Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

[miketx]

Why drag her children to the hearings? Not a PTA meeting. Shouldn’t they be in school?

So they can see what evil looks like up close.

 

[BS Filter]

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

Why are you seizing on the word "white" when I also said "male" as well? If the Federalist Society was trying to pack the court with nothing but black judges, it would be just as big an issue. A judiciary that doesn't reflect the population of the nation it serves, is a bad thing. Judges should not be coming entirely from wealthy elite backgrounds either.

Wealthy white males make up less than 1% of population, and shouldn't be dominating the courts since they have no idea of how the other 99% live, or the effect of their decisions on those who insulated from all of the issues working people face.

For example: ACB is unlikely to sypathetic to a working class woman wanting an abortion because her child will have Down's Syndrome, and she doesn't have the money for special schools, nannies, and sheltered care when she can no longer care for the child. ACB will look at this woman as a monster, because her DS is the light of her family, and her beliefs that abortion is wrong. In the meantime, this woman will be forced to put this child into state care and put it up for adoption, simply because she doesn't have the resources deal with her needs. She'll be adding to the children in the foster care system, waiting for adoption that is unlikely to come.

You weren't listening to the confirmation hearings, were you? It's not a judges job to set policy, that's the job of politicians that are accountable to the people. If politicians write bad laws, that's on them, not the judge that invalidates them. As Barrett said, they should write better laws.

.

Yea they say that, that's a lie

Judges set policy all the time

Look at gorsuch, he's bending over backwards to redefine protections over sexual orientation as the most obvious recent example

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

The left wing ABA says you're full of shit.

.

oh the aba says so, must be true

/s

do you know any lawyers? lol

Yeah, I do. What's your point?

.

You trust their assessments? lol

What exactly do you think it woudl take to get them to say she wasn't qualified, how incompetent would she need to be?

Sexual orientation isn't a Constitutional right.

Do you think the constitution is the only way one can acquire a right/

The civil rights act for example gives a lot of people a lot of rights in this country

The government doesn't create rights. The government protects EXISTING rights. Black people always had the right to vote since emancipation, but were prevented because of Democrat Jim Crow laws. That's why the Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats in 1964.

Civil rights act protects people in the north too bud, just because it did more for people in the south it's pure fucuking delusino to think otherwise.

Considering your avatar I'm gonna assume you should know better than that, you look like you might have been alive when that was true.

Do you think black america had equal employment oppurtunities in the north in 1965? What are you talking about?

The government doesn't only protect existing rights. We had no freedom of speech until very recently. They just made it up

Are you an oppressed minority?

oppressed? no

minority yes

my ethnic group earns almost double the average of whites....But cops do harass me sometimes

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind, we get it.

do you think there aren't ethnic groups who earn double what whites do? lol

Jews being the most obvious example

White boys can't stand it when their "inferiors" make more money than they do. I've had people say to me "Why do you have this job instead of a man?", and my response has always been "Because I'm good at it." But when they send a guy they hired off the street at a salary 20% higher than mine, to fill a position I had applied for, and then sent him to me to train, because "You're the best there is", I dusted off my resume and started looking.

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

seems to me its democrats talking about them not repubes,,,

Then you didn't watch the hearings. ACB's children were the ONLY thing Republicans talked about. They were marched into the hearing room, in a line from oldest to youngest. Senators remarked on how "well behaved" they were. What a devoted mother she is, hurrying home from court in time to always be there for their soccers games, and on and on. You would have thought she was being nominated as "Mother of the Year" and not for a seat on the Supreme Court.

But ACB isn't applying for the position of Mom of the years, although it's obvious that she is a great Mom, and her family seems lovely. I don't ever remember any other nominee for the SC having his or her family publically paraded before the Senate in this fashion or Senators giving speeches about what a great parent they are. Why aren't they talking about what a great judge she is? Her qualifications or her experience. I watched that hearing all day, and at the end of the day, the only thing I knew about ACB is that she has a lot of kids, one of whom is Downs Syndrome and two of whom are racial minorities.

I would also like to add that much was made of her being a superwoman and role model to millions of young women everywhere for what women can achieve, to which I would say "hogwash". ACB is a woman of wealth and privilege who can afford to hire all the help she needs.

I had a full time housekeeper, who got my kids off to school in the morning, and picked them up after school. When I came home with a briefcase full of work, my house was tidy, my table was set and our dinner was in the oven. The cleaning lady came in Saturday morning and did the floors and bathrooms. She has a lot more "help" than I have, and with 7 kids, one of the DS, she needs it. I have a friend who owns her own paralegal business with 3 full time employees, manages her family's real estate investment trust, is the President of her son's school PTA, and throws elegant events. She has a full time live in housekeeper/nanny who she provides with a car.

