Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Indeed, FDR's move was so ham fisted saying it was about helping older judges that he even lost significant support in his own party.


If one looks to the Marshall - Jefferson conflict, the political nature of the court was inherent early on.

Marshall outplayed randy slave loving Jefferson however almost at every turn.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Indeed, FDR's move was so ham fisted saying it was about helping older judges that he even lost significant support in his own party.


If one looks to the Marshall - Jefferson conflict, the political nature of the court was inherent early on.

Marshall outplayed randy slave loving Jefferson however almost at every turn.

Robert Bork gives Marshall credit...but to many people think Marbury v. Madison was somehow binding which it wasn't.

Jefferson hated the idea of a powerful court. He could see happening....what is happening now.

Just get it through to the SCOUTUS and you have your best chance of getting what you want in spite of congress.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

It was never challenged because courts were not a big deal at the time.

Bork says that Marshall kept things centered and allowed the government to function.

I doubt Marshall ever envisioned the SCOTUS as the lightning rod it was today.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

It was never challenged because courts were not a big deal at the time.

Bork says that Marshall kept things centered and allowed the government to function.

I doubt Marshall ever envisioned the SCOTUS as the lightning rod it was today.

It was not challenged because Marshall outplayed Jefferson, he gave Jefferson what he wanted, the nullification of the midnight judicial appointments by the Federalists, Marshall stated even though Jefferson was wrong to do so the Federalists were unconstitutional with the judiciary act in which they appointed so there was no judicial remedy, and Jefferson took the bait.

It set the precedent of judicial review, that the court can in fact strike down acts by Congress or a President if deemed unconstitutional.


The court has never looked back.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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?"

"Judge Barrett, can I waste your time trying to make myself feel smart without having to actually be smart?"

 

[hadit]

"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.

So you're saying that the Senators are not qualified to question her understanding of the law because they didn't ask the questions you wanted them to ask? Interesting.

As we have all known since RBG went through this process, it is simply not right to insist a nominee has to indicate how he/she will rule on a case, since each case has differing characteristics that must be considered against the actual text of the Constitution. It doesn't matter how popular the law might be.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Barrett is one of the most accomplished women in the WORLD. I know that is hard for a bottom dweller, like you, to understand. Your area of knowledge is so tiny, but this woman would run rings around you...in her sleep.

Barrett is one of the most accomplished women in the WORLD. I know that is hard for a bottom dweller, like you, to understand. Your area of knowledge is so tiny, but this woman would run rings around you...in her sleep.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Barrett is one of the most accomplished women in the WORLD. I know that is hard for a bottom dweller, like you, to understand. Your area of knowledge is so tiny, but this woman would run rings around you...in her sleep.

 

[skye]

I thought she was going to be good..... she turned out to be a POS

Just another traitor

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

You are truly lazyass person since I posted the link showing that the vast majority of approved justices had strong yes voting results.

From 2010 back to 1955

Sotomayor 68-31

Elena Kagan 63-37

John Roberts 78-22

Stephen Breyer 87-9

Ruth Ginsburg 96-3

David Souter 90-9

Anthony Kennedy 97-0

Antonin Scalia 98-0

Sandra O Connor 99-0

John Stevens 98-0

William Rehnquist 65-33

Lewis Powell 89-1

Harry Blackmun 94-0

Warren Berger 74-3

Thurgood Marshall 69-11

Stewart Potter 70-17

John Harland 71-11

It was the LYING democrats such as Ford who tried to destroy Kavanaugh with bogus sexual assault claims and Anus hell tried to destroy Clarence Thomas with bogus sexual harassment claims, both have since been shown to be big liars and fully discredited.

Robert Bork was shamefully run out by bogus racism claims which were countered by many blacks who knew him.

You have been Thoroughly REFUTED!

 

[candycorn]

I thought she was going to be good..... she turned out to be a POS

Just another traitor

It seems everyone you admire ends up being a "POS". Perhaps you should be brighter.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

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

Testifying to Congress is no easy thing, especially if you're sitting for a job interview to be cons

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 **** 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.

I didn't recognize her name, however I knew you couldn't have been speaking for a Liberal Democrat, since they're radically retarded. Liberal Democrats can't stand their ground against conservatives, yet somehow that doesn't sway them as if mistaken and twisted is a comfort zone.