Amy Coney Barrett's America

[Papageorgio]

"So that’s that then. The confirmation hearings are over and it is almost inevitable that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed as a supreme court justice before the November election. Barrett will shift the supreme court from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 6-3 super-majority, a move that could fundamentally reshape America. Goodbye civil rights, hello Gilead.

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans really; they get things done. They don’t care about being called hypocrites. They don’t care about ignoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced until after the election. They don’t care about common decency. They don’t care about democracy. They just care about power – and they will do whatever it takes to get it."

Goodbye civil rights: Amy Coney Barrett's America is a terrifying place | Arwa Mahdawi

With her confirmation all but inevitable, how bad will Barrett be? It’s hard to say for sure – but it doesn’t look good

www.theguardian.com

No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.

let's pack the court later....ya didn't wanna listen and wait till the new president is elected. Don't cry later.

FDR, with the House and Senate being Democratic, tried to pack the court to gain an advantage and public opinion, strongly Democrats, stopped him. Lots of things you can think of doing but lots of things may fail to happen because public opinion is against packing the court. Everything has a reaction, good or bad.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election. I'm also certain that most of Americans would like to pack the court to balance it and not leave it 6-3 as cons want to.

You would be wrong, only 38% of Americans are in favor of Trump replacing Ginsberg, not anywhere near your 100% sure number. Replacing a Supreme Court justice been done many times during an election year and given the chance, the Democrats would have done the same.

Only 32% of Americans are in favor of packing the Supreme Court, so on both counts you are wrong. Nice to know your ideas are a minority opinion. Got anything else you are sure about?

Americans Support Delaying Ginsburg Replacement But Oppose Court Packing, Poll Finds

Just 38% of Americans think Trump should pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor.

www.forbes.com

Read again I said I'm 100%most americans ...you need glasses. That been said "57% who believe her successor should be appointed and confirmed by next year’s Senate and president"

So, you are half right, my apologies. Americans are against packing the courts. It has been tried and the fear of the negative effects have kept the issue at bay. Logic will prevail.

 

[Issa]

"So that’s that then. The confirmation hearings are over and it is almost inevitable that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed as a supreme court justice before the November election. Barrett will shift the supreme court from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 6-3 super-majority, a move that could fundamentally reshape America. Goodbye civil rights, hello Gilead.

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans really; they get things done. They don’t care about being called hypocrites. They don’t care about ignoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced until after the election. They don’t care about common decency. They don’t care about democracy. They just care about power – and they will do whatever it takes to get it."

Goodbye civil rights: Amy Coney Barrett's America is a terrifying place | Arwa Mahdawi

With her confirmation all but inevitable, how bad will Barrett be? It’s hard to say for sure – but it doesn’t look good

www.theguardian.com

No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.

let's pack the court later....ya didn't wanna listen and wait till the new president is elected. Don't cry later.

FDR, with the House and Senate being Democratic, tried to pack the court to gain an advantage and public opinion, strongly Democrats, stopped him. Lots of things you can think of doing but lots of things may fail to happen because public opinion is against packing the court. Everything has a reaction, good or bad.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election. I'm also certain that most of Americans would like to pack the court to balance it and not leave it 6-3 as cons want to.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election.

Why?

57% who believe her successor should be appointed and confirmed by next year’s Senate and presiden

The Constitution gives the current senate the right to confirm or reject the nominee. The Republicans are in control of the Senate and the Presidency and we damn well know that if the situation were reversed that the Democrats would do the exact same thing and I’m in full agreement. Each party feels that their ideas on how to run the country are superior to the other party. So, if you deep down inside felt America would be better off with appointing a nominee from your side of the aisle, then you have an obligation to get that nominee before the Senate. Polling on fair or not fair is useless and a stupid way to run a country.

Cool and I don't wanna hear any cries when the democrats pack the court. Serves the cons right.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Thank you Harry Reid!

 

[RealDave]

If she gave a shit about the Constitution, she would refuse to be considered citing the Republicans' actions on Garland.

Republican actions were perfectly consistent with the Constitution.

In 2020 not 2016. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

View attachment 403891

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader. The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader.

Ummmm.....just how do you think business gets done in the Senate?

The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold a vote, a hearing, a discussion?

"The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"

"The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"

Thanks for admitting your error.

The Senate never advised. You're wrong & trying to defernd your party's cheating.

 

[hadit]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

Evidence?

 

[hadit]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

Evidence?

 

[hadit]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex cult, an oath to be a sex slave? Where do you get this shit?