I don't begrudge ACB her wealth or her privilege but none of us could do be superwomen without a lot of "help".

the bigger question is why did the dems ignore them????

its almost like they knew they couldnt use them for political gain because some were black,,,

As a professional woman, it was really off-putting that Republicans focussed on her family and not on the Judge's qualifications and record. Offensive even. They have never done anything remotely like this for any nomination in my lifetime, and they certainly didn't do it for Justices Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayer.

The sheer number of Republican Senators focussing on ACB's family over her qualifications and record, was so odd, that it made me wonder why they were doing this. Why weren't they talking about her great decisions, or her record. When I learned more about the Federalist Society, being funded by dark money to put talented young right wing law students on a glide path to SC, it all started to make sense.

They don't want to talk about who her politics, her record, or how she came to be nominated, and why the big push to get this woman onto the court before the election, even to the point of being willing to lose the Senate to get her confirmed.

maybe you should save you emotional problems for your therapist,, cause th fact is she should be a role model for women all around the world,,, feminist and normies alike,,,


but you go right ahead and attack her family,,,,

she was not only able to have great success in a career but also have a loving family,,,
what else could a person want out of life???

Hey dipshit. The feminists are the "normies". The handmaidens who don't use birth control and who think women have no right to birth control, like ACB, are the outliers. 80% of American women believe in the right to abortion. That makes feminist position the "normies" point of view.

Nor did I "attack" her family. I didn't even criticize them. I simply said that her wealth and privilege shields her from what us "normies" have to deal with every single day, starting with: having quality, reliable, and affordable child care available. She's never faced having a sick child and no health insurance or money to pay for medications. She's not having to negotiate government programs and accessing the social safety net to supplement her income. She lives a charmed life of wealth and people opening doors for her from the moment she left college.

I started out poor, and worked my way up. I didn't have some dark money machine smoothing my way. I came up at a time when I feared that if I failed, it would make it that much harder for the women who came after me to succeed. Today, the hostility and aggression I faced every day just for having a "man's job", is called "sexual harassment", and ultimately it drove me out of a job I loved.

At only 71, I can say that I was honoured to personally know the first female Bencher of the Law Society of Canada, and the first female Secretary of the Law Society of Upper Canada. And that fact also makes me sad. We've had these rights for such a short time, and yet women have always been here.

We still don't have income parity. We're still being sexually harassed. And Republican men are still trying to control our bodies.

Ask the Bar Association about her qualifications. Face it, this whole thing is political theater. Democrats are not interested in her legal qualifications, they want to paint her as a monster. They weren't interested in Kavanaugh's qualifications, they just wanted to paint him as a monster. Bringing her children in simply short circuited the democrats' obvious desire to fling their poop like so many monkeys, gibbering and jumping around all the while. Her children allow her to calmly face them down and dare them to be the first to pull their pants down.

This post from a local USMB rightwing PROOVES my OP right, the kids were used as a buffer.

Thanks for admitting that.

Yeah, all the insulting nasty vile things that the left had in store for the hearing had to be shelved because children were present. You jackals are the problem with American politics.

They see that as due diligence.

The butthurt motherfuckers lost two extra senate seats in 2018 when they thought they'd own the show.

Of course, had that happened and Ginsburg died in 2019, you can bet your ass her seat would still be open.

Democrats blew it in 2009 when Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and they had the White House and Senate. Their own fault that they're in this position.

I'm pretty sure that's 100% on Ginsburg not democrats generally

Had she stepped down they would have filled the position

Which is why she should be maligned for being incompetent

Actually true

She wanted the first woman President to nominate her replacement -
Thanks Ruthie!

That's what happens when you try to write history. Talk about controlling arrogance.

 

[OKTexas]

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

Why are you seizing on the word "white" when I also said "male" as well? If the Federalist Society was trying to pack the court with nothing but black judges, it would be just as big an issue. A judiciary that doesn't reflect the population of the nation it serves, is a bad thing. Judges should not be coming entirely from wealthy elite backgrounds either.

Wealthy white males make up less than 1% of population, and shouldn't be dominating the courts since they have no idea of how the other 99% live, or the effect of their decisions on those who insulated from all of the issues working people face.

For example: ACB is unlikely to sypathetic to a working class woman wanting an abortion because her child will have Down's Syndrome, and she doesn't have the money for special schools, nannies, and sheltered care when she can no longer care for the child. ACB will look at this woman as a monster, because her DS is the light of her family, and her beliefs that abortion is wrong. In the meantime, this woman will be forced to put this child into state care and put it up for adoption, simply because she doesn't have the resources deal with her needs. She'll be adding to the children in the foster care system, waiting for adoption that is unlikely to come.

