Agreed. She'll vote with the law not nutjobs.
She's fine but calling her America's mom is not a good description.
Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.
- Thread starter Charoite
- Start date
She's fine but calling her America's mom is not a good description.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
She certainly handled the Democrat Senators like a good mom handles unruly children.
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
Well yeah, that was my point. The Repubs remove the ethics bar and it will kick their ass if dems win both chambers and the presidency.
She certainly handled the Democrat Senators like a good mom handles unruly children.
No, she handled it like a lawyer.
What job interview allows you to do nothing but refuse to answer any question?!
You didn't say that while your beloved RBG was still soiling her Depends®, did you?
Now...
REPENT AT THE FEET OF THE BLESSED AND GLORIOUS ACB
What if the REPUBS win both the chambers and the executive branch? Its Ok for the demwits to remove the (wink, wink) ethics bar...the way Harry Reid made it possible for Trump to get 3 picks to begin with......and now they are going to move the bar again by stacking the court, and that's Ok....ethics only apply to repubs.....right......err.......left? The left never considers what will happen tomorrow because of their actions TODAY. Harry Reid proved that......without him making a simple majority mandatory for court appointments.....Trump could never have seated anyone. These people are STUPID.
FDR had 4 terms to PACK the court.......did he find success? But.........today in one term you are going to do what FDR failed to do? Really?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He was asking about her personal views on white supremacy, in other words was she a white supremacist? That's why it was a supremely stupid question.
When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees.
Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts.
Sen. Biden began the hearing by noting that nominees almost never testified during their confirmation hearings prior to 1955.
In 1949, one nominee was called to testify but refused and was still confirmed.
Biden warned senators not to ask questions about "how she will decide any specific case that may come before her." Ginsburg, then serving on the same court as Judge Roberts does today, followed Biden's roadmap.
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule
It saddens me to have to tell you this, but Christiecrite is a supremely stupid old woman, Tom.
Then the DEMOCRATS will be against the same changes they are clamoring for today.
I could ask the same questions if the Democrats decide to pack the court if they win the presidency and a majority in the Senate.
If ethics are really the concern, Democrats wouldn't be talking about packing the court so enthusiastically, and Biden wouldn't be afraid to denounce the idea.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No one asked or suspected Judge Barrett is or was a White Supremacist. Senator Booker was just grandstanding when he asked her to condemn white supremacy, something the Fucking Moron-in-Chief won't do. Notice how much time he spends whacking at Trump over it.
Someone needs to ask Booker and pretty much every prominent black Democrat if they condemn black supremacy. It would have about the same level of relevance as the white supremacy question.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
They won't and it would but it's not politically correct.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Many were loaded questions, no good lawyer would allow themselves to fall into a bear trap. They were designed to create more heat than light, I think you know that already.
Yeah......when Trump wins, and the conservatives control both houses after the landslide victory on Nov. 3rd, 2020..........I hear the first thing that will happen is DC and PR will be considered for statehood. Can you say 2 more scoops? The left often does not consider the consequences of anything they act on in a knee jerk reaction. What is to stop Trump from packing the court if there is a conservative landslide?
Do you not remember just why Mr. Trump has had the opportunity to appoint 3 justices? Can you spell dirty politics by the demwits (and I call them demwits for a reason)....it never occurred to them that once they invoked the so called nuclear option and made it mandatory to have but a simple majority vote in the senate to confirm a court appointment instead of the (at the time) usual 60 majority votes. You can thank your own parties corruptness for Trump being allowed to appoint his picks on the court. Harry Reid.....does anyone have to wonder why you decided to RETIRE?
Now you don't even consider What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.........Trump just might make you eat your words and pack the court himself.
Pretty much. Micawber is a perfect example of the typical leftist. He has no foresight at all, and because his side has put forward the idea of packing the court, he'd better hope his side wins. Otherwise, Trump may just make the Democrats eat their own words.
Maybe, but my point was that there are very few cases each term that deal with constitutional issues. So, the 95% (guess) of other cases dealing with contracts, procedure, and federal legislation cannot be determined by an originalist philosophy.
I read her 37 page dissent in the gun case and it was an example of an "activist" judge. She did not defer to the laws passed by the federal and WI government prohibiting felons from owning firearms. She decided it should only apply to those who commit violent acts because they are the ones who are a threat to society (the guy in the case committed mail fraud).
Not an unreasonable position, but it should be the function of the legislative branch to make rather than "legislating from the bench." She based it primarily on early (14th century to early colonies and states) laws regulating firearms.
The government's position was that since felons could be executed back then banning their gun ownership was not such a big thing. Also, since felons could be prohibited from voting and voting would not endanger society, why should non-violent felons be permitted to own guns but not vote?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I don't agree, she's a clever woman but does suffer from BBS (Biden Blindspot Syndrome)
I don't agree, she's a supremely stupid old woman who suffers from suffer from BBS (Biden Blindspot Syndrome), CBS (Blindspot Syndrome), and DBS (DEMOCRAT Blindspot Syndrome), Tom.