It's the narrative. They're told that a cult somewhere did something like that and somehow that means she did it too. Logic, fact and reason need not apply.

 

[hadit]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex cult, an oath to be a sex slave? Where do you get this shit?

She is in some right-wing "religious" cult. It's not a secret anymore. It is highly sexist and misogynist. Women are required to worship the males and "obey." It's pretty sick.

Hmmm, you mean like the vows literally millions of women have happily taken over centuries? Please do post the wording of this vow she took. It should be very interesting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If she gave a shit about the Constitution, she would refuse to be considered citing the Republicans' actions on Garland.

Republican actions were perfectly consistent with the Constitution.

In 2020 not 2016. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

View attachment 403891

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader. The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader.

Ummmm.....just how do you think business gets done in the Senate?

The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold a vote, a hearing, a discussion?

"The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"

"The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"

Thanks for admitting your error.

The Senate never advised. You're wrong & trying to defernd your party's cheating.

The Senate never advised.

The Senate decided not to move forward with the nomination.

 

[hadit]

Actually, civil rights will still be intact. This is the old fear mongering scenario to muck up reality.
She's a Constitutionalist, probably won't be legislating law, but interpreting the law. Unlike,
the liberal justices Kagen and Sotomayor.

Actually. No.

Take this case in which as an appellate judge she made a questionable ruling establishing a highly questionable standard of justice.

Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of “unconscionable cruelty” in teen rape case | News Break

Barrett decided to overturn a $6.7M jury award to a teen allegedly raped in a jail run by ex-Sheriff David Clarke. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court...

www.newsbreak.com

Now. A Prison Guard raped an inmate. The inmate was powerless to resist, and in fact under the Law was a Ward of the State/County managing the facility. The Guard was finally caught and prosecuted. However the jury verdict in the lawsuit was overturned by among others Ms. Bennett.

The rational was that the rape of this woman was not in the job description of the guard. In other words you can’t hold the County liable for the actions of the guard because they did not tell him to do it.

This invalidates literally centuries of principles. If I hire you to do a job as an employee. I am responsible for insuring you are doing it properly and right. If I hire you to drive a Truck. I am responsible for making sure you as my agent or employee are following the laws and regulations. If you drive for twenty hour straight and fall asleep behind the wheel and wipe out a family in an accident. I am liable. I can’t say I never told him to do that. You can’t blame me.

What happened here is that exact thing. Nobody told him to rape an inmate. So you can’t hold the County liable. It completely ignores the inherent responsibility of the employer to supervise and manage employees.

One of your civil rights is the right to sue for just compensation for wrongs. That Civil Right has already been harmed. The question is will that harm be irrevocable or temporary? If appointed to the Supreme Court that harm may be irrevocable.

It encourages employers, especially public service employers to abdicate the responsibilities they have always been expected to exercise. If this stands than your ability to get compensation for wrongs will be determined by what the employer told the employee to do. I never told him to do that will be a get out of jail free card. Every supervisor would be encouraged to become Sergeant Shultz from Hogans Heroes. I see nothing. I hear nothing. I know nothing.

From what I read, she and the other two judges interpreted the law that they had. Perhaps, the law needs to be changed, but, that's not under her purview.
Obviously, a new law needs to be legislated, but not from the bench. I stand behind my prior post.

This is the way the courts are supposed to work. If a law is badly written, it is not up to them to rewrite it.

 

[hadit]

In Amy Coney Barrett's America we’ll witness the balkanization of citizens’ rights and protected liberties – where governments’ recognition of those rights will depend on one’s state of residence.

Channeling Ted Kennedy much?

 

[hadit]

Actually, civil rights will still be intact. This is the old fear mongering scenario to muck up reality.
She's a Constitutionalist, probably won't be legislating law, but interpreting the law. Unlike,
the liberal justices Kagen and Sotomayor.

If she gave a shit about the Constitution, she would refuse to be considered citing the Republicans' actions on Garland.

Nope. That wasn't Unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't dictate when a justice needs to be considered for the bench. It might not have been smart for them to hold off, but it wasn't unconstitutional.

 

[hadit]

Amy Coney Barrett's America, where conservative judges and justices are tyrants in black robes, legislating from the bench, ignoring the will of the people.

Will we hear the same condemnations from the hypocritical right? Likely not.

Just be sure to tell us when they do that, and provide the legal reasoning that demonstrates that's what they did.

 

[hadit]

In Amy Coney Barrett's America, Americans with disabilities and pre-existing conditions live in fear.

