Where all this hate towards Amy Coney Barrett is coming from?

[SassyIrishLass]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

 

[Maxdeath]

If the Democrats thought they could get away with it they would bring out someone that claimed they were raped forty years ago and somehow no one else Romberg it.

The crazies are running out of everything and just can’t understand why normal people aren’t buying

 

[skye]

The only thing the Left has got is to deny reality.

Sick people.

 

[Nostra]

 

[Zorro!]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

Yup! The most consequential Supreme Court appointment ever made was John Adam's nomination of Chief Justice Marshall, after he lost the election and he was confirmed by the Federalist Senate, after they had lost the majority.

No president has EVER not nominated an election year vacancy while the Senate was still in session and no Senate has ever failed to fill that nomination by a President of their Party.

What Democrats are demanding of Republicans, is something that neither Party has ever done in the history of the Republic. And Joe Biden should know this, he has been a Federal Office holder for 20% of the existence of the Republic, except that Joe just announced that he was running for the Senate, then forgot who he ran against in 2012, so went with "That Mormon Senator that used to be a Governor!"

That narrows nicely to Romney as Romney is only the second person to ever hold the office of Governor in one State and Senator in another State. Sam Houston was the first, but, Romney was the second and the first Mormon to do so. So, Great Job, Joe!

 

[mudwhistle]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

I think it outrageous that they ask how she would rule on anything.

Do you not first have to gather all the facts presented as a case first? Why not then just say how you will vote on everything and never show up to court?

Dolts.

Because they only pick judges that vote for leftist ideology and not to follow the law.

 

[Ame®icano]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Fake News.

We've all known that she was being held by Trump for RBG's replacement. RBG replaced the conservative Byron White. It was likely Karma that RBG refused to retire while Obama could have named her replacement and Dingy Harry Reid could have guaranteed her replacements confirmation.

They thought Hillary had no chance to lose, there was no rush to replace RGB.

Speaking of former Justices, here is the reminder that SCOTUS has been dominated by Republican appointments for more than 50 years, even before the Roe v Wade. Back in 1973, there were seven Justices that supported, and two that opposed Roe v Wade.

Those who supported (with the president who appointed them) are:
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Douglas (Roosevelt, D)
William Brennan Jr. (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (Johnson, D)
Lewis Powell Jr. (Nixon, R)

Those who opposed it:
Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)

As you can see, when Roe v Wade was decided, Republican appointments had 6 - 3 majority, and five out of those six ruled in favor, which means they didn't even need Democrat appointed Justices votes to pass it. Since 1973, Republican appointed Justices held majority of the Supreme Court for 50 years, yet Roe has never been overturned. Therefore, Democrat scare tactics about overturning it today make no sense, because if Republicans appointed Justices wanted to do it, they could have done it long time ago, and there is no reason to think that with Barrett, or without, the outcome would be any different.

 

[Zorro!]

View attachment 400823

Just awesome!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dems use SCOTUS to subvert the legislation process and now they are butthurt they wont be able to do that.

They never took Civics.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

Yup! The most consequential Supreme Court appointment ever made was John Adam's nomination of Chief Justice Marshall, after he lost the election and he was confirmed by the Federalist Senate, after they had lost the majority.

No president has EVER not nominated an election year vacancy while the Senate was still in session and no Senate has ever failed to fill that nomination by a President of their Party.

What Democrats are demanding of Republicans, is something that neither Party has ever done in the history of the Republic. And Joe Biden should know this, he has been a Federal Office holder for 20% of the existence of the Republic, except that Joe just announced that he was running for the Senate, then forgot who he ran against in 2012, so went with "That Mormon Senator that used to be a Governor!"

That narrows nicely to Romney as Romney is only the second person to ever hold the office of Governor in one State and Senator in another State. Sam Houston was the first, but, Romney was the second and the first Mormon to do so. So, Great Job, Joe!

Biden's mind is mush

I see he once again claimed he was running for the Senate...

Good grief

 

[mudwhistle]

Amy is too decent and normal for the Rats.

She loves her family, she loves the Constitution, she has morals and values, and last but not least, she is an attractive, intelligent woman.

That is totally unacceptable for the crazy, demented Left.

What really pisses them off is she adopted two beautiful Haitian kids that would be dead now if she hadn't pulled a Angelina Jolie and took them in.

 

[Zorro!]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

Yup! The most consequential Supreme Court appointment ever made was John Adam's nomination of Chief Justice Marshall, after he lost the election and he was confirmed by the Federalist Senate, after they had lost the majority.

No president has EVER not nominated an election year vacancy while the Senate was still in session and no Senate has ever failed to fill that nomination by a President of their Party.

