Amy Coney Barrett

[IDBillzFan]

15 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Let me ask McConnell. Stand by

 

In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees, invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well, enabling the nomination of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch to proceed to a vote.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
 

 

McConnell doesn't happen without Reid. 

 

Period.

 

It's just that simple, and if you think this is suddenly a McConnell issue, then you're not near the level-headed leftist I've been giving you credit for being.

 

 

One of the biggest faults of the left is their incredible inability to think things through. They just can't see beyond what they believe to be the most immediate need at the moment. Reid's elimination of the filibuster should be the first bit of evidence of this truth.

[Alaska Darin]

27 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

One of the biggest faults of the left is their incredible inability to think things through.

There's a reason there wasn't a "Harry Reid" amongst the Founding Fathers. They understood what unchecked power meant and put in plenty of options for the minority to use when things were spiraling.  Reid's hubris (the ridiculous belief that Democrats would hold power until the end of time) is EXACTLY why Donald Trump is going to appoint a 3rd "conservative" SCJ.

 

It's just delicious that it's a female Catholic Notre Dame alumnus replacing ol' RBG.  Shoulda been more concerned with the other "little clump o' cells," Ruthie.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, ALF said:

She's qualified but would she have received the 60 votes needed before April 2017  nuclear option ? 

She’s qualified, but would she have been able to churn her own butter prior to the advent of the commercial cream separator in the late 1800’s?

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Nothing the Democrats will pass can pass this courts scrutiny. (Left leaning country, right leaning government) These monsters--good religious folks?--are going to kill a whole bunch more people now, and cheers. They are cannibals. She says she is pro-life, lol. That is funny. 

 

And so many religions has been so exposed as child molesting, terrorism committing, Trump backing immoral hypocrites of the highest order. Many religions are a rackett, ask Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert and  Pat Robertson. 

 

Many religious institutions are great, many are not. Which camp does she belong too? The public will probably not get to know until after she is on the court. 

 

 

As you said, religion is silly.  Inconsequential, no?  I’d wager that about half of religious people vote Democrat.

You don’t seem to be able to talk about her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice — based on her actual record as a judge.  Do you have any proof that her opinions are spiced with Gospel quotes?  How about the Old Testament?

 

For you and non-Democrats, your fear is 100% invention of your mind all the time. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

That’s a fantastic piece by Feldman.

[Alaska Darin]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That’s a fantastic piece by Feldman.

It's amazing that something that's honestly a little pedestrian is considered fantastic.  It shows integrity... which it's obviously sorely lacking in today's "journalism".

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

She’s qualified, but would she have been able to churn her own butter prior to the advent of the commercial cream separator in the late 1800’s?

 

Eh, that's what her adopted black kids are for.

[Tiberius]

Ms. Barrett, as the mother of a special needs child how did you feel when you say Donald Trump mock a person with Parkinson’s disease? 

[dickleyjones]

21 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

All I'll say at this point is it's another selection based on gender vs the best candidate.  I have an issue with that.  The minute Trump said his pick was going to be a woman I felt the exact same way that I felt when Biden based is VP pick on gender AND color.  

I don't understand this thinking. It seems you are assuming there is only one option, an absolute "best" to be found. Is that really possible? Is the "best" woman (in this case) measurably worse than the "best" man?  maybe i'm an ignorant canadian but i think there are probably many people who would do a great job, men and women alike.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

She’s qualified, but would she have been able to churn her own butter prior to the advent of the commercial cream separator in the late 1800’s?

I say “No!” and therefore suggest we gather en masse in support of @Buffalo_Gal for SC as she surely can (and likely does). 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ms. Barrett, as the mother of a special needs child how did you feel when you say Donald Trump mock a person with Parkinson’s disease? 

Oh stop! People with disabilities are not immune to mocking. That’s the very definition of equality. They of course shouldn’t be mocked because of their disability but they can and should be mocked for the ‘content of their character’.

[Golden Goat]

Excellent pick, and gives straight women a voice on the Supreme Court. 🤘

[Reality Check]

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ms. Barrett, as the mother of a special needs child how did you feel when you say Donald Trump mock a person with Parkinson’s disease? 

 

[SoCal Deek]

20 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

One of the biggest faults of the left is their incredible inability to think things through. They just can't see beyond what they believe to be the most immediate need at the moment.

Well said! I think this single paragraph is at the heart of the current national divide. The Left sees what they perceive to be a problem and immediately react to stamp out the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. In doing so they move to pass legislation that has other consequences down the road...which they apparently either overlook or really can’t see. When on the other hand, the Right is forced to remind the children that ‘spending all of their weekly allowance on candy will destroy the plan to save up for that bicycle’. The recent news cycles have been swimming in examples. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Oh stop! People with disabilities are not immune to mocking. That’s the very definition of equality. They of course shouldn’t be mocked because of their disability but they can and should be mocked for the ‘content of their character’.

See what she says. 

 

Ms Barrett, is it abuse of power to withhold congressional approved funds to a foreign ally to pressure them to launch a criminal investigation of your political opponent? 

[Golden Goat]

Surprisingly positive piece in the WaPo

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

See what she says. 

 

Ms Barrett, is it abuse of power to withhold congressional approved funds to a foreign ally to pressure them to launch a criminal investigation of your political opponent? 

This is a question you want asked of the Supreme Court? Let’s ask her how she thinks the Bills are going to do this year. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This is a question you want asked of the Supreme Court? Let’s ask her how she thinks the Bills are going to do this year. 

Lol, why would you ask me that Chef? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Trump’s pick, apparently. 

 

Discuss 

The only point worth discussing is whether or not the senate confirms.  
 

Your people will try to destroy her, probably by attacking her family.  They would try to destroy her now, or, should Trump prevail in November, then.   If it wasn’t her, it would have been someone else, with the same applicable rules. 
 

The better discussion point is RBGs miscalculation on her own staying power.