Amy Coney Barrett's America

[martybegan]

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.

Ask yourself if the democrats were in the exact same position as the republicans if they would have waited.
Yeah, see there.....

Well, we don't know what the Democrats would have done.

We do know you assfucks said this in 2016 " OMG OMG OMG its an election year we can't do it" and in 2020 you assfucks run screaming "fill the seat"!

We know exactly what the Democrats would have done, the same as the Republicans did/are doing.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

What the Republicans did to Garland was within the rules of the Constitution, maybe not the intent of the Constitution, so Congress needs to see what can be done to patch the hole. What is going on is the same exact thing the Democratic Party would do if the situation was reversed, Biden as admitted so.

 

[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.

WTF are you talking about, "ACB took an oath to be a sex slave?" Do you live in a parallel universe? Who has been feeding you this bullshit? Or is that what you consider marriage vows? Oaths to be sex slaves?

Either give a link to the "sex slave" claim, or shut the **** up about such non-sense.

What I am talking about, 'rebel,' is rebel from nature, the nature of being mothers. . . duh. Just as Lucifer rebelled from Jehovah's authority, Marxism pushes feminism as a way to rebel from natural law, the proper place of women in the family, and the family in civilized society.

In this way, government becomes the head of the family, not the husband.

.. . and thus, freedom and liberty are destroyed. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you DON'T THINK, you only feel, and react. This is dangerous. You became a perfect tool. A useful idiot.

You cannot have liberty when government makes decisions for the individual.

If she leaves Roe v. Wade up to the voters of the individual states to decide, thus enforcing the 10th amendment, you are too dumb to understand how that is actually INCREASING liberty for the people, getting central government out of their lives, aren't you?

And hey. Just think. Leaving the Second to the Voters of the State would be easy too. I mean that is how we are supposed to deal with Individual Rights isn’t it?

The 10th Amendment prohibits leaving the Second, "explicitly" to the voters, since it is mentioned in the Constitution, to the individual States. I don't remember, but I could be wrong, abortion is not mentioned in the bill of rights.

" nor prohibited by it to the States "


. . . but perhaps we will just have to let the SCOTUS work all that out, which is what these hearings are supposed to about. . .

The Fourth does not explicitly mention email or electronic data. It does not mention telephone calls. So strictly speaking there is no prohibition from police listening in to your phone calls or reading email. It says person and papers.

Abortion comes down to the same thing as phone calls and electronic information. It is implied if not specifically mentioned. The Fourth creates a right to Privacy even if it does not specifically say you have a right to Privacy. Attorney Client Privilege is not mentioned specifically. Again it is implied as having a right to Council, the lawyer needs to be able to craft a good case for the client and needs that confidentiality to properly represent the client.

Doctor Patient is not expressly mentioned. But the courts believe it is implied as part of the right to privacy. I think so to.

We do not let states vote on our Civil Rights. Because they are not granted by the States. They are granted by God and enumerated by the Constitution.

And believe me. You do not want to leave Abortion up to the States. Because all but the most conservative States would agree to keep it legal in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the Mother. Now, think for ten seconds. How many women would accuse someone of Rape to qualify for the Abortion? How many men would face expensive criminal defenses for Rape? Ten Thousand a year? A Hundred Thousand? Even if found Not Guilty they would have the arrest and trial as public record. All over a drunken fling and poor thought about what happens the next morning.

If we are honest. We would admit it is possible that half the guys in high school would be facing rape charges before graduation.

What is always funny to me is how many people view elections as a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yet they do not view abortion the same way. Most of the opponents of Abortion claim that kids raised in a single parent household are more likely to be criminals, yet do not consider what happens to those unwanted fetuses if Abortion is banned. More prisons. More expenses for housing criminals. More expenses to build schools and man them. More. More. More.

First of all, let's get one thing straight, I don't really care whether the state makes abortion illegal or legal, I have no interest in the state dictating morality.


Next, as far as the right to privacy and electronic communications, who do you think you are fooling? Do I need to explain to you who Edward Snowden is and what the hell is actually going on?



It's like you just woke up and don't know what the hell is going on. . . even the President has not been immune to this shit.

FISA?!




As far as the whole abortion debate, it is like most folks don't even know that Roe v. Wade was originally ruled on by a CONSERVATIVE court, WTH?

. . . You are arguing the abortion issue with someone that DOES NOT CARE. I see both sides equally, but the point is, it IS NOT an issue for judges to decide, and your own post has just made that abundantly clear, and you don't understand that. . . .

 

[Alan Stallion]

Amy Coney Barrett Goes To The Senate (FreedomToons)

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Back in 2015 I voted for Trump for one major reason....SCOTUS.

It's paid off trifold

SCOTUS and many other appointments hes made.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

First of all, let's get one thing straight, I don't really care whether the state makes abortion illegal or legal, I have no interest in the state dictating morality

ALL LAW is a reflection of morality

 

[MisterBeale]

First of all, let's get one thing straight, I don't really care whether the state makes abortion illegal or legal, I have no interest in the state dictating morality

ALL LAW is a reflection of morality

True, but not all share the same code of ethics.

I will take care of my own soul, you take care of yours, o.k.?

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

WTF are you talking about, "ACB took an oath to be a sex slave?" Do you live in a parallel universe? Who has been feeding you this bullshit? Or is that what you consider marriage vows? Oaths to be sex slaves?

Either give a link to the "sex slave" claim, or shut the **** up about such non-sense.

What I am talking about, 'rebel,' is rebel from nature, the nature of being mothers. . . duh. Just as Lucifer rebelled from Jehovah's authority, Marxism pushes feminism as a way to rebel from natural law, the proper place of women in the family, and the family in civilized society.

In this way, government becomes the head of the family, not the husband.

