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

[OKTexas]

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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

.

She doesn't hink any further than the end of her nose.

She won't answer simple questions either. Typical commie.

.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

.

Along with a lot of other people (who says he's full of shit).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

 

[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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

There is no such thing as giving rights to minorities.

The fundamental definition of a right is that is universally enjoyed.

Moron.

 

[Dragonlady]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

His question has no merit and is merely a deflection to derail the discussion. Marc is asking a very valid question. Why THIS nominee, and why NOW. What is so special about THIS woman, that Republicans are willing to give up the Senate to get her seated?

Is it a reward for her help in seating W in the Oval Office? Is it just to overturn the ACA - something that the American people have voted for overwhelmingly in 3 separate elections - two of which were basically referendums on the ACA, and after lawmakers have time and time again refused to repeal?

 

[The Original Tree]

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

Why Democrats Fear Trump. Why you Fear Trump.

Romans: 13-2-4

Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;

for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

His question has no merit and is merely a deflection to derail the discussion. Marc is asking a very valid question. Why THIS nominee, and why NOW. What is so special about THIS woman, that Republicans are willing to give up the Senate to get her seated?

Is it a reward for her help in seating W in the Oval Office? Is it just to overturn the ACA - something that the American people have voted for overwhelmingly in 3 separate elections - two of which were basically referendums on the ACA, and after lawmakers have time and time again refused to repeal?

It has no merit ?

Please tell me you are not that stupid.

So when you answer his question, we'll answer the ones that follow.

News To You: Just because you think your special does not mean the rest of us do.

 

[Juicin]

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

 

[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.

.

 

[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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

There is no such thing as giving rights to minorities.

The fundamental definition of a right is that is universally enjoyed.

Moron.

And you call me a moron.

So you think that black people have always had the "right" to vote. Or the "right" to buy a house in any neighbourhood they can afford to live in? When I was in my 20''s, I couldn't buy a house unless I had a man to cosign my mortgage.

The history of the Supreme Court in America is one of giving rights to those the majority have chosen to exclude from full participation in the rights they take for granted.

In the 1970's I was a bank manager, who could give any man a mortgage who applied, but my own bank wouldn't give me a mortgage without a male co-signer. I had a college educated, professional woman friend who had to get her husband to sign her credit card application.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

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

That's funny, first I heard this was from a guy pointing to an empty head.

 

[easyt65]

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...

Bwuhahahahaha.....

The only relevance her kids have to her ability to withstand the Democrat committee hearing process is that she is used to dealing calmly dealing with children and has the exceptional mental reasoning and intelligence to run rings around them, which she did during these hearings.

 

[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.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

Republicans speak these words, as they prepare to send a woman to the court to overturn the ACA, which has twice before gone to the Court and been confirmed by the Supreme Court. If they can changes the judges, they can change a law that the American people overwhelming support and depend on, and have voted for 3 times in the past 10 years. Even the Republican Senate refused to repeal the ACA.

When the Senate refused to repeal the ACA, Republicans launched this court case with the intention of using the court to do what the people and the legislators refused to do. And they're doing it, not because it's the right thing to do, or that it will benefit the American people. Trump is doing this to "undo Obama's legacy".

Tell me again that this isn't about legislating from the bench.

 

[BS Filter]

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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

There are donors on both sides. You have a difficult time accepting the fact of life that people have the RIGHT to disagree with you.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Correct, a red herring.

Is she qualified?

Define "qualified". Anyone who has graduated law school and has practiced before the bar, is technically "qualified". ACB has been "groomed" by the Federalist Society so that her qualifications and background are impeccable and unquestionable. To me, if you don't accept "precedent", you're not "qualified".

If you have to hide, cover up and lie about your beliefs, as she did this week, you are definitely not qualified, and just based on the lies she told in the hearing, would disqualify her in my view. The first lie out of her mouth, makes her entirely unsuitable.

If she can't tell the truth in her confirmation hearing, how can you trust her to be telling you the truth about what she would do as a judge, or what her views are?

So you think Dread Scott should still be the law in the US? It was a precedent at one time.

The laws that ACB will not accept as "precedent", are laws giving rights to minorities, women and gays. She won't even accept as "precedent" the right of women to have and keep birth control in their own homes. It's not that she refuses to accept "precedent", she does, it's the precedents she refuses to accept, Roe v Wade, Oberfell v Hodges, chief among them.

I live in a country with NO abortion laws whatsoever. Abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and it's fully paid for by our tax funded healthcare. The Catholic Church has never filed a court case here to try to change this because they would lose. Our abortion rate is half that of the USA. You want to stop abortions - start helping working class women to keep and raise their babies. Don't punish them for trying to keep their heads above water, and do right by their living children.

We've also had gay marriage for nearly 20 years. The right predicted the destruction of all morals when the Supreme Court decreed gay marriage legal. The predicted moral decline of the country has yet to happen, and gay marriage has had little impact to no impact on the rest of us. And in Canada, you are required by law to bake that cake regardless of your personal religious beliefs. This is also a non-issue here.

Americans are always standing on their Consitutional rights and freedoms as excuses to treat others badly. Using the Consitution and the Bible to justify slavery, ban racially mixed marriage, and to codify segregation. The Federalist Society is trying to pack the Supreme Court who will carry out their wishes to roll back the clock to a time when women, minorities, and gays had no rights.

The attempt of the Federalist Society to pack the court with judges willing to do their bidding is scary indeed. Who is funding all of this? Who are the donors who spent $17 million dollars promoting the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and now ACB?

You're a liar, she didn't make any statement on those cases because they are still being litigated and she could be called to decide one or more of those cases. Also what you freaks do north of the border with your frozen little pea brains is irrelevant to what happens in the US, you don't have our Constitution.

.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

Republicans speak these words, as they prepare to send a woman to the court to overturn the ACA, which has twice before gone to the Court and been confirmed by the Supreme Court. If they can changes the judges, they can change a law that the American people overwhelming support and depend on, and have voted for 3 times in the past 10 years. Even the Republican Senate refused to repeal the ACA.

When the Senate refused to repeal the ACA, Republicans launched this court case with the intention of using the court to do what the people and the legislators refused to do. And they're doing it, not because it's the right thing to do, or that it will benefit the American people. Trump is doing this to "undo Obama's legacy".

Tell me again that this isn't about legislating from the bench.

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?

 

[OKTexas]

Do you ever read what you typed before hitting the post button or are you so deep in the bong to care? Tell the class how the highest court in the land can obstruct justice.

.

Why are you and your ilk so excited about having this judge on the Supreme Court?

Why don't you answer his question first.

His question has no merit and is merely a deflection to derail the discussion. Marc is asking a very valid question. Why THIS nominee, and why NOW. What is so special about THIS woman, that Republicans are willing to give up the Senate to get her seated?

Is it a reward for her help in seating W in the Oval Office? Is it just to overturn the ACA - something that the American people have voted for overwhelmingly in 3 separate elections - two of which were basically referendums on the ACA, and after lawmakers have time and time again refused to repeal?

The fact is you commies would be spewing the same crap about anyone Trump nominates, don't act like this is a unique situation. Also confirming this nomination will only increase the republicans chances of holding the senate.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

 

[Juicin]

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?