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

[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.

 

[Juicin]

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

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

Republicans speak these words, as they prepare to send a woman to the court to overturn the ACA, which has twice before gone to the Court and been confirmed by the Supreme Court. If they can changes the judges, they can change a law that the American people overwhelming support and depend on, and have voted for 3 times in the past 10 years. Even the Republican Senate refused to repeal the ACA.

When the Senate refused to repeal the ACA, Republicans launched this court case with the intention of using the court to do what the people and the legislators refused to do. And they're doing it, not because it's the right thing to do, or that it will benefit the American people. Trump is doing this to "undo Obama's legacy".

Tell me again that this isn't about legislating from the bench.

The ACA was unconstitutional from the get. It originated in the senate which violates the constitutional requirement that revenue raising bills originate in the house. It also contained several unconstitutional provisions which should have invalidated the law because congress didn't include a severance clause which would allow the courts to sever the unconstitutional portions and allow the remainder stand. The fact is congress, in their haste, wrote a bad law and it should be invalidate. I could go on about ways the Roberts court violated norms to uphold the law, but you're just not worth the time.

.

 

[MarcATL]

Why don't you answer my fucking post instead of deflecting?

Honestly, what came FIRST, your ilk's excitement for this judge, or my PERCEIVED dislike of her?

 

[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.

 

[22lcidw]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

His question has no merit and is merely a deflection to derail the discussion. Marc is asking a very valid question. Why THIS nominee, and why NOW. What is so special about THIS woman, that Republicans are willing to give up the Senate to get her seated?

Is it a reward for her help in seating W in the Oval Office? Is it just to overturn the ACA - something that the American people have voted for overwhelmingly in 3 separate elections - two of which were basically referendums on the ACA, and after lawmakers have time and time again refused to repeal?

It has no merit ?

Please tell me you are not that stupid.

So when you answer his question, we'll answer the ones that follow.

News To You: Just because you think your special does not mean the rest of us do.

But the Progs in general think they are special. They are violent and have had indoctrination by the education system. The propaganda has taken with them.

 

[Juicin]

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 opportunities in the north in 1965? What are you talking about? I could go on but just start with the obvious of employment

The government doesn't only protect existing rights. We had no freedom of speech until very recently. They just made it up. We locked people up for printing peace pamphlets during ww1. No other major nation on the planet has as a robust protection of speech as we do. It wasn't an existing right

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why don't you answer my fucking post instead of deflecting?

Honestly, what came FIRST, your ilk's excitement for this judge, or my PERCEIVED dislike of her?

She is a squeaky clean and a perfect candidate. Period.
I know you think your Dems were scoring points with those hearings but they weren't.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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?

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

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...

Bwuhahahahaha.....

The only relevance her kids have to her ability to withstand the Democrat committee hearing process is that she is used to dealing calmly dealing with children and has the exceptional mental reasoning and intelligence to run rings around them, which she did during these hearings.

Running rings around them? Democrats were able to expose her biases, reveal the laws she wants to "review" and completely undercut the idea that she is there to do anything but overturn legislation and decisions the vast majority of the American public has voted for endlessly. All while ACB deflected, tried to obscure her far right positions, associations and background.

Not a bad day's work indeed.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Wrong.

Yes.

And not even the commie lawyers in the senate challenged her legal qualifications. All they did is make irrelevant emotional pleas.

.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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...

Bwuhahahahaha.....

The only relevance her kids have to her ability to withstand the Democrat committee hearing process is that she is used to dealing calmly dealing with children and has the exceptional mental reasoning and intelligence to run rings around them, which she did during these hearings.

Running rings around them? Democrats were able to expose her biases, reveal the laws she wants to "review" and completely undercut the idea that she is there to do anything but overturn legislation and decisions the vast majority of the American public has voted for endlessly. All while ACB deflected, tried to obscure her far right positions, associations and background.

Not a bad day's work indeed.

She embarassed them.

 

[Juicin]

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

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

 

[Juicin]

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?

Wrong.

Yes.

And not even the commie lawyers in the senate challenged her legal qualifications. All they did is make irrelevant emotional pleas.

.

Yea because they're all qualified in teh same arbitrary sense

You don't even need to be a lawyer to be a member of SCOTUS lol

I'd do a better job than most of these retards, especially on national security

 

[Juicin]

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

And I think it would be me and my whole ethnic group who are legends in our own minds....? Even tho i got those numbers from gallup

 

[Dragonlady]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

His question has no merit and is merely a deflection to derail the discussion. Marc is asking a very valid question. Why THIS nominee, and why NOW. What is so special about THIS woman, that Republicans are willing to give up the Senate to get her seated?

Is it a reward for her help in seating W in the Oval Office? Is it just to overturn the ACA - something that the American people have voted for overwhelmingly in 3 separate elections - two of which were basically referendums on the ACA, and after lawmakers have time and time again refused to repeal?

It has no merit ?

Please tell me you are not that stupid.

So when you answer his question, we'll answer the ones that follow.

News To You: Just because you think your special does not mean the rest of us do.

But the Progs in general think they are special. They are violent and have had indoctrination by the education system. The propaganda has taken with them.

If the ACA has "no merit", why was it passed by majorities in the House and Senate? Why, when Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the White House in the first two years of the Trump Administration, did Republicans refuse to vote to repeal and replace the ACA. They've had multiple opportunities to rid of it and when the chips were down, even the Republican Party voted to retain the ACA.

Now Republicans still want to get rid of the law, but voters are so overwhelmingly in favour of it, that none of them has the balls to do it, so they hatched a plan to have the SC strike down the law, so they're not the ones doing it.

They we have your idiot comrade posting the lie that liberals are violent, and are brainwashed.

Now wonder you idiots vote for Trump. Stupid, gullible, and brainwashed is no way to go through life, son.

 

[OKTexas]

Why don't you answer my fucking post instead of deflecting?

Honestly, what came FIRST, your ilk's excitement for this judge, or my PERCEIVED dislike of her?

Still refusing to address my original post I see. Run along commie until you can act like an adult.

.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

There is no such thing as giving rights to minorities.

The fundamental definition of a right is that is universally enjoyed.

Moron.

And you call me a moron.

So you think that black people have always had the "right" to vote. Or the "right" to buy a house in any neighbourhood they can afford to live in? When I was in my 20''s, I couldn't buy a house unless I had a man to cosign my mortgage.

The history of the Supreme Court in America is one of giving rights to those the majority have chosen to exclude from full participation in the rights they take for granted.

In the 1970's I was a bank manager, who could give any man a mortgage who applied, but my own bank wouldn't give me a mortgage without a male co-signer. I had a college educated, professional woman friend who had to get her husband to sign her credit card application.

Yes, I do call you a moron.

Again, the fundamental definition of a right is that it is universally enjoyed by everyone.

Which is why the concept of voting "rights" is incorrect. That we had to pass an amendment to finally recognize women as legitimate voters tells you that voting might not be a right:


Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.

Voting: Right or Privilege?

The Constitution mentions "the right to vote" five times. Judges, and voter ID law proponents, don't seem to be getting the hint.

www.theatlantic.com

My mother was the victim of sexual discrimination in the 1970's. She was paid 1/2 of what a male coworker was paid. But nowhere was she guaranteed that "right". It was immoral, but it wasn't illegal.

People like you throw around the word like you know what it means.

You don't.