What Democrats are demanding of Republicans, is something that neither Party has ever done in the history of the Republic. And Joe Biden should know this, he has been a Federal Office holder for 20% of the existence of the Republic, except that Joe just announced that he was running for the Senate, then forgot who he ran against in 2012, so went with "That Mormon Senator that used to be a Governor!"

That narrows nicely to Romney as Romney is only the second person to ever hold the office of Governor in one State and Senator in another State. Sam Houston was the first, but, Romney was the second and the first Mormon to do so. So, Great Job, Joe!

Biden's mind is mush

I see he once again claimed he was running for the Senate...

Good grief

Clearly Trump was right, Biden was on performance enhancing drugs for the debate. Small wonder Biden refused a drug test.

 

[candycorn]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

Didn't watch the hearings but heard clips from Democrats.

Why are they even holding hearings? There is no constitutional requirement for it. Just confirm her, let her go to work and move on. The Democrats--as always--are just making anyone who isn't in their tent already shake their heads.

 

[candycorn]

Amy is too decent and normal for the Rats.

She loves her family, she loves the Constitution, she has morals and values, and last but not least, she is an attractive, intelligent woman.

That is totally unacceptable for the crazy, demented Left.

What really pisses them off is she adopted two beautiful Haitian kids that would be dead now if she hadn't pulled a Angelina Jolie and took them in.

It pisses off blobbers even more.... Adopting kids from what the president calls a "shit hole"...

 

[iceberg]

they can't stop it. what else they gonna do?

 

[whitehall]

It's part of the left's hatred for ....let's see....the Flag, the Constitution, tradition and history and of course the President. Nobody seemed to care at the time when democrat icon FDR appointed a KKK member, Hugo Black, to the Court. Black paid him back writing perhaps the worst majority opinion in history that justified incarcerating American citizens without due process.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

Socialists, fascists, dictators use FEAR---to gain power. Todays hearing was all about creating unfounded fear which the dems hope to use in for the election. You know vote for us because Trump is going to take away your medical care and make you all die if you don't. the nominee handled it well----bored congress to death talking about her kids and family. Boring is good---

 

[Dragonlady]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

You haven't won, and this packing of the courts by the Republican Party will not be allowed to stand.

 

[Ame®icano]

Amy is too decent and normal for the Rats.

She loves her family, she loves the Constitution, she has morals and values, and last but not least, she is an attractive, intelligent woman.

That is totally unacceptable for the crazy, demented Left.

Well, Democrats know all that, and that's why I have a feeling that Democrats will actually confirm her without much fight, for several reasons.

First, attacking her would damage them much than her, because we all know that Barrett is all you said above.
Second, they don't care if she's confirmed, they'll steal the elections with "vote by mail" scheme, and pack the Supreme Court anyways.
And third one is bit complicated, so let me elaborate...

I was initially very enthused about Amy Coney Barrett, and preferred her nomination over Kavanaugh's. She did, and still impresses me as being devoted to the Constitution as written, and somewhat detached and devoid of empathy and warmth, just as judges should be. She said today that "courts have vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to free society, but courts are not designed to solve every problem or write very wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgements of government, must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try."

She said it right, and I agree with her. She made it clear that a judge may not let "personal preference" stain judges decision, and she further went to include morality under "personal preference". To put it into perspective... It's not up to Justice Roberts to change the words of the ACA law to make it look constitutional.

But there is another side of Barrett that I don't like that much. She sided with the government on almost every civil right case, on every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with government on the lockdowns, and on excusing First Amendment infringements and Fourth Amendment violations. She hid behind precedent that fellow federal circuits said did not apply any longer to allow Chicago to prohibit pro life activists from exercising their free speech, and did so without a concurring opinion as she did whenever she doubted precedent. She also justified regulatory takings without compensation and government discrimination by siding with the government’s version once again, in over 95% of cases. There is one more that grabbed my attention, where she found a dubious “standing” excuse to deny citizens the right to prevent the corrupt misappropriation of property for the building of the Obama library.

This is the kind of elite back scratching Roberts type jurists like Barrett do, and it worries me.

Then we look at ourselves and see that evangelicals and conservatives seem to be totally blind to America’s growing police state, and that explains how we surrendered our liberties to the Democrat's medical Gestapo during this corona virus pandemic. Well, Barrett ruling gave Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria in case Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois where she sided with the majority to keep lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety.

Although she's presented to us as "she's all that", more I look into her, more I see her as a Big Government enabler, and I sincerely hope I am wrong...

 

[Ame®icano]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Da fuq?

Dude she's going to be confirmed

You lost....we win. Now resume the fetal position

You haven't won, and this packing of the courts by the Republican Party will not be allowed to stand.

"Packing of the court" doesn't mean what you were told it means.