You weren't listening to the confirmation hearings, were you? It's not a judges job to set policy, that's the job of politicians that are accountable to the people. If politicians write bad laws, that's on them, not the judge that invalidates them. As Barrett said, they should write better laws.

.

Yea they say that, that's a lie

Judges set policy all the time

Look at gorsuch, he's bending over backwards to redefine protections over sexual orientation as the most obvious recent example

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

The left wing ABA says you're full of shit.

.

oh the aba says so, must be true

/s

do you know any lawyers? lol

Yeah, I do. What's your point?

.

You trust their assessments? lol

What exactly do you think it woudl take to get them to say she wasn't qualified, how incompetent would she need to be?

Wrong.

Yes.

And not even the commie lawyers in the senate challenged her legal qualifications. All they did is make irrelevant emotional pleas.

.

Yea because they're all qualified in teh same arbitrary sense

You don't even need to be a lawyer to be a member of SCOTUS lol

I'd do a better job than most of these retards, especially on national security

Then get off your ass and run for office and stop bitching.

.

if I wasn't an atheist i'd be preparing for my presidential run right now, hahaha

trump has given me confidence

ROFLMAO

.

 

[miketx]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

I could care less how many she has.

Where do they keep talking about them.

The only thing I heard about was someone speculating on her last two being human trafficking. That, of course, was your fucking low life side.

...You think the democrats came up with conspiracy theories about haitian children before republicans? HAHAHAHAHA

That's a funny joke

I assure you there is no original thought democrats could have about haitian children, all been said by teh right before

I am sure you've got a link too.

She probably had one of her kids getting 50K a month from some company for a job she had no skills for. Maybe her 12 year old.

Oh, and another one fucking her dead brothers wife.

She's such a slime.

just google clinton foundation haiti

why you would want me to link to conspiracy theories i have no idea. you can go find them yourself?

Trust me, any "conspiracy theory" democrats put out there is just repurposed from republicans.

Yes, google is completely trustworthy.

 

[Billiejeens]

and just like that that - The Left Hates Precedent.

Why should the left adhere to something the right discarded w/years ago.

Are you out of your mind?

Factually False
no.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

...and it pisses you off that the 2nd Amendment seems much safer now, that the religious in this country
will not be so easily marginalized, that abortion laws will not be liberalized, that Big Tech Giants are more likely to be reeled in now, etc.
In other words now the left will be less likely to exert their radical will on the rest of the country.
And it chaps your ass, doesn't it!

 

[Billiejeens]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

...and it pisses you off that the 2nd Amendment seems much safer now, that the religious in this country
will not be so easily marginalized, that abortion laws will not be liberalized, that Big Tech Giants are more likely to be reeled in now, etc.
In other words now the radicals on the left will be less likely to exert their will on the rest of the country.
And it chaps your ass, doesn't it!

It does, severely.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ted Cruz was asking about her kids' piano lessons.

Let's talk about that when they become concert pianist's, Ok Ted? What a blowhard he is.

Wow! Take care of that misplaced anger. Try not to flip out and shoot people in a blind rage.

Projecting much? He doesn't sound angry or flipped out at all. His comment is very reasonable. What does this kid's piano lessons have to do with this mother's qualifications or fitness for the SC? You seem to be projecting Republican anger, and willingness to open fire in a blind rage, onto Democrats.

But the focus of the Republican Senators on ACB's family had the effect of making the sane reasonable people question why they didn't want to talk about her qualifications and suitability for the court. What are they covering up?

Looks like you shot yourself in the foot with that one. A self-inflicted wound.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It does, severely.

Indeed! The hypocrites on the left don't mind the court placing their will on the country as long as it
reflects the views of the radical left.

 

[OKTexas]

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

Why are you seizing on the word "white" when I also said "male" as well? If the Federalist Society was trying to pack the court with nothing but black judges, it would be just as big an issue. A judiciary that doesn't reflect the population of the nation it serves, is a bad thing. Judges should not be coming entirely from wealthy elite backgrounds either.

Wealthy white males make up less than 1% of population, and shouldn't be dominating the courts since they have no idea of how the other 99% live, or the effect of their decisions on those who insulated from all of the issues working people face.

For example: ACB is unlikely to sypathetic to a working class woman wanting an abortion because her child will have Down's Syndrome, and she doesn't have the money for special schools, nannies, and sheltered care when she can no longer care for the child. ACB will look at this woman as a monster, because her DS is the light of her family, and her beliefs that abortion is wrong. In the meantime, this woman will be forced to put this child into state care and put it up for adoption, simply because she doesn't have the resources deal with her needs. She'll be adding to the children in the foster care system, waiting for adoption that is unlikely to come.

You weren't listening to the confirmation hearings, were you? It's not a judges job to set policy, that's the job of politicians that are accountable to the people. If politicians write bad laws, that's on them, not the judge that invalidates them. As Barrett said, they should write better laws.

