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

[iceberg]

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"...

No Republicans have whined about the Haitian kids, only Democrats have done that. More of your lies.

You're a blob blobbing blobber of a blob. Little girl. Or you're a grown woman of what age posting like a three year old again?

Let's check in with babies on your blob blob blob line:

Here's their reply to ... Trump's a blob! A blobbing blob blobber! Their reaction? Let's see!

So you’re for kids coming here from countries you and your god consider “shit holes”?

lie to us and say yes.

did they go through proper process? if so - get them over here and adopt away.

It's pretty sick when blobber blobbing blobs like CandyCorn attack people for adopting poor kids from poor countries because they are black.

Republican policies aren't affected by skin while enlightened Democrats (sic) like candycorn see nothing else

it's when they put their hate above being human.

 

[kaz]

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh would be a good example. I am starting to see why you're getting confused. You do hate anyone you disagree with and you don't ... think ...

He had a credible accusation of rape against him.

He was supposed to be vetted.

Personally, I think he got away w/it, but at this point, that's a done deal.

Nothing out of bounds was "done to him."

That's partisan hackery talk.

Kavanaugh had a credible accusation of rape against him? No one accused him of rape, lying jackass. And credible?

Name this credible accusation and give a brief but clear description of the evidence against him.

And next time, THINK.

Credible accusation of rape. You're a total boob. There was no accusation of rape. You're unbelievable. Literally

 

[iceberg]

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh would be a good example. I am starting to see why you're getting confused. You do hate anyone you disagree with and you don't ... think ...

He had a credible accusation of rape against him.

He was supposed to be vetted.

Personally, I think he got away w/it, but at this point, that's a done deal.

Nothing out of bounds was "done to him."

That's partisan hackery talk.

credible.

you funny as shit, man.

 

[Ame®icano]

No.

This is how you prove yourself to be a dishonest hack.

Can you post one example of Republican hate towards Garland?

 

[kaz]

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh would be a good example. I am starting to see why you're getting confused. You do hate anyone you disagree with and you don't ... think ...

He had a credible accusation of rape against him.

He was supposed to be vetted.

Personally, I think he got away w/it, but at this point, that's a done deal.

Nothing out of bounds was "done to him."

That's partisan hackery talk.

credible.

you funny as shit, man.

Actually, one of the accusations was rape in retrospect.

A woman in Kentucky claimed Kavanaugh raped him when she was in her 40s, he was 20 and he was half the country away from her. Want Mark to explain the "credible" in that.

Then there was the "credible" according to Mark witness who said she went to ... TEN RAPE PARTIES. Kavanaugh didn't do anything, but he was there. Hmmm.

Then there's Ford who's friends SHE NAMED as with her when Kavanaugh harassed (no rape accusation) her said nothing happened. Yeah, that's credible. And her own husband said she's never mentioned the incident or any other where she was supposedly assaulted.

Mark if FULL OF SHIT, he needs to learn to THINK ...

 

[kaz]

No.

This is how you prove yourself to be a dishonest hack.

Can you post one example of Republican hate towards Garland?

It shows what a shallow intelligence he has, he walked right into that and never saw it coming despite the giant neon arrows that he was about to be held to his own standard

 

[eddiew37]

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.

We fear another scumbag justice like Thomas and the rest of the republican trash So far she hasn't disappointed

 

[Crepitus]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

 

[22lcidw]

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"...

No Republicans have whined about the Haitian kids, only Democrats have done that. More of your lies.

You're a blob blobbing blobber of a blob. Little girl. Or you're a grown woman of what age posting like a three year old again?

Let's check in with babies on your blob blob blob line:

Here's their reply to ... Trump's a blob! A blobbing blob blobber! Their reaction? Let's see!

So you’re for kids coming here from countries you and your god consider “shit holes”?

lie to us and say yes.

Have those kids come here illegally?

Didnt your blob call Haiti a shit hole?

Why yes it is....thank you Bill and Hillary.

It is a shit hole, but Trump never named Haiti as a shit hole. The blobber blobby blob candycorn already knew that. She is just angry that whites adopted black children. Not sure why

Because she wouldn't.

