Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

...so what say you Chuck The Schmuck?.......obstruct the people's poll as usual and demonstrate your leadership(COUGH)"??.....yet ANOTHER miserable NYS failure in a long list of putz's extraordinaire.....

Majority favor confirming Barrett to Supreme Court, oppose court packing, polls show

Barrett received greater support than Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmations

 
A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by a slim margin.
 
The poll, released Tuesday morning, revealed that 51% of participants said they are in favor of President Trump's latest nominee joining the high court, compared to 46% who are opposed. Just 3% said they do not have an opinion on the matter, the lowest number since Gallup started taking polls on Supreme Court nominees.
 

The poll was taken from Sept. 30 – four days after Trump nominated Barrett – to Oct. 15, the final day of her confirmation hearing.

 

Barrett's 51% approval is higher than both of Trump's previous nominees. Justice Neil Gorsuch received support from 45% of those polled when he was nominated, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh garnered 41%. In both of those situations, far more people stated they had no opinion. For Gorsuch, 23% had no opinion and 32% were opposed, and for Kavanaugh 22% had no opinion and 37% were opposed.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett's nomination on Thursday. The full Senate will then hold a vote on whether to confirm her to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted Monday that he will make sure the process moves forward swiftly.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/polls-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-court-packing

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revealed: ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse

 

People of Praise hire lawyers to investigate historical sexual abuse allegations as former members speak of ‘emotional torment’

Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

 

Wed 21 Oct 2020 05.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 21 Oct 2020 08.52 EDT

  •  
  •  
  •  
Shares
4,122
 
 

Amy Coney Barrett in Washington last month. Some ex-members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood about of People of Praise.  Amy Coney Barrett in Washington last month. Some ex-members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood of People of Praise. Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/Getty Images

Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group.

In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise.

Of course! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

You're mixing up Tibs and Pooj again.

 

 

...my SINCERE apology......too many frauds here to keep track of......set aside individuals(ie Trump) and consider only POLICIES for a moment......is it conceivable that not ONE SINGLE POLICY in the last 3 3/4 years has benefitted the country?.....seriously?....how foolish of me expecting an objective answer......TDS is a disease and the perfect shield to hide behind.....why did the MAJORITY say they are better off today versus 4 years ago?......doesn't the first attack on ACB's religion as an instant disqualifier tell you something?.....

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc said:

Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow?

 

They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her.  Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us."  She should be approved 100-0.  She'll get 52 yeas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her.  Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us."  She should be approved 100-0.  She'll get 52 yeas.

 

Yeah, that I get.  And the principled reason is "they blocked Merrick Garland."  But it's all in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Why does she look bad for asking a Supreme Court nominee to explain her views on major laws?

Because Nancy gets no say in this whatsoever! She’s not a Senator, Hey Nancy....don’t you have some actual work to do today? 

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...