Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is COOL as a CUCUMBER !! She is going to SAIL thru... SHE si so QUALIFIED, so SMOOTH, and so COMPETENT... it's SCARY !!


Recommended Posts

Just now, rippy38 said:

You are delusional if you think Roe V Wade is going away.

 

Rulings pertaining to Roe will come into play, but the landmark decision will not be stricken.

 

You need to put down the kool aid.

It might be restricted to being legal before the fifth month of pregnancy. Funny and odd how the leftist scum main platform is murdering the unborn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Translation = I don’t have any proof of my assertions. Look them up for me and see if you can prove me right. If you can’t prove me right, maybe it’ll take so long you’ll forget I posted this crap...

An ANNOYING  VOICE?,  NANCY Pelosi... now THERE'S an ANNOYING VOICE !!

Amy klobachar is just pissed she is not being nominated for the Supreme Court what a bitch 

18 minutes ago, Scout said:

Notice these guys keep running from addressing the already existing case (AT LEAST one) where she has legislated from the bench.  She made up language

and added it to the bill she was supposed to interpret.  

 

THIS PROVES she is lying about her claims she 

can separate herself from what she wishes were true.

 

Adding language is exactly how you make something easier to understand. Considering your low IQ you should be happy that someone out there makes things easier for you. About that link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, maineman said:
1 hour ago, superds77 said:

Really? Amazing how quickly SOME of these appointments were confirmed.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/12/fact-check-supreme-court-nomination-during-voting/5880544002/

"

  • 1988: President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy on Nov. 30, 1987. The Senate confirmed Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1988.

Kennedy was nominated more than 11 months before the 1988 election... and, the Senate confirmed Kennedy unanimously - even though the senate was held by democrats.   Joe Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee who gave a REPUBLICAN president a SCOTUS justice in the last year of his presidency.  Sad that Mitch couldn't be as gracious to Obama as Biden was to Reagan. 

 

Payback is a bitch.

Interesting how you only cite one example.

 

Secondly, payback is indeed a bitch. Can you say "Bork"?

 

What "payback" is happening now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, maineman said:
1 hour ago, rippy38 said:

How about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

 

Were they confirmed with bipartisan Senate votes?

post Garland theft.... a whole new ballgame.

 

stand by for some serious reprecussions.

Remember when Republicans tried to stop Sotomayor and Kagan?

 

Neither do I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, superds77 said:

Interesting how you only cite one example.

 

Secondly, payback is indeed a bitch. Can you say "Bork"?

 

What "payback" is happening now?

 

oh yeah....basically confirming Supreme Court nominees has always been a formality.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed nearly unanimously.  John Roberts, not so much.  Now has on the liberal side of the bench, but he's still conservative.

 

gotta suck for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

It might be restricted to being legal before the fifth month of pregnancy. Funny and odd how the leftist scum main platform is murdering the unborn.

Yep... killing kids and sodomy.

 

They are some despicable folks for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

And this to accomplish shredding the constitution and gain total control over the country by wannabee communists? What mentally challenged retard would want that?

Nothing in that list is unconstitutional at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, superds77 said:

Remember when Republicans tried to stop Sotomayor and Kagan?

 

Neither do I.

That doesn't count, since the left got what they wanted in those instances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, maineman said:

Garland changed the game.  

 

You should have thought of the long term ramifications... they very well may be devastating to the GOP.

Not true the left has been fucking with SCOTUS since Ginsberg. Kagan and Sotomeyer are perfect examples of leftist scum acting as judges/legislators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RayDonavin said:

Not true the left has been fucking with SCOTUS since Ginsberg. Kagan and Sotomeyer are perfect examples of leftist scum acting as judges/legislators.

 

it's only legislating from the bench when they disagree with the ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Interesting how you only cite one example.

 

Secondly, payback is indeed a bitch. Can you say "Bork"?

 

What "payback" is happening now?

Bork had a hearing.  He had a committee vote.  His opinions as to the civil rights decisions made by the Warren and Burger courts made him unacceptable to the senate.

 

NO payback is happening now.  Stay tuned for 2021 fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RayDonavin said:

It is to proceed with destroying the constitution.