.. . and thus, freedom and liberty are destroyed. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, you DON'T THINK, you only feel, and react. This is dangerous. You became a perfect tool. A useful idiot.

You cannot have liberty when government makes decisions for the individual.

If she leaves Roe v. Wade up to the voters of the individual states to decide, thus enforcing the 10th amendment, you are too dumb to understand how that is actually INCREASING liberty for the people, getting central government out of their lives, aren't you?

And hey. Just think. Leaving the Second to the Voters of the State would be easy too. I mean that is how we are supposed to deal with Individual Rights isn’t it?

The 10th Amendment prohibits leaving the Second, "explicitly" to the voters, since it is mentioned in the Constitution, to the individual States. I don't remember, but I could be wrong, abortion is not mentioned in the bill of rights.

" nor prohibited by it to the States "


. . . but perhaps we will just have to let the SCOTUS work all that out, which is what these hearings are supposed to about. . .

The Fourth does not explicitly mention email or electronic data. It does not mention telephone calls. So strictly speaking there is no prohibition from police listening in to your phone calls or reading email. It says person and papers.

Abortion comes down to the same thing as phone calls and electronic information. It is implied if not specifically mentioned. The Fourth creates a right to Privacy even if it does not specifically say you have a right to Privacy. Attorney Client Privilege is not mentioned specifically. Again it is implied as having a right to Council, the lawyer needs to be able to craft a good case for the client and needs that confidentiality to properly represent the client.

Doctor Patient is not expressly mentioned. But the courts believe it is implied as part of the right to privacy. I think so to.

We do not let states vote on our Civil Rights. Because they are not granted by the States. They are granted by God and enumerated by the Constitution.

And believe me. You do not want to leave Abortion up to the States. Because all but the most conservative States would agree to keep it legal in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the Mother. Now, think for ten seconds. How many women would accuse someone of Rape to qualify for the Abortion? How many men would face expensive criminal defenses for Rape? Ten Thousand a year? A Hundred Thousand? Even if found Not Guilty they would have the arrest and trial as public record. All over a drunken fling and poor thought about what happens the next morning.

If we are honest. We would admit it is possible that half the guys in high school would be facing rape charges before graduation.

What is always funny to me is how many people view elections as a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yet they do not view abortion the same way. Most of the opponents of Abortion claim that kids raised in a single parent household are more likely to be criminals, yet do not consider what happens to those unwanted fetuses if Abortion is banned. More prisons. More expenses for housing criminals. More expenses to build schools and man them. More. More. More.

First of all, let's get one thing straight, I don't really care whether the state makes abortion illegal or legal, I have no interest in the state dictating morality.


Next, as far as the right to privacy and electronic communications, who do you think you are fooling? Do I need to explain to you who Edward Snowden is and what the hell is actually going on?



It's like you just woke up and don't know what the hell is going on. . . even the President has not been immune to this shit.

FISA?!




As far as the whole abortion debate, it is like most folks don't even know that Roe v. Wade was originally ruled on by a CONSERVATIVE court, WTH?

. . . You are arguing the abortion issue with someone that DOES NOT CARE. I see both sides equally, but the point is, it IS NOT an issue for judges to decide, and your own post has just made that abundantly clear, and you don't understand that. . . .

Nonsense. It is exactly the sort of case that must be decided. We do not leave any Civil Right to the discretion of the States. Take the Second again.

Let’s say California decides that the Second Amendment is satisfied by only allowing people to own Flintlock Weapons using black powder. Guns are not banned. Not outright. We would expect the Court to overturn this law as unconstitutional. An individual right. After all Conservatives celebrated Heller.

And I do know what the Government is doing. I have been complaining about it for years. Long before Snowden. I think it is wrong. I have thought it was wrong for decades. I objected to “enhanced interrogation”. I objected to the corruption of the FBI when I learned about their history.

The problem is that nobody cares about the Constitution. Like the Abortion issue, the Constitution is a hurdle to get over or around. We have to get around the individual right to pretend it is a States Right issue.

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

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.

Can you buy a plastic straw in California?

 

[Issa]

Back in 2015 I voted for Trump for one major reason....SCOTUS.

It's paid off trifold

spoil alert it won't be for long, the democrats will triple the court justices for you lol.

 

[daveman]

Back in 2015 I voted for Trump for one major reason....SCOTUS.

It's paid off trifold

spoil alert it won't be for long, the democrats will triple the court justices for you lol.

It simply doesn't register with Democrats that they can't advance their agenda without changing the rules.

 

[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.

 

[RealDave]

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.

What the Republicans did to Garland was within the rules of the Constitution, maybe not the intent of the Constitution, so Congress needs to see what can be done to patch the hole. What is going on is the same exact thing the Democratic Party would do if the situation was reversed, Biden as admitted so.

Like McConnell & most Republicans, you piss on the Constitution when it suits you. **** you. **** Republicans **** Trump.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

What the Republicans did to Garland was within the rules of the Constitution, maybe not the intent of the Constitution, so Congress needs to see what can be done to patch the hole. What is going on is the same exact thing the Democratic Party would do if the situation was reversed, Biden as admitted so.

Like McConnell & most Republicans, you piss on the Constitution when it suits you. **** you. **** Republicans **** Trump.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I'm same-species oriented.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

"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.

Pffft. It's not like Democrats give a shit about the public.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

What the Republicans did to Garland was within the rules of the Constitution, maybe not the intent of the Constitution, so Congress needs to see what can be done to patch the hole. What is going on is the same exact thing the Democratic Party would do if the situation was reversed, Biden as admitted so.

Like McConnell & most Republicans, you piss on the Constitution when it suits you. **** you. **** Republicans **** Trump.

Democrats are the exactly the same as Republicans, that is both need to be eliminated and a third party needs to be formed.