Judge Barrett's view of Obamacare stirs fear among disabled Americans | CNN

Rebecca Cokley writes that Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court has struck fear in the hearts of families like hers -- with parents and children whose disabilities make them heavily reliant on the Affordable Care Act. She says with Barrett on the Court, everything and everyone...

www.cnn.com

If obamadon'tcare is unconstitutional, it is incumbent on Congress to rewrite it so it is. It is not on the court to look at it, find it unconstitutional, and say, "Never mind, the liberals really like this, so we'll leave it alone".

 

[hadit]

"So that’s that then. The confirmation hearings are over and it is almost inevitable that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed as a supreme court justice before the November election. Barrett will shift the supreme court from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 6-3 super-majority, a move that could fundamentally reshape America. Goodbye civil rights, hello Gilead.

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans really; they get things done. They don’t care about being called hypocrites. They don’t care about ignoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced until after the election. They don’t care about common decency. They don’t care about democracy. They just care about power – and they will do whatever it takes to get it."

Goodbye civil rights: Amy Coney Barrett's America is a terrifying place | Arwa Mahdawi

With her confirmation all but inevitable, how bad will Barrett be? It’s hard to say for sure – but it doesn’t look good

www.theguardian.com

No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.

let's pack the court later....ya didn't wanna listen and wait till the new president is elected. Don't cry later.

FDR, with the House and Senate being Democratic, tried to pack the court to gain an advantage and public opinion, strongly Democrats, stopped him. Lots of things you can think of doing but lots of things may fail to happen because public opinion is against packing the court. Everything has a reaction, good or bad.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election. I'm also certain that most of Americans would like to pack the court to balance it and not leave it 6-3 as cons want to.

There are a lot of things most Americans want that they don't get. Dictating how the Supreme Court acts and who is on it is one of those things.

 

[hadit]

If she gave a shit about the Constitution, she would refuse to be considered citing the Republicans' actions on Garland.

Republican actions were perfectly consistent with the Constitution.

In 2020 not 2016. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate majority leader gets to decide if the nominee gets consideration?

View attachment 403891

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader. The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Thanks for proving my point. It says Senate, not the Senate majority leader.

Ummmm.....just how do you think business gets done in the Senate?

The Senate never considered Garland, there was no vote, no committee hearing, no discussion.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate has to hold a vote, a hearing, a discussion?

So, you think the Constitution was written to give so much power to a persion not elected in a country wiude election? The majority leader is not the Senate.

Senate rules give him the power to dictate what the Senate votes on. Don't you remember Harry Reid sitting on a bunch of legislation he didn't want to see the light of day? They do it all the time, and if you don't like it, lobby them to change the rules.

 

[Lysistrata]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex cult, an oath to be a sex slave? Where do you get this shit?

She is in some right-wing "religious" cult. It's not a secret anymore. It is highly sexist and misogynist. Women are required to worship the males and "obey." It's pretty sick.

Hmmm, you mean like the vows literally millions of women have happily taken over centuries? Please do post the wording of this vow she took. It should be very interesting.

Women sometimes have entered the cults voluntarily in modern times, but many have been forced into cults over centuries and even forced into "marriages" in which they have been compelled to take a vow to obey a penis without being presented with an alternative. How do you know to use the word "happily" when many have lived and many still live in societies in which this is forced on them? Barrett can take any vow in her cult and arrange her personal life around it, but she is being put into a position in which she could force her views on unsuspecting people, thus denying these people of their liberty.

BTW: I just read this morning that she was on the board of directors of cult schools that discriminate against LGBTs and their children.

There are hundreds of qualified candidates for the US Supreme Court who do not have this baggage and who would warrant the trust of all Americans.

 

[hadit]

"So that’s that then. The confirmation hearings are over and it is almost inevitable that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed as a supreme court justice before the November election. Barrett will shift the supreme court from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 6-3 super-majority, a move that could fundamentally reshape America. Goodbye civil rights, hello Gilead.

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans really; they get things done. They don’t care about being called hypocrites. They don’t care about ignoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced until after the election. They don’t care about common decency. They don’t care about democracy. They just care about power – and they will do whatever it takes to get it."

Goodbye civil rights: Amy Coney Barrett's America is a terrifying place | Arwa Mahdawi

With her confirmation all but inevitable, how bad will Barrett be? It’s hard to say for sure – but it doesn’t look good

www.theguardian.com

No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.

let's pack the court later....ya didn't wanna listen and wait till the new president is elected. Don't cry later.