They don't want to destroy the Constitution... they just want to make it more socialist friendly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

Bork had a hearing.  He had a committee vote.  His opinions as to the civil rights decisions made by the Warren and Burger courts made him unacceptable to the senate.

 

NO payback is happening now.  Stay tuned for 2021 fun.

Too many allowing abortion is unacceptable period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Remember when Republicans tried to stop Sotomayor and Kagan?

 

Neither do I.

Scalia was unanimously confirmed.  Times change.  Garland.  Sow the wind...reap the whirlwind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rippy38 said:

You are delusional if you think Roe V Wade is going away.

 

Rulings pertaining to Roe will come into play, but the landmark decision will not be stricken.

 

You need to put down the kool aid.

 

YOur President said his appts WILL vote to get rid of Roe v. Wade and

that he knows that before he nominates them.   But they have 

told the Senate they cannot make any such claim.  So they must be

lying to the Senate which makes all of them dark money scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

Not true the left has been fucking with SCOTUS since Ginsberg. Kagan and Sotomeyer are perfect examples of leftist scum acting as judges/legislators.

thanks for your opinion...

 

I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:
18 minutes ago, rippy38 said:

You are delusional if you think Roe V Wade is going away.

 

Rulings pertaining to Roe will come into play, but the landmark decision will not be stricken.

 

You need to put down the kool aid.

 

You need to watch the hearings before being so stupid as to

issue opinions that Barrett has contradicted.  :D  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is why this is such an acrimonious debate and why neither side really cares about playing "by the rules".

 

From the conservative side, it appears that liberals have moved a LONG way from being the more pro-civil liberties, anti-government supervision of beliefs, side. 

 

Sixty-five years ago, conservatives would have approved of, say, outlawing the Communist Party.  (And so would all the liberals in Congress, but not the rank and file of the liberal movement.)  They would have approved of loyalty oaths for college professors. (And so did many elected liberals, but not the rank and file.)  

 

Now, things have reversed.  If you, as a devout Christian, cannot bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, liberals are happy to bankrupt you, perhaps even put you in prison.

 

A college professor who holds non -politically correct views on, say, biological differences in cognitiion and behavior between males and females (biological males and females), or the same for the different sub-species of the human race -- that college professor will be in danger of being sacked, or of being attacked physically if he gives a talk on his views.

 

So the Left and the Right have changed positions on the issue of freedom of thought and speech. (Please note: the Right was NO BETTER than the current-day Left, in the middle of the century.)

 

Now .. in those days, the Supreme Court was a defender of our civil liberties.  A friend of mine was in prison in Boston in 1957, awaiting trial under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the US government by force and violence -- he was on the National Committee of the Communist Party -- when the Supreme Court overturned that part of the Smith Act, in the famous Yates decision.

 

But today, if the Left gain a majority on the court, our liberties will be in danger.

 

So ideas about fighting fair go out the window, just as they did when we fought the Nazis: bomb their children, shoot down their Red Cross planes trying to rescue their pilots in the English Channel ... all was justified.

 

And no doubt that is how the Left feel about us conservatives: no rule needs to be followed. No free speech for us.

 

So ... it's a battle to the death.  Which has only begun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

YOur President said his appts WILL vote to get rid of Roe v. Wade and

that he knows that before he nominates them.   But they have 

told the Senate they cannot make any such claim.  So they must be

lying to the Senate which makes all of them dark money scum.

Well Roe V Wade was not a good constitutional argument. It may well be considered again but that does not mean it will be overturned. You like murdering babies? leftist scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

YOur President said his appts WILL vote to get rid of Roe v. Wade and

that he knows that before he nominates them.   But they have 

told the Senate they cannot make any such claim.  So they must be

lying to the Senate which makes all of them dark money scum.

Here is a Trump quote I found...

 

Asked if Barrett would be part of a 6-3 ruling "on a life issue," Trump replied, "It's certainly possible. And maybe they do it in a different way. Maybe they'd give it back to the states. You just don't know what's going to happen."

 

Trump said that he did not discuss any specific cases when he met with Barrett.

 

"I didn't discuss certain concepts and certain things," he said. "And some people say you shouldn't. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. But I decided not to do it. And I think it gives her freedom to do what she has to do. She has to make rulings."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...