.

Yea they say that, that's a lie

Judges set policy all the time

Look at gorsuch, he's bending over backwards to redefine protections over sexual orientation as the most obvious recent example

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

The left wing ABA says you're full of shit.

.

oh the aba says so, must be true

/s

do you know any lawyers? lol

Yeah, I do. What's your point?

.

You trust their assessments? lol

What exactly do you think it woudl take to get them to say she wasn't qualified, how incompetent would she need to be?

Sexual orientation isn't a Constitutional right.

Do you think the constitution is the only way one can acquire a right/

The civil rights act for example gives a lot of people a lot of rights in this country

The government doesn't create rights. The government protects EXISTING rights. Black people always had the right to vote since emancipation, but were prevented because of Democrat Jim Crow laws. That's why the Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats in 1964.

Civil rights act protects people in the north too bud, just because it did more for people in the south it's pure fucuking delusino to think otherwise.

Considering your avatar I'm gonna assume you should know better than that, you look like you might have been alive when that was true.

Do you think black america had equal employment oppurtunities in the north in 1965? What are you talking about?

The government doesn't only protect existing rights. We had no freedom of speech until very recently. They just made it up

Are you an oppressed minority?

oppressed? no

minority yes

my ethnic group earns almost double the average of whites....But cops do harass me sometimes

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind, we get it.

do you think there aren't ethnic groups who earn double what whites do? lol

Jews being the most obvious example

White boys can't stand it when their "inferiors" make more money than they do. I've had people say to me "Why do you have this job instead of a man?", and my response has always been "Because I'm good at it." But when they send a guy they hired off the street at a salary 20% higher than mine, to fill a position I had applied for, and then sent him to me to train, because "You're the best there is", I dusted off my resume and started looking.

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

seems to me its democrats talking about them not repubes,,,

Then you didn't watch the hearings. ACB's children were the ONLY thing Republicans talked about. They were marched into the hearing room, in a line from oldest to youngest. Senators remarked on how "well behaved" they were. What a devoted mother she is, hurrying home from court in time to always be there for their soccers games, and on and on. You would have thought she was being nominated as "Mother of the Year" and not for a seat on the Supreme Court.

But ACB isn't applying for the position of Mom of the years, although it's obvious that she is a great Mom, and her family seems lovely. I don't ever remember any other nominee for the SC having his or her family publically paraded before the Senate in this fashion or Senators giving speeches about what a great parent they are. Why aren't they talking about what a great judge she is? Her qualifications or her experience. I watched that hearing all day, and at the end of the day, the only thing I knew about ACB is that she has a lot of kids, one of whom is Downs Syndrome and two of whom are racial minorities.

I would also like to add that much was made of her being a superwoman and role model to millions of young women everywhere for what women can achieve, to which I would say "hogwash". ACB is a woman of wealth and privilege who can afford to hire all the help she needs.

I had a full time housekeeper, who got my kids off to school in the morning, and picked them up after school. When I came home with a briefcase full of work, my house was tidy, my table was set and our dinner was in the oven. The cleaning lady came in Saturday morning and did the floors and bathrooms. She has a lot more "help" than I have, and with 7 kids, one of the DS, she needs it. I have a friend who owns her own paralegal business with 3 full time employees, manages her family's real estate investment trust, is the President of her son's school PTA, and throws elegant events. She has a full time live in housekeeper/nanny who she provides with a car.

I don't begrudge ACB her wealth or her privilege but none of us could do be superwomen without a lot of "help".

the bigger question is why did the dems ignore them????

its almost like they knew they couldnt use them for political gain because some were black,,,

As a professional woman, it was really off-putting that Republicans focussed on her family and not on the Judge's qualifications and record. Offensive even. They have never done anything remotely like this for any nomination in my lifetime, and they certainly didn't do it for Justices Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayer.

The sheer number of Republican Senators focussing on ACB's family over her qualifications and record, was so odd, that it made me wonder why they were doing this. Why weren't they talking about her great decisions, or her record. When I learned more about the Federalist Society, being funded by dark money to put talented young right wing law students on a glide path to SC, it all started to make sense.

They don't want to talk about who her politics, her record, or how she came to be nominated, and why the big push to get this woman onto the court before the election, even to the point of being willing to lose the Senate to get her confirmed.

maybe you should save you emotional problems for your therapist,, cause th fact is she should be a role model for women all around the world,,, feminist and normies alike,,,


but you go right ahead and attack her family,,,,

she was not only able to have great success in a career but also have a loving family,,,
what else could a person want out of life???

Hey dipshit. The feminists are the "normies". The handmaidens who don't use birth control and who think women have no right to birth control, like ACB, are the outliers. 80% of American women believe in the right to abortion. That makes feminist position the "normies" point of view.

