's rights and responsibilities under civil law. You are free to marry under the laws and customs of your religion.


----------



## Chuz Life (Oct 12, 2020)

Hearing is under way!









						Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Highlights from Day 1
					

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings will last through Thursday.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.


----------



## Chuz Life (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.



Projection Noted

Your bias is showing.

Derp.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



You are a constitutional revisionist. The second Amendment made no determination as to the type of weapons American citizens should or should not be allowed. The intent and purpose of the second Amendment was not about hunting, or even he legal defense of your own home. It was written by men who ultimately believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people. 

The only military weapons available during that time were antiquated single-shot muskets, powered by black powder. Those are no longer used by any military and if the second Amendment is to be taken seriously, citizens should have the right to own the same weapons used by the military, or at least reasonable facsimiles thereof. That is only one reason AR-15 style rifles with 20 or 30-round magazines are so popular.

But I'm pretty sure that your ilk would rather limit Americans to antiquated black powder hunting rifles, which really indicates to me how afraid you little tyrants are of legally-armed citizens.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.



Ageism rears its ugly head.

He's old. He's struggling with the technology needed to do a Zoom meeting.

Why do you hate old non-technical people?


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...





BULLDOG said:


> Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.


just like you


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> 
> Barrett's nomination is problematic. She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals, and she has been an activist, who has failed to disclose her activism. Add to this the fact the republicans have totally repudiated their previous position that a justice should not be approved during an election year.
> 
> Something appears to be rotten in Denmark.


you are a danger to yourself and society.   is that female getting the abortion you?  if not, mind your own fucking business, period.  its got nothing to do w/you.


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.


is BEIJING XIDEN high or having a brain spasm?  he is totally incomprehensible


----------



## Oldestyle (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


But it's OK for the left to take away the right to bear arms?  You're amusing, Occupied!


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Of course democrats are trying to make her guilty for saying Obamacare is unconstitutional


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> 
> Barrett's nomination is problematic. She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals, and she has been an activist, who has failed to disclose her activism. Add to this the fact the republicans have totally repudiated their previous position that a justice should not be approved during an election year.
> 
> Something appears to be rotten in Denmark.


You want an abortion?
Pay for it.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.





Lysistrata said:


> The rights to vote, to choose whether to continue a pregnancy, and the right to marry a person of the same sex are constitutional rights held by Americans. They are not up for debate, as no other person's opinion is necessary. Please note that these are rights that many Americans exercise. The GOP's stance and actions on these rights shows its commitment to Big Government. Healthcare is not yet a constitutional right, but probably should be.
> 
> Barrett's nomination is problematic. She is a member of a secretive organization that required her to swear an oath of obedience to another person, based on their genitals, and she has been an activist, who has failed to disclose her activism. Add to this the fact the republicans have totally repudiated their previous position that a justice should not be approved during an election year.
> 
> Something appears to be rotten in Denmark.


 Yup.....Dems are flipping out!


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

I feel like Democrats are trying to threaten her with the Obama care.. this is Horrible somebody arrest these Democrats for trying to threaten this woman


----------



## miketx (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.
> ...


Notice all these vile scum can do is go off the rails spewing nonsense about things that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. And, to receive those "privileges" he talks about you don't even need to be white!


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Republicans should just move to confirmation  that all this sounds like threats.. They’re basically saying if you vote against this we’re going to send the mob to your house


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.
> ...



All he's doing is reading from a page. No technology involved for his part.


----------



## miketx (Oct 12, 2020)

I can't listen to the double talking bullshit anymore. I turned it off.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

WTF19 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Redcurtain said:


> Of course democrats are trying to make her guilty for saying Obamacare is unconstitutional



Feinstein started that with her "Muh free healthcare...Wahhh!"


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

WTF19 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the hearings now. Is Grassley high, or having a stroke? The man is damn near incomprehensible.
> ...



Is that your new imaginary friend?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 12, 2020)

Redcurtain said:


> I feel like Democrats are trying to threaten her with the Obama care.. this is Horrible somebody arrest these Democrats for trying to threaten this woman


They are trying to get her to rule on Obamacare before she ever hears the merits of the case.  This is flat out wrong to do...


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

miketx said:


> I can't listen to the double talking bullshit anymore. I turned it off.



I can't prevent from hearing them. Some Nibiruans have captured me for stealing their planet and are forcing me to watch it.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Take it up with the state of Iowa. They elected him, you didn't.


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Redcurtain said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like Democrats are trying to threaten her with the Obama care.. this is Horrible somebody arrest these Democrats for trying to threaten this woman
> ...


They should Renounce antifa before they go into this hearing.. Because you’re basically saying the mob is going to be outside your door if you disagree with us


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 12, 2020)

As anyone who has kept up with the matter knows, ACA is in no danger of being overturned.  The only question to be resolved is whether the cased is tossed out by an 8-0 vote or a 9-0 vote.

Democrats are scum.  I hope all of America is watching this hearing.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



No, I didn't elect him. I'm from Texas where we elect the stupidest and most unqualified politicians you can imagine.  When it comes to shitty politicians WE'RE NUMBER 1!!!