FDR, with the House and Senate being Democratic, tried to pack the court to gain an advantage and public opinion, strongly Democrats, stopped him. Lots of things you can think of doing but lots of things may fail to happen because public opinion is against packing the court. Everything has a reaction, good or bad.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election. I'm also certain that most of Americans would like to pack the court to balance it and not leave it 6-3 as cons want to.

I'm 100% sure that most Americans against appointing a supreme court judge days from a major election.

Why?

57% who believe her successor should be appointed and confirmed by next year’s Senate and presiden

The Constitution gives the current senate the right to confirm or reject the nominee. The Republicans are in control of the Senate and the Presidency and we damn well know that if the situation were reversed that the Democrats would do the exact same thing and I’m in full agreement. Each party feels that their ideas on how to run the country are superior to the other party. So, if you deep down inside felt America would be better off with appointing a nominee from your side of the aisle, then you have an obligation to get that nominee before the Senate. Polling on fair or not fair is useless and a stupid way to run a country.

Cool and I don't wanna hear any cries when the democrats pack the court. Serves the cons right.

Won't need to, it's a stupid thing to do and will, as most things do, rebound to the detriment of the democrats.

 

[hadit]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex cult, an oath to be a sex slave? Where do you get this shit?

She is in some right-wing "religious" cult. It's not a secret anymore. It is highly sexist and misogynist. Women are required to worship the males and "obey." It's pretty sick.

Hmmm, you mean like the vows literally millions of women have happily taken over centuries? Please do post the wording of this vow she took. It should be very interesting.

Women sometimes have entered the cults voluntarily in modern times, but many have been forced into cults over centuries and even forced into "marriages" in which they have been compelled to take a vow to obey a penis without being presented with an alternative. How do you know to use the word "happily" when many have lived and many still live in societies in which this is forced on them? Barrett can take any vow in her cult and arrange her personal life around it, but she is being put into a position in which she could force her views on unsuspecting people, thus denying these people of their liberty.

BTW: I just read this morning that she was on the board of directors of cult schools that discriminate against LGBTs and their children.

There are hundreds of qualified candidates for the US Supreme Court who do not have this baggage and who would warrant the trust of all Americans.

Please quote the vow she took. While you're at it, quote the vows she took upon entrance into this 'cult". Heck, start by naming the "cult" you think she's in.

 

[Meister]

This Amy took the oath of a slave in her cult to obey and spread her legs for some guy. How can you respect someone who takes a slave's oath and then lies about it?

The stench of your desperation and hatred preceded you.

She has not sworn any such oath. If there are oaths to slavery, they are the ones your ilk demand of the unwashed masses.

It's fine for women to be free to rebel, but for women to act like ladies? Well hell, they don't have that freedom under Marxist feminist theory.

. . . talk about a cult.

No wonder population and birth rates are dwindling, it is no longer 'cool' to be a mom, the one thing most girls naturally want to be. That's the real source of Lysis' anger and unhappiness, unrequited love from 30 cats. . .

Act like ladies? What does this mean? To "rebel" from exactly what? ACB took an oath, supposedly, to be a sex slave. Her husband has proven what a scumbag he is by accepting it. Should she be on the Supreme Court? She has tried to hide that she is in this sex cult. Women are entitled to dignity and to be free from being used. She can allow this guy to abuse her and her body as she wishes, but she should not be in a position to force other women into her chosen lifestyle. What she does in her bedroom is her own business.

What is "Marxist feminist theory"? Liberty? I thought that we all are for this.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sex cult, an oath to be a sex slave? Where do you get this shit?

She is in some right-wing "religious" cult. It's not a secret anymore. It is highly sexist and misogynist. Women are required to worship the males and "obey." It's pretty sick.

Hmmm, you mean like the vows literally millions of women have happily taken over centuries? Please do post the wording of this vow she took. It should be very interesting.

Women sometimes have entered the cults voluntarily in modern times, but many have been forced into cults over centuries and even forced into "marriages" in which they have been compelled to take a vow to obey a penis without being presented with an alternative. How do you know to use the word "happily" when many have lived and many still live in societies in which this is forced on them? Barrett can take any vow in her cult and arrange her personal life around it, but she is being put into a position in which she could force her views on unsuspecting people, thus denying these people of their liberty.

BTW: I just read this morning that she was on the board of directors of cult schools that discriminate against LGBTs and their children.

There are hundreds of qualified candidates for the US Supreme Court who do not have this baggage and who would warrant the trust of all Americans.

Sadly, for you there is a separation of church and state. Religious freedom is a wonderful Right from our government.
Her religion of being a Catholic cannot be used to exempt her from being a Justice on the highest Court in the nation.
Now just go pound sand