Amy Barrett Can Be in SCOTUS Next Month if Republicans Have the Balls

[JimBowie1958]

Barrett completely destroys the Democrats' primary tactic of marching out a host of women claiming to have been the sexual crime victim of whatever man is nominated...

They will come up with some kind of slanderous bullshit.

My bet is on racism and homophobia.

 

[easyt65]

Barrett completely destroys the Democrats' primary tactic of marching out a host of women claiming to have been the sexual crime victim of whatever man is nominated...

They will come up with some kind of slanderous bullshit.

My bet is on racism and homophobia.

Back in 2016, people should remember, hacked DNC e-mails were leaked, exposing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic from the Left's leaders.

Of course they will (and do) project what they have done and who they are onto their opponents...

 

[Issa]

At this rate trump will re commend his sister for the job.

 

[easyt65]

Just to F* with Democrats and throw them off balance, Trump should release his nominee Short List on Monday with the name at the top of the list being BARAK OBAMA, followed by Barrett.

BWUHAHAHAHA

 

[Slade3200]

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

She is brilliant. She graduated magna cum laude undergrad and first in Law School class. She is considered one of the best legal minds in the Country.

Ive been reading up on her. She does sound smart and I haven’t seen glaring objectionable Areas. She does however seem very light in experience. I’m not seeing the credentials you speak of. Good education, clerked for Scalia, taught law in college, served as judge in the appellate court since 2017. That’s not a very long time and feels like a pretty light resume for SCOTUS. You don’t think so?

A much better resume than Kagan who never got passed academia after clerking.

.

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General of the USA and also dean of Harvard law school. You don’t think that’s noteworthy?

Zero experience as a judge, you don't think that's noteworthy?

.

Yes it is. Just be complete. You didn’t paint her accurately

Really, why don't you present all of Kagan's accomplishments in any of her positions, well other than eliminating Con-law to get a Harvard law degree.

.

Why? Just go read her bio page... list her accomplishments while in those positions?! What kind of shitty question is that?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Donald and McTurtle won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett. Too many close races dude .. I can count 4 or 5 Rs right now who would't dare confirm ANYONE. Two have already said NO WAY.

won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett.

Has there ever been a Republican Supreme Court nominee you people did not smear or resist? The American people expect that from your side. Looks like this time your side is going to not only smear but add more violence in the streets.

 

[wamose]

If she is truly guided by our constitution, as she appears to be, then I'm all for her. MAGA

 

[2aguy]

There is a secondary reason for ramming this through immediately, and it is a very important reason. Nominating a conservative, and then confirming them prior to election, will drive stake through heart of fascist base, who will collectively give up the evil fight they have waged.... many of them will not even vote.

I actually think it’s going to help Trump not hurt him

Especially if the joe biden rioters tick up the batshit crazy like they did during the Kavanaugh hearings.......Conservatives and normal people were outraged by what they did to that man, but the effect of that rage was diminished because 1) he did get confirmed and 2) the election was too far away from the bat shit crazy behavior of the democrats......

Neither case it true here.........the nomination will be close, the joe biden voters will be insane, and the election is right here, not months away.....

What Mitch did to Garland was wrong and to rush this pick through doubles down on the wrong, he should be removed from office if that’s what he does. That said Trump has the right to nominate as did Obama. The classy move would be to wait, but Trump isn’t classy. If the Dems were smart they would acknowledge Trumps right to make the pick, cry foul at the hypocrisy of McConnell, but get the process done as quickly as possible because if they drag it out it will re-elect Trump.

You fascists continually misrepresent what took place with Garland, which was this, Obama possessed 38% approval rating 9 months out from election, and the republicans controlled both senate and house of reps. No opposition party president absent his own party controlling the senate, had achieved a scotus nomination/confirmation since the 1880's, and Obama was what? Oh a democrat! ! Last I checked, Trump is president at least until January 20th, and the senate(body that confirms scotus nominees)is republican, same as the president!

Obama did his job by nominating a judge. The Senate did their job by advising not to take it up. Two separate branches of government, something the idiotic left can't understand.

