Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Sun Devil 92]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

So she's a well prepared religious whack-job.

Still has no place on any court, much less the big one.

Please enlighten us and post in which rulings she made her faith overrode the law. Failing that, admit you're simply afraid of a strong conservative woman.

You ready for your significant other to have the starring roll in the handmaid's tale?

Keep spouting it.

You don't look any less stupid each time you do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I'm not debating The Nation, punkin. YOU made the assertions and character assassinations; YOU defend them. YOU tell me all about what YOU know to form that opinion. "Look, here's an article that told me to start believing this!" is not an argument, and the fact that you actually need me to tell you that means that you have exactly one more post to prove that you deserve to have me know that you exist.

Make it good, third-stringer, because you are bombing this.

 

[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.

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

I don't accept "Here's a link, no actual words because I can't justify my bullshit" as a post, let alone a response.

You're one post away from being dismissed as an inarticulate loser who hates on cue whenever the DNC shoves its hand up your ass like a ventriloquist dummy. If I want to hear someone else's opinion, I don't need to hear it out of your flapping puppet head.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Crepitus]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

So she's a well prepared religious whack-job.

Still has no place on any court, much less the big one.

Please enlighten us and post in which rulings she made her faith overrode the law. Failing that, admit you're simply afraid of a strong conservative woman.

You ready for your significant other to have the starring roll in the handmaid's tale?

Which rulings? Be specific. Or admit you're just afraid of a strong conservative woman.

Answer the question.

Defend its premise. The premise of your question is that somehow, someway, putting ACB on the bench will result in The Handmaid's Tale moving from the land of fiction into reality. That premise is false, and you don't get an answer to such a question.

Here's another question exhibiting the same weakness that also deserves no answer. When did you stop beating your wife?

You get one more chance, then it's obvious that you're just afraid of a strong conservative woman.

I'm not married, can I assume from your question that you beat yours regularly?

Apparently you lack reading comprehension and missed the part where I said that question doesn't deserve an answer.

I see further that you refuse to defend the false premise of your question and therefore are obviously afraid of strong conservative women. There is no reason whatsoever to believe The Handmaid's Tale will become reality. You're just afraid of a woman. Dance all you want, the bottom line remains that you said something you can't defend.

They already made it a reality in their little cult. Your nominee was one.

 

[otto105]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

Sure, could she name the 5 freedoms established in the Constitution?

 

[Crepitus]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

So she's a well prepared religious whack-job.

Still has no place on any court, much less the big one.

Please enlighten us and post in which rulings she made her faith overrode the law. Failing that, admit you're simply afraid of a strong conservative woman.

You ready for your significant other to have the starring roll in the handmaid's tale?

Keep spouting it.

You don't look any less stupid each time you do.

I can honestly say your opinion makes absolutely no impression on me.

 

[j-mac]

Its unfortunate. She sounds like a really smart justice and will be a credit. She won't ever be seen as deserving because of these unfortunate circumstances though.... This is why you don't change the rules Harry. This is why you don't change the rules Mitch.

So, Justices need liberal approval to be considered "deserving"?

 

[hadit]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

So she's a well prepared religious whack-job.

Still has no place on any court, much less the big one.

Please enlighten us and post in which rulings she made her faith overrode the law. Failing that, admit you're simply afraid of a strong conservative woman.

You ready for your significant other to have the starring roll in the handmaid's tale?

Which rulings? Be specific. Or admit you're just afraid of a strong conservative woman.

Answer the question.

Defend its premise. The premise of your question is that somehow, someway, putting ACB on the bench will result in The Handmaid's Tale moving from the land of fiction into reality. That premise is false, and you don't get an answer to such a question.

Here's another question exhibiting the same weakness that also deserves no answer. When did you stop beating your wife?

You get one more chance, then it's obvious that you're just afraid of a strong conservative woman.

I'm not married, can I assume from your question that you beat yours regularly?

Apparently you lack reading comprehension and missed the part where I said that question doesn't deserve an answer.

I see further that you refuse to defend the false premise of your question and therefore are obviously afraid of strong conservative women. There is no reason whatsoever to believe The Handmaid's Tale will become reality. You're just afraid of a woman. Dance all you want, the bottom line remains that you said something you can't defend.

They already made it a reality in their little cult. Your nominee was one.

In which of her rulings did her faith override the law? It's a very simple question and one you should have been ready to answer before giving me such a large, slow moving target. It's obvious that you're terrified of a strong conservative woman for no reason other than your irrational feelz, because you can't point to a single ruling. Shame, really, although I'm having a lot of fun watching you squirm to avoid it.

Oh, and I didn't nominate her. Your president, TRUMP! did.

 

[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

I'm not debating The Nation, punkin. YOU made the assertions and character assassinations; YOU defend them. YOU tell me all about what YOU know to form that opinion. "Look, here's an article that told me to start believing this!" is not an argument, and the fact that you actually need me to tell you that means that you have exactly one more post to prove that you deserve to have me know that you exist.

Make it good, third-stringer, because you are bombing this.

Third stringer? Well yeah, I got to admit, I actually have a life. Evidently this site is plagued with people that have nothing better to do than post all damn day long. I mean wow. Your post count is not impressive, it is scary. But I will indulge you.

