Amy Coney Barrett

[Tiberius]

Trump’s pick, apparently. 

 

Discuss 

[Chef Jim]

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.  

[snafu]

1 minute 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.  

 

Last time around, if I remember, it was Kavanaugh or Barrett. 

I don’t think this is giving up quality vs. an identity-based candidate. She’s probably already been thoroughly investigated for bones under her floorboards the last time she was considered.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Last time around, if I remember, it was Kavanaugh or Barrett. 

I don’t think this is giving up quality vs. an identity-based candidate. She’s probably already been thoroughly investigated for bones under her floorboards the last time she was considered.  

 

...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?.....

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?.....

 

If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky.

 

 

 

...for the MSM (including that woeful putz azzclown Bill Maher) to even bring it up as a potential disqualifier is beyond repulsive.....

[ALF]

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

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...agreed......apples and oranges vs Kamala the Thrillah.......correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Trump's initial list included BOTH males and females......and he subsequently said a female is likely...replacing a female with a qualified female is a bad strategy?....Biden said "black female for VP" from the onset......sickening to see the MSM vultures circling in on Barret's Catholic religion......this society gets more effed up daily......religion is a qualifier?.....

Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion. 

[snafu]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion. 

 

Right...

If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time.

And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up.

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Right...

If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time.

And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up.

 

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. 

[Alaska Darin]

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Right...

If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time.

And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up.

 

Constitution, schomnstitution, amirite libs?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Right...

If Obamacare can’t stand up to judicial scrutiny, then let the legislature do its job correct next time.

And since her religious devotion is “silly” as you put it, then there’s no need to ever bring it up.

 

 

..ObamaCare was actually HillaryCare that the Clintonites launched via their cardboard cutout prop job after the pantsuit lost......a cobbled together disaster from the get go authored by politicians, the epitome of health care experts ON BOTH SIDES (COUGH)....health care lobbyists?.....naw.....Cliff Notes version of our company: 200 Union electricians covered by self-insured policy and I pay $6+ million annually in their premiums (100%).....12 non-Union employees and I pay 60% of their premiums...ObamaCare mandates cast my non-Union folks from "community rated pool" to block rated pool", resulting in a 35% increase in premiums....they panicked and were going to drop coverage....We threw an additional $25,000 in premium sponsorship to help them.....certainly Excellus/Anthem health care premiums are spiraling.....I'm moving my 12 to a local Excellus buyer's group of 3,000 members and my 2021 savings are $49,000.....ask yourself how well the government has done with Medicaid or Medicare........uh oh......

[Alaska Darin]

3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

..ObamaCare was actually HillaryCare that the Clintonites launched via their cardboard cutout prop job after the pantsuit lost......a cobbled together disaster from the get go authored by politicians, the epitome of health care experts ON BOTH SIDES (COUGH)....health care lobbyists?.....naw.....Cliff Notes version of our company: 200 Union electricians covered by self-insured policy and I pay $6+ million annually in their premiums (100%).....12 non-Union employees and I pay 60% of their premiums...ObamaCare mandates cast my non-Union folks from "community rated pool" to block rated pool", resulting in a 35% increase in premiums....they panicked and were going to drop coverage....We threw an additional $25,000 in premium sponsorship to help them.....certainly Excellus/Anthem health care premiums are spiraling.....I'm moving my 12 to a local Excellus buyer's group of 3,000 members and my 2021 savings are $49,000.....ask yourself how well the government has done with Medicaid or Medicare........uh oh......

There's a reason they only trumpeted the 4(ish) good things about the law...because the other 3k pages were packed with incredibly expensive nonsense. 

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Constitution, schomnstitution, amirite libs?

As long as the system is rigged to ensure your side interprets the document, amirite Trumpers? 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

12 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

There's a reason they only trumpeted the 4(ish) good things about the law...because the other 3k pages were packed with incredibly expensive nonsense. 

 

EXACTLY......and 2,997 pages were NEVER read by the 535 parasitic hangers on (BOTH SIDES).....my pet peeve for 45+ years with these 535 skanks alleging to "doing the people's business".....alleged "Health Care Legislation" is offered......yet on pages 2,643 to 2,651, the 535 were granted free haircuts, manicures, pedicures, condoms for discreet encounters, allowance for sex change operations et al...any Amendment that does NOT pertain to the true spirit of the legislation should be denied......yet this garbage is surreptitiously slipped in that NONE of these clowns read, and becomes law at the taxpayers' expense....18% Congressional approval rating so noted....they could care less............

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

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

 

Let me ask Harry Reid. Stand by.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

If Catholic is her hardest knock, then she will be lucky.

 

 

Get with the times man!  She's gonna be a RAYSIS!! no matter who Chuck needs to invent to make it happen.

[ALF]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Let me ask Harry Reid. Stand by.

 

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
 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Dems are focusing the publics attention on this pro-life women's probable repeal vote for health care. Killing health insurance during a pandemic for tens of millions of Americans should get this court off to a popular start! Hearings should focus on that, not her silly religious devotion. 

How are they going to cancel health insurance for people? They will allow people not to have it, they will not take it away from anyone. Only to someone who thinks govt is the only answer does allowing people freedom become" killing" health insurance.

[Orlando Tim]

40 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

As long as the system is rigged to ensure your side interprets the document, amirite Trumpers? 

Rigged to a Liberal- laying our rules for all to see and interpreting rules as if the words have meaning. The constitution states the president must present a nominee- as Barack did- and the senate must consent and confirm for nominee to take seat. In 2016 the senate did not consent and confirm. And yes I think Merrick Garland was given a raw deal

[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.