Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer questions?

[Synthaholic]

She keeps claiming over and over and over that she's an "originalist". Wouldn't that assume that she has actually READ the Constitution?

Perhaps you should try reading it, she actually taught it, unlike maobama.

.

Apparently I know more about what's in the Constitution than rightwing tool Amy Coney Barrett does.

Yeah, if you google it. LMAO

.

Maybe she should. Then maybe she would be capable of answering basic questions about the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

She's on day three of the shit patrol and probably really pissing her pants keeping from telling some of these dumbfucks what she thinks of them.

Is she a superior to these United States Senators? How elitist.

Just about anyone is superior to ***** like the one from Hawaii.

Mazie Hirono is a great American, a respected US Senator, and one badass woman. no wonder you don't like her - she's the opposite of unfit, unqualified Amy Coney Barrett.

Hirono is a retard. She has an IQ of maybe 90.

How does this post relate to the OP. I'm trying to learn here.

YOU brought hirono up. You said she's better than ACB. I am refuting that.

No, Sun Devil brought Hirono up. It's right here - click 'expand'.

Actually you opened the door for that comment.

Is she a superior to these United States Senators? How elitist.

.

Seems awfully damned fluid.

Nope, in a court of law your objection wouldn't be sustained because you opened the door to that line. That's a simple fact commie, deal with it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Exactly where is that written? Not that he would attempt to do it. There's a lot that can be done with emergency powers.

.

In the Constitution.

Where, I can't find it. You said it, back it up.

.

Makes sense. If she's an originalist then she believes Blacks are only worth 3/5.

Perhaps you should try reading the amendments. Primarily the 12th, 13th and 14th. BTW I didn't have to use google to give that answer.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Um, because she doesn't have to, there are already enough votes to appoint her
If there's anything we've learned in the last 4 years it's that there are exceptions to everything

There it is, folks!

Thanks for playing.

What, you're not going to correct his mistakes? Who am I kidding, you probably don't know.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It's perplexing why she wouldn't answer a question about WHAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!

It's right there in black and white.

What's her hidden agenda?

Tell me commie, how many different opinions are there on what's in the Constitution?

.

What part of black and white don't you understand?

So you're suddenly a textualist? You're such a liar, Roe, Obergerfel and many other decisions can't be found in the Constitution. Yet you're all for them.

.

I am. And they are all settled law. But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line. This is different. There is no interpretation. The Constitution says that Congress can move the election, not the president.

Yeah, and the Constitution also says the congress appropriates money, yet under emergency powers, the president can move money around.

.

 

[Muhammed]

She keeps claiming over and over and over that she's an "originalist". Wouldn't that assume that she has actually READ the Constitution?

Perhaps you should try reading it, she actually taught it, unlike maobama.

.

Ben Sass should try reading it too.

ACB just made him look like a fool.

What are you referring to?

.

The video posted earlier in the thread.

He's going along with the oft repeated fake news media lie that the freedom to protest is in the 1st amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

She keeps claiming over and over and over that she's an "originalist". Wouldn't that assume that she has actually READ the Constitution?

Perhaps you should try reading it, she actually taught it, unlike maobama.

.

Ben Sass should try reading it too.

ACB just made him look like a fool.

What are you referring to?

.

The video posted earlier in the thread.

Damn, now I'm going to have to go back and watch it. I hate twitter.

.

 

[OKTexas]

She keeps claiming over and over and over that she's an "originalist". Wouldn't that assume that she has actually READ the Constitution?

Perhaps you should try reading it, she actually taught it, unlike maobama.

.

Ben Sass should try reading it too.

ACB just made him look like a fool.

What are you referring to?

.

The video posted earlier in the thread.

He's going along with the oft repeated fake news media lie that the freedom to protest is in the 1st amendment.

Well at least he didn't ask a question he didn't know the answer to.

.

 

[badbob85037]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Because no one is asking her the right questions. Democrats just want to drag it out hoping, praying, and cheating on the next to none chances of Crusty Joe winning cause that's what democRats do.
Maybe you can answer a question for me. How can democrats be so evil and stupid at the same time? EXAMPLES FOLLOW

 

[cnm]

She was a professor at Notre Dame who taught constitutional law. Your exaggerating.

And didn't know the fifth 1st Amendment freedom. The dumbing down of Academia, eh?

 

[keepitreal]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

 

[OKTexas]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

Actually the right to medical privacy was legislated away in the 2009 stimulus bill. They required all medical records be computerized and gave the government access to them.

.

 

[keepitreal]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

Actually the right to medical privacy was legislated away in the 2009 stimulus bill. They required all medical records be computerized and gave the government access to them.

.

That doesn't change the fact that abortion was declared a Constitutional right
protected by the right to privacy

 

[OKTexas]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

Actually the right to medical privacy was legislated away in the 2009 stimulus bill. They required all medical records be computerized and gave the government access to them.

.

That doesn't change the fact that abortion was declared a Constitutional right
protected by the right to privacy

It could be a reason Roe could be overturned, or limited.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She keeps claiming over and over and over that she's an "originalist". Wouldn't that assume that she has actually READ the Constitution?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, "originalists" ignore that fact, seeking to destroy more than 60 years of settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence; that's why she won't answer.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

 

[toobfreak]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Like Joe Biden, you don't need to know. You'll find out after she is confirmed.

 

[Blues Man]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

She isn't the only one avoiding questions about the courts...

But this thread is about her. Stay on topic.

RBG would have refused to answer that question as well and the Dems would have been fine with that.

RBG rule of Senate Judicial hearings

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

 

[Synthaholic]

But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line.
This is different. There is no interpretation.

No, it's not different
There is an implied interpretation in the absence of

They legalized killing the unborn by interpreting what constitutes the right to privacy
they can assume what doesn't violate the Constitution in the absence of specifics
for a first of its kind situation with no precedent

No such thing as ‘unborn’.

‘Undead’ is also not a thing, except in zombie movies.

 

[Synthaholic]

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?