Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
. . . are you saying that you support authoritarianism?
Because the Constitution and originalism is about guaranteeing civil rights and civil liberties, you know, natural rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It really doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, be they liberal or conservative, that is not what the law is for. It is not supposed to promote a partisan agenda in the first place.
"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 goodwww.theguardian.com
No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.
That's the brilliance of Jones' psyop. . . he puts up an avi of the Constitution to make folks believe he gives a shit about it. . . when he really doesn't.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.
It's called State's Rights you fckn imbecile
. . . are you saying that you support authoritarianism?
Because the Constitution and originalism is about guaranteeing civil rights and civil liberties, you know, natural rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It really doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, be they liberal or conservative, that is not what the law is for. It is not supposed to promote a partisan agenda in the first place.
Thst is exactly what I’m saying. We have reached a point where I no longer believe humanity, including Americans are capable of making correct decisions in large numbers and therefore Democracy is no longer an acceptable option.
The US Constitution was mortally wounded by Lincoln and pulled off life support by FDR. The document no longer holds any value or validity in my mind.
"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
No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.
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.
. . . interesting. . .
Given the way big tech and silicon valley has been acting lately? I can't for the life of me understand WHY the left has a problem with any of that?
What is hilarious to me is I am either a Left Wing idiot when I disagree with the Right. Or I am a Right Wing moron when I disagree with the Left.
I see myself as a Constitutionalist. I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I believe all the Civil Rights matter.
Bwahahaha, you're a left loon, dude.
OK. I am a Left Wing Idiot who supports the Second and has a Concealed Carry License. Or Something.
I've read your content, lefty
Give up the ghost
Not the way that law was written.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.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...
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.
Obviously, a new law needs to be legislated, but not from the bench. I stand behind my prior post.
A law that violates a clearly enumerated right is exactly her purview. We have more than enough Judges who shrug and say that is the law when it is clearly Unconstitutional.
Barrett decided correctly. You are thinking of the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. The employer is responsible for the acts of the employee. That are taken within the course and scope of his employment. A truck driver that drives negligently. A painter that leaves a paint bucket where someone would trip. All actions taken within the scope of employment. An employer is also responsible if he knew or had reason to believe that the employee had a propensity to act in a way thst would bring harm to another.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.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...
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.
Obviously, a new law needs to be legislated, but not from the bench. I stand behind my prior post.
A law that violates a clearly enumerated right is exactly her purview. We have more than enough Judges who shrug and say that is the law when it is clearly Unconstitutional.
"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
No, Republicans and conservatives don’t care about any of that.
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.
Aoe you on drugs?
He is sort of an equal mix of Stalin and Pee-Wee Herman.I found out about some of Kavanaugh's stands, I thought they were draconian. . . . none of the conservative should have supported his nomination, the were fascist in nature, they were not in support of small government. That whole college sex abuse thing I believe was to distract everyone.
Have you ever thought that for some of us Conservatism = Authoritarianism not small government? Thst maybe some of us ARE thst Draconian I our values and beliefs?
. . . are you saying that you support authoritarianism?
Because the Constitution and originalism is about guaranteeing civil rights and civil liberties, you know, natural rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It really doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, be they liberal or conservative, that is not what the law is for. It is not supposed to promote a partisan agenda in the first place.
Far better to die in a Gulag than live in the America you folks want to create...
Not thst I’d be taken alive.
Add to that the creation and maintenance of the largest racial discrimination methodology in America - Affirmative Action - still legal in 42 states.The only party that has historically, and currently, suppressed Civil Rights is the democrat party........poll taxes, literacy tests, kkk, lynching.....forcing businesses to violate their freedom of religion and freedom of expression....burning, looting, beating and actually murdering Americans.....and resegregating large sections of the U.S........all acts of the democrat party
You are talking about Muslim women ?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.
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.
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.
