Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Ame®icano]

Wow! She just said she's been a judge for three whole years! And she's never tried a case!

Yeah - soooo qualified.

As opposed to Elena Kagan?

 

[Winston]

Democrats can't attack her faith.
Despite Horono being the only one dumb enough to 'go there', they can't accuse her of sexual misconduct
After ACB used the 'Ginsburg Rule' to exempt her from saying how she will rule in future cases, Democrats can only speculate / Fear-Monger.
They can - and have - attempted to attack her on the ACA, but that has gone nowhere.

She is literally a squeaky-lean, brilliant, honorable, Constitution-minded extremely qualified Judge. The only reason they have for opposing her is the one reason they can not admit - she is not a Leftist Extremist who will legislate from the bench.

I can't believe Klobuchar just pointed out that 20 years ago, she did some work on Bush V Gore, and that with her confirmation, there will be THREE Justices, 2 of whom were seated by Trump, on hte Court.

Talk about stretching...

Bush v. Gore was a screwed up ruling. Not that I am complaining. Not sure Gore would have been the man Bush was after 9/11.

 

[hadit]

Unfit.

Nope. She's the best of the best, sugarplum.

Someone who has been a judge less than three years and has never been in a courtroom is the best of the best?

Another example of your low standards. Which you want. Louie Gohmert, Marsha Blackburn, Virginia Foxx, Ted Yoho - conservatives embrace the unintelligent, the mediocre, the unsophisticated. They are inferior so they don’t want anyone superior being in any position of authority. ‘Idiocracy’ is the right-wing playbook.

How many of her rulings were overturned on appeal, and how did the Bar Association (who know the law and lawyers a LOT better than you do) rate her?

 

[hadit]

Barrett doesn't need any notes.

When you refuse to answer questions why would you need notes?

Its like Trump: when he doesn’t have his teleprompter he’s a blathering idiot, but he’s not answering questions, either, just deflecting and lying.

The answer lies in this question, "What questions is she refusing to answer?". If they are asking her how she would rule on a case, she should NOT answer and they should be immediately escorted from the hearing.

 

[hadit]

Trump has again shown an amazing eye for Judicial Talent.

Amy Coney Barrett Sends a Strong Message to Young Conservative Women of Faith.

View attachment 401108​

Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is an icon for conservative women of faith across America, just as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an icon for left-leaning women. Barrett’s confirmation will finally prove that even conservative women can have a seat at the table.

With a friendly smile on her face, this brave incredibly intelligent and mild tempered gracious woman prepares to go through hell getting branded as a traitor to her sex just like black conservatives go through hell, getting branded as traitors to their race by the racist bigoted hate-filled Leftists in national office.

Due to the Left’s divisive identity politics on race and sex, black conservatives and female conservatives face immense pressure to renounce their convictions — especially women who value unborn life.

Barrett herself has faced unjust charges of misogyny because of her Roman Catholic faith. Media outlets have seized on her use of common Christian phrases. They have compared a faith community to which Barrett once belonged to the dystopian oppression of The Handmaid’s Tale. Citing a scandal-plagued smear factory, Democrat senators have compared a mainstream conservative Christian law firm to which Barrett once spoke to the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot.

Barrett is a powerful symbol. Barrett proves that a woman’s place — the place of a conservative woman of faith — is on the Supreme Court.

Why is it appropriate for a SCOTUS justice to send strong messages of faith? That’s a violation of church and state.

And this is more proof that only wingnuts are talking about her religion.

Which of her rulings can you point to in which her faith overrode the law?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

The only thing the dems have exposed is their complete lack of understanding of the Constitution.

You don't get to tell a member of an independent member of the government what they can and can't do. The constitution does that.

And that is what judges are for.

The court will never be expanded. The dems really don't have the balls for the bullets that would fly afterwards.

Trump had two years where he could have expanded the court and he didn't. That's restraint.

You little whiny bitches are doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum and making the rest of us laugh.

 

[westwall]

Ben Sasse is coming across very well. He's a lot smarter than I thought.

 

[hadit]

This is unbelievable! even for the Demon-Rats .....I am totally speechless!

Demonrat Senator Mazie Hirono asks Amy Connie Barrett - listen to this please - if she has ever committed rape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She asked Amy if she ever commited rape????????????????

LORD HAVE MERCY ON US!


The Democrats are insane.

That should have prompted peals of loud, sustained laughter from the entire chamber, and Hirono should have slunk away in shame, never to be heard from again.

 

[hadit]

She's not answering any questions.

Pssss....psssss...psss I have a secret that everyone should know----sometimes chosing to remain silent and not feed the trolls with any information is the BEST THING you can do especially in legal proceedings.

How does that advance advise and consent?

Because it sends the clear message that the justice will approach each case and rule on its merits instead of political calculations. Man, what ARE they teaching kids in school these days?

