Amy Coney Barrett

[BillStime]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Big Blitz]

Lol yep.  Don't get me wrong.  I want Trump to win and believe he will.  But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats.

 

And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win.  Everyone knew this.  Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election.

 

 

 

Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved.

 

Think about this leftists.  Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years.  

 

We truly saved this country in 2016.  

 

Next time, visit Wisconsin.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...if Barrett's principal disqualifier is religion, that sure as hell tells me this country has gone WELL beyond the "state of disrepair"........

[Backintheday544]

On 10/2/2020 at 12:08 AM, Big Blitz said:

Lol yep.  Don't get me wrong.  I want Trump to win and believe he will.  But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats.

 

And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win.  Everyone knew this.  Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election.

 

 

 

Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved.

 

Think about this leftists.  Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years.  

 

We truly saved this country in 2016.  

 

Next time, visit Wisconsin.  

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

 

...NEVER...they are overtly catered to and their corruption is beyond legendary (Mayor Barry posthumously does NOT approve of my message)......

[B-Man]

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

[Westside]

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:13 PM, BillStime said:

 

 

...well that settles it...she is no more a lawyer than our very own Section3/Section8/Third Chair/Hi-Chair......Kavanaugh Time......

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, westside2 said:

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

This! He’s shown this tendency time and time and time again over the years.

[Backintheday544]

25 minutes ago, westside2 said:

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

 

So true. He seems like the kind of guy who would throw temper tantrums on Twitter.

 

The full quote of they don't deserve to know: “Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know-” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

 

...so "elect me and I'll tell you"....wadda deal......."IF Kamala or my teleprompter tells me".......

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This! He’s shown this tendency time and time and time again over the years.

 

 

...but...BUT the astute Delaware electorate BOLDLY differs with you... he's their chosen son......hell even his late son was AG......."All In The Family" meathead......

[B-Man]

Entitled, privileged white man lectures woman that her views make her ‘not qualified’ to sit on SCOTUS

So this is mansplaining? Right?

 

We don’t exactly know what the term includes these days but pretty sure if some old, entitled, elected, white guy told Kagan or Sotomayer that their views made them not qualified to serve on SCOTUS the Left would burn more buildings down.

 

***** is such a jacka*s. Sorry, not sorry:

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

So true. He seems like the kind of guy who would throw temper tantrums on Twitter.

 

The full quote of they don't deserve to know: “Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know-” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

Is it your impression that his words were taken out of context?  
 

He says voters don’t deserve to know.  He then says “I’m not gonna play Trumps game.”  Had DJT suggested a game of “Voters deserve to know!”?  Was DJT the interviewer, was that it?

 

It seems clear that unless  Trump suggested playing a game, or unless DJT was the interviewer and caused Biden to “assert” something, the entire quote and stream of consciousness reveals Biden is a cranky geez who’s mind wanders mid-topic. 

[Backintheday544]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Is it your impression that his words were taken out of context?  
 

He says voters don’t deserve to know.  He then says “I’m not gonna play Trumps game.”  Had DJT suggested a game of “Voters deserve to know!”?  Was DJT the interviewer, was that it?

 

It seems clear that unless  Trump suggested playing a game, or unless DJT was the interviewer and caused Biden to “assert” something, the entire quote and stream of consciousness reveals Biden is a cranky geez who’s mind wanders mid-topic. 

 

I'd chalk it up more as a gaffe than a political position.

 

All the voters know the Dems are going to pack the court once they win the Senate and White House.

[Big Blitz]

12 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

 

 

So do this because you can't win legitimately? 

 

I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. 

 

You people are unhinged.  

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

I'd chalk it up more as a gaffe than a political position.

 

All the voters know the Dems are going to pack the court once they win the Senate and White House.

I'm not so sure. Probably the best class I took in law school was American Legal History. In that class you'd learn what happened to FDR's court packing plan: it put the pressure on the Supreme Court to stop blocking all his New Deal legislation, until Justice Owen Roberts shifted his position in a key case. That led to the quip, "A switch in time saved nine (justices)."

We have a constant jockeying for position among the 3 branches, and when one (or particularly two, when the political branches are controlled by the same party) overreaches another one pushes back.

It is wrong for Biden to say "I won't tell you whether I'd support a court packing plan." But it is fine for him to tweak that a bit to the old "If the Senate marches forward on confirmation, everything is on the table." And I suspect that's what we'll start hearing soon.

[realtruelove]

9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So do this because you can't win legitimately? 

 

I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. 

 

You people are unhinged.  

