Amy Coney Barrett's America

[MisterBeale]

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.

You know, if conservatives used bigoted language against a person of color or an LGBT person, you would not take them seriously, so why should anyone on this board take you seriously when you continually use such bigoted and biased language, when it is clearly not called for?

You are clearly unhinged.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

This is like, a "no shit?" moment. . .

Facebook removes Babylon Bee satire mocking Sen. Hirono's treatment of Amy Barrett, says it 'incites violence'

Facebook cracked down on the conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee over an article mocking Sen. Mazie Hirono's treatment of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett during last week's confirmation hearings.

www.foxnews.com

Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch

Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch

WASHINGTON, D.C.—After two days of Amy Coney Barrett gracefully and stoically answering questions with perfect recall and no notes, suspicions grew on Capitol Hill that she might be a practitioner of the dark arts.

babylonbee.com

"Oh, she's a witch alright, just look at her!" said Senator Hirono. "Just look at the way she's dressed and how she's so much prettier and smarter than us! She's in league with Beelzebub himself, I just know it! We must burn her!"

Senator Hirono then pulled a live duck out of a massive burlap sack next to her and announced: "In addition to being a Senator, I am also quite wise in the ways of science. Everyone knows witches burn because they are made of wood. I think I read that somewhere. Wood floats, and so do ducks-- so logically, if Amy Coney Barrett weighs as much as this duck I found in the reflection pool outside, she is a witch and must be burned."

 

[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.

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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Sure they did, they advised that they weren’t going to consider Obama’s nominee, as Reid had said before McConnell, no sense bringing it to the floor, it won’t pass anyway. So advice was given, consent wasn’t. Back when Reid was running the Senate and tabling every bill the House passed, that one day the situation would be reversed and it would bite the Democrats in the ass and the Democrats would be pissed and cry and whine. Looks like I was right and here you are now crying. Maybe next time the politicians will look further up the road instead of being dumbasses.

 

[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.

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.

There will be lots of cries, especially when they pack the Supreme Court and lose their elections. This crying BS why don’t you say anything to the Democrats about Reid tabling every bill he got from the Republican House? Did you tell Democrats not to cry when Republicans did the same? Why didn’t you say to the Democrats serves you right? It’s because you are a Democrat and very partisan.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Name this cult.

 

[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.

The Senate never advised.

The Senate decided not to move forward with the nomination.

No, McConnell did. The Senate never had the opportunity to vote. Defending yuoiur cheating party is making you look stupid.

 

[RealDave]

"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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

They could vote to shrink the USSC to 6, dumping the last three.

Republicans can cheat, so can the Democrats.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, McConnell did. The Senate never had the opportunity to vote. Defending yuoiur cheating party is making you look stupid.

Just how do you think the Senate works? Moron.
The majority wasn't going to give him a hearing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They could vote to shrink the USSC to 6, dumping the last three.

The Constitution doesn't allow "dumping".

 

[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.

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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

They could vote to shrink the USSC to 6, dumping the last three.

Republicans can cheat, so can the Democrats.

In that scenario, the court would be required to shrink by attrition, their position is for life and all nine justices would be grandfathered in. The Republicans also did not cheat and had the Democrats done the same you would have applauded it as would I. The fact that you call it cheating with no actual proof, tells me you are just as dishonest as either party.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, McConnell did. The Senate never had the opportunity to vote. Defending yuoiur cheating party is making you look stupid.

If the Democrats had the same advantage, you would have jumped at it and you would not have said a word about cheating, if you can’t admitted that, you are lying and you know it.

 

[daveman]

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.

Has she done so at any time until now?

 

[daveman]

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.

No, McConnell did. The Senate never had the opportunity to vote. Defending yuoiur cheating party is making you look stupid.

When you screech that following the rules is "cheating", you just look like a petulant child.

 

[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.

Has she done so at any time until now?

They are so scared of a strong conservative woman who somehow is going to do a 180 and become something she hasn't been all her life.

 

[eagle1462010]

"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

Too dang bad........that the poll yuz guys are taking in DNC run shithole districts don't matter.

They VOTE HER IN MONDAY.

Oh well.............YOU LOSE.

 

[eagle1462010]

"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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

They could vote to shrink the USSC to 6, dumping the last three.

Republicans can cheat, so can the Democrats.

Well shit.......no rules by the godless left.........so we just throw out the 9th circuit court.......except the new ones.........

We put an extra tax if you are a registered democrap............Of and whatever the hell we want............

We learning from you sorry asses...............pssst............YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE.

 

[Thunderbird]

"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.

What a joke! Liberal elites are the authoritarian menace.

Amy Coney Barrett is no danger to anyone.

 

[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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

far from it....My main reason I hate the GOP and root for the the DNC....is because the first is a party of racists and bigots. I actually have a very conservative views and standards but it is very important to squash the GOP and make them abandon their racist and bigoted ways. They are playing the facist fake religious and bigoted card.

 

[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.

Like I said, they won’t pack the court, they don’t want to risk losing an election, because they pack the court, then the next Republican President will do the same and on and on. Your love for the Democrats is showing, I know you claim you aren’t but we know you are.

They could vote to shrink the USSC to 6, dumping the last three.

Republicans can cheat, so can the Democrats.

Well shit.......no rules by the godless left.........so we just throw out the 9th circuit court.......except the new ones.........

We put an extra tax if you are a registered democrap............Of and whatever the hell we want............

We learning from you sorry asses...............pssst............YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE.

The white racists AKA the base of the GOP are shrinking, minorities are growing you guys have no future....I advise you to change your heart and join us at the 21st white supremacy is a dying trend.