Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right,it's stupid to ask those questions in confimation hearings. Other than this is whatvthey are for.It just goes to show how stupid it is to try to pin a Justice down on how they'll vote on any given subject
And to get their opinion on precedent. Just like every hearing for a scotus judge for the last 50 years. Join us in reality.Which was just another attempt to pin them down on how they'd vote, to give the usual suspects (you know who you are) ammo to shriek and moan about how they lied, it's not fair, reasons and stuff, etc.
Stop. She is a black woman. She was nominated for being black and for being a woman (even if that latter word stumps her). But she was already a judge. She went to a renowned school. She was qualified enough. The question about her confirmation was really about whether or not she’s be hesitant to decide cases based on the law, the evidence and the Constitution. The fact that Brandon focused on her skin color doesn’t mean we should.Racism? How so? All we heard about was her race. That's what she was known for, and it was why she was picked.
And for being qualifiedShe was nominated for being black and for being a woman
So was Kavanaugh, and all the other current Supremes.And for being qualified
The racist pukes always leave that one out.
In order for the judiciary to be independent, justices cannot be pinned down on how they'd vote before a case is even brought to them. If they're not independent, they're political pawns, not an equal branch of government.Right,it's stupid to ask those questions in confimation hearings. Other than this is whatvthey are for.
Asking those questions is stupid, Justices misleading the senate and public is fine.
Your ethical compass is broken.
Hmm, Kavanaugh barely (and also clearly unfit), Barrett no.So was Kavanaugh, and all the other current Supremes.
Haha, you are just spitballing now. Join us in reality. Every Justice nominee has asked about President. That's pretty much half the point of the hearings.In order for the judiciary to be independent, justices cannot be pinned down on how they'd vote before a case is even brought to them. If they're not independent, they're political pawns, not an equal branch of government.
Going gonzo nuts over precedent is just another way of trying to say the court must never reverse or overturn a previous incorrect ruling.And to get their opinion on precedent. Just like every hearing for a scotus judge for the last 50 years. Join us in reality.
wrong liar this is why people like you lose,Hmm, Kavanaugh barely (and also clearly unfit), Barrett no.
I agree Brandon is a racist. He only promised “black” and “female.”And for being qualified
The racist pukes always leave that one out.
Nope, trying to get a nominee to commit to not overturning a Senator's favorite ruling is making him/her a political pawn and is unacceptable. I believe these threads would be very different if every nominee was asked to commit to leaving Heller alone, for just one example.Haha, you are just spitballing now. Join us in reality. Every Justice nominee has asked about President. That's pretty much the point of the hearings.
No, that's a stupid non sequitur that has no bearing on anything, sorry.Going gonzo nuts over precedent is just another way of trying to say the court must never reverse or overturn a previous incorrect ruling.
More irrelevant pap. Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's deceitful comments were not in response to, "How would you vote?"Nope, trying to get a nominee to commit to not overturning a Senator's favorite ruling is making him/her a political pawn and is unacceptable. I believe these threads would be very different if every nominee was asked to commit to leaving Heller alone, for just one example.
There's that whiny, marble-sharp wit that nobody enjoys.I agree Brandon is a racist. He only promised “black” and “female.”
He knew that you ljbtards don’t care about the “qualified” part. He was right.
Reusing your stale old lines to lash out when you’ve been exposed as a useless blood clot again? Poor you.There's that whiny, marble-sharp wit that nobody enjoys.
Haha, I can always send you into an immediate tailspin. Because you are of low intellect.Reusing your stale old lines to lash out when you’ve been exposed as a useless blood clot again? Poor you.
Why else are they worried about precedent? It's ALWAYS in the context of Roe.No, that's a stupid non sequitur that has no bearing on anything, sorry.
The very fact that you guys are going nuts over what you think is them lying about Roe is evidence that the context was indeed how they would vote on Roe. You can't escape that. I don't, for example, see Heller anywhere in there.More irrelevant pap. Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's deceitful comments were not in response to, "How would you vote?"
Right, because the religious right has been trying to pack the court for 50 years with activist judges who will overturn it. Again, your ethical compass is ass backwards. THAT is the reason roe comes up in every confirmation hearing.Why else are they worried about precedent? It's ALWAYS in the context of Roe.
