The Questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett is underway

[georgephillip]

She's their gal. They can count on her support for anything in Big Corporation's favor.

Corporations are on a hundred year roll right now, and Republicans have been the biggest drivers lately, imho.

Lisa Graves was on DemocracyNow! this morning and laid it out pretty well:

Packing the Courts: How Republicans Spent Decades Installing Judges to Cement Minority Rule

"...in my lifetime, since 1970 — pardon me, since Richard Nixon, there have been 15 nominations that have been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court for a Republican president and four for Democrats.

"So, when people say that the court needs to be packed, it really needs to be unpacked.

"What’s happened in my lifetime is, it’s been Republican nomination after Republican nomination, in part due to fate and in part due to this power grab that these Republicans are right now engaged in.

"If they had not stolen the seat that became open in the beginning of 2016, and if they were not in the process of stealing this seat right now, the court wouldn’t be 6-3 with a majority Republican appointees. It could very well be the other way around."

 

[georgephillip]

Funny that none of the Dimz have pointed to any one of her HUNDREDS of rulings or writings to support you claim.

Start here (if you can stay awake)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Fits the Trump Model for Increasing Corporate Power

"During her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has ruled in favor of corporate interests over 75% of the time.

"She has ruled that corporations are entitled to set job requirements that exclude older workers and that they may segregate workers at different locations by race.

"Barrett has expressed support for striking down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

"Donald Trump and the Senate Republican Majority can’t seem to find the time to vote on the HEROES Act to provide relief to the millions of Americans who face financial collapse, but they are rushing to confirm a justice who will use any excuse to undermine worker power, putting fair wages, health and safety on the job, and the freedom to join a union at risk for a generation."

 

[Zorro!]

It is interesting that the left doesn't like the reading of the text of any legislation -- the actual job of a judge -- and rail when these judges won't support a law on the basis of emotions. Right now Leahy is trying to assign a motive for preexisting conditions.

There are two problems with this.

The problem is not with the judge but with how poorly written this legislation is. If you think that there are not enough protections, then those protections should be plainly stated in the law.

The other thing is that they cannot seem to grasp that not everyone is like them and will put ideology to the party ahead of faithfulness to the law as it is written. This is because if they were in such a situation, they would put political goals ahead of the law.

An especially rich point when being made by LAWMAKEERS! I applaud Amy for every time she doesn't point out that if the LAWMAKERS want the law to read differently, that they have every freedom to draft it to so state and pass it!

Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono Asks Amy Coney Barrett if She Has Ever Committed Rape​

 

[JGalt]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

 

[Chuz Life]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

Huh?

I didn't say anything about "hurting" the leftard agenda.

I have to admit that I don't get the Pinochet reference in that image though.

Sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make.

 

[JGalt]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

Huh?

I didn't say anything about "hurting" the leftard agenda.

I have to admit that I don't get the Pinochet reference in that image though.

Sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make.

All apologies. I misread the title of the poll. The hearings will not help them, as they seem to be failing to make her out to be a monster. I don't know if they're really trying or not and so far, the insinuations against her seem to be mild.

Not that they won't try to pull some stunt toward the end of the hearing though. That's what they did to Thomas and Kavanaugh.

 

[Zorro!]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

Your picture is Fake News, Sad!

Fake News CNN headline: ‘Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights’



“judges can’t just wake up one day and…walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world”[/url]

“There’s the Heller case, what’s that about?” Graham asked.

“The Heller case is a case decided by the Supreme Court which held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms,” Barrett replied.

“If a state or local government passed a law in defiance of Heller, what would happen?” Graham asked.

“If it was brought in a lower court, Heller binds,” Barrett said. “Lower courts always have to follow Supreme Court precedent,” she added.

“And if the Supreme Court wanted to revisit Heller, what would they do?” Graham said.

