Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Thinker101]

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.

The overabundance of JUSTICE made up for any humility not shown.

 

[Winston]

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?

How does asking leading questions on cases that are in the courts in an attempt to get her to violate her independence from the rest of the government influence advance advise and consent?

Knowing full well she is forbidden from answer specific questions or hypothetical questions, how is it they are advancing advise and consent?

You can't take every question and say "I can't answer that because it may come before me on the court".

Can they ask her if murder is illegal, or is she prohibited from answering because a murder case could come before the court?

Obvious things are obvious. Here's the difference, for those whose education allows them to comprehend. If they ask, "Is murder illegal?", the answer is, "Of course it's illegal. Every state has laws against it and you're an idiot for wasting your time to ask me a question". But if they ask, "Is Illinois' murder law that put a retarded man on death row constitutional?", the answer is, "I need to hear the case in order to decide and you're an idiot for wasting your time to ask me a question". All but the most dense can understand that one.

No, she should NOT answer how she would rule on ANY case that could be brought before her, and those asking her to should be barred from the room.

Actually, putting a retarded person on death row is unconstitutional. Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling. Seems like an appropriate question to ask the loon, it would quickly reveal that she has no respect for stare decisis, and that is a huge problem that I am sure few if any of you morons would understand.

 

[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.

The overabundance of JUSTICE made up for any humility not shown.

Sorry, but that is not how it works.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

The overabundance of JUSTICE made up for any humility not shown.

Sorry, but that is not how it works.

Great, perhaps you could explain how it's supposed to look in a photograph.

Maybe it looks something like this.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Alcohol and/or illegal narcotic should not be taken while posting. Otherwise, ^^^^ this lying drivel is the result. Methinks your name is actually Karen.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Yeah....

Great ready......

Handmaiden's tale......

Laws passed that require 16 year olds get pregnant.

Dogs and cats living together.

We survived Adam Schitt.

We'll survive Camel-A Harris.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

 

[WEATHER53]

Asking her how she might rule if such and such came up is inappropriate for the hearing.

 

[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.

Alcohol and/or illegal narcotic should not be taken while posting. Otherwise, ^^^^ this lying drivel is the result. Methinks your name is actually Karen.

Wow, the debating ability of you posters completes overwhelms me. Not. I have been around for quite some time, posting on and off on various sites for years. This one has got to be the biggest cesspool I have ever experienced. I mean I would probably shit my pants if any one of you dumbfucks could come up with anything that closely resembles a real rebuttal.

Only "virtuous" citizens should be allowed to vote. Now, if you are a Republican, support the greed obsessed, adulteress, Donald Trump, well you certainly cannot be virtuous. So, democrats take the House, they take the Senate, they take the executive branch, they pack the court, and guess what, anyone that voted for Trump is not considered "virtuous" and therefore are immediately disenfranchised. I would pat myself on the back and claim I really taught you imbeciles something except most of you morons don't even know what "disenfranchised" means.

The stupid on this site is mind numbing. I mean there are posters here that post like six thousand times a year. WTF. It is a damn echo chamber. You jackasses have no life. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and you guys are leading the way. Wake the fuck up. Pull your head out of your asses and THINK. Trump is the absolute worst president this nation has ever seen. He is as dumb as a bag of rocks, has absolutely no empathy, kind of like the reviews on Barrett, "no empathy for students, entitled". I mean come on, listen to Trump talk, his vocabulary is at the third grade level, if that. I mean this nation is the laughing stock of the entire world. The fact that you ignorant jackwhipes can't see that is indicative of your own lack of intelligence. I mean I am a good old Southern boy. The only thing I have to say is, "Bless your hearts".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Alcohol and/or illegal narcotic should not be taken while posting. Otherwise, ^^^^ this lying drivel is the result. Methinks your name is actually Karen.

Wow, the debating ability of you posters completes overwhelms me. Not. I have been around for quite some time, posting on and off on various sites for years. This one has got to be the biggest cesspool I have ever experienced. I mean I would probably shit my pants if any one of you dumbfucks could come up with anything that closely resembles a real rebuttal.