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

[The Frankish Reich]

19 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

But as with FDR, it isn't the constitution that's stopping anyone from increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. It's legislation, a statute, the Judiciary Act of 1869.

FDR proposed adding a new justice for every sitting justice over 70 years old. 

If Biden and a Democratic House were to do the same, we'd have a new justice added for Breyer (82), Thomas (72) and Alito (70). Maybe they'd say stop at an odd number, so that would mean only 2 more.

There's nothing undemocratic or unconstitutional about it. It does violate tradition, but hey, the filibuster was tradition too.

I hope it doesn't happen because as we've seen with the filibuster, no one knows where this will end. But I do think we need to seriously revise -- through legislation if possible, otherwise through constitutional amendment -- the current life tenure system for Supreme Court justices, which now puts way, way, way too much emphasis on every choice, and results in absurd things like presidents trying to appoint justices with the greatest life expectancy (ACB: 48 years old; life expectancy for a woman of that age is 35 years). The founding fathers likely didn't contemplate Supreme Court justices serving for three and a half decades ....

 

EDIT: a good summary - https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution

We had 5 justices in the early days. And it was hard work, not the type of work a 70 or 87 (RGB) year old was willing to do. You had to "ride circuit" -- in other words, Supreme Court justices spent a good portion of the year hearing cases from one of the lower circuit appellate courts, which could mean Boston or Charleston or (later on) inland locations. Not easy before the days of rail travel. The job is too cushy now. Light case loads, 4 clerks reviewing/writing decisions,  long spells when the Court is out of session and the justices do things like "teach" a summer course in Europe and attend expense paid conferences in Aspen, etc., etc.

Make it hard again, they'll retire earlier.

Edited October 12, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Big Blitz]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

I hope it doesn't happen because as we've seen with the filibuster, no one knows where this will end. 

 

 

People that understand history know exactly how this ends.

 

The damage the Leftist Maoists, the Democrat party, the lockdowns, the unprecedented powers given to governors in light of a super flu and for how long they've done so without any justification or explanation might have already caused irreparable harm we can never recover from. 

 

No one understood this when "15 days" was announced then extended.  Government just doesn't cede you your "freedom" back after seeing all that it can control.  

 

Did you hear Cuomo today?  About WNY and Covid?  You don't say the things they fascists say unless you know just enough useful idiots agree with you.  

 

And wait till the election is decided for Trump in the House 27-23.  The reason neither is saying they won't contest the results is because there are going to be 80 million ballots in the mail and this pending disaster is headed for either SCOTUS or the House no matter what happens.

[Backintheday544]

7 hours ago, realtruelove said:

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

 

Would you please point to the section of the Constitution that says either how many Supreme Court justices there are or that more cannot be added? Thanks!

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So do this because you can't win legitimately? 

 

I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. 

 

You people are unhinged.  

 

They literally would have won the Senate, House and Presidency legitimately for them to pack the Supreme Court.

 

Republicans basically did work on packing the court the second McConnell refused to give advice and consent on Garland.

 

Also none of this Court packing talk happens if Republicans wait until after January to try to get a justice on the Supreme Court like they demanded be done with Garland.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Backintheday544

[Westside]

It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. 

 

Can you picture the meltdown? Lol

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, westside2 said:

It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. 

 

Can you picture the meltdown? Lol

 

How exactly would Trump accomplish that on his own?

On 10/2/2020 at 12:08 AM, Big Blitz said:

Lol yep.  Don't get me wrong.  I want Trump to win and believe he will.  But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats.

 

And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win.  Everyone knew this.  Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election.

 

 

 

Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved.

 

Think about this leftists.  Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years.  

 

We truly saved this country in 2016.  

 

Next time, visit Wisconsin.  

 

Hoax.  The election isn't rigged.  You're just making things up again.  Sad. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

How exactly would Trump accomplish that on his own?

 

Hoax.  The election isn't rigged.  You're just making things up again.  Sad. 

When referring to "rigged" people should really speak about voter fraud and voter suppression.  Voting by those that have no valid citizenship claim to the district or state they are voting in or voting multiple times or actions to suppress or prohibit citizens from casing valid ballots.  The Dems say Reps are vote suppressors and the Reps say the Dems are voter fraudsters.  That I think sums up the playing field here.

 

 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

When referring to "rigged" people should really speak about voter fraud and voter suppression.  Voting by those that have no valid citizenship claim to the district or state they are voting in or voting multiple times or actions to suppress or prohibit citizens from casing valid ballots.  The Dems say Reps are vote suppressors and the Reps say the Dems are voter fraudsters.  That I think sums up the playing field here.

