Where all this hate towards Amy Coney Barrett is coming from?

[Ame®icano]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

 

[Votto]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

I think it outrageous that they ask how she would rule on anything.

Do you not first have to gather all the facts presented as a case first? Why not then just say how you will vote on everything and never show up to court?

Dolts.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not hate, it's FEAR. But not for the reasons they're telling you.

 

[Zorro!]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

The question in the topic title is a good one, and the answer is the same place that the fake news lies always comes from, Democrats. They claimed during Souters confirmation that he would reverse women's rights for a hundred years.

There is no validity to the notion that Judge Barrett is going to deprive Americans of their healthcare. It’s true that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. However, there is almost no chance that this challenge will gain anywhere close to five votes, with or without Amy Barrett on the Court.

Nor has Barrett criticized Obamacare. Sen. Chris Coons claims otherwise. However, as Andy McCarthy shows, the book review Coons relies on expresses no position on Obamacare.

It does criticize the methodology Chief Justice Roberts used to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 (which was not the only reasoning by which the same result could have been reached, in theory). However, that decision stands, and there is no indication that it will be revisited.

There is no need to. The penalty associated with the individual mandate has been repealed. The question before the Supreme Court in the coming term isn’t the constitutionality of the mandate. Rather, it is whether, now that mandate has been invalidated, the entire Affordable Care Act must be dismantled. There is very little chance the Supreme Court will agree that it must be.

 

[theHawk]

Yea, just listening to her opening statement, she sounds like a normal human being, albeit very intelligent and capable at her job. But to the radical left being a “normie” is the real problem, she’s not onboard their SJW Crusade to redefine America through Judicial fiat. They just can’t come out and say that so they rant about a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Zorro!]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

I think it outrageous that they ask how she would rule on anything.

Do you not first have to gather all the facts presented as a case first? Why not then just say how you will vote on everything and never show up to court?

Dolts.

They are attacking the independence of the Judiciary by trying to get commitments in advance to rule in a particular manner. If they then fail to do so, they will claim that they lied and that the "lie" is grounds for impeachment. This with the threat to stack the Court is the Left bullying the court which began with Obama attacking the Court at his SOTU over Citizens United, in which Democrats claimed that it was illegal to screen a film critical of Crooked Hillary, and that those that did so should be jailed, and in which the Obama Administration informed that Court that they had the right to ban books.

The Goal of Democrats is to strip us of our Liberty and Freedom so that they can rule by force. The Notorious ACB will be Fearless Valkyrie for our Liberty and Freedom.

 

[White 6]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

What hate?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The demoquacks will sqauwk, then the Senate will confirm and it's over

Well done Trump

 

[skye]

Amy is too decent and normal for the Rats.

She loves her family, she loves the Constitution, she has morals and values, and last but not least, she is an attractive, intelligent woman.

That is totally unacceptable for the crazy, demented Left.

 

[Dick Foster]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

In a word the hate is coming from the left, the party of hate and stupidity.

 

[Blackrook]

The Democrats were once a party of normal people but those days are long past.

 

[occupied]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

 

[Indeependent]

Politicians are actors entertaining their constituents.

 

[Redcurtain]

How did John Roberts view the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and decide OGee I’m gonna side with Democrats going forward lol

 

[protectionist]

Democrats have lowered the bar of decency to below that of disgusting indecency. They have been showing videos of young people with medical care needs, getting it from ACA, but never showing anything to justify the notion that these people would lose their care.

For that matter, for thousands of people needing medical care from the ACA, they could get lots of medical by joining the military. Not a bad idea for everyone in America to do that anyway.

 

[Zorro!]

She deserves far less respect than she is getting because it is clear she is ruthlessly partisan for having anything to do with this travesty.

Fake News.

We've all known that she was being held by Trump for RBG's replacement. RBG replaced the conservative Byron White. It was likely Karma that RBG refused to retire while Obama could have named her replacement and Dingy Harry Reid could have guaranteed her replacements confirmation.

ABA: Barrett “well qualified” to serve on SCOTUS



Games people play.



Even the partisan hacks at the ABA didn't dare dis the Notorious ACB.

