Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

[Sun Devil 92]

No. She said she didn't always agree with Scalia.

.

Uh huh.

She is, in fact, and for all intents and purposes, a Scalia disciple.

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

 

[MarcATL]

AOC is extreme, Antifa is extreme, ALF, ELF, Sierra Club, lot of extremists on left and right.

Interesting...

You are a self-professed conservative, right?

Also, what makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez extreme?

 

[Dragonlady]

So far right, that you don't bother to list any of them.


Personally it seems to me to be impressive that she had that many children and still managed an impressive career.


I hope the children did not feel shortchanged.

Is she, or is she not considered a female Scalia? And this is from people on the right.

Jeeze, that sounds like you don't even know what her views are, you are just parroting what you were told to believe.

She has managed her impressive career the same way I did. By having paid help to do the cooking, the cleaning and the housework, the things my neighbour calls his "bitch chores". I got to go to work, take my kids to swimming and skating lessons after work, and go to Session meetings at my Church after the kids were in bed. I brought home briefcases of work to do after my kids went to bed because I wasn't cleaning up and doing laundry.

Women can "have it all", just like men, but in order for them to have the time and energy to be that successful, they need the same thing as successful men need a "wife" to cover the home front.

Many professional families trade off. When one can't be home for dinner, the other makes a point of being there. One couple I know are amazing parents, whose ability to be there for their kids is wonderful. But both own their own businesses, and have the ability to come and go as required. Many employed in the corporate world often leave the kids with the nannies most of the time. A lawyer friend had a name for it "Mink lined neglect". They get everything but the time and attention of their parents.

 

[Dragonlady]

No. She said she didn't always agree with Scalia.

.

Uh huh.

She is, in fact, and for all intents and purposes, a Scalia disciple.

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

She clerked with Scalia, and said in the hearings she considers him a mentor.

What is this? Like lie number 238,994?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So far right, that you don't bother to list any of them.


Personally it seems to me to be impressive that she had that many children and still managed an impressive career.


I hope the children did not feel shortchanged.

Is she, or is she not considered a female Scalia? And this is from people on the right.

Jeeze, that sounds like you don't even know what her views are, you are just parroting what you were told to believe.

She has managed her impressive career the same way I did. By having paid help to do the cooking, the cleaning and the housework, the things my neighbour calls his "bitch chores". I got to go to work, take my kids to swimming and skating lessons after work, and go to Session meetings at my Church after the kids were in bed. I brought home briefcases of work to do after my kids went to bed because I wasn't cleaning up and doing laundry.

Women can "have it all", just like men, but in order for them to have the time and energy to be that successful, they need the same thing as successful men need a "wife" to cover the home front.

Many professional families trade off. When one can't be home for dinner, the other makes a point of being there. One couple I know are amazing parents, whose ability to be there for their kids is wonderful. But both own their own businesses, and have the ability to come and go as required. Many employed in the corporate world often leave the kids with the nannies most of the time. A lawyer friend had a name for it "Mink lined neglect". They get everything but the time and attention of their parents.

OMG

I'd love to see the day someone with an impressive career spends time on a message board like you do.

 

[MarcATL]

I have no idea. I hope that she is not going to legislate from the bench, and I hope that she knows you people do, and thus your precedents should NOT be respected.


Of course, I did not start this thread, talking shit about her views, when I don't have a clue about them.


That was you.


You should go find the most extreme view of hers you can find, and post it, and then admit that you were just talking shit.


Trying being a man for once. See how it feels on you.

Our fellow poster, DragonLady, has already posted video showing evidence of her views presented by one of our Senators.

Did you not see it?

If not, you need to inform yourself.

She has extremely far rightwing views.

This is a fact.

That you claim to not know her views, isn't anything to be proud of by the way, it's a sign of ignorance.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No. She said she didn't always agree with Scalia.

.

Uh huh.

She is, in fact, and for all intents and purposes, a Scalia disciple.

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

She clerked with Scalia, and said in the hearings she considers him a mentor.

What is this? Like lie number 238,994?

I work for someone who is as stupid as you are.

The only thing they mentor me on is what not to do (by example).

I am no disciple.

Your impressive career obviously didn't include learning about logic fallacies.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I have no idea. I hope that she is not going to legislate from the bench, and I hope that she knows you people do, and thus your precedents should NOT be respected.


Of course, I did not start this thread, talking shit about her views, when I don't have a clue about them.


That was you.


You should go find the most extreme view of hers you can find, and post it, and then admit that you were just talking shit.