Nor did I "attack" her family. I didn't even criticize them. I simply said that her wealth and privilege shields her from what us "normies" have to deal with every single day, starting with: having quality, reliable, and affordable child care available. She's never faced having a sick child and no health insurance or money to pay for medications. She's not having to negotiate government programs and accessing the social safety net to supplement her income. She lives a charmed life of wealth and people opening doors for her from the moment she left college.

I started out poor, and worked my way up. I didn't have some dark money machine smoothing my way. I came up at a time when I feared that if I failed, it would make it that much harder for the women who came after me to succeed. Today, the hostility and aggression I faced every day just for having a "man's job", is called "sexual harassment", and ultimately it drove me out of a job I loved.

At only 71, I can say that I was honoured to personally know the first female Bencher of the Law Society of Canada, and the first female Secretary of the Law Society of Upper Canada. And that fact also makes me sad. We've had these rights for such a short time, and yet women have always been here.

We still don't have income parity. We're still being sexually harassed. And Republican men are still trying to control our bodies.

You have NO idea what she will do. You have TWO oustanding assertions to source.
1) Source your Dark Money claim
2) Source where the LAW requires her to show her positions when nominated.

Why do you hate being asking to source the things you type?

I can source everything I write, but I got tired of spending my time and effort, only to have you fools refuse to read them. When you lazy pricks post your bullshit and lies, I take the time to do a google search to see if it's true, before demanding links or calling you a liar. And then I come here, armed with a rational rebuttal of your bullshit. You make demands, call me names, and then end up looking like the lazy and stupid fool that you are.

As for the dark money and the Federalist Society - THAT WAS FROM HER CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, which YOU claimed to have watched. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse laid it all out in his 30 minutes, complete with charts, graphs and other visual aids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

And here is my google search.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

Making you asshats look stupid is just WAY too easy.

Sorry, YOUR source says she reported everything she was "required" to report. Nothing in there about "Dark Money" at all. I keep embarrassing you because I read your links and you don't. (shrugs)

So you really didn't read the link at all did you? And you wonder why I don't bother posting links at all

This has nothing to do with her having to report her relationship to the Federalist Society. That relationship is right out there in the open. Donald Trump is ONLY appointing judges vetted and approved by the federalist society.

Try watching the video of the Senator's testimony you claimed to have watched.

ROFLMFAO, senators were there to ask questions, not testify. And whitehouse is one of the largest beneficiaries of dark money in the congress. Pot meet kettle.

.

 

[OKTexas]

No. She said she didn't always agree with Scalia.

.

Uh huh.

She is, in fact, and for all intents and purposes, a Scalia disciple.

Oh my, she and Scalia both believe that judges should apply laws and the Constitution as written, just like many justices have throughout history, oh the horror. You're a fucking joke.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

...and it pisses you off that the 2nd Amendment seems much safer now, that the religious in this country
will not be so easily marginalized, that abortion laws will not be liberalized, that Big Tech Giants are more likely to be reeled in now, etc.
In other words now the left will be less likely to exert their radical will on the rest of the country.
And it chaps your ass, doesn't it!

And what makes you think that's the case, and the Democratic Senate won't be successful in undoing everything you're trying to do?

If Republicans were smart, they wouldn't push this nomination now. They'd use it as a call to the polls for Republican voters. Instead, with the court packed with Federalist Society judges, they'll vote out Moscow Mitch and his merry band of corrupt enablers, because they don't need to worry about the courts. And Republicans will face a bloodbath in the down ballot races the likes of which you have never seen.

So, by all means. Go ahead with this nomination against the will of the people, and everything you have ever said. Democrats have said that Republicans have said that elections have consequences, and what they are doing isn't against the Constitution. Well there are a few arrows in the Democrats quiver too, and once you hand the Senate over to them, you'll be powerless to stop them from clearing the seats that were bought and paid for by the Federalist Society.

Justices Thomas and Alito are both over 70. Set a SC retirement age at 70 and both of them are gone. Raise the numbers of judges on the SC and the appeals courts. The House is gone, and the White House too. Lose the Senate and you have no way to stop the Dems.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Dragonlady]

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

white

You say "white" like it is a bad thing. Are you racist?

Why are you seizing on the word "white" when I also said "male" as well? If the Federalist Society was trying to pack the court with nothing but black judges, it would be just as big an issue. A judiciary that doesn't reflect the population of the nation it serves, is a bad thing. Judges should not be coming entirely from wealthy elite backgrounds either.

Wealthy white males make up less than 1% of population, and shouldn't be dominating the courts since they have no idea of how the other 99% live, or the effect of their decisions on those who insulated from all of the issues working people face.

