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.
I like the chick. Seems to be the most Conservative.
If that asshole Obama got to appoint those two extreme far Left shithead dingbats then Trump need to counter with a good solid Conservatives.
Other.
Have my favorite but that matters nothing as it ain’t my call. I simply trust my president to pick a solid conservative who while help keep America the bastion of freedom and liberty our founders intended. And if that jerks the lefties around a bit in coming decades that’s life. Elections have consequences as a not very bright former president once said.
Watching the Leftists maul a Christian woman who has just recently been confirmed 55-43 right before the election would rile up the conservative voting base BIGLY. Watching Leftists demonize 70 million U.S. Catholics right before the election would be YUGE.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 31, by a 55-43 vote. Three Democrats voted for her and two did not vote. It would not be easy to justify changing their votes now, as she has served unexceptionably. At her confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s aged ranking Democrat, asked Barrett about her religious views, and the nominee responded that no judge should allow personal views, whether based on faith or anything else, to influence the imposition of the law. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern,” Feinstein said infamously. This was an outrageous comment; Feinstein doesn’t know anything about the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, and she has no idea what privately motivates Judge Barrett.
Nominating Amy Barrett Would Be Political Genius - American Greatness
A conservative woman on SCOTUS would solve many of our political issues. I believe many more women will vote for conservative issues because of her appointment. However, the two men are equally qualified;
Hate to be the one to break astounding news y'all but a SCOTUS judge ain't supposed to look after "conservative" interests, "left" interests, "right" interests or any kind of "religious" interests. They're supposed to enforce the Constitution.
Y'all demonstrated the shortcomings of civics classes, or lack thereof. And/or the pitfalls of partisan hackery.
Those shithead dingbat asshole Moon Bat bitches that Obama appointed sure as hell looks after Libtard interest.
Where were those bitches when they were basing immigration "law: on what Trump said as a candidate rather than what the law really said? The law was nowhere to be found. Just partisan bias.
Quit your bitching. If Obama gets to appoint extreme far Left Moon Bats then Trump can counter that stupidity by appointing Conservatives. Elections have consequences. Probably the main reason why Trump got elected was the potential for multiple Supreme Court replacements.
You didn't address the point at all. If anything you just confirmed it.
I addressed it real well Moon Bats. You just didn't want to accept the truth.
You don't get to apply the standard of appointing judges that will uphold the law when there are Republicans and then get to appoint Left Wing partisan assholes when the Democrats are in power.
Where were you when that asshole Obama appointed those two partisan Moon Bats shitheads who wouldn't know the law if it was engraved on their foreheads.
Maybe Trump would have to go look for very Conservative judges as a counter deterrence if there weren't those for Left Wing assholes on the bench.
It is NEVER like a job. Do you know the airborne expect 7 to 10% of each jump to have those numbers of injuries to the paratroopers. I was on an exercise when 6 or 7 paratroopers were killed by high winds. No other job description has: to kill or capture the enemy and destroy his equipment and material. IOW, we and our opponents were trained daily to mess each other up big time, and the training was tough, dirty, bad. And a lot of it was real fun!Nope. It is America's commitment to take care of those who served.Becareful on what you wish for. If they go after medicare they will go after your welfare.Are any of them particularly against medicare? I want them, so that red state populations will vanish.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
Medicare is not welfare. The VA healthcare is though unless wounded in battle.
They if not wounded in the war, can get on other health insurance. It like a job now, unless we have a war. I'm not buying it that we need to police the world, playing war games.
She, with the other female justices, would bring a sensitivity to the law the men do not have naturally or sociologically.A conservative woman on SCOTUS would solve many of our political issues. I believe many more women will vote for conservative issues because of her appointment. However, the two men are equally qualified;
An added bonus is that women generally live longer than men and she's only 46. She'd be a sane voice on the bench for a long time. With seven kids, 5 hers, one with special needs and two Haitian adoptees, she has a vested interest in saving this country from the constitution-hating leftists.
