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

[eagle1462010]

Well Dems are miserable people............have you seen their supporters.

 

[White 6]

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 Fist 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 lok into her, more I see her as a Big Government enabler, and I am sincerely hope I am wrong...


View attachment 400842

Pretty reasonable response. I am not worried about Judge Barrett. My insurance is locked in. My kids remained covered throughout their college year. Neither my wife nor my daughter will be faced with an abortion decision. Through age, timing and planning , we beat the the games whether we were supposed to or not. She may even be a good addition. I have not been upset at Kavanaugh, either.
The method and timing of her being pushed through as trump ends his presidency, during the election will help insure his defeat and that is the most immediate consideration. Too bad for trumper politicians that may lose because Mitch betrayed the will of the people and showed his undeniable duplicity, most likely increasing Democrats in both houses.

 

[Ame®icano]

How did John Roberts view the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and decide OGee I’m gonna side with Democrats going forward lol

He sided with Democrats way before Kavanaugh hearings, when he changed meaning of the "individual mandate" to make it "constitutional".

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

Oh please, put a sock in it. That is stupid on it's face. This woman is iconic in the way she is handling her entire life. Great judge. Great mom, great wife an upright true pillar of her community. You little cockroaches are disgustng

 

[BS Filter]

 

[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.

Partisan?

Did you read any of her rulings?

You're just yapping for the sake of yapping, without any knowledge on the subject.

 

[Redcurtain]

The federalist is like a mini extension to the Lincoln project this bitch is a Trojan horse democrat.. be careful

 

[Mac-7]

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?

I approve of Barrett and hope she gets confirmed

but the idea that any black robe has to hear the evidence before deciding only applies to criminal trials

When the courts rule from the bench on matters of the Constitution the activist lib judges already know what their decision will be

thats why the liberal plaintiffs brought the case to their court in the first place

 

[Ame®icano]

Democrats have lowered the bar of decency to below that of disgusting indecency. They have been showing videos of young people with medical care needs, getting it from ACA, but never showing anything to justify the notion that these people would lose their care.

For that matter, for thousands of people needing medical care from the ACA, they could get lots of medical by joining the military. Not a bad idea for everyone in America to do that anyway.

Democrats are constantly repeating how any Republican president nominated Justice would overturn, how they're calling it "long settle cases".

Well, if ruling was wrong, why not to overturn it? Nobody is complaining about overturning Dred Scott case, which was "settled case" at the time. What about Plessy v Ferguson, "separate but equal" SCOTUS ruling which was also settled case... When something is wrong, it should be overturned, regardless of precedent.

How many people can really buy into Democrats scare tactics and say "Barrett is going to overturn all those settled cases Democrats care about!" Democrats are disgusting, plain and simple.

 

[Ame®icano]

The federalist is like a mini extension to the Lincoln project this bitch is a Trojan horse democrat.. be careful

That's is what I am afraid of too... Read this post.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

I approve of Barrett and hope she gets confirmed

but the idea that any black robe has to hear the evidence before deciding only applies to criminal trials

When the courts rule from the bench on matters of the Constitution the activist lib judges already know what their decision will be

thats why the liberal plaintiffs brought the case to their court in the first place

isn't it funny how Feinstein and others demanded to know where Barrett stand on Roe v Wade, and other issues.

Here is little reminder, of what RBG said during her confirmation hearing.

You are well aware that I come to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously.
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Fast forward to 2 hr, 16 min



Of course, while justice she was rarely impartial and she always sided with liberals, unless her ruling wasn't tie breaking.

 

[BS Filter]

That idiot Hirono has to be the dumbest person in the Senate. Unbelievable.

 

[basquebromance]

Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal.

it IS illegal. It’s explicitly outlawed (in 18 USC 594)

 

[BS Filter]

Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal.

it IS illegal. It’s explicitly outlawed (in 18 USC 594)

She's not going to give a hypothetical opinion.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

I love how you reinvent the English language to suit your prejudices.

 

[protectionist]

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

EARTH TO DRAGONLADY: The left talks to itself to much. You need to get out more.

Nobody pays any attention to leftist contrived definitions that are best described as IDIOCY.

 

[Mac-7]

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?

I approve of Barrett and hope she gets confirmed

but the idea that any black robe has to hear the evidence before deciding only applies to criminal trials

When the courts rule from the bench on matters of the Constitution the activist lib judges already know what their decision will be

thats why the liberal plaintiffs brought the case to their court in the first place

isn't it funny how Feinstein and others demanded to know where Barrett stand on Roe v Wade, and other issues.

Here is little reminder, of what RBG said during her confirmation hearing.

You are well aware that I come to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously.
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Fast forward to 2 hr, 16 min



Of course, while justice she was rarely impartial and she always sided with liberals, unless her ruling wasn't tie breaking.

Barrett ran rings around those dumb clucks in the senate

 

[protectionist]

Barrett ran rings around those dumb clucks in the senate

She must have had to work hard at muzzling laughter at those fools. And her laughter would have been REAL, unlike the contrived, clownish "laughter" of Kamala Harris in the VP debate.

Harris made a fool out of herself, where she was schooled by a serious, knowledgable, and professional Vice President (Pence).

 

[j-mac]

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.

Filling a seat is not “court packing” it’s called doing the job.

 

[Votto]

How did John Roberts view the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and decide OGee I’m gonna side with Democrats going forward lol

I did some research and discovered that the only GOP nomination of a Supreme Court Justice that did not encounter massive opposition from the Left was Roberts, and now we know why. He was bought and paid for before even being appointed. I have my theories as to why, such as rumors his name is on the plane log on Epstein's little plane, etc.

But there is not that much historical opposition from the GOP when a democrat nominates a Supreme Court Justice, that is, until the last one.