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

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

The fact that she was a lot of people's choice over Kavennaugh should answer that question.

 

[MarcATL]

Of course she's qualified and no one is painting her as a monster. But she has been trained and groomed and both her qualifications and her training have been polished to a fare thee well by an organization which has been taken over by dark money with an agenda to pack the Supreme Court with white, hard line conservative judges to overturn progessive decisions. The SC will become a defacto veto on progessive legislation which the American people have voted for and which the vast majority want and support - like the ACA, Roe v Wade, and all gays rights legislation.

The whole concept of "originalism" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our times. The Founders intended the Constitution to be a living breathing document so that it could be amended as the times changed. Making decisions based on the writings of 18th century white elites in colonial America makes as much sense as asking 18th Century doctors to treat covid using "originalist medical techniques".

Looking at things from the Founder's persepctive, Originalists always conservative principles and ideas, to one of the most radically progressive documents ever written, and decide the issue based on their radically right views of the radical revolutionary document. The USA was the nation in the world to throw off the yoke of colonialism, and the idea of rule by the elites, and embrace democracy, albeit a Republic, not a full blown democracy. The French Revolution took place in 1789.

Today's Republicans would have called the Founders, thugs and criminals - destroying businesses and private property (The Boston Tea Party), attacking the police (the British Army), and spreading violence and civil unrest throughout the land (The American Revolution).

POWERFUL!!!

 

[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 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

Whatever. You haven't responded to my point, and that's because everything I said is a historical fact. Carry on.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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

.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

The left IS violent. It isn't conservatives rioting in Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland.

 

[easyt65]

Liberals have the right to call themselves whatever they want. Diane Feinstein can suddenly say she 'identifies herself' as a MAN if she wants. Nancy Pelosi can declare she is a SQUIRREL if she wants. That does not mean anyone must be / should be FORCED to legally acknowledge them as a Man / Squirrel.

The same Democrats / Liberal / Snowflakes who are declaring 'LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE', 'OBEY THE SCIENCE' regarding COVID-19 are the EXACT same people who are telling us to IGNORE SCIENCE that tells us that a person born with all of the biological/physical parts of a male are MALE and a person born with all of the biological/physical parts of a female are FEMALE - even if they mentally/emotionally IDENTIFY with the opposite sex.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Oh bullshit, maobama and the commies got their asses kicked in his first midterms because of the ACA.

.

 

[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.

.

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

Then get off your ass and run for office and stop bitching.

.

 

[hadit]

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".

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.

Of course she's qualified and no one is painting her as a monster. But she has been trained and groomed and both her qualifications and her training have been polished to a fare thee well by an organization which has been taken over by dark money with an agenda to pack the Supreme Court with white, hard line conservative judges to overturn progessive decisions. The SC will become a defacto veto on progessive legislation which the American people have voted for and which the vast majority want and support - like the ACA, Roe v Wade, and all gays rights legislation.

The whole concept of "originalism" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our times. The Founders intended the Constitution to be a living breathing document so that it could be amended as the times changed. Making decisions based on the writings of 18th century white elites in colonial America makes as much sense as asking 18th Century doctors to treat covid using "originalist medical techniques".

Looking at things from the Founder's persepctive, Originalists always conservative principles and ideas, to one of the most radically progressive documents ever written, and decide the issue based on their radically right views of the radical revolutionary document. The USA was the nation in the world to throw off the yoke of colonialism, and the idea of rule by the elites, and embrace democracy, albeit a Republic, not a full blown democracy. The French Revolution took place in 1789.

Today's Republicans would have called the Founders, thugs and criminals - destroying businesses and private property (The Boston Tea Party), attacking the police (the British Army), and spreading violence and civil unrest throughout the land (The American Revolution).

You touched on something very important, and that is that the constitution was designed to be AMENDED. Far too often, the left demands that the SC basically ignore the constitution because some law or other is just so very important that it MUST be upheld no matter what. A true SC justice does not do that, he/she looks at the Constitution, complete with amendments, and judges the law against that, period. The left doesn't want to go through the hassle of amending the Constitution, so they demand that justices approve legislation on the basis of popularity. Want the constitution to allow government to shut down unpopular speech? The conservative approach is to amend it while the liberal approach is to just pass laws and demand that the SC approve them. This nominee scares the crap out of the left because she will most likely insist that laws she adjudicates must pass constitutional muster, no matter how popular they are with the left. That is why she rightly refuses to answer how she would rule on various hot button issues.

And yes, they are trying to paint her as a monster who will outlaw all abortion and take away all health insurance from everyone. They are that hysterical.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

 

[easyt65]

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.

Her 'biases'?
Such as...." Her belief that Judges are supposed to be totally objective, to rule on the Constitutional basis of a case, not have pre-determined stances before sitting on a court that will hear future cases possibly dealing with those issues?! I agree.