Opinion | Amy Coney Barrett is a superb judge, not glazed-eyed cultist
It is NEVER like a job. Do you know the airborne expect 7 to 10% of each jump to have those numbers of injuries to the paratroopers. I was on an exercise when 6 or 7 paratroopers were killed by high winds. No other job description has: to kill or capture the enemy and destroy his equipment and material. IOW, we and our opponents were trained daily to mess each other up big time, and the training was tough, dirty, bad. And a lot of it was real fun!Nope. It is America's commitment to take care of those who served.Becareful on what you wish for. If they go after medicare they will go after your welfare.Are any of them particularly against medicare? I want them, so that red state populations will vanish.
Medicare is not welfare. The VA healthcare is though unless wounded in battle.
They if not wounded in the war, can get on other health insurance. It like a job now, unless we have a war. I'm not buying it that we need to police the world, playing war games.
Penelope, you need to think clearly just about what the military does.
It is effing dangerous.
Not how it is, and not how it will be. Get used to it, because (1) you are wrong in your thinking, and (2) the great number of Americans disagree with you, and more importantly (3) Congress will turn its back on that thinking.It is NEVER like a job. Do you know the airborne expect 7 to 10% of each jump to have those numbers of injuries to the paratroopers. I was on an exercise when 6 or 7 paratroopers were killed by high winds. No other job description has: to kill or capture the enemy and destroy his equipment and material. IOW, we and our opponents were trained daily to mess each other up big time, and the training was tough, dirty, bad. And a lot of it was real fun!Nope. It is America's commitment to take care of those who served.Becareful on what you wish for. If they go after medicare they will go after your welfare.
Medicare is not welfare. The VA healthcare is though unless wounded in battle.
They if not wounded in the war, can get on other health insurance. It like a job now, unless we have a war. I'm not buying it that we need to police the world, playing war games.
Penelope, you need to think clearly just about what the military does.
It is effing dangerous.
Yes I know what it does. We fought wars in Iraq for Israel and SA, and now they want us to take out Iran. Israel also wanted us to fight in Syria. We are not in a declared war and are not being attacked, except our elections and we should not be interfering in other countries elections either. I am all for those wounded in battle to get health care , and acute care and rehab, but then it needs to be taken care of via disability or if able the need to work or be on Medicaid.
I wish you would reference something specific so that we don't have to dismiss your assertion out of hand...In the case of a corporation vs a worker hopefully the new pick wouldn't immediately rule in favor of the corporation but if course money talks and workers are horrible compared to the wonderful corporation.
Um . . . Sahba we have learned to dismiss your assertions, without good evidence, out of hand. Follow your own advice.I wish you would reference something specific so that we don't have to dismiss your assertion out of hand...In the case of a corporation vs a worker hopefully the new pick wouldn't immediately rule in favor of the corporation but if course money talks and workers are horrible compared to the wonderful corporation.
Gorsuch turned out to be more swing-voter like Kennedy than Trump thought he would be.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
Tell ya what Starkey, I'll just follow your stellar lead on this... lolUm . . . Sahba we have learned to dismiss your assertions, without good evidence, out of hand. Follow your own advice.I wish you would reference something specific so that we don't have to dismiss your assertion out of hand...In the case of a corporation vs a worker hopefully the new pick wouldn't immediately rule in favor of the corporation but if course money talks and workers are horrible compared to the wonderful corporation.
As well you should.Tell ya what Starkey, I'll just follow your stellar lead on this... lolUm . . . Sahba we have learned to dismiss your assertions, without good evidence, out of hand. Follow your own advice.I wish you would reference something specific so that we don't have to dismiss your assertion out of hand...In the case of a corporation vs a worker hopefully the new pick wouldn't immediately rule in favor of the corporation but if course money talks and workers are horrible compared to the wonderful corporation.
Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
Slavery and abortion were once considered established law. Only strict Constitutionalists should be allowed on the SC.I don't know much about Kavinauch... could you expound on why he is the least objectionable?Kav is the only choice I can stomach and if Trump puts him up.. the Dems should grill him and pin him down but ultimately approve him.Strategically, who should get the nod and for what reason?
The Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by Better Medicare Alliance — Anticipation builds for Trump’s SCOTUS pick
A bit more moderate, unlikely to overturn established law. More judicial, less political.
