Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Our fellow poster, DragonLady, has already posted video showing evidence of her views presented by one of our Senators.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.
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.
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?
Our fellow poster, DragonLady, has already posted video showing evidence of her views presented by one of our Senators.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.
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.
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.
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?
no not really
just letting the plebs be reminded there is some truth to their arguments and they should remember that too
7 kids and time to become a supreme court member...how does she find the time
affirmative action is how
Having 9 justices on the court is unacceptable to the left because they don't get the rulings they want so they plan to add justices until they get the rulings they want, the constitution be damned. IOW, they simply want to turn the SC into another branch of the democrat party because they don't like anyone standing in the way of implementing their agenda for the country.Explain what rule they are changing FROM and what rules they are changing TO.IOW, they don't like the results so they have to change the rules. Don't think it's going to happen unless they have a real senior Biden moment. IOW, it would be massively stupid for them to do that.
Which of her rulings lead you to believe that will happen? Or are you just afraid of a strong conservative woman?Far rightwing radical nonsense that the activist judge Barrett will subscribe to.There is no such thing as giving rights to minorities.
The fundamental definition of a right is that is universally enjoyed.
Moron.
The court is supposed to represent the constitution, not voting blocs, that is true. The left wants the court to be just another branch of the democrat party, rubberstamping popular legislation without regard for the Constitution.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.
The Congress is there to represent the population. THe Courts have a completely different function. That you want minority judges to represent their demographic blocs, is a complete betrayal of the actual responsibilities of the Justices.
That your side's legal "philosophy" has embraced this betrayal of the Constitution, is why NO dem appointees should be approved, they are all intent of betraying their oath of office from the get go.
My point stands. Futhermore, you have no problem with the idea that a possible President Biden would be speaking for, looking out for, "representing" minority interests, so your racist complaint about Amy Barrett, being white, is obviously not your real reason.
marc doesnt like it when he gets scolded in public....Which of her rulings lead you to believe that will happen? Or are you just afraid of a strong conservative woman?Far rightwing radical nonsense that the activist judge Barrett will subscribe to.There is no such thing as giving rights to minorities.
The fundamental definition of a right is that is universally enjoyed.
Moron.
Having 9 justices on the court is unacceptable to the left because they don't get the rulings they want so they plan to add justices until they get the rulings they want, the constitution be damned. IOW, they simply want to turn the SC into another branch of the democrat party because they don't like anyone standing in the way of implementing their agenda for the country.Explain what rule they are changing FROM and what rules they are changing TO.IOW, they don't like the results so they have to change the rules. Don't think it's going to happen unless they have a real senior Biden moment. IOW, it would be massively stupid for them to do that.
You have not provided a single rule, much-less a change to said rule.Having 9 justices on the court is unacceptable to the left because they don't get the rulings they want so they plan to add justices until they get the rulings they want, the constitution be damned. IOW, they simply want to turn the SC into another branch of the democrat party because they don't like anyone standing in the way of implementing their agenda for the country.
The court is supposed to represent the constitution, not voting blocs, that is true. The left wants the court to be just another branch of the democrat party, rubberstamping popular legislation without regard for the Constitution.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.
The Congress is there to represent the population. THe Courts have a completely different function. That you want minority judges to represent their demographic blocs, is a complete betrayal of the actual responsibilities of the Justices.
That your side's legal "philosophy" has embraced this betrayal of the Constitution, is why NO dem appointees should be approved, they are all intent of betraying their oath of office from the get go.
My point stands. Futhermore, you have no problem with the idea that a possible President Biden would be speaking for, looking out for, "representing" minority interests, so your racist complaint about Amy Barrett, being white, is obviously not your real reason.
You have not provided a single rule, much-less a change to said rule.Having 9 justices on the court is unacceptable to the left because they don't get the rulings they want so they plan to add justices until they get the rulings they want, the constitution be damned. IOW, they simply want to turn the SC into another branch of the democrat party because they don't like anyone standing in the way of implementing their agenda for the country.
Again, what RULE are they changing?
Typical far rightwing projection.The court is supposed to represent the constitution, not voting blocs, that is true. The left wants the court to be just another branch of the democrat party, rubberstamping popular legislation without regard for the Constitution.
What "far right wing views" might those be? Try to be specific.