Nevertheless, the ABA’s decision has all but closed off any attacks on Barrett’s qualifications for the position. The threat of blowback has apparently convinced Senate Democrats to avoid attacks on Barrett as some kind of religious fanatic too, even if the media keeps flogging those stories ad infinitum. So what will Senate Democrats use for their attacks? Stay tuned, but so far in this hearing, they’ve barely addressed Barrett. It sounds more like a confirmation hearing for Donald Trump.

 

[Blackrook]

She's a woman so they can't accuse her of raping people but maybe they will say she's a Catholic who prays the rosary too much.

 

[two_iron]

An accomplished, wholesome, powerful woman is kryptonite to the feckless left. It just reminds them how substandard and inferior they are.

 

[DukeU]

 

[Ame®icano]

The entire confirmation hearing today on Democrat side was based on a premise that Barrett would vote against CommieCare (ACA), or in other words, on nothing.

The "individual mandate" part, that was constitutionally sketchy, was already removed by Congress few years back. Although it's true that Trump's admin is trying to strike out rest of the ACA, what makes you lefties think that SCOTUS is going to vote against it if the law is constitutional? With "individual mandate" gone, the rest of the law, regardless of we liking it or not, is likely to stand, and six Justices who already voted for ACA earlier have no reason to vote against it now?

Democrats know this, and the MSM as well, but they simply don't care, and they're attacking Barrett on insinuation that she would vote against it, regardless of her vote wouldn't matter anyways. They spent half a day looking at the photos of people who "would die if they lose their healthcare", and those sad stories have absolutely nothing to do with confirmation hearing. In other words, they turn whole hearing today into Democrat party commercial with the message "look what Trump is going to do to sick people". In reality, of course, Trump isn't going to do anything to anyone. If law is unconstitutional, it should be repealed, but for the reason I mentioned above, the ACA is most likely going to stand.

Democrats have not disappointed, they acted exactly as you would expect from them. They were lying, acting "outraged", and like everyone but them is plain stupid. They know that ACA sucks, and for those that have to use it, it stinks, but Democrats are not fighting for it because it's a good law, but because it's a foundation on which they could continue to build the single payer, government controlled system, and if that foundation is gone, they would have to start, should they get a chance, all over again.

Therefore, just another mockery of the hearing, as they did with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

The question in the topic title is a good one, and the answer is the same place that the fake news lies always comes from, Democrats. They claimed during Souters confirmation that he would reverse women's rights for a hundred years.

There is no validity to the notion that Judge Barrett is going to deprive Americans of their healthcare. It’s true that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. However, there is almost no chance that this challenge will gain anywhere close to five votes, with or without Amy Barrett on the Court.

Nor has Barrett criticized Obamacare. Sen. Chris Coons claims otherwise. However, as Andy McCarthy shows, the book review Coons relies on expresses no position on Obamacare.

It does criticize the methodology Chief Justice Roberts used to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 (which was not the only reasoning by which the same result could have been reached, in theory). However, that decision stands, and there is no indication that it will be revisited.

There is no need to. The penalty associated with the individual mandate has been repealed. The question before the Supreme Court in the coming term isn’t the constitutionality of the mandate. Rather, it is whether, now that mandate has been invalidated, the entire Affordable Care Act must be dismantled. There is very little chance the Supreme Court will agree that it must be.

No one, including Democrats, has any idea how Barret would rule on ACA, if she's confirmed, and we're not suppose to know until Justices hear the case and rule on it. Democrats know they can't win this battle, but they will do anything to try to destroy the SCOTUS in it's form, because it's standing in their way of reshaping SCOTUS to their purpose, and it that means packing the court when they get the chance, they'll do it. None of the questions they asked Barrett today matters, since their intentions are to pack the court with six more justices.

What today's hearing showed to me is that Republicans were completely unprepared, they're debating miniscule technicalities, sections of the Constitution, which is fine, but Democrats are playing totally different game, with political goal of winning the elections, where Barrett confirmation would have no meaning. Why do I say that? Because, they did not attacked her (at least not yet) on any other far more serious issue that Barrett could be standing in their way (gun control, Roe v Wade, Christian faith).