Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

[buckeye45_73]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

What a stupid rant.
Nobody's trampled on the Constitution more than Fat Boy, who's wheezing at Walter Reed right now because he's too fucking arrogant to wear a mask.
Barrett is a hard-liner who is going to insure that you will be paying a lot more in taxes for fostering children and welfare mothers after this Court, which is supposed to be apolitical in the first place, reverses Roe v Wade.
THAT is why Dems don't like her.

Bullshit you commie, the left can't pass their agenda without the court, you know it, I know it and that is why for the first time in 60+ years, their shit is gonna get dunked in the supreme court.......no more making middle class America deal with trannies in their kids bathrooms. Shit like that.....so go fuck yourself and enjoy the right wing court.

 

[daveman]

Amy Comey Barrett has stated that judges should just do whatever the heck they want and ignore previous law. She's about as anti-constistution as they come, being that she's promised to do what her religion says instead of what the law says.

Lying again, I see.

Not one single leftist has ever pointed to any decision of hers that wasn't based on the Constitution and/or existing law.

You just hate her because she's a Christian.

 

[daveman]

Amy Comey Barrett has stated that judges should just do whatever the heck they want and ignore previous law. She's about as anti-constistution as they come, being that she's promised to do what her religion says instead of what the law says.

Can you please provide that quote.

"""“If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe (v. Wade) reflects public rejection of the proposition that (precedent) can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging. Court watchers embrace the possibility of overruling, even if they may want it to be the exception rather than the rule.” — 2013 article in the Texas Law Review, citing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that recognized a woman’s right to abortion.""""

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

Some notable quotes from Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor and current judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S.

apnews.com

So what's the problem? I thought you clowns believed the Constitution is a living, breathing document.

Are you saying it shouldn't live and breath once you get your way?

 

[daveman]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

What a stupid rant.
Nobody's trampled on the Constitution more than Fat Boy, who's wheezing at Walter Reed right now because he's too fucking arrogant to wear a mask.
Barrett is a hard-liner who is going to insure that you will be paying a lot more in taxes for fostering children and welfare mothers after this Court, which is supposed to be apolitical in the first place, reverses Roe v Wade.
THAT is why Dems don't like her.

Once again.....

If Roe is overturned......it will still be legalized in most states.

What part of that don't you understand.

Many commentators on both sides have said for the past two decades....Roe is dead.

In states like Nebraska, they have slowly hemmed in abortion with small state laws.

The left won't challenge them becuase they don't want a case going to the SCOTUS because they are worried it will be overturned.

I'm sorry, but your opinion doesn't mean jack shit, and you're contradicting yourself, too.

Harris' opinion doesn't mean anything, either.

 

[mamooth]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

 

[BluesLegend]

The US Constitution stands in the way of Democrats desire to rule with an iron fist. They HATE the Constitution's limits on their power.

 

[BluesLegend]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

You blood thirsty Dems and your fetish for killing babies in the womb wow.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The interesting thing is that it's the liberals who want the Constitution to be "a living breathing document" that's easy to change. But it seems they only believe that it can change in one direction.

 

[Blackrook]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

What a stupid rant.
Nobody's trampled on the Constitution more than Fat Boy, who's wheezing at Walter Reed right now because he's too fucking arrogant to wear a mask.
Barrett is a hard-liner who is going to insure that you will be paying a lot more in taxes for fostering children and welfare mothers after this Court, which is supposed to be apolitical in the first place, reverses Roe v Wade.
THAT is why Dems don't like her.

So you ADMIT the purpose of Roe v. Wade is to kill the children of the poor (black people).

Thanks for a RARE bit of HONESTY from the left.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Please point out where this was part of a decision.

The idea is to keep Serena Joy from making any decisions, as her husband will be making them for her.

Serena Joy? A chick reference? No non-gay guy watches the Handmaid's Tale.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

What a stupid rant.
Nobody's trampled on the Constitution more than Fat Boy, who's wheezing at Walter Reed right now because he's too fucking arrogant to wear a mask.
Barrett is a hard-liner who is going to insure that you will be paying a lot more in taxes for fostering children and welfare mothers after this Court, which is supposed to be apolitical in the first place, reverses Roe v Wade.
THAT is why Dems don't like her.

Once again.....

If Roe is overturned......it will still be legalized in most states.

What part of that don't you understand.

Many commentators on both sides have said for the past two decades....Roe is dead.

In states like Nebraska, they have slowly hemmed in abortion with small state laws.

The left won't challenge them becuase they don't want a case going to the SCOTUS because they are worried it will be overturned.

I'm sorry, but your opinion doesn't mean jack shit, and you're contradicting yourself, too.

I'm sorry, but that isn't opinion.

Abortion was already legal if five states BEFORE Roe. Fact.

Those in the know say, at least 30 states will make it legal. Fact.

Nebraska has, over the past 30 years made it harder to get an abortion. Fact

Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee Can’t Kill Roe V. Wade. It’s Already Dead: Roe is dead Fact

No laws, like those in Nebraska, have been challenged. Fact.