Trying being a man for once. See how it feels on you.

Our fellow poster has already posted video showing evidence of her views presented by one of our Senators.

Did you not see it?

If not, you need to inform yourself.

She has extremely far rightwing views.

This is a fact.

That you claim to not know her views, isn't anything to be proud of by the way, it's a sign of ignorance.

Yes. Sticking to the constitution is far right.

We get that.

What you fuckers stick to (beside Mao) is beyond me.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

AOC is extreme, Antifa is extreme, ALF, ELF, Sierra Club, lot of extremists on left and right.

Interesting...

You are a self-professed conservative, right?

Also, what makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez extreme?

The Green Deal.

Learn something.

 

[MarcATL]

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

She's on camera STATING that he was her mentor.

What do you think that makers her dunce?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

She's on camera STATING that he was her mentor.

What do you think that makers her dunce?

It makes her smart.

I realize that in your world you don't think for yourself and by having a mentor you are in full lemming mode.

The rest of us know the difference.

You can be mentored at several levels.

Wait, what am I explaining this to you for ?

You're too fucking stupid to know the difference.

 

[BS Filter]

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

Why are you seizing on the word "white" when I also said "male" as well? If the Federalist Society was trying to pack the court with nothing but black judges, it would be just as big an issue. A judiciary that doesn't reflect the population of the nation it serves, is a bad thing. Judges should not be coming entirely from wealthy elite backgrounds either.

Wealthy white males make up less than 1% of population, and shouldn't be dominating the courts since they have no idea of how the other 99% live, or the effect of their decisions on those who insulated from all of the issues working people face.

For example: ACB is unlikely to sypathetic to a working class woman wanting an abortion because her child will have Down's Syndrome, and she doesn't have the money for special schools, nannies, and sheltered care when she can no longer care for the child. ACB will look at this woman as a monster, because her DS is the light of her family, and her beliefs that abortion is wrong. In the meantime, this woman will be forced to put this child into state care and put it up for adoption, simply because she doesn't have the resources deal with her needs. She'll be adding to the children in the foster care system, waiting for adoption that is unlikely to come.

You weren't listening to the confirmation hearings, were you? It's not a judges job to set policy, that's the job of politicians that are accountable to the people. If politicians write bad laws, that's on them, not the judge that invalidates them. As Barrett said, they should write better laws.

.

Yea they say that, that's a lie

Judges set policy all the time

Look at gorsuch, he's bending over backwards to redefine protections over sexual orientation as the most obvious recent example

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

The left wing ABA says you're full of shit.

.

oh the aba says so, must be true

/s

do you know any lawyers? lol

Yeah, I do. What's your point?

.

You trust their assessments? lol

What exactly do you think it woudl take to get them to say she wasn't qualified, how incompetent would she need to be?

Sexual orientation isn't a Constitutional right.

Do you think the constitution is the only way one can acquire a right/

The civil rights act for example gives a lot of people a lot of rights in this country

The government doesn't create rights. The government protects EXISTING rights. Black people always had the right to vote since emancipation, but were prevented because of Democrat Jim Crow laws. That's why the Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats in 1964.

Civil rights act protects people in the north too bud, just because it did more for people in the south it's pure fucuking delusino to think otherwise.

Considering your avatar I'm gonna assume you should know better than that, you look like you might have been alive when that was true.

Do you think black america had equal employment oppurtunities in the north in 1965? What are you talking about?

The government doesn't only protect existing rights. We had no freedom of speech until very recently. They just made it up

Are you an oppressed minority?

oppressed? no

minority yes

my ethnic group earns almost double the average of whites....But cops do harass me sometimes

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind, we get it.

do you think there aren't ethnic groups who earn double what whites do? lol

Jews being the most obvious example

White boys can't stand it when their "inferiors" make more money than they do. I've had people say to me "Why do you have this job instead of a man?", and my response has always been "Because I'm good at it." But when they send a guy they hired off the street at a salary 20% higher than mine, to fill a position I had applied for, and then sent him to me to train, because "You're the best there is", I dusted off my resume and started looking.

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

seems to me its democrats talking about them not repubes,,,

Then you didn't watch the hearings. ACB's children were the ONLY thing Republicans talked about. They were marched into the hearing room, in a line from oldest to youngest. Senators remarked on how "well behaved" they were. What a devoted mother she is, hurrying home from court in time to always be there for their soccers games, and on and on. You would have thought she was being nominated as "Mother of the Year" and not for a seat on the Supreme Court.