Only "virtuous" citizens should be allowed to vote. Now, if you are a Republican, support the greed obsessed, adulteress, Donald Trump, well you certainly cannot be virtuous. So, democrats take the House, they take the Senate, they take the executive branch, they pack the court, and guess what, anyone that voted for Trump is not considered "virtuous" and therefore are immediately disenfranchised. I would pat myself on the back and claim I really taught you imbeciles something except most of you morons don't even know what "disenfranchised" means.

The stupid on this site is mind numbing. I mean there are posters here that post like six thousand times a year. WTF. It is a damn echo chamber. You jackasses have no life. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and you guys are leading the way. Wake the fuck up. Pull your head out of your asses and THINK. Trump is the absolute worst president this nation has ever seen. He is as dumb as a bag of rocks, has absolutely no empathy, kind of like the reviews on Barrett, "no empathy for students, entitled". I mean come on, listen to Trump talk, his vocabulary is at the third grade level, if that. I mean this nation is the laughing stock of the entire world. The fact that you ignorant jackwhipes can't see that is indicative of your own lack of intelligence. I mean I am a good old Southern boy. The only thing I have to say is, "Bless your hearts".

You want to debate ?

Go to the bull ring.

This is the shit slinger forum.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

I would have also asked Barrett " do you think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution means Jesus wants President Trump to get credit for presiding over more American deaths in a pandemic since the Spanish Flu?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

I would have also asked Barrett " do you think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution means Jesus wants President Trump to get credit for presiding over more American deaths in a pandemic since the Spanish Flu?"

Congratulations. You've answered the question of whether there's a more stupid, insane joke of a person in the country than the Democrat Senators. Sadly, you have to live with being that person.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

I would have also asked Barrett " do you think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution means Jesus wants President Trump to get credit for presiding over more American deaths in a pandemic since the Spanish Flu?"

And she'd ask you just how in the fuck you expect her to speak for Jesus.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

I would have also asked Barrett " do you think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution means Jesus wants President Trump to get credit for presiding over more American deaths in a pandemic since the Spanish Flu?"

Congratulations. You've answered the question of whether there's a more stupid, insane joke of a person in the country than the Democrat Senators. Sadly, you have to live with being that person.

"Ms. Barrett when Jesus said "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled" was he predicting the 2020 election humiliation of President Trump?"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The other question I think the senators should have asked Barrett was "are you currently investing in coat hanger companies or back alley medical clinics?"

Jink Wanker Fuckin'.......I think you should STFU.

I would have also asked Barrett " do you think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution means Jesus wants President Trump to get credit for presiding over more American deaths in a pandemic since the Spanish Flu?"

Congratulations. You've answered the question of whether there's a more stupid, insane joke of a person in the country than the Democrat Senators. Sadly, you have to live with being that person.

"Ms. Barrett when Jesus said "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled" was he predicting the 2020 election humiliation of President Trump?"

Mr. Wanker Fuckin, I am afraid that I don't have a crystal ball nor do I participate in elections at that level.

I am a jurist. I teach law and study the theory of government behind the constitution.

Please consult James Carveille (otherwise known as alien) for such prediction.

And kindly go fuck yourself while you are at it.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett as a Catholic we know you support podophile priests what does the constitution have to say about that?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ms. Barrett as a Catholic we know you support podophile priests what does the constitution have to say about that?"

Or save time and just say, "Judge Barrett, I'm an ignorant asshole. Please ignore my existence."

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Judge Barret you are a member of a cult called People of Praise, they believe that a wife is subject to the authority of the husband on every and all matters.

So should we be not questioning him rather than you as he will be the real judge?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Judge Barret you are a member of a cult called People of Praise, they believe that a wife is subject to the authority of the husband on every and all matters.

So should we be not questioning him rather than you as he will be the real judge?"

"Judge Barrett, I'm a dumbass who likes to lecture on subjects I know jack shit about. Would you like to assume that my asinine garbage is fact, and then defend yourself about it?"