I heard it during testimony today. ACB claims that voting is a civic right. It should be reserved for "virtuous" citizens. Honestly, I almost wrecked the car when I heard it. I mean that is a huge problem. Who defines "virtuous"? Evidently this whacko bitch ACB thinks she can. But I am here to tell you, she can't, I can't, Congress can't, and the SCOTUS damn sure can't. I mean how can she sit there and say such a thing with a straight face. The classic definition of "virtuous" is someone with high moral standards. Our current president is not "virtuous" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I doubt a single sitting president since Jimmy Carter can claim to be "virtuous". And going back further, Wilson, maybe. Adams, probably. That is about it.

I mean it does not take a history expert to understand that "virtuous" is a code word that allows groups to disenfranchise whole categories of voters. Using it, in any context, is a clear example of people that think they are better than anyone else. Like that picture of ACB holding up her blank sheet of paper. I am really surprised that so many people here are posting that picture. It clearly shows someone that thinks they are better than everyone else. It is sickening.

The reality is this country is in dire danger, and it is not a Covid pandemic that we need to worry about. Although it is a clear warning shot. The real danger is all you useful idiots, that have no clue has to the foundation of this country, the ideals of democracy, and have totally forgotten that all men are created equal, that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ACB is a sick, wacko, bitch. A member of a cult, plain and simple. She is far more dangerous to the very foundation of this country than any group of terrorists located half a world away.

 

[beautress]

She's not answering any questions.

Pssss....psssss...psss I have a secret that everyone should know----sometimes chosing to remain silent and not feed the trolls with any information is the BEST THING you can do especially in legal proceedings.

How does that advance advise and consent?

Your moron patrol (all the left wing senators) have already declared their intentions.

So your question is moot (as well as either ignorant or two-faced).

The Republicans said they would confirm her before ever hearing a word she said. Because they are cowardly lapdogs.

Hardly. Her record sings hallelulia in the best of all voices of women to be sitting in the Democrat hotseat of smears and patronization of a conservative.

 

[basquebromance]

If there were an Olympic sport called “Keeping a Straight Face While Being Lectured by Morons,” ACB would take the gold

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ACB Showcases Her Judicial Intellect to the Nation During This One Moment

townhall.com

But Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showcased just how qualified she is to be a judge during Sen. John Cornyn's line of questioning during her second day of confirmation hearings.

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

************

Even ABC noted how she has not used any help.

She is beyond good. She's going to be great.

Slam Dunk confirmation.

And fuck people like Camel-A Harris who will oppose her based on percieved rullings in the future. Harris either does not know the constitution or she flat out ignores us. In other words she is either ignorant or subversive.

And you pricks on the left nominated her.

Harris is 100 times more dangerous than donny the reality show boi.

And Barrett is Rocking it !!!!!!

Go Amy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Thank You Donald Trump (Mr. Reality Start) for nominating a Grade A+++ judge to the Scotus.

So she's a well prepared religious whack-job.

Still has no place on any court, much less the big one.

Please enlighten us and post in which rulings she made her faith overrode the law. Failing that, admit you're simply afraid of a strong conservative woman.

You ready for your significant other to have the starring roll in the handmaid's tale?

Keep spouting it.

You don't look any less stupid each time you do.

I can honestly say your opinion makes absolutely no impression on me.

I am sure nothing but a baseball bat make an impression on you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If there were an Olympic sport called “Keeping a Straight Face While Being Lectured by Morons,” ACB would take the gold

And here was a gold for great one line posts...you'd be nominated.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The critical question was never asked by the senators to Ms. Barrett.

"Did you ride to this hearing on the back of a brontosaurus with Jesus driving?"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The critical question was never asked by the senators to Ms. Barrett.

"Did you ride to this hearing on the back of a brontosaurus with Jesus driving?"

I think the more critical question is:

Does the color in your mothers basement trigger this kind of stupidity.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The left is full on against someone who is smart & female but has the fata flaw that she thinks for herself:

Media Bully Amy Coney Barrett: ‘Handmaid,’ ‘B*tch,’ ‘Monster’

townhall.com

This woman has no political stake in the game.

If she wasn't nominated, she'd be seen as a good citizen and a good mother.

But....the left just can't resist attacking anyone...even if they have not attacked them.

Media Bully Amy Coney Barrett: ‘Handmaid,’ ‘B*tch,’ ‘Monster’

townhall.com

 

[Diver Diva]

ACB was clearly the smartest one in the room. But that's a very low bar.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Ann Coulter puts another one out of the park !!!!

Good job Ann (and spare me the Adam's apple jokes....you fuckers need new material):

Ask Ann Anything! ACB Edition

townhall.com

Q: How can you say it’s fair to fill the seat of a constitutional giant like Ruth Bader Ginsburg with this far-right, anti-choice, conservative woman?

A: You’re right, RBG had patience, will — and almost no black law clerks. One (1) black law clerk out of 160, to be precise. To borrow from my journalist colleagues, “Are you a white supremacist?”

Q: So you think it’s OK to just ignore her dying wish?

A: Touche! But you’ve forgotten that the Dying Wish clause of the Constitution is trumped by the Retire When a Democrat Is President clause. RBG was fully entitled to have a Democrat choose her replacement by retiring in 2014 when Obama was president and she was 81 years old, had already survived two bouts of cancer, two falls that broke her ribs and a heart operation. She chose not to.

 

[Winston]

She is brilliant.
View attachment 401477

God only requires three things from us. Justice, kindness, and HUMILITY. Tell me, where is the humility in that picture.