But ACB isn't applying for the position of Mom of the years, although it's obvious that she is a great Mom, and her family seems lovely. I don't ever remember any other nominee for the SC having his or her family publically paraded before the Senate in this fashion or Senators giving speeches about what a great parent they are. Why aren't they talking about what a great judge she is? Her qualifications or her experience. I watched that hearing all day, and at the end of the day, the only thing I knew about ACB is that she has a lot of kids, one of whom is Downs Syndrome and two of whom are racial minorities.

I would also like to add that much was made of her being a superwoman and role model to millions of young women everywhere for what women can achieve, to which I would say "hogwash". ACB is a woman of wealth and privilege who can afford to hire all the help she needs.

I had a full time housekeeper, who got my kids off to school in the morning, and picked them up after school. When I came home with a briefcase full of work, my house was tidy, my table was set and our dinner was in the oven. The cleaning lady came in Saturday morning and did the floors and bathrooms. She has a lot more "help" than I have, and with 7 kids, one of the DS, she needs it. I have a friend who owns her own paralegal business with 3 full time employees, manages her family's real estate investment trust, is the President of her son's school PTA, and throws elegant events. She has a full time live in housekeeper/nanny who she provides with a car.

I don't begrudge ACB her wealth or her privilege but none of us could do be superwomen without a lot of "help".

the bigger question is why did the dems ignore them????

its almost like they knew they couldnt use them for political gain because some were black,,,

As a professional woman, it was really off-putting that Republicans focussed on her family and not on the Judge's qualifications and record. Offensive even. They have never done anything remotely like this for any nomination in my lifetime, and they certainly didn't do it for Justices Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayer.

The sheer number of Republican Senators focussing on ACB's family over her qualifications and record, was so odd, that it made me wonder why they were doing this. Why weren't they talking about her great decisions, or her record. When I learned more about the Federalist Society, being funded by dark money to put talented young right wing law students on a glide path to SC, it all started to make sense.

They don't want to talk about who her politics, her record, or how she came to be nominated, and why the big push to get this woman onto the court before the election, even to the point of being willing to lose the Senate to get her confirmed.

maybe you should save you emotional problems for your therapist,, cause th fact is she should be a role model for women all around the world,,, feminist and normies alike,,,


but you go right ahead and attack her family,,,,

she was not only able to have great success in a career but also have a loving family,,,
what else could a person want out of life???

Hey dipshit. The feminists are the "normies". The handmaidens who don't use birth control and who think women have no right to birth control, like ACB, are the outliers. 80% of American women believe in the right to abortion. That makes feminist position the "normies" point of view.

Nor did I "attack" her family. I didn't even criticize them. I simply said that her wealth and privilege shields her from what us "normies" have to deal with every single day, starting with: having quality, reliable, and affordable child care available. She's never faced having a sick child and no health insurance or money to pay for medications. She's not having to negotiate government programs and accessing the social safety net to supplement her income. She lives a charmed life of wealth and people opening doors for her from the moment she left college.

I started out poor, and worked my way up. I didn't have some dark money machine smoothing my way. I came up at a time when I feared that if I failed, it would make it that much harder for the women who came after me to succeed. Today, the hostility and aggression I faced every day just for having a "man's job", is called "sexual harassment", and ultimately it drove me out of a job I loved.

At only 71, I can say that I was honoured to personally know the first female Bencher of the Law Society of Canada, and the first female Secretary of the Law Society of Upper Canada. And that fact also makes me sad. We've had these rights for such a short time, and yet women have always been here.

We still don't have income parity. We're still being sexually harassed. And Republican men are still trying to control our bodies.

You have NO idea what she will do. You have TWO oustanding assertions to source.
1) Source your Dark Money claim
2) Source where the LAW requires her to show her positions when nominated.

Why do you hate being asking to source the things you type?

I can source everything I write, but I got tired of spending my time and effort, only to have you fools refuse to read them. When you lazy pricks post your bullshit and lies, I take the time to do a google search to see if it's true, before demanding links or calling you a liar. And then I come here, armed with a rational rebuttal of your bullshit. You make demands, call me names, and then end up looking like the lazy and stupid fool that you are.

As for the dark money and the Federalist Society - THAT WAS FROM HER CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, which YOU claimed to have watched. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse laid it all out in his 30 minutes, complete with charts, graphs and other visual aids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

And here is my google search.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

Making you asshats look stupid is just WAY too easy.