Barrett explained the Supreme Court would have to agree to take the case after it was appealed all the way up. “It would start because there was a law and then there was a lawsuit, then there was an appeal, then the court granted cert. and then the court decided the case.”

“Does that process hold true for everything?” Graham said.

“Yes, judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda—I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion—and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett said. She continued, “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the constitution, to wind their way through the process.”

Graham then spent the next several minutes walking through challenges to current abortion law and pointed out that 14 states have passed laws that some see as contrary to the Supreme Court’s Casey decision. Once again, Barrett walked through the process of how those cases could come before the Supreme Court and what the court would do if it chose to take it up.

“It’s not just a vote. You all do that. You all have a policy and you cast a vote. The judicial process is different,” Barrett explained.

“So when it comes to your personal views…do you own a gun?” Graham asked.

“We do own a gun,” Barrett replied.

“Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?” Graham said.

“Yes,” Barrett said.

Graham went on to ask the same question with regard to her Catholic faith and beliefs. Again Barrett said she could put her personal views aside and that she had done so in her current job.

Enter Fake New CNN with this update on the confirmation hearing:

Amy Coney Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights https://cnn.it/3dl5LDQ

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/sta...t-says-owns-gun-fairly-judge-case-gun-rights/
Fake News CNN leaves out all of the context above. We only get the the exchange where Graham asks if Barrett owns a gun plus this "analysis":

The Supreme Court has gone a decade without acting on a major case concerning the Second Amendment, an issue that could receive rare attention in the future by the high court should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the bench in the coming weeks.​

The court has resisted taking up a significant Second Amendment case since the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller – which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm – and a 2010 follow-up, turning away 10 gun rights cases in the last term alone.​

Should the Senate confirm Barrett, who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, she could provide the extra vote Justice Clarence Thomas has been advocating for to take up Second Amendment cases.​

Fake News CNN is suggesting that the fact Barrett’s family owns a gun means she’s a lock on this issue. Jonah Goldberg pointed out how silly this argument was:




Jonah Goldberg

@JonahDispatch
Seriously, this is amazingly dumb. Imagine this framing for any other right in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Zorro!]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

Huh?

I didn't say anything about "hurting" the leftard agenda.

I have to admit that I don't get the Pinochet reference in that image though.

Sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make.

All apologies. I misread the title of the poll. The hearings will not help them, as they seem to be failing to make her out to be a monster. I don't know if they're really trying or not and so far, the insinuations against her seem to be mild.

Not that they won't try to pull some stunt toward the end of the hearing though. That's what they did to Thomas and Kavanaugh.

Mazie Horono wanted to get her denial in the record that she hasn't raped anyone. Both the Kavanaugh and the Thomas Blindsides came after all this and right before they voted, when they claimed that a full investigation was needed to make sure the nominee hadn't lied about denying the allegation.

 

[Claudette]

I watched part of it yesterday and couldn't believe some of the dumbass questions the Dems were asking. Good Lord.

Barret was calm and cool and answered those dumb questions. Just show how intelligent and unflappable the woman is.

 

[JLW]

Watch it Live Here: WATCH: Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2

So far, I think she is outperforming expectations.

Hurt the leftist agenda? Like how "hurt"?

Huh?

I didn't say anything about "hurting" the leftard agenda.

I have to admit that I don't get the Pinochet reference in that image though.

Sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make.

Pinochet would kill his political opponents, usually 20 somethings, by kidnapping them and pushing them out of helicopters and airplanes over the ocean. Jgalt is showing what his true colors are.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Questioning resumes.

Washington Journal: News Headlines and Viewer Calls

Viewers commented on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

www.c-span.org

 

[Zorro!]

I watched part of it yesterday and couldn't believe some of the dumbass questions the Dems were asking. Good Lord.

Barret was calm and cool and answered those dumb questions. Just show how intelligent and unflappable the woman is.

She is 7.83 times smarter than Kamala, who couldn't x-examine her way out of a paper sack. What a pretentious fool.