For example: ACB is unlikely to sypathetic to a working class woman wanting an abortion because her child will have Down's Syndrome, and she doesn't have the money for special schools, nannies, and sheltered care when she can no longer care for the child. ACB will look at this woman as a monster, because her DS is the light of her family, and her beliefs that abortion is wrong. In the meantime, this woman will be forced to put this child into state care and put it up for adoption, simply because she doesn't have the resources deal with her needs. She'll be adding to the children in the foster care system, waiting for adoption that is unlikely to come.

You weren't listening to the confirmation hearings, were you? It's not a judges job to set policy, that's the job of politicians that are accountable to the people. If politicians write bad laws, that's on them, not the judge that invalidates them. As Barrett said, they should write better laws.

.

Yea they say that, that's a lie

Judges set policy all the time

Look at gorsuch, he's bending over backwards to redefine protections over sexual orientation as the most obvious recent example

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

The woman is eminently qualified, get over yourself.

define eminently qualified

the handmaiden doesn't seem very qualified to me, she seems like a housewife with a love for capital

The left wing ABA says you're full of shit.

.

oh the aba says so, must be true

/s

do you know any lawyers? lol

Yeah, I do. What's your point?

.

You trust their assessments? lol

What exactly do you think it woudl take to get them to say she wasn't qualified, how incompetent would she need to be?

Sexual orientation isn't a Constitutional right.

Do you think the constitution is the only way one can acquire a right/

The civil rights act for example gives a lot of people a lot of rights in this country

The government doesn't create rights. The government protects EXISTING rights. Black people always had the right to vote since emancipation, but were prevented because of Democrat Jim Crow laws. That's why the Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats in 1964.

Civil rights act protects people in the north too bud, just because it did more for people in the south it's pure fucuking delusino to think otherwise.

Considering your avatar I'm gonna assume you should know better than that, you look like you might have been alive when that was true.

Do you think black america had equal employment oppurtunities in the north in 1965? What are you talking about?

The government doesn't only protect existing rights. We had no freedom of speech until very recently. They just made it up

Are you an oppressed minority?

oppressed? no

minority yes

my ethnic group earns almost double the average of whites....But cops do harass me sometimes

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind, we get it.

do you think there aren't ethnic groups who earn double what whites do? lol

Jews being the most obvious example

White boys can't stand it when their "inferiors" make more money than they do. I've had people say to me "Why do you have this job instead of a man?", and my response has always been "Because I'm good at it." But when they send a guy they hired off the street at a salary 20% higher than mine, to fill a position I had applied for, and then sent him to me to train, because "You're the best there is", I dusted off my resume and started looking.

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

seems to me its democrats talking about them not repubes,,,

Then you didn't watch the hearings. ACB's children were the ONLY thing Republicans talked about. They were marched into the hearing room, in a line from oldest to youngest. Senators remarked on how "well behaved" they were. What a devoted mother she is, hurrying home from court in time to always be there for their soccers games, and on and on. You would have thought she was being nominated as "Mother of the Year" and not for a seat on the Supreme Court.

But ACB isn't applying for the position of Mom of the years, although it's obvious that she is a great Mom, and her family seems lovely. I don't ever remember any other nominee for the SC having his or her family publically paraded before the Senate in this fashion or Senators giving speeches about what a great parent they are. Why aren't they talking about what a great judge she is? Her qualifications or her experience. I watched that hearing all day, and at the end of the day, the only thing I knew about ACB is that she has a lot of kids, one of whom is Downs Syndrome and two of whom are racial minorities.

I would also like to add that much was made of her being a superwoman and role model to millions of young women everywhere for what women can achieve, to which I would say "hogwash". ACB is a woman of wealth and privilege who can afford to hire all the help she needs.

I had a full time housekeeper, who got my kids off to school in the morning, and picked them up after school. When I came home with a briefcase full of work, my house was tidy, my table was set and our dinner was in the oven. The cleaning lady came in Saturday morning and did the floors and bathrooms. She has a lot more "help" than I have, and with 7 kids, one of the DS, she needs it. I have a friend who owns her own paralegal business with 3 full time employees, manages her family's real estate investment trust, is the President of her son's school PTA, and throws elegant events. She has a full time live in housekeeper/nanny who she provides with a car.

I don't begrudge ACB her wealth or her privilege but none of us could do be superwomen without a lot of "help".

the bigger question is why did the dems ignore them????

its almost like they knew they couldnt use them for political gain because some were black,,,

As a professional woman, it was really off-putting that Republicans focussed on her family and not on the Judge's qualifications and record. Offensive even. They have never done anything remotely like this for any nomination in my lifetime, and they certainly didn't do it for Justices Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayer.

