Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Climate Change blah, blah, blah....why does this matter to the Court? They are not reviewing any law, are they?

Stupid questioning.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Judges do not act like science experts, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMLETOE HARRIS. You should know this.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trying to back her way into a public policy debate.

Fucking asshole. Kamletoe is a fucking idiot.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats can't attack her faith.
Despite Horono being the only one dumb enough to 'go there', they can't accuse her of sexual misconduct
After ACB used the 'Ginsburg Rule' to exempt her from saying how she will rule in future cases, Democrats can only speculate / Fear-Monger.
They can - and have - attempted to attack her on the ACA, but that has gone nowhere.

She is literally a squeaky-lean, brilliant, honorable, Constitution-minded extremely qualified Judge. The only reason they have for opposing her is the one reason they can not admit - she is not a Leftist Extremist who will legislate from the bench.

I can't believe Klobuchar just pointed out that 20 years ago, she did some work on Bush V Gore, and that with her confirmation, there will be THREE Justices, 2 of whom were seated by Trump, on hte Court.

Talk about stretching...

Bush v. Gore was a screwed up ruling. Not that I am complaining. Not sure Gore would have been the man Bush was after 9/11.

The FL Democrats wanted to illegally keep counting ballots after the deadline.
The USSC said nope.
The reason why there is a deadline for ballot counting is because it's an open invitation to cheat.

 

[Canon Shooter]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

What issues are those?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The American people are afraid and concerned and scared and worried and shitting pants.....

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

 

[Canon Shooter]

Trying to back her way into a public policy debate.

Fucking asshole. Kamletoe is a fucking idiot.

I liked how Harris tried to say that the "proceedings lack legitimacy". And why does she think that? Because the proceedings are being conducted with strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States, that's why.

Harris is too fucking stupid to share the same bandwidth as Barrett...

 

[Flash]

Alas, she will slip into a black robe and become an almost-colorless SCOTUS judge.

She's kinda hot too.

Nice MILF.

 

[Flash]

ACB does not hate cute warm puppies!!

Debate is OVER!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats can't attack her faith.
Despite Horono being the only one dumb enough to 'go there', they can't accuse her of sexual misconduct
After ACB used the 'Ginsburg Rule' to exempt her from saying how she will rule in future cases, Democrats can only speculate / Fear-Monger.
They can - and have - attempted to attack her on the ACA, but that has gone nowhere.

She is literally a squeaky-lean, brilliant, honorable, Constitution-minded extremely qualified Judge. The only reason they have for opposing her is the one reason they can not admit - she is not a Leftist Extremist who will legislate from the bench.

I can't believe Klobuchar just pointed out that 20 years ago, she did some work on Bush V Gore, and that with her confirmation, there will be THREE Justices, 2 of whom were seated by Trump, on hte Court.

Talk about stretching...

Bush v. Gore was a screwed up ruling. Not that I am complaining. Not sure Gore would have been the man Bush was after 9/11.

The FL Democrats wanted to illegally keep counting ballots after the deadline.
The USSC said nope.
The reason why there is a deadline for ballot counting is because it's an open invitation to cheat.

More to the point, there's a valid law in operation stating, very clearly, that THIS is the deadline. The USSC said that the valid law in operation had to be observed . . . exactly as they're supposed to do.

 

[BS Filter]

Senator Hirono is barely qualified to fill out forms for food stamps at the welfare office.

It's fortunate for her that she got elected to the Senate as a Democrat, then, so she'll never be expected to do an honest day's work or be competent at anything.

Hawaiians hate white mainlanders. I can feel the evil coming across the screen when she interacts with ACB.

 

[BS Filter]

Now Booker is lying, claiming that Trump "can't condemn white supremacy". To be a leftist is to be a liar.