Sorry, YOUR source says she reported everything she was "required" to report. Nothing in there about "Dark Money" at all. I keep embarrassing you because I read your links and you don't. (shrugs)

So you really didn't read the link at all did you? And you wonder why I don't bother posting links at all

This has nothing to do with her having to report her relationship to the Federalist Society. That relationship is right out there in the open. Donald Trump is ONLY appointing judges vetted and approved by the federalist society.

Try watching the video of the Senator's testimony you claimed to have watched.

So what? The Federalist is a legal organization.

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

Or - she will help curtail existing leftwing views that has lead to Democrat obstruct(sic) justice and enact their radical will on the country...

 

[Billiejeens]

Something else you can't prove.

What is that ? Like number 238,993 ?

She's on camera STATING that he was her mentor.

What do you think that makers her dunce?

It makes her smart.

I realize that in your world you don't think for yourself and by having a mentor you are in full lemming mode.

The rest of us know the difference.

You can be mentored at several levels.

Wait, what am I explaining this to you for ?

You're too fucking stupid to know the difference.

That does seem to be true.

 

[Dragonlady]

So far right, that you don't bother to list any of them.


Personally it seems to me to be impressive that she had that many children and still managed an impressive career.


I hope the children did not feel shortchanged.

Is she, or is she not considered a female Scalia? And this is from people on the right.

Jeeze, that sounds like you don't even know what her views are, you are just parroting what you were told to believe.

She has managed her impressive career the same way I did. By having paid help to do the cooking, the cleaning and the housework, the things my neighbour calls his "bitch chores". I got to go to work, take my kids to swimming and skating lessons after work, and go to Session meetings at my Church after the kids were in bed. I brought home briefcases of work to do after my kids went to bed because I wasn't cleaning up and doing laundry.

Women can "have it all", just like men, but in order for them to have the time and energy to be that successful, they need the same thing as successful men need a "wife" to cover the home front.

Many professional families trade off. When one can't be home for dinner, the other makes a point of being there. One couple I know are amazing parents, whose ability to be there for their kids is wonderful. But both own their own businesses, and have the ability to come and go as required. Many employed in the corporate world often leave the kids with the nannies most of the time. A lawyer friend had a name for it "Mink lined neglect". They get everything but the time and attention of their parents.

OMG

I'd love to see the day someone with an impressive career spends time on a message board like you do.

I retired in early 2013, fool. Notice I joined this board in December, 2012. And while I may not have had a career in public office, or made national headlines, I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada, before switching over to law. Not to mention we've been under quarantine for 8 months.

I started clerking with a sole practioner in midtown who shared office space with his father, and ending up working on Bay Street on deals for one of the most respected international law firms in the world, on transactions which affect the economy of countries, including the sale of Chrysler Canada to Fiat, the Windsor/Detroit Truck tunnel, and doing the corporate work for the largest residential real estate developer in North America. I did well enough to retire to a nice resort town and live comfortably, travel abroad occasionally if the crud ever ends.

We have numerous people on this board who claim to be 40 or 50 something small business owners, posting 30 or 40 times a day. Why don't you question why they're all this board all of the time, instead of spending the time building their clientelle and expanding their revenues?

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

To quote you, "you seem sort of like a retard" so you wouldn't understand if I did. She the most intelligent peson in that room and she is quite clear in expressing that each case has it's own set of evidence, grievances and aguments to be heard. Intelligent people understand that one canot make "ruling" on hypotheticals.

If you think Barret is the most intelligent person in a room of hundreds of elites you're insane

She's obviously an affirmative action candidate. She travels in circles that lack female elites

Poor Juicy - this one really grates on ya huh?

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

One does not have to be a lawyer
She testified repeatedly that she follows precedent.
It's not about beliefs - it is about whether or not one can interpret and then follow laws that the legislate branch writes.

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

Did you watch the Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor hearings?

Sawry
They don't do the compare and contrast thing.

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

To quote you, "you seem sort of like a retard" so you wouldn't understand if I did. She the most intelligent peson in that room and she is quite clear in expressing that each case has it's own set of evidence, grievances and aguments to be heard. Intelligent people understand that one canot make "ruling" on hypotheticals.

If you think Barret is the most intelligent person in a room of hundreds of elites you're insane

She's obviously an affirmative action candidate. She travels in circles that lack female elites

everyone else had notes...she didnt....and if you think that room full of elites were a group of highly intelligent people than you are somewhat insane....

wow she didn't have notes on her own life, impressive

maybe leave the judgement of academics to liberals

I laugh - god your fucking stupid.

 

[blastoff]

Why drag her children to the hearings? Not a PTA meeting. Shouldn’t they be in school?

You can’t be that stupid.