ACB has been a darling of the Federalist society since she was in law school. She was one of the young Republican lawyers working for the Republican Party's theft of the 2000 election. She refused to confirm any belief in "predecents' that she disagrees with - like Roe v. Wade, or gay marriage, or other things the rabid right doesn't like.
I could not help but note that she considered Brown v. Board of Education as "precedent", but not Roe v. Wade. ACB has tried to obfuscate her politics and radical views from the American public in this hearing, but the cases which she refuses to acknowledge as "precedent" include a womans right to use birth control in her own home, were chilling indeed. She failed to notify the Senate of a number of ads she has endorsed regarding abortion, gay marriage, and the ACA. She has given speeches on multiple occasions to organizations with an avowed purpose of overturning gay marriage.
She failed to notify the Senate of these positions in her initial confirmation documents, and had to "amend" her documentation later. And although she admitted in her earlier confirmation hearing that she was aware of their anti-gay bias by the time she spoke to this organization, this week she said she was unaware of any anti-gay bias on the part of this organization today. So she not only "forgot" to tell the senate about them, she actually lied about these connections this week.
The Federalist Society has been working for generations, to pack the Federal courts with radically right wing justices, who are overwhelmingly white and male. They arrange the "right" kinds of clerkships for these students right out of law school, to put them on track for high court nominations. ACB has been on their radar as a good little soldier for the cause, since she was in law school.
The Federatist Society has used dark money to advance these nominations. They've run ads in support PR campaigns for their favoured nominees including Kavenaugh and ACB. 48 of the 52 federal appeals court judges appointed by Donald Trump, were on the Federalist Society list.
Helped steal the 2000 election? Talk about some real stupid views. Glad she is going to be confirmed. Not sure why a person from another country wants to meddle in our politics. Doesn't Canada have some form of government you can get involved in? Foreign entities like Russia, China and yourself spread disinformation over our borders.
American politics affect the Canadian people whether we like it or not. Our country has good governance - of the people, by the people and most importantly, FOR the people, so it's pretty boring up here, politically. If Donald Trump had been elected Prime Minister, we would have thrown him out on his ass long ago with a motion of non-confidence and an election would have been called for 42 days after the writ was dropped.
When the Progressive Conservatives gifted us with NAFTA and a 10% goods and services tax to replace the revue from manufacturer's tax they eliminated as part of NAFTA, the Canadian people killed the whole party, leaving them with 3 seats, and no money. If the upcoming election were held in Canada, there would be no Republican Party left in office on November 4th.
Trudeau doesn't have fake videos online of him beating the crap out the left, like Trump does. Trudeau has a video online of him beating the crap out of a Conservative Senator who outweighed him by more than 30 lbs. in a real boxing match.
We only seem like polite little pussies.
Wow! Take care of that misplaced anger. Try not to flip out and shoot people in a blind rage.Ted Cruz was asking about her kids' piano lessons.
Let's talk about that when they become concert pianist's, Ok Ted? What a blowhard he is.
That's not a rule, ya jagoff.150 years of precedent - You know that word that you leftists love ( until you don't)
Democrats blew it in 2009 when Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and they had the White House and Senate. Their own fault that they're in this position.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.Sexual orientation isn't a Constitutional right.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.
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?
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
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.
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,,,the bigger question is why did the dems ignore them????seems to me its democrats talking about them not repubes,,,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.
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".
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.
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.Yeah, all the insulting nasty vile things that the left had in store for the hearing had to be shelved because children were present. You jackals are the problem with American politics.This post from a local USMB rightwing PROOVES my OP right, the kids were used as a buffer.Ask the Bar Association about her qualifications. Face it, this whole thing is political theater. Democrats are not interested in her legal qualifications, they want to paint her as a monster. They weren't interested in Kavanaugh's qualifications, they just wanted to paint him as a monster. Bringing her children in simply short circuited the democrats' obvious desire to fling their poop like so many monkeys, gibbering and jumping around all the while. Her children allow her to calmly face them down and dare them to be the first to pull their pants down.
Thanks for admitting that.
They see that as due diligence.
The butthurt motherfuckers lost two extra senate seats in 2018 when they thought they'd own the show.
Of course, had that happened and Ginsburg died in 2019, you can bet your ass her seat would still be open.
I'm pretty sure that's 100% on Ginsburg not democrats generally
Had she stepped down they would have filled the position
Which is why she should be maligned for being incompetent
