Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin; We are all "members" of the human race. Do you judge me based on the fact that you are a total cretin ?"

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin; We are all "members" of the human race. Do you judge me based on the fact that you are a total cretin ?"

"Judge Barrett, do you know this Sun Devil guy who keeps ranting on this thread while I question you?"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin; We are all "members" of the human race. Do you judge me based on the fact that you are a total cretin ?"

"Judge Barrett, do you know this Sun Devil guy who keeps ranting on this thread while I question you?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin: Sounds like a great guy. Why don't you go find a high cliff and do us all a favor......

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Mr. Jefferson, you were strong advocate of inoculations. What do you think of President Trump's idea bleach could cure Covid?"

"Mr. Jefferson, you were an educated man who believed in the American people. How disappointed are you when you have to listen to idiots like me?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Mr. Jefferson, you were strong advocate of inoculations. What do you think of President Trump's idea bleach could cure Covid?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin:

What the hell does that have to with ACB becoming a SCOTUS judge ?

You vastly overestimate his awareness of the actual topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

Jake Wanker Fuckin; We are all "members" of the human race. Do you judge me based on the fact that you are a total cretin ?"

"Judge Barrett, do you know this Sun Devil guy who keeps ranting on this thread while I question you?"

"Judge Barrett, after listening to me, do you think stupidity should be a capital crime?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ms. Barrett as a member of a fanatical sect within the Catholic Church will you be calling the Pope for legal advise before you make a ruling?"

"Judge Barrett, do you have to deal with a lot of ignorant religious bigots, or is it just me?"

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

No they were not always political, you need to read the history of nominations voting pattern, and how quickly some nominees were voted in., the votes until recently were refreshingly free of partisanship.

Kavanaugh barely made it despite no viable disqualification offered by leftists to his past judicial history. He was hated because he was nominated by Trump, nothing more.

Barrett will barely make it too, despite no indication provided by leftists that she is a bad nominee, it is because Trump nominated her, that is why they vote against her.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

No they were not always political, you need to read the history of nominations voting pattern, and how quickly some nominees were voted in., the votes until recently were refreshingly free of partisanship.

Kavanaugh barely made it despite no viable disqualification offered by leftists to his past judicial history. He was hated because he was nominated by Trump, nothing more.

Barrett will barely make it too, despite no indication provided by leftists that she is a bad nominee, it is because Trump nominated her, that is why they vote against her.

The history of court nominations has always been political, a President nominate judges based on their political priorities, thinking the judge will support them long term, the parties usually vote on such lines.

Republicans attacked Kagan for instance. But even in more civil periods of US history such nominations were driven by political considerations.

Nominations in the past were not so rankourous, hostile, but they have always been political in nature.

To not realise that is to not realise the nature of power itself.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Lets take the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond, Sam Ervin, John McClellan and Committee Chair James Eastland tried to thwart his nomination for racist ideological reasons.

One could go on and on in history, this is inherently a political process and was meant to be.

Otherwise the constitution would have the judiciary itself pick and promote as does occur in many democracies.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

No they were not always political, you need to read the history of nominations voting pattern, and how quickly some nominees were voted in., the votes until recently were refreshingly free of partisanship.

Kavanaugh barely made it despite no viable disqualification offered by leftists to his past judicial history. He was hated because he was nominated by Trump, nothing more.

Barrett will barely make it too, despite no indication provided by leftists that she is a bad nominee, it is because Trump nominated her, that is why they vote against her.

The history of court nominations has always been political, a President nominate judges based on their political priorities, thinking the judge will support them long term, the parties usually vote on such lines.

Nominations in the past were not so rankourous, hostile, but they have always been political in nature.

To not realise that is to not realise the nature of power itself.