 

[hadit]

She's not answering any questions.

Tissue, doll?

I'll play this back to you when we expand the SCOTUS.

And you think that is a good road to go down?
You say it like it’s a guarantee that Dems will win the presidency and the senate.

Will you still be ok with it if trump wins, and we retain the senate? I’m betting you won’t.

Where as people with morals and principles (known as conservatives) are not ok with either side doing it. If Trump wins and decides to pack the court and add seats, I’d be against that as well.

Because those of us who aren’t fools know that is a bad road to go down.

If Trump and the Republican Senate steal the election America is over, so it won't make much difference.

And yes, it's absolutely the correct path. The must be an escalation from the Democrats in order to achieve a mutual bipartisan de-escalation. It's the only way. Otherwise we are only ceding to Republican dirty tricks and illegality.

But if they win fair and square, the democrats need to sit down and shut up.

 

[Flash]

Klobarchar was a real asshole.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Barrett’s answer to whether a President has a right to delay an election was downright pathetic.

Get over yourself.

Hey, really enjoyed the Pineapple moron's questions about sexual favors.

Now that was good.

 

[miketx]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

Name one and please explain how they exposed her.

Actually, Democrats have revealed several inconsistencies in her previous judicial rulings. For instance, you can't take guns away from a felon, but you can deny them the right to vote. How does that make sense? Not only is it inconsistent, it is dangerous. Once enough felons can't vote, but they can have guns, what the hell do you think is going to happen? Oh wait, maybe it already is starting. Then there was the case from Wisconsin about a guy killing his wife. In Wisconsin, well it is not illegal to kill your wife if you have a good reason. Religious nut Barrett thought that the dude might have had a good reason. WOW. That is kind of scary.

She has repeatedly danced around severability. That is what the ACA case will turn on. If she really is not a judicial activists, then she will vote to maintain the ACA. Hard to argue that you can't "sever" the penalty from the legislation when the penalty is now zero. In effect, that is what this administration has already done. But the case coming before the SCOTUS argues that since the penalty is zero the entire legislation must be scrapped.

You have proven you are insane, You may go now,

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey stupid, those idiots are asking SPECiFiC questions about specific cases.

You’re a liar.

She said it depended on the case.

Of course, Feinkenstein is just that stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She's not answering any questions.

Tissue, doll?

I'll play this back to you when we expand the SCOTUS.

And you think that is a good road to go down?
You say it like it’s a guarantee that Dems will win the presidency and the senate.

Will you still be ok with it if trump wins, and we retain the senate? I’m betting you won’t.

Where as people with morals and principles (known as conservatives) are not ok with either side doing it. If Trump wins and decides to pack the court and add seats, I’d be against that as well.

Because those of us who aren’t fools know that is a bad road to go down.

If Trump and the Republican Senate steal the election America is over, so it won't make much difference.

And yes, it's absolutely the correct path. The must be an escalation from the Democrats in order to achieve a mutual bipartisan de-escalation. It's the only way. Otherwise we are only ceding to Republican dirty tricks and illegality.

Oh, it won't be over.

But you will be.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Klobarchar was a real asshole.

Was ?

 

[miketx]

When are they gonna accuse her of raping somebody?

I Guess hirono answered that question.

No, she only set up the coming accusations. The Dems are madly working away trying to manufacture some horrible crime to accuse her of.

Maybe tomorrow they will advance her to the water test.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dick Durbin used his time to whine and bitch.

These are 100 people we elect to do a job and this is what we get.

 

[Flash]

Klobarchar was a real asshole.

Was ?

Specifically for her questioning of ACB today. She remains one for all times.

 

[hadit]

She's not answering any questions.

Pssss....psssss...psss I have a secret that everyone should know----sometimes chosing to remain silent and not feed the trolls with any information is the BEST THING you can do especially in legal proceedings.

How does that advance advise and consent?

How does asking leading questions on cases that are in the courts in an attempt to get her to violate her independence from the rest of the government influence advance advise and consent?

Knowing full well she is forbidden from answer specific questions or hypothetical questions, how is it they are advancing advise and consent?

You can't take every question and say "I can't answer that because it may come before me on the court".

Can they ask her if murder is illegal, or is she prohibited from answering because a murder case could come before the court?

Obvious things are obvious. Here's the difference, for those whose education allows them to comprehend. If they ask, "Is murder illegal?", the answer is, "Of course it's illegal. Every state has laws against it and you're an idiot for wasting your time to ask me a question". But if they ask, "Is Illinois' murder law that put a retarded man on death row constitutional?", the answer is, "I need to hear the case in order to decide and you're an idiot for wasting your time to ask me a question". All but the most dense can understand that one.

No, she should NOT answer how she would rule on ANY case that could be brought before her, and those asking her to should be barred from the room.