Democrats REPEATEDLY asked ACB how she felt, hos she would rule on FUTURE cases, which - if she answered - would require her to recuse herself from th0se case, DESPITE ACB invoking the GINSBURG Rule, the refusal of answering such questions / speculating how she might rule on a case that has not come up yet. They were either too stupid to understand the GINSBURG Rule or just too stupid AND stubborn to take that accepted answer as her answer.

'Running Rings' around them.....

A couple of times they asked her questions and her answers were so in-depth and knowledgeable/experienced their eyes glassed over because they had no idea what she was talking about.

Her 'Biases'? You mean like her being a Catholic / Christian...which Feinstein and the Democrats showed their own biased against and hatred for as Feinstein was caught on a hot mic railing about her being a Catholic / Christian. Perhaps Ms. China Feinstein needs to be reminded that Religious Discrimination is a crime.

The Democrats could not find one of her Law colleagues to say anything negative against her. She proved brilliant, unflappable, steady, calm, and demonstrated she might be on be of the very most qualified Judges to soon sit on the USSC.

'Have you ever RAPED someone as an adult?' REALLY? You want to talk about pathetic and desperate? With no justifiable basis or even a hint of one on which to ask that, Democrats asked THAT question of ACB...in front of her kids? WTF?! Democrats proved with that one there is no low too low for them to stoop when they are desperate.

At the end Feinstein could say nothing substantial against ACB....instead she thanked Graham for the ass-beating and the opportunity to disgrace themselves again in front of the American people.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

thats racist,,,,

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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?

Lies and slander seems to be draggin ladys MO

 

[easyt65]

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".

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.

Of course she's qualified and no one is painting her as a monster. But she has been trained and groomed and both her qualifications and her training have been polished to a fare thee well by an organization which has been taken over by dark money with an agenda to pack the Supreme Court with white, hard line conservative judges to overturn progessive decisions. The SC will become a defacto veto on progessive legislation which the American people have voted for and which the vast majority want and support - like the ACA, Roe v Wade, and all gays rights legislation.

The whole concept of "originalism" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our times. The Founders intended the Constitution to be a living breathing document so that it could be amended as the times changed. Making decisions based on the writings of 18th century white elites in colonial America makes as much sense as asking 18th Century doctors to treat covid using "originalist medical techniques".

Looking at things from the Founder's persepctive, Originalists always conservative principles and ideas, to one of the most radically progressive documents ever written, and decide the issue based on their radically right views of the radical revolutionary document. The USA was the nation in the world to throw off the yoke of colonialism, and the idea of rule by the elites, and embrace democracy, albeit a Republic, not a full blown democracy. The French Revolution took place in 1789.

Today's Republicans would have called the Founders, thugs and criminals - destroying businesses and private property (The Boston Tea Party), attacking the police (the British Army), and spreading violence and civil unrest throughout the land (The American Revolution).

You touched on something very important, and that is that the constitution was designed to be AMENDED. Far too often, the left demands that the SC basically ignore the constitution because some law or other is just so very important that it MUST be upheld no matter what. A true SC justice does not do that, he/she looks at the Constitution, complete with amendments, and judges the law against that, period. The left doesn't want to go through the hassle of amending the Constitution, so they demand that justices approve legislation on the basis of popularity. Want the constitution to allow government to shut down unpopular speech? The conservative approach is to amend it while the liberal approach is to just pass laws and demand that the SC approve them. This nominee scares the crap out of the left because she will most likely insist that laws she adjudicates must pass constitutional muster, no matter how popular they are with the left. That is why she rightly refuses to answer how she would rule on various hot button issues.

And yes, they are trying to paint her as a monster who will outlaw all abortion and take away all health insurance from everyone. They are that hysterical.

Democrats, as shown by Barry and the Democrats these last 4 years, would rather simply IGNORE or openly VIOLATE the Constitution or Legislate from the Bench rather than attempt to the Constitution.

 

[MarcATL]

Yes, we've heard this temper tantrum before.

The only way you worked in law is if you cleaned toilets at the firm of Biden, Harris & Other Shit.

This is the open hostility we can expect from a Trump-lovin' rightwing Republican.

Let's us know that we can't take anything they say seriously.

 

[MarcATL]

He's to fucking stupid to be a racist.

Ya, only smart people like you are racist.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

So Republicans in the United States are at fault because they don't give you equal pay in Canada? LOL! And Republicans are trying to stop abortion in Canada?

You are nothing but a liar. Try telling the truth sometime.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, we've heard this temper tantrum before.

The only way you worked in law is if you cleaned toilets at the firm of Biden, Harris & Other Shit.

This is the open hostility we can expect from a Trump-lovin' rightwing Republican.

Let's us know that we can't take anything they say seriously.

Just like the open hostility the United States has seen from the extreme left. I tire of the argument the other side is worse. Both sides are terrible and disgusting and now instead of defending, the agreement is both sides are terrible but there's is worse.

Sad state America is in.