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?
Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.
- Thread starter Charoite
- Start date
Barrett is a far right winger. She would definitely vote to take election to Supreme Court.
If this election is decided by SCOTUS then those rigging this election to make sure that Trump and the Rebellion are bloodied failed BIIGLY.
Oh, she is going to,...no doubt. EVERY mail in ballet will be looked at thru a magnifying glass just like in 2000. The corruption will end with her. The left fucked up this time......BIG TIME. Not only will Trump be declared the winner there will also be investigations into the massive voter fraud perpetrated by your side with the mail in ballets. You have been PLAYED. Trump FUCKED YOU again!
Gets them every time.Darth Omar
Russian asset
The constitution grants the president the authority to appoint a SCOTUS replacement any time a seat becomes vacant.
As for ‘ethics’ it can’t be unethical if it’s done according to law. If you mean it’s not gentlemanly or whatever, the left set that bridge on fire in January 2017—then they blew up what was left of it.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
ACB not going the way they want her to go:
christiefan915
Catalyst
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.
Barrett calls presidential self-pardon an 'open question'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, said on Wednesday it was an “open question” whether Trump could pardon himself and added that the top U.S. judicial body “can’t control” whether a president obeys its decisions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...al-self-pardon-an-open-question-idUSKBN26Z1BP
ACB not going the way they want her to go:
Why are you posting the MAGA's cackling jackass gif? It as a response seems akin to farting and fanning it someone. It's actually that lame and douchey.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I heard that. She seems to be worried about trump's reaction to her answers. Some of the questions were no-brainers.
’
That it does, now using the same logic, would you agree that if Democrats win the Presidency and Senate it would be equally constitutional And thus acceptable if Biden added four new Justices? More than just being constitutionally acceptable.
And ethics are not the same as the law nor guided by law, would you say an abortion doctor performs a legal abortion he is doing an ethical act?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
It's to mock the poster Stone.
She's a party hack. What would one expect from Trump.
Everything was an open question, these SCOTUS hearings are a waste of time, ever since Mitch killed the sixty vote requirement all the SCOTUS nominee has to do is please the party that nominated them, their confirmation is a given
Complete waste of time. Lifetime job and it's reduced to idiots like Sen. Sasse talking about professional sports.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
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.
BartenderElite
Verified User
She's smart & qualified. She should be confirmed.
Bad karma, though. Republicans have redefined hypocrisy in a town where hypocrisy is religion.
Bad karma, though. Republicans have redefined hypocrisy in a town where hypocrisy is religion.
obama did not "deserve" a justice. Our constitution says the president nominates, and the senate gives their advice and consent. Obama got to nominate, but he did not have the consent of the senate. Even if it got to the floor, he would not have been confirmed, as is the senates right to reject a nominee.