I've never seen Booker condemn flying demon monkeys from hell in the Wizard of Oz.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats can't attack her faith.
Despite Horono being the only one dumb enough to 'go there', they can't accuse her of sexual misconduct
After ACB used the 'Ginsburg Rule' to exempt her from saying how she will rule in future cases, Democrats can only speculate / Fear-Monger.
They can - and have - attempted to attack her on the ACA, but that has gone nowhere.

She is literally a squeaky-lean, brilliant, honorable, Constitution-minded extremely qualified Judge. The only reason they have for opposing her is the one reason they can not admit - she is not a Leftist Extremist who will legislate from the bench.

I can't believe Klobuchar just pointed out that 20 years ago, she did some work on Bush V Gore, and that with her confirmation, there will be THREE Justices, 2 of whom were seated by Trump, on hte Court.

Talk about stretching...

Bush v. Gore was a screwed up ruling. Not that I am complaining. Not sure Gore would have been the man Bush was after 9/11.

The FL Democrats wanted to illegally keep counting ballots after the deadline.
The USSC said nope.
The reason why there is a deadline for ballot counting is because it's an open invitation to cheat.

More to the point, there's a valid law in operation stating, very clearly, that THIS is the deadline. The USSC said that the valid law in operation had to be observed . . . exactly as they're supposed to do.

yep, the FL Dems tried to "change" the rules after the election
They will trying to cheat like crazy in this election also

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

I am investing in coat hanger companies right now.

Exactly the level of "business acumen" I would expect from someone whose psych meds are clearly no longer working.

The LSD always works.

Last Trip God told me he is not really all that interested in the USA anymore.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now Booker is lying, claiming that Trump "can't condemn white supremacy". To be a leftist is to be a liar.

I've never seen Booker condemn flying demon monkeys from hell in the Wizard of Oz.

Well, of course not. That's because he IS a flying demon monkey from Hell in the Wizard of Oz.

Or he's Spartacus. I dunno. Depends on what day of the week it is.

 

[Winston]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

Name one and please explain how they exposed her.

Actually, Democrats have revealed several inconsistencies in her previous judicial rulings. For instance, you can't take guns away from a felon, but you can deny them the right to vote. How does that make sense? Not only is it inconsistent, it is dangerous. Once enough felons can't vote, but they can have guns, what the hell do you think is going to happen? Oh wait, maybe it already is starting. Then there was the case from Wisconsin about a guy killing his wife. In Wisconsin, well it is not illegal to kill your wife if you have a good reason. Religious nut Barrett thought that the dude might have had a good reason. WOW. That is kind of scary.

She has repeatedly danced around severability. That is what the ACA case will turn on. If she really is not a judicial activists, then she will vote to maintain the ACA. Hard to argue that you can't "sever" the penalty from the legislation when the penalty is now zero. In effect, that is what this administration has already done. But the case coming before the SCOTUS argues that since the penalty is zero the entire legislation must be scrapped.

The inconsistencies you think the Democrats revealed in her rulings were actually just in your comprehension abilities. She did not rule "you can't take guns from felons, but you can deny them the right to vote"; she DID write a dissent in the case of a man who was convicted of mail fraud, stating that it was a violation of the Second Amendment to permanently bar someone convicted of a non-violent felony from gun ownership. Her dissent said not a damned thing about voting whatsoever; that's just some half-assed connection that YOU want to shoehorn in there.

Give us a quote of ACB saying, "Because of my religious beliefs, I think it's okay for men to kill their wives." Otherwise, the only thing that's scary is that you believe you can make shit up based solely on your "I hate religious Republicans, I think they're eeeeeevil!!!" Prove it with something beyond, "My leaders in the Senate TOLD me to think this is what happened!"

The entire last half of your partisan screed of bullshit frankly disqualifies you from deserving our time and consideration as a real and serious person. Feel free to redeem yourself in your next attempt, if you can. I won't hold my breath.

If you can't understand that the dissent in the case on felons and guns and the

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

Name one and please explain how they exposed her.