Can't help that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Amy Comey Barrett has stated that judges should just do whatever the heck they want and ignore previous law. She's about as anti-constistution as they come, being that she's promised to do what her religion says instead of what the law says.

Can you please provide that quote.

"""“If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe (v. Wade) reflects public rejection of the proposition that (precedent) can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging. Court watchers embrace the possibility of overruling, even if they may want it to be the exception rather than the rule.” — 2013 article in the Texas Law Review, citing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that recognized a woman’s right to abortion.""""

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

Some notable quotes from Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor and current judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S.

apnews.com

Please underline where it says they do whatever they want.......

Just for your education....

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Soooooooo.................. overturning or reversing cases is not new.

Hate to break it to you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

Uh, no....

The founders didn't touch abortion.

Up until the morons in the SCOTUS took on the case, it was a state by state issue.

So no, they didn't intend that and your efforts to try and link it.....is beyond foolish.

 

[lennypartiv]

She's part of the Deep State.

---EXPERT WARNS AMY CONEY BARRETT IS A DEEP STATE TROJAN HORSE---

Expert Warns Amy Coney Barrett is a Deep State Trojan Horse Who Will Destroy Trump

Constitutional Attorney Robert Barnes joins The Alex Jones Show to break down how Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a deep state trojan horse and President Trump should consider appointing Judge Barbara Lagoa to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

www.bitchute.com

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

The Founders would never ever had been ok with abortion as law.

You know this so stop

 

[lennypartiv]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

The Founders would never ever had been ok with abortion as law.

You know this so stop

Liberals have ruined this country with all their laws the Founding Fathers wisely never put in place. They ruined America by passing civil rights bill for blacks, they ruined the country by giving women (influenced by their hormones) the right to vote, they've ruined America by letting non-Christians immigrate into our country. Hopefully voters keep that in mind on election day.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

The Founders would never ever had been ok with abortion as law.

You know this so stop

Liberals have ruined this country with all their laws the Founding Fathers wisely never put in place. They ruined America by passing civil rights bill for blacks, they ruined the country by giving women (influenced by their hormones) the right to vote, they've ruined America by letting non-Christians immigrate into our country. Hopefully voters keep that in mind on election day.

Please don't conflate liberals with left wingers. There is a big difference. Leftwingers like mamooth are all to willing to dictate, at a national level, what they think is best for you.

Federalism was what the founding fathers intended.

I don't agree with you on them giving blacks civil rights. What I do object to is the constant enabling of the black community through the stupid laws they pass. That is why more blacks are leaving the party.

As to women, if it were up to me, no man would be in the WH, or congress or SCOTUS. Women are better, smarter and superior in just about every way.

But the left wingers try to force a one-size-fits-all to the entire country instead of letting states do what the people in those states want.

This is especially true when it comes to regulations on the environment and economic regulation.

Why won't states do universal health care ?

 

[Viktor]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

Article VI of the US Constitution says that no religious test shall be used for government employees in the USA. When the fucking Democrat Senators ask her about her religion, they are violating the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution

townhall.com

If we look at the current positions of the modern Democratic Party, it is clear that they do not share Amy Coney Barrett’s originalist point of view. In fact, their current rhetoric demonstrates that they are far beyond merely despising the philosophy of originalism. Instead, they are actively working to radically and fundamentally transform the Constitution into an unrecognizable monstrosity.

As has already been pointed out, by Turley...this is the case.

They keep pushing the idea that justices can't rule to reverse "progress" and that they have to rule the way the senate wants them to vote.

The democrats seem to have lost all sense of the purpose of the court.

Article VI of the US Constitution says that no religious test shall be used for government employees in the USA. When the fucking Democrat Senators ask her about her religion, they are violating the Constitution.

They know that.

You know that.

But that does not stop them.

If I thought she was using religion as a basis for her decisions, I would not want her in there.

But I do know that...no matter what the issue is....the dyke patrol (Kagen Sotomeyer, Ginsburg) would vote lockstep towards the left.

Intellectual shit-for-brains.

 

[daveman]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your pick here says "Screw prior law. I can just do whatever I want".

For example, it was established law that parental consent laws for abortion are constitutional, as long as a parently bypass exists for abuse cases. Your hero decided entirely on her own to screw that, the parental bypass wasn't necessary. Rank judicial activism on her part.

It was established law that the right to abortion was not related to the circumstances of pregnancy. Barret decided that this wan't the case, based on absolutely nothing, and that the state had to investigage _why_ to make sure the abortion wasn't for a reason she didn't like. More brazen judicial activism.

But hey, let's go with originalism. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written. The founders were plainly fine with it. That's their original intent, to have legal abortion. So you agree with that, right?

Oh wait, you don't. You don't give a shit about the founders' intent. You're lying to everyone's face about that, and everyone knows it. You just want to force your sicko perv control freak beliefs on to every moral person.

"Are you saying it shouldn't live and breath once you get your way?"

Yep, that's exactly what you're saying.