Where does it say that it is Congresses job to advise to not take it up? Can you show me?

The Constitution says advise and consent, not "rubber stamp," and it does not detail how the Senate advises and consents...that is left up to the Senate to decide.

 

[2aguy]

Barrett completely destroys the Democrats' primary tactic of marching out a host of women claiming to have been the sexual crime victim of whatever man is nominated...

You would think......but wait for all the young male interns who will now come out of the woodwork and say she harrassed them............the democrats will do and say anything for power....and they really, really hate conservative women....

 

[2aguy]

Donald and McTurtle won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett. Too many close races dude .. I can count 4 or 5 Rs right now who would't dare confirm ANYONE. Two have already said NO WAY.

won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett.

Has there ever been a Republican Supreme Court nominee you people did not smear or resist? The American people expect that from your side. Looks like this time your side is going to not only smear but add more violence in the streets.

The republicans put Ruth Bader ginsburg on the bench even knowing what a vile left wing hack she was....the vote was 93-3.......the democrats, by contrast, will destroy any conservative judge who tries to become a Justice.........they are vile and need to be stopped.....

 

[OKTexas]

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

She is brilliant. She graduated magna cum laude undergrad and first in Law School class. She is considered one of the best legal minds in the Country.

Ive been reading up on her. She does sound smart and I haven’t seen glaring objectionable Areas. She does however seem very light in experience. I’m not seeing the credentials you speak of. Good education, clerked for Scalia, taught law in college, served as judge in the appellate court since 2017. That’s not a very long time and feels like a pretty light resume for SCOTUS. You don’t think so?

A much better resume than Kagan who never got passed academia after clerking.

.

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General of the USA and also dean of Harvard law school. You don’t think that’s noteworthy?

Zero experience as a judge, you don't think that's noteworthy?

.

Yes it is. Just be complete. You didn’t paint her accurately

Really, why don't you present all of Kagan's accomplishments in any of her positions, well other than eliminating Con-law to get a Harvard law degree.

.

Why? Just go read her bio page... list her accomplishments while in those positions?! What kind of shitty question is that?

So you've got nothing, got it. BTW I've read her bio, it was unimpressive. There are likely thousands of people who served on State and district courtships that are more qualified.

.

 

[Slade3200]

There is a secondary reason for ramming this through immediately, and it is a very important reason. Nominating a conservative, and then confirming them prior to election, will drive stake through heart of fascist base, who will collectively give up the evil fight they have waged.... many of them will not even vote.

I actually think it’s going to help Trump not hurt him

Especially if the joe biden rioters tick up the batshit crazy like they did during the Kavanaugh hearings.......Conservatives and normal people were outraged by what they did to that man, but the effect of that rage was diminished because 1) he did get confirmed and 2) the election was too far away from the bat shit crazy behavior of the democrats......

Neither case it true here.........the nomination will be close, the joe biden voters will be insane, and the election is right here, not months away.....

What Mitch did to Garland was wrong and to rush this pick through doubles down on the wrong, he should be removed from office if that’s what he does. That said Trump has the right to nominate as did Obama. The classy move would be to wait, but Trump isn’t classy. If the Dems were smart they would acknowledge Trumps right to make the pick, cry foul at the hypocrisy of McConnell, but get the process done as quickly as possible because if they drag it out it will re-elect Trump.

You fascists continually misrepresent what took place with Garland, which was this, Obama possessed 38% approval rating 9 months out from election, and the republicans controlled both senate and house of reps. No opposition party president absent his own party controlling the senate, had achieved a scotus nomination/confirmation since the 1880's, and Obama was what? Oh a democrat! ! Last I checked, Trump is president at least until January 20th, and the senate(body that confirms scotus nominees)is republican, same as the president!

Obama did his job by nominating a judge. The Senate did their job by advising not to take it up. Two separate branches of government, something the idiotic left can't understand.

Where does it say that it is Congresses job to advise to not take it up? Can you show me?

The Constitution says advise and consent, not "rubber stamp," and it does not detail how the Senate advises and consents...that is left up to the Senate to decide.