Actually, Democrats have revealed several inconsistencies in her previous judicial rulings. For instance, you can't take guns away from a felon, but you can deny them the right to vote. How does that make sense? Not only is it inconsistent, it is dangerous. Once enough felons can't vote, but they can have guns, what the hell do you think is going to happen? Oh wait, maybe it already is starting. Then there was the case from Wisconsin about a guy killing his wife. In Wisconsin, well it is not illegal to kill your wife if you have a good reason. Religious nut Barrett thought that the dude might have had a good reason. WOW. That is kind of scary.

She has repeatedly danced around severability. That is what the ACA case will turn on. If she really is not a judicial activists, then she will vote to maintain the ACA. Hard to argue that you can't "sever" the penalty from the legislation when the penalty is now zero. In effect, that is what this administration has already done. But the case coming before the SCOTUS argues that since the penalty is zero the entire legislation must be scrapped.

The inconsistencies you think the Democrats revealed in her rulings were actually just in your comprehension abilities. She did not rule "you can't take guns from felons, but you can deny them the right to vote"; she DID write a dissent in the case of a man who was convicted of mail fraud, stating that it was a violation of the Second Amendment to permanently bar someone convicted of a non-violent felony from gun ownership. Her dissent said not a damned thing about voting whatsoever; that's just some half-assed connection that YOU want to shoehorn in there.

Give us a quote of ACB saying, "Because of my religious beliefs, I think it's okay for men to kill their wives." Otherwise, the only thing that's scary is that you believe you can make shit up based solely on your "I hate religious Republicans, I think they're eeeeeevil!!!" Prove it with something beyond, "My leaders in the Senate TOLD me to think this is what happened!"

The entire last half of your partisan screed of bullshit frankly disqualifies you from deserving our time and consideration as a real and serious person. Feel free to redeem yourself in your next attempt, if you can. I won't hold my breath.

Gheez, why do I waste my time with you flipping morons.

Amy Coney Barrett Displays Her Twisted Views on Voting Rights

Coney Barrett offered a “virtue-based” defense of why some felons should be allowed to own guns, but not to vote.

www.thenation.com

 

[Winston]

Democrats can't attack her faith.
Despite Horono being the only one dumb enough to 'go there', they can't accuse her of sexual misconduct
After ACB used the 'Ginsburg Rule' to exempt her from saying how she will rule in future cases, Democrats can only speculate / Fear-Monger.
They can - and have - attempted to attack her on the ACA, but that has gone nowhere.

She is literally a squeaky-lean, brilliant, honorable, Constitution-minded extremely qualified Judge. The only reason they have for opposing her is the one reason they can not admit - she is not a Leftist Extremist who will legislate from the bench.

I can't believe Klobuchar just pointed out that 20 years ago, she did some work on Bush V Gore, and that with her confirmation, there will be THREE Justices, 2 of whom were seated by Trump, on hte Court.

Talk about stretching...

Bush v. Gore was a screwed up ruling. Not that I am complaining. Not sure Gore would have been the man Bush was after 9/11.

Screwed up in what way? It didn't give you the result you wanted, so that made it bad and wrong? You screwed the pooch on your attempt to analyze ACB's dissent (in fact, you didn't even get that it was a dissent, not a ruling) on felons and guns, so let's see if you can cite THIS one correctly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-949P.ZD2

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

Actually, she will only be confirmed because of numbers. And nothing else.

But that arrogance will be so duly noted when the time comes and the court is expanded.

She won't have that same look on her face when she becomes irrelevant as far as her rulings are concerned.

As far as the Dems are concerned, they've exposed her on a number of issues.

The Repubs should have just voted her in and not have this farce.

It wouldn't be a farce if the dems knew how to behave in public. They're as bad as my grandkids on their bad days.

 

[basquebromance]

"i hope you aren't suggesting i don't have my own mind!" - ACB to Chris Coons

Coons doesn't have his own hair!

 

[basquebromance]

"packing a court means one specific thing, corrupting the judiciary to achieve a political outcome" - Justice Scalia in 2003