The sheer number of Republican Senators focussing on ACB's family over her qualifications and record, was so odd, that it made me wonder why they were doing this. Why weren't they talking about her great decisions, or her record. When I learned more about the Federalist Society, being funded by dark money to put talented young right wing law students on a glide path to SC, it all started to make sense.

They don't want to talk about who her politics, her record, or how she came to be nominated, and why the big push to get this woman onto the court before the election, even to the point of being willing to lose the Senate to get her confirmed.

maybe you should save you emotional problems for your therapist,, cause th fact is she should be a role model for women all around the world,,, feminist and normies alike,,,


but you go right ahead and attack her family,,,,

she was not only able to have great success in a career but also have a loving family,,,
what else could a person want out of life???

Hey dipshit. The feminists are the "normies". The handmaidens who don't use birth control and who think women have no right to birth control, like ACB, are the outliers. 80% of American women believe in the right to abortion. That makes feminist position the "normies" point of view.

Nor did I "attack" her family. I didn't even criticize them. I simply said that her wealth and privilege shields her from what us "normies" have to deal with every single day, starting with: having quality, reliable, and affordable child care available. She's never faced having a sick child and no health insurance or money to pay for medications. She's not having to negotiate government programs and accessing the social safety net to supplement her income. She lives a charmed life of wealth and people opening doors for her from the moment she left college.

I started out poor, and worked my way up. I didn't have some dark money machine smoothing my way. I came up at a time when I feared that if I failed, it would make it that much harder for the women who came after me to succeed. Today, the hostility and aggression I faced every day just for having a "man's job", is called "sexual harassment", and ultimately it drove me out of a job I loved.

At only 71, I can say that I was honoured to personally know the first female Bencher of the Law Society of Canada, and the first female Secretary of the Law Society of Upper Canada. And that fact also makes me sad. We've had these rights for such a short time, and yet women have always been here.

We still don't have income parity. We're still being sexually harassed. And Republican men are still trying to control our bodies.

You have NO idea what she will do. You have TWO oustanding assertions to source.
1) Source your Dark Money claim
2) Source where the LAW requires her to show her positions when nominated.

Why do you hate being asking to source the things you type?

I can source everything I write, but I got tired of spending my time and effort, only to have you fools refuse to read them. When you lazy pricks post your bullshit and lies, I take the time to do a google search to see if it's true, before demanding links or calling you a liar. And then I come here, armed with a rational rebuttal of your bullshit. You make demands, call me names, and then end up looking like the lazy and stupid fool that you are.

As for the dark money and the Federalist Society - THAT WAS FROM HER CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, which YOU claimed to have watched. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse laid it all out in his 30 minutes, complete with charts, graphs and other visual aids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

And here is my google search.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

Making you asshats look stupid is just WAY too easy.

Sorry, YOUR source says she reported everything she was "required" to report. Nothing in there about "Dark Money" at all. I keep embarrassing you because I read your links and you don't. (shrugs)

So you really didn't read the link at all did you? And you wonder why I don't bother posting links at all

This has nothing to do with her having to report her relationship to the Federalist Society. That relationship is right out there in the open. Donald Trump is ONLY appointing judges vetted and approved by the federalist society.

Try watching the video of the Senator's testimony you claimed to have watched.

ROFLMFAO, senators were there to ask questions, not testify. And whitehouse is one of the largest beneficiaries of dark money in the congress. Pot meet kettle.

Of course Democrats are using Dark Money. You don't take a knife to a gun fight. The difference being that Republicans will do anything to keep access to dark money and Democrats will legislate to stop it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Projecting much? He doesn't sound angry or flipped out at all. His comment is very reasonable. What does this kid's piano lessons have to do with this mother's qualifications or fitness for the SC? You seem to be projecting Republican anger, and willingness to open fire in a blind rage, onto Democrats.

What did Ruth Bader Ginsberg's gym workout have to do with her SCOTUS functioning?
Asking about a child's piano lessons seems as germane to me as how many pounds RBG could press over her head.
The complaining about Cruz was NOT reasonable. It was ill tempered and no doubt caused by seeing how well Amy Coney Barrett was sailing through the gauntlet of democrat cretins and freaks in her confirmation
hearings. Don't worry...she'll only be on the court for the next several decades.

But the focus of the Republican Senators on ACB's family had the effect of making the sane reasonable people question why they didn't want to talk about her qualifications and suitability for the court. What are they covering up?

What are they covering up? Nothing!
She is exemplary. There is nothing to cover up. I guess that's why democrats would rather discuss
Donald Trump than Barrett's fitness to sit on the highest court in the land.

Looks like you shot yourself in the foot with that one. A self-inflicted wound.

Your idiotic comment is ironically appropriate but only in regard to your comments.
Not mine.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

...and it pisses you off that the 2nd Amendment seems much safer now, that the religious in this country
will not be so easily marginalized, that abortion laws will not be liberalized, that Big Tech Giants are more likely to be reeled in now, etc.
In other words now the left will be less likely to exert their radical will on the rest of the country.
And it chaps your ass, doesn't it!