 

 

 

Even this, though perhaps well-intentioned, is misleading.  I am a citizen of the United States of America.  I am a resident of my state, locality, and election district.  To the extent you're suggesting that someone commits "fraud" by voting in the wrong "district," that claim simply is misleading.  Those votes typically are made by affidavit ballot, and the affidavit vote isn't counted if the affiant reported to the wrong polling location.  

[shoshin]

10 hours ago, realtruelove said:

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

 

Congress can change the number of justices. Not a constitutional issue. The tradition of 9 Justices aligns with the number of Circuit Courts of Appeal in the late 1800s. Today there are 11 Circuit Courts of Appeal plus DC and the Federal Circuit. I don't want any change in the number of Justices but there's ample historical justification for 11 at least and 13 at most. Let's hope that the parties playing procedural politics with Justices like doesn't lead to this. 

 

 

[Cinga]

At work so half paying attention through youtube

 

The comments going through whenever a Dem speaks is hilarious!

[section122]

3 hours ago, westside2 said:

It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. 

 

Can you picture the meltdown? Lol

 

If packing the court would make you mad if the dems did it, it should make you mad if the republicans do it....

 

Put differently, if you disagree with an issue it shouldn't matter which side is pushing that issue forward.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Niagara]

3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Republicans basically did work on packing the court the second McConnell refused to give advice and consent on Garland.

When Kennedy demonized a Constitutional scholar Robert Bork, that was it for me. No more Mr. nice guy. The Republicans got to appoint Souter who was a liberal. The Democrats stole that seat. When has a nominee from a Democrat President not been confirmed bc he is too liberal? Garland was pay back for Bork.

[ALF]

14 minutes ago, Niagara said:

When Kennedy demonized a Constitutional scholar Robert Bork, that was it for me. No more Mr. nice guy. The Republicans got to appoint Souter who was a liberal. The Democrats stole that seat. When has a nominee from a Democrat President not been confirmed bc he is too liberal? Garland was pay back for Bork.

 

 After Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his impending retirement, Reagan nominated Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, precipitating a contested Senate debate. Opposition to Bork centered on his stated desire to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. His nomination was defeated in the Senate, with 58 of the 100 Senators opposing his nomination. That Supreme Court vacancy was eventually filled by another Reagan nominee, Anthony Kennedy.

 

David Hackett Souter (/ˈsuːtər/ SOO-tər; born September 17, 1939) is a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from October 1990 to his retirement in June 2009.[2] Appointed by US President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat that had been vacated by William J. Brennan Jr., Souter sat on both the Rehnquist and the Roberts Courts.

 

A Supreme Court Justice should be bipartisan 60 vote to avoid extremists

Edited October 12, 2020 by ALF

[CarpetCrawler]

30 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

If packing the court would make you mad if the dems did it, it should make you mad if the republicans do it....

 

Put differently, if you disagree with an issue it shouldn't matter which side is pushing that issue forward.  

 

I guess you don't know what lol means, lol. Look up definitions of sarcasm and irony.

[Cinga]

27 minutes ago, ALF said:

A Supreme Court Justice should be bipartisan 60 vote to avoid extremists

Honestly I don't care what side of the aisle they fall on as long as they are originalists and only interpret the law as written, not trying to add any hidden meanings

[B-Man]

Democrats delegitimize the Supreme Court
because they fear losing power over the rest of us

Washington Examiner, by Editorial

Original Article

 

“It is a decision of the Supreme Court,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in 2005, speaking about the eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London. “If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken.” This florid reverence for the high court ought not be lost on the reader, especially given where Pelosi and other Democrats find themselves today. As the Senate prepares to confirm President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, they have begun to say outright that the nomination and confirmation procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate.

[Big Blitz]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

 

Hoax.  The election isn't rigged.  You're just making things up again.  Sad. 

 

 

Where have you been the last 7 months?

 

Fyi on Friday we enter month 8 of just "15 days..."

[BillsFanNC]

Gee, ya think?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Cinga]

Anyone else notice each Dem Senator is reading story of someone with health issues, but NONE OF THEM are from their own states? Hirona now is reading about someone in NC but she is Hawaii smdh

 

Talk about out of touch!

Edited October 12, 2020 by Cinga

[Backintheday544]

28 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No one should have a problem with the confirmation of Barrett. She is well qualified for the position. I doubt there would be any pushback from the left of it wasn't for Garland.

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

No one should have a problem with the confirmation of Barrett. She is well qualified for the position. I doubt there would be any pushback from the left of it wasn't for Garland.

 

Nice try.

 

History did NOT start 4 years ago.