Yes, the process is not outlined in detail. But if the Dems blocked a Republican pick for 9 months for an “election year” reason and then ignored that same reason to push their candidate through two months out you’d be throwing a fit right now and pointing to this same part of the constitution to show their abuse. You know it and I know it.

 

[Slade3200]

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

She is brilliant. She graduated magna cum laude undergrad and first in Law School class. She is considered one of the best legal minds in the Country.

Ive been reading up on her. She does sound smart and I haven’t seen glaring objectionable Areas. She does however seem very light in experience. I’m not seeing the credentials you speak of. Good education, clerked for Scalia, taught law in college, served as judge in the appellate court since 2017. That’s not a very long time and feels like a pretty light resume for SCOTUS. You don’t think so?

A much better resume than Kagan who never got passed academia after clerking.

.

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General of the USA and also dean of Harvard law school. You don’t think that’s noteworthy?

Zero experience as a judge, you don't think that's noteworthy?

.

Yes it is. Just be complete. You didn’t paint her accurately

Really, why don't you present all of Kagan's accomplishments in any of her positions, well other than eliminating Con-law to get a Harvard law degree.

.

Why? Just go read her bio page... list her accomplishments while in those positions?! What kind of shitty question is that?

So you've got nothing, got it. BTW I've read her bio, it was unimpressive. There are likely thousands of people who served on State and district courtships that are more qualified.

.

There are likely? Shut up man you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, you’re playing troll games. You’re trying to distract from the conversation about Barrett... who I might add, so far I’d like as a pick.

 

[OKTexas]

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

She is brilliant. She graduated magna cum laude undergrad and first in Law School class. She is considered one of the best legal minds in the Country.

Ive been reading up on her. She does sound smart and I haven’t seen glaring objectionable Areas. She does however seem very light in experience. I’m not seeing the credentials you speak of. Good education, clerked for Scalia, taught law in college, served as judge in the appellate court since 2017. That’s not a very long time and feels like a pretty light resume for SCOTUS. You don’t think so?

A much better resume than Kagan who never got passed academia after clerking.

.

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General of the USA and also dean of Harvard law school. You don’t think that’s noteworthy?

Zero experience as a judge, you don't think that's noteworthy?

.

Yes it is. Just be complete. You didn’t paint her accurately

Really, why don't you present all of Kagan's accomplishments in any of her positions, well other than eliminating Con-law to get a Harvard law degree.

.

Why? Just go read her bio page... list her accomplishments while in those positions?! What kind of shitty question is that?

So you've got nothing, got it. BTW I've read her bio, it was unimpressive. There are likely thousands of people who served on State and district courtships that are more qualified.

.

There are likely? Shut up man you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, you’re playing troll games. You’re trying to distract from the conversation about Barrett... who I might add, so far I’d like as a pick.

Poor little thing, you're the one that brought up qualifications. Pointing out that Barrett is vastly more qualified than maobama's last appointment is in line with the topic you brought up. The fact that Kagan never served on so much as a traffic court judge, while Barrett has 3 years on a US Court of Appeals is in line with the qualifications discussion you launched.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

Any Barrett is my choice. She has outstanding credentials. I wonder how many fake people the Dims will try to trot out and try to destroy her?

What about her credentials do you like?

She is brilliant. She graduated magna cum laude undergrad and first in Law School class. She is considered one of the best legal minds in the Country.

Ive been reading up on her. She does sound smart and I haven’t seen glaring objectionable Areas. She does however seem very light in experience. I’m not seeing the credentials you speak of. Good education, clerked for Scalia, taught law in college, served as judge in the appellate court since 2017. That’s not a very long time and feels like a pretty light resume for SCOTUS. You don’t think so?

A much better resume than Kagan who never got passed academia after clerking.

.

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General of the USA and also dean of Harvard law school. You don’t think that’s noteworthy?

Zero experience as a judge, you don't think that's noteworthy?

.

Yes it is. Just be complete. You didn’t paint her accurately

Really, why don't you present all of Kagan's accomplishments in any of her positions, well other than eliminating Con-law to get a Harvard law degree.

