Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.

christiefan915 said:
Barrett was really evasive today. I get that she doesn't want to comment on matters that might come up in SCOTUS but she wouldn't even give an opinion on Griswold, a decision from fifty years ago. Does she really think the government has the right to restrict contraception? She also wouldn't answer about the peaceful transfer of power, which has been a thing since 1789. I lost some respect for her today.
Click to expand...

It's the Ginsburg rule, you should really look into it...

She won't talk about anything that may come before the court in the future.
 
Crocodile said:
So far I don't really mind this candidate and even Kavanaugh doesn't seem to be quite as much of a nightmare. However, this is just stupid and wrong. While I agree with the idea that you shouldn't vote in an election year the current actions speak worlds. Pissing away ethics now makes denying the first African American president his right and duty as president look that much worse. People could say it was racially motivated just like a lot of the BS with their handling of Obama and you don't have anyway to counter anymore. You can't say they are wrong because your side pissed away their defense with this ethics nightmare. Now into the future we won't have much ethics to go by on this issue. All's fair in love and war and it looks like politics might follow suit. Do you really want to kneecap yourselves with the possible political prospects on the horizon?
Click to expand...

Let's be HONEST ... and Note THE FACTS

The GOP Blocked and Stole a Supreme Court seat, they wouldn't afford the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]courtesy of a hearing.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The GOP confirmed 218 Trump judges after blocking 110 Obama nominees.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now The GOP is rushing to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 20 days before Nov 3 when over 14 million people have already voted. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That's definition of court-packing ...[/FONT]

So I don't want to hear a Mother Fucking thing when The Democrats Appoint 5 More Judges, just Shut The Fuck Up :cool:
 
Sailor said:
amy-barrett-eat-a-bag-of-dicks-you-dirty-fucking-communists-notepad.jpg
Click to expand...


Tell Us more about your personal experience and taste ... :laugh:
 
Damocles said:
It's the Ginsburg rule, you should really look into it...

She won't talk about anything that may come before the court in the future.
Click to expand...

I already acknowledged that. But Griswold v. CT was argued over 50 years ago and it was about government interference with contraception. On what grounds could that possibly be re-argued today? Also the peaceful transfer of power is constitutional and as an originalist she should know that.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
I already acknowledged that. But Griswold v. CT was argued over 50 years ago and it was about government interference with contraception. On what grounds could that possibly be re-argued today? Also the peaceful transfer ow power is constitutional and as an originalist she should know that.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that in the current atmosphere it is impossible for this court to hear something about contraception in the future? My guess is you know it is possible but you really want to dislike something about this extremely qualified and well respected Judge, so you come up with this...

It's also interesting that you cannot see them hearing anything about elections in the near future...
 
Crocodile said:
So far I don't really mind this candidate and even Kavanaugh doesn't seem to be quite as much of a nightmare. However, this is just stupid and wrong. While I agree with the idea that you shouldn't vote in an election year the current actions speak worlds. Pissing away ethics now makes denying the first African American president his right and duty as president look that much worse. People could say it was racially motivated just like a lot of the BS with their handling of Obama and you don't have anyway to counter anymore. You can't say they are wrong because your side pissed away their defense with this ethics nightmare. Now into the future we won't have much ethics to go by on this issue. All's fair in love and war and it looks like politics might follow suit. Do you really want to kneecap yourselves with the possible political prospects on the horizon?
Click to expand...

Ethics have been going downhill in Washington DC ever since those Arkansas Hillbillies rolled into town. Trump is a result of that loooong slide into the Swamp.

Now, as we see happening, all conventions, mutual agreements and other non-required niceties are gone. Now it's black-letter rules; either it's allowed or it isn't. Ethics don't matter. Thanks Hillary!
 
Darth Omar said:
I would call it an immoral act; and unethical, regarding his oath as a doctor to ‘first do no harm’.

Court packing isn’t unconstitutional; however, it would do harm to our system of government in the sense it reduces the highest court in the land to a legislative body. The originalists would be out numbered by the make-it-up-as-you-go jurists.

The left is well aware of that—which is exactly why they want it. Originalists are a pain in the ass to the left. Always sticking to the constitution instead of empathizing.
Click to expand...

All leftists don't want court packing. Stop making things up or quoting trump. It's RW desperation fear-mongering.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Crocodile, If Lindsey Graham and many Republican Senators had been under oath in their statements about the Merrick Garland nomination, and also during the Barrett nomination, they would all be guilty of perjury.
Click to expand...
Moron. I don't believe there is anything you know. You still haven't gotten anything right, which we have established as the reason you absolutely need to control how others are to respond to your drivel. You have grown tired of being pummelled by all the mockery and derision.

How do you pretend to construct "perjury" from a different nomination? I bet your safe space is particularly small, cold and dark.
 
Grajonca said:
So what about that incredibly oafish question about white supremacy from Corey Booker? The fool asked it even though he must have known full well that she has two black children and they were in the chamber listening to that. I was most impressed that she was questioned for 11 hours and responded to their questions without recourse to any notes!
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious. Cory Booker is a black man, of course he'd be concerned about white supremacy. And Barrett should be also, with two black children. She can protect them only so long before they're out on their own dealing with the kind of people who use the "N" word and other nastiness, like some on JPP. Even trump has to be led kicking and screaming before he condemns white supremacy.

Furthermore, why did she need notes? She figuratively pleaded the fifth on just about all the questions.
 
Bourbon said:
Let's be HONEST ... and Note THE FACTS

The GOP Blocked and Stole a Supreme Court seat, they wouldn't afford the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]courtesy of a hearing.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The GOP confirmed 218 Trump judges after blocking 110 Obama nominees.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now The GOP is rushing to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 20 days before Nov 3 when over 14 million people have already voted. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That's definition of court-packing ...[/FONT]

So I don't want to hear a Mother Fucking thing when The Democrats Appoint 5 More Judges, just Shut The Fuck Up :cool:
Click to expand...
christiefan915 said:
All leftists don't want court packing. Stop making things up or quoting trump. It's RW desperation fear-mongering.
Click to expand...
Nobody stole anything.

Court packing is a silly idea, an empty threat. The Democrats were stupid to float it. Both sides fear-monger, but the Republicans are better at it. ;)
 
iolo eto said:
If the Supreme Court is a political body, as it seems to be, its members should be elected. It would seem to me, though, a better bet to try and take it out of politics and appoint its members on more rational grounds.
Click to expand...

And in addition to that, there should be term limits, like 20 years and out. Making this a lifetime appointment is craziness, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top