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Illogical.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

Redcurtain said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Redcurtain said:
> ...



Comeon Meat Curtain. You know that is bullshit.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Oct 12, 2020)

occupied said:


> Now the right has to pretend that their end goal in this nominee is not a raft of unpopular attacks on abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights and health care.


/----/ You're confused. Repealing RvW means the states set the guidelines, not the Fed. No voting rights will be affected unless you mean stopping illegals from voting, and Dems stuffing ballot boxes. And gayes are already protected under the Constitution. And we need to get Gubmint out of healthcare. So what's your beef?


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Redcurtain said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I wish it was.. Hope she hires right wing Extremists  as security


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> As anyone who has kept up with the matter knows, ACA is in no danger of being overturned.  The only question to be resolved is whether the cased is tossed out by an 8-0 vote or a 9-0 vote.
> 
> Democrats are scum.  I hope all of America is watching this hearing.



They're pushing the ACA only because the issue of "But muh abortions" would make them look stupid. Barrett is a woman and pushing the Roe vs. Wade angle would contradict their "It's my body" argument they always play against a male.

In other words, the Democrat's "Gender Card" can't be played today


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 12, 2020)

The correct answer that Judge Barrett will not utter:

"If I am confirmed and I have the privilege of hearing a case on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, my assessment of that law will have NOTHING TO DO with whether that law reflects desirable public policy.  It will have NOTHING TO DO with how any people or certainly any individual would be affected by upholding or overturning that law."

"My assessment will be based on whether the law is tenable under the constraints of the Constitution.  If the law is ultimately found unconstitutional and if the Congress wants to have it, then it is Congress' obligation to re-write the law in a Constitutional way. That is not the function of the Supreme Court"

"Fuck all you soulless Democrats, very much."


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Give 'em hell, Cruz.


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



You have my sympathy. 
I read the oral argument of the _Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt_ case, in which the Texas politicians tried to defend their restrictions on women's clinics on the grounds that they were necessary for safety reasons, notwithstanding the amicus briefs of several national medical associations stating that such restrictions were unnecessary. It was shocking that the justices deemed "conservative" asked the Texas solicitor general only questions regarding legal procedure, and asked absolutely nothing about the substance of the law, how it operates, and what affects it had. It appears that their personal opinions got in the way of their doing their jobs. The solicitor general even told the justices that women in the areas of Texas who could not get to the few clinics that were in compliance with the restrictions could go to New Mexico, which does not have these restrictions, throwing his "safety" argument out. Barrett's nomination raises important questions as to whether she could be an impartial justice.

I'm now searching online for the court filings of the cases in which Abbott is being challenged for his order limiting ballot boxes to one per county. I would like to read the arguments that Abbott and the rest of his fellow crazies advance as to why this order is necessary. I suspect that they are the usual garbage about voter fraud, which never has been supported by any evidence.

You poor souls have been gerrymandered to the point at which you are subjected to an established authoritarian government run by insane persons.


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Any Klobuchar sounds like a loon out side screaming at the Whitehouse


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Yes, but that change is coming.


----------



## Chuz Life (Oct 12, 2020)

Remember when the confirmation hearings used to be about whether or not a nominated candidate was qualified?

Me neither.


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 12, 2020)

JGalt said:


> They're pushing the ACA only because the issue of "But muh abortions" would make them look stupid. Barrett is a woman and pushing the Roe vs. Wade angle would contradict their "It's my body" argument they always play against a male.



Except that it wouldn't. She still has her body and can do what she wishes with it. She just doesn't understand this fact. Neither do you. I know people who decided to complete their pregnancies, one of whom had a grave medical condition that resulted in a very dangerous birth. A decision can go either way. Whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not simply is not an issue for government/politicians to be involved in.


----------



## Chuz Life (Oct 12, 2020)

in 2016, I voted for the presidential election winner (Trump) in large part because I wanted HIM to nominate Supreme Court Justices and Not Hitlary. 

Anybody else?


----------



## Chuz Life (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> Whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not simply is not an issue for government/politicians to be involved in.



Yes or no question.

Do you claim to be a defender of children's rights?

Yes or no?


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Holy virtue signaling Democrats


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> WTF19 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


i believe it belongs to you


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


sounds like what beijing xiden does.   you can relate, im sure


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

BULLDOG said:


> Redcurtain said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


she could answer that after beijing xiden answers if its intention is to pack the court.  demonrats are asswipes for thinking they are the only ones who can play hard ball.. guess what......


----------



## WTF19 (Oct 12, 2020)

Lysistrata said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


we were set up......


----------



## Redcurtain (Oct 12, 2020)

Republican should read all the black babies that have been shot in their district over the past year.. Since Democrats want to pretend they care about peoples lives


----------



## JGalt (Oct 12, 2020)

Redcurtain said:


> Republican should read all the black babies that have been shot in their district over the past year.. Since Democrats want to pretend they care about peoples lives



Except for one thing: The Democrats would grab that and run with their "gun control" narrative again.

It's always the poor gun's fault.


----------