.

Why? Just go read her bio page... list her accomplishments while in those positions?! What kind of shitty question is that?

So you've got nothing, got it. BTW I've read her bio, it was unimpressive. There are likely thousands of people who served on State and district courtships that are more qualified.

.

There are likely? Shut up man you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, you’re playing troll games. You’re trying to distract from the conversation about Barrett... who I might add, so far I’d like as a pick.

Poor little thing, you're the one that brought up qualifications. Pointing out that Barrett is vastly more qualified than maobama's last appointment is in line with the topic you brought up. The fact that Kagan never served on so much as a traffic court judge, while Barrett has 3 years on a US Court of Appeals is in line with the qualifications discussion you launched.

.

Barrett’s experience is a weak point. Instead of addressing her experience you diverted to Kagan and then failed to accurately present her experience. So you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you aren’t having an honest conversation.

 

[DrLove]

Donald and McTurtle won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett. Too many close races dude .. I can count 4 or 5 Rs right now who would't dare confirm ANYONE. Two have already said NO WAY.

won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett.

Has there ever been a Republican Supreme Court nominee you people did not smear or resist? The American people expect that from your side. Looks like this time your side is going to not only smear but add more violence in the streets.

The republicans put Ruth Bader ginsburg on the bench even knowing what a vile left wing hack she was....the vote was 93-3.......the democrats, by contrast, will destroy any conservative judge who tries to become a Justice.........they are vile and need to be stopped.....

You clown, Scalia was confirmed 98-ZIP. Kindly stop lying about lib-rul destruction of conservative judges. Ya think maybe things have changed just a tad since 1986, and ya think maybe Trump isn't responsible in a bigly way for the hyper-division we see in today's political discourse?

 

[DrLove]

Donald and McTurtle won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett. Too many close races dude .. I can count 4 or 5 Rs right now who would't dare confirm ANYONE. Two have already said NO WAY.

won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett.

Has there ever been a Republican Supreme Court nominee you people did not smear or resist? The American people expect that from your side. Looks like this time your side is going to not only smear but add more violence in the streets.

Scalia was confirmed 98-ZERO. Cut it with the lying. You Trumpettes are just embarrassing yourselves.

 

[JWBooth]

Thanks to Reid, no filibuster.
53-47 party line vote.
50-50 minus Romney, Collins, Murkowski.
Pence comes in, 51-50.

Now can Trump crack the whip hard enough.

What about "the American people deserve a choice"?

Or are you saying that republicans are just lying, hypocritical, shit-bags?

Sure they are, just as much as their dimocrap colleagues with only half the guile

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Biden says APPOINT SOMEONE NOW!

TikTok - Make Your Day

TikTok - trends start here. On a device or on the web, viewers can watch and discover millions of personalized short videos. Download the app to get started.

vm.tiktok.com

 

[2aguy]

Donald and McTurtle won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett. Too many close races dude .. I can count 4 or 5 Rs right now who would't dare confirm ANYONE. Two have already said NO WAY.

won't get 53 votes and especially on a loon like Barrett.

Has there ever been a Republican Supreme Court nominee you people did not smear or resist? The American people expect that from your side. Looks like this time your side is going to not only smear but add more violence in the streets.

The republicans put Ruth Bader ginsburg on the bench even knowing what a vile left wing hack she was....the vote was 93-3.......the democrats, by contrast, will destroy any conservative judge who tries to become a Justice.........they are vile and need to be stopped.....

You clown, Scalia was confirmed 98-ZIP. Kindly stop lying about lib-rul destruction of conservative judges. Ya think maybe things have changed just a tad since 1986, and ya think maybe Trump isn't responsible in a bigly way for the hyper-division we see in today's political discourse?

No, Trump isn't. The democrats went nuts, not Trump or his supporters....you morons started the Russia Hoax with hilary and the democrats, using fake Russian stories from Russian sources to get illegal FISA warrants, you guys are trying to destroy General Flynn when the FBI agents stated he did not lie...

This is on you.....