 

[iceberg]

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh would be a good example. I am starting to see why you're getting confused. You do hate anyone you disagree with and you don't ... think ...

He had a credible accusation of rape against him.

He was supposed to be vetted.

Personally, I think he got away w/it, but at this point, that's a done deal.

Nothing out of bounds was "done to him."

That's partisan hackery talk.

credible.

you funny as shit, man.

Actually, one of the accusations was rape in retrospect.

A woman in Kentucky claimed Kavanaugh raped him when she was in her 40s, he was 20 and he was half the country away from her. Want Mark to explain the "credible" in that.

Then there was the "credible" according to Mark witness who said she went to ... TEN RAPE PARTIES. Kavanaugh didn't do anything, but he was there. Hmmm.

Then there's Ford who's friends SHE NAMED as with her when Kavanaugh harassed (no rape accusation) her said nothing happened. Yeah, that's credible. And her own husband said she's never mentioned the incident or any other where she was supposedly assaulted.

Mark if FULL OF SHIT, he needs to learn to THINK ...

yea, i was saying nothing they did was "credible" - but these are the same people finding credibility in their own RUSSIA fantasies so not like telling an idiot they're a fucking idiot is going to change them.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Republican nominated or appointed judges were in majority of SCOTUS for the past 50 years, and reversal of Roe v Wade hasn't happened.

Second, why do you think that reversal of Roe v Wade would be a bad thing?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The don't realize that judges gather facts and evidence and then read the law and the Constitution before coming up with a correct judgement. Democrats usually put their finger in the air and base their decisions on feelings alone.

 

[kaz]

No.

This is how you prove yourself to be a dishonest hack.

Can you post one example of Republican hate towards Garland?

MarkATL ran away ...

 

[kaz]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Another of the kiddos. A supposed adult who keeps calling Trump "rump" like an eight year old.

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination. It isn't in the Constitution. There is no reasonable way to read it and think it addresses abortion.

Which means Constitutionally it goes to the States, where I want abortion to be legal

 

[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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Republican nominated or appointed judges were in majority of SCOTUS for the past 50 years, and reversal of Roe v Wade hasn't happened.

Second, why do you think that reversal of Roe v Wade would be a bad thing?

It would be bad for the aborted fetus trade.
Dozens of billionaire Satanists would miss out on their usual helping of human baby parts which they consume to stay young. $1000 for a baby liver. $10,000 for baby brains. Head included.

 

[iceberg]

No.

This is how you prove yourself to be a dishonest hack.

Can you post one example of Republican hate towards Garland?

MarkATL ran away ...

Well he's a fucking idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

No.

This is how you prove yourself to be a dishonest hack.

Can you post one example of Republican hate towards Garland?

MarkATL ran away ...

Well he's a fucking idiot.

And a racist.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Republican nominated or appointed judges were in majority of SCOTUS for the past 50 years, and reversal of Roe v Wade hasn't happened.

Second, why do you think that reversal of Roe v Wade would be a bad thing?

Because before this they weren't picked for their partisan hackery. Goresuch, the rapist, and the whack-job were picked solely for theirs.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Another of the kiddos. A supposed adult who keeps calling Trump "rump" like an eight year old.

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination. It isn't in the Constitution. There is no reasonable way to read it and think it addresses abortion.

Which means Constitutionally it goes to the States, where I want abortion to be legal

tRump. You gonna call him out for the childish nicknames?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

tRump, well the federalist society (he doesn't know enough to make his own picks), is loading the court with people who have promised to do just that and to reverse roe v wade. That's what their whole stated purpose is.

Republican nominated or appointed judges were in majority of SCOTUS for the past 50 years, and reversal of Roe v Wade hasn't happened.

Second, why do you think that reversal of Roe v Wade would be a bad thing?

Because before this they weren't picked for their partisan hackery. Goresuch, the rapist, and the whack-job were picked solely for theirs.

Right... as opposed to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor?

Beside, there should be no other way of interpreting the Constitution but as is written, which means, the only partisan hackery comes from the left.