Oh dear such ignorance, there have been a number of near unanimous, UNANIMOUS votes, here are THREE nominees by then President Reagan:

Kennedy, Anthony M.		Powell		Nov 30, 1987		97-0 No. 16		C		Feb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H.		Powell		Jul 7, 1987		42-58 No. 348		R		Oct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin		Rehnquist		Jun 24, 1986		98-0 No. 267		C		Sep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2		Burger		Jun 20, 1986		65-33 No. 266		C		Sep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra Day		Stewart		Aug 19, 1981		99-0 No. 274		C		Sep 21, 1981

red bolding mine

LINK

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences. And even those nominations would have been nominated by the respective Republican presidents in a belief they would hold judicial views in line with the President's political considerations.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

No they were not always political, you need to read the history of nominations voting pattern, and how quickly some nominees were voted in., the votes until recently were refreshingly free of partisanship.

Kavanaugh barely made it despite no viable disqualification offered by leftists to his past judicial history. He was hated because he was nominated by Trump, nothing more.

Barrett will barely make it too, despite no indication provided by leftists that she is a bad nominee, it is because Trump nominated her, that is why they vote against her.

The history of court nominations has always been political, a President nominate judges based on their political priorities, thinking the judge will support them long term, the parties usually vote on such lines.

Nominations in the past were not so rankourous, hostile, but they have always been political in nature.

To not realise that is to not realise the nature of power itself.

Oh dear such ignorance, there have been a number of near unanimous, UNANIMOUS votes, here are THREE nominees by then President Reagan:

Kennedy, Anthony M.		Powell		Nov 30, 1987		97-0 No. 16		C		Feb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H.		Powell		Jul 7, 1987		42-58 No. 348		R		Oct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin		Rehnquist		Jun 24, 1986		98-0 No. 267		C		Sep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2		Burger		Jun 20, 1986		65-33 No. 266		C		Sep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra Day		Stewart		Aug 19, 1981		99-0 No. 274		C		Sep 21, 1981

red bolding mine

LINK

Three out of 114 Justices.

Thank you for that you just made my point.


Any detailed reading the history of the court would give one the knowledge it is inherently a political process., like I said starting from the beginning with Marshall who was under political attack from Jefferson.
There may be some more, but that is no thought out argument the process was not political. Even those nominations would have been picked by Reagan because he believed they were ideological and politically compatible with him.

Still Reagan was a master at moderation, working with the Democrats unlike Trump so astute in who to pick. That does not make the process any less political, just less rancorous.

The idea the Democrats have just recently turned this into a political process is historically simplistic if not illiterate.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Also interestingly all the unanimous nominations were from Republican Presidents, showing that only Democrats have put politics aside some times and voted with the Republicans.



Oh my.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Also interestingly all the unanimous nominations were from Republican Presidents, showing that only Democrats have put politics aside some times and voted with the Republicans.



Oh my.

Gorsuch was unanimous ?

Kavennaugh was unanimous ?

22 dems voted against roberts.

Bork was decimated before he even got a hearing.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Also interestingly all the unanimous nominations were from Republican Presidents, showing that only Democrats have put politics aside some times and voted with the Republicans.



Oh my.

Gorsuch was unanimous ?

Kavennaugh was unanimous ?

22 dems voted against roberts.

Bork was decimated before he even got a hearing.

Read carefully I am talking about the unanimous nominations under Reagan.

Scalia, OConner and Kennedy.

But back to an intelligent point, this process of course is political. It started that way.

Washington nominated John Rutledge who had a 10-14.

It is inherently a political process, the Democrats did not just recently make it so, that is laughable and partisan to the point of insanity.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Also interestingly all the unanimous nominations were from Republican Presidents, showing that only Democrats have put politics aside some times and voted with the Republicans.



Oh my.

Gorsuch was unanimous ?

Kavennaugh was unanimous ?

22 dems voted against roberts.

Bork was decimated before he even got a hearing.

Read carefully I am talking about the unanimous nominations under Reagan.

Scalia, OConner and Kennedy.

But back to an intelligent point, this process of course is political. It started that way.

Washington nominated John Rutledge who had a 10-14.

It is inherently a political process, the Democrats did not just recently make it so, that is laughable and partisan to the point of insanity.

Yes it is.

Of course, the supreme example being Roosevelts court packing attempts because he was pissed the conservative court for shooting down his unconstitutional New Shit Deal