And what makes you think that's the case, and the Democratic Senate won't be successful in undoing everything you're trying to do?

If Republicans were smart, they wouldn't push this nomination now. They'd use it as a call to the polls for Republican voters. Instead, with the court packed with Federalist Society judges, they'll vote out Moscow Mitch and his merry band of corrupt enablers, because they don't need to worry about the courts. And Republicans will face a bloodbath in the down ballot races the likes of which you have never seen.

So, by all means. Go ahead with this nomination against the will of the people, and everything you have ever said. Democrats have said that Republicans have said that elections have consequences, and what they are doing isn't against the Constitution. Well there are a few arrows in the Democrats quiver too, and once you hand the Senate over to them, you'll be powerless to stop them from clearing the seats that were bought and paid for by the Federalist Society.

Justices Thomas and Alito are both over 70. Set a SC retirement age at 70 and both of them are gone. Raise the numbers of judges on the SC and the appeals courts. The House is gone, and the White House too. Lose the Senate and you have no way to stop the Dems.

Be careful what you wish for.

Packed?
So filling a vacancy as the Constitution precribes is now packing the court.
Amazing.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

Your'e the first one i have heard mention it... you must be Republican

 

[Dragonlady]

It does, severely.

Indeed! The hypocrites on the left don't mind the court placing their will on the country as long as it
reflects the views of the radical left.

At least the Democrats are supporting the things that the American people have said time and time again they support in massive numbers: Gay marriage has 63% support among the population. 80% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, and the voters have overwhelming voted for the ACA every time it's been on the ballot, including 2018.

Democrats are willing to accept the will of the people and work for minority rights. Republicans are trying to thwart that will and strip blacks, women and gays of the progress they have made in achieving equal rights and freedoms under the law, even if they have to lie, cheat and steal to do it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Basically, as a buffer to counter the legitimate criticism for her far rightwing views that'll lead to Republicans obstruct justice and enact their radical will on the country...

Why Republicans keep talking about Amy Coney Barrett’s 7 kids

It’s a way to go after her liberal critics.

www.vox.com

Your'e the first one i have heard mention it... you must be Republican

So you admit that you didn't watch the hearings, haven't read the newspapers, or watched television news since the hearings. Why are you making comments about something you know nothing about and aren't paying attention to?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And what makes you think that's the case, and the Democratic Senate won't be successful in undoing everything you're trying to do?

Because every issue I raised has already gone through our court system and been litigated up the wazoo.
It's hard impossible to see how you will eliminate the 2nd Amendment, for instance, on Constitutional
grounds. Especially not with a court that is essentially conservative and not inclined to do so.
But you can always wish.

Would a democrat senate be able to pass new laws banning guns that don't fail on Constitutional grounds?
You fucking wish!

If Republicans were smart, they wouldn't push this nomination now.

Oh...
Okay.

They'd use it as a call to the polls for Republican voters. Instead, with the court packed with Federalist Society judges, they'll vote out Moscow Mitch and his merry band of corrupt enablers, because they don't need to worry about the courts. And Republicans will face a bloodbath in the down ballot races the likes of which you have never seen.

Oh.....
Okay.

So, by all means. Go ahead with this nomination against the will of the people, and everything you have ever said. Democrats have said that Republicans have said that elections have consequences, and what they are doing isn't against the Constitution. Well there are a few arrows in the Democrats quiver too, and once you hand the Senate over to them, you'll be powerless to stop them from clearing the seats that were bought and paid for by the Federalist Society.

Oh......................
Okay already. Enough with the threats and asinine blather.

Justices Thomas and Alito are both over 70. Set a SC retirement age at 70 and both of them are gone. Raise the numbers of judges on the SC and the appeals courts. The House is gone, and the White House too. Lose the Senate and you have no way to stop the Dems.

Why not ask Santa Claus for a pet pony too, as long as you are making wishes.

 

[OKTexas]

I have no idea. I hope that she is not going to legislate from the bench, and I hope that she knows you people do, and thus your precedents should NOT be respected.


Of course, I did not start this thread, talking shit about her views, when I don't have a clue about them.


That was you.


You should go find the most extreme view of hers you can find, and post it, and then admit that you were just talking shit.


Trying being a man for once. See how it feels on you.

Our fellow poster, DragonLady, has already posted video showing evidence of her views presented by one of our Senators.

Did you not see it?

If not, you need to inform yourself.

She has extremely far rightwing views.

This is a fact.

That you claim to not know her views, isn't anything to be proud of by the way, it's a sign of ignorance.

No, that's your opinion, which isn't worth much.

.