Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One

[Jason]

22 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

She’s a piece of shit because she brought her children to a super spreader event knowing we’re in the midst of a pandemic. 

 

And she did it twice.

[Jason]

And then she sent her kids right back to school so they could spread it to other kids.

[mclumber1]

29 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

She’s a piece of shit because she brought her children to a super spreader event knowing we’re in the midst of a pandemic. 

 

Fair enough!

[Joe]

How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett? | FiveThirtyEight

FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM

---

Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett? It’s a question we’ve asked before with other appellate judges who have been nominated to the Supreme Court — most r…

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 hours ago, Joe said:

Did I miss something? Why are we asking ACB if Brown was correctly decided? 

she has an opinion that brown is, rightly, decided correctly. She gets cagy on griswold and Casey and lawrence and obergefell. It's a plain tell if you're paying attention that she wants to overturn those, or tell you how she will rule. Not that it would come as a shock to anyone here.

[Guest]

They lost sound again 😂

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

she has an opinion that brown is, rightly, decided correctly. She gets cagy on griswold and Casey and lawrence and obergefell. It's a plain tell if you're paying attention that she wants to overturn those, or tell you how she will rule. Not that it would come as a shock to anyone here.

Well she's hardcore cult Catholic of course she's anti contraception. I think Protestants are in for a rude awakening later. 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

she has an opinion that brown is, rightly, decided correctly. She gets cagy on griswold and Casey and lawrence and obergefell

 

 

But like why would we feel the need to ask her? That's so bizarre and worrisome.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

she has an opinion that brown is, rightly, decided correctly. She gets cagy on griswold and Casey and lawrence and obergefell

 

The reason she answers on Brown is she has written and spoke openly about Brown on the record prior to being on the 7th. She hasn’t on the other cases.

 

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

But like why would we feel the need to ask her? That's so bizarre and worrisome.

They are asking to set up the exact scenario in which she readily answers on Brown but goes back to her refusal on basically every other question.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The reason she answers on Brown is she has written and spoke openly about Brown on the record prior to being on the 7th. She hasn’t on the other cases.

 

They are asking to set up the exact scenario in which she readily answers on Brown but goes back to her refusal on basically every other question.

It's federalist society speak for "I'm not racist...BUT"

[Guest]

I actually think it was a pretty clever play by Blumenthal to structure the line of questioning that way.

[Chairslinger]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

she has an opinion that brown is, rightly, decided correctly. She gets cagy on griswold and Casey and lawrence and obergefell

 

 

 

Been saying this for weeks. After they chew through the immediate hot button issues, expect this court to take on things you didn't even think were debatable anymore.

 

Abortion is the big one, but all kinds of things follow from that. The morning after pill, in vitro, contraception. The thing to remember is that we're not talking about upholding a national law for these thing(at least not necessarily). We are talking about them "throwing it back to the states". And I expect this court will surprise everyone with just how little they think they are allowed to restrict states from doing things. Particularly Christian things.

[Joe]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The reason she answers on Brown is she has written and spoke openly about Brown on the record prior to being on the 7th. She hasn’t on the other cases.

 

They are asking to set up the exact scenario in which she readily answers on Brown but goes back to her refusal on basically every other question.

 

Got it, I knew there had to be a reason, but wasn't sure what it was. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I actually think it was a pretty clever play by Blumenthal to structure the line of questioning that way.

Agreed. 

[Kal-El814]

6 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

She seems like a nice person overall.  You just don't like her politics.  

 

Okay, Ellen

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Okay, Ellen

 

In a post-Kavanaugh world, if you don't have a rage fit during a confirmation hearing, you're a "nice person."

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Joe said:

In a post-Kavanaugh world, if you don't have a rage fit during a confirmation hearing, you're a "nice person."

 

The best part of the rage fit is that they were his prepared opening remarks. It wasn't spontaneous.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just straight up ask her, "Does the Constitution contain in any way possible a right to privacy - yes or no?"

 

If she demurs, keep asking "Yes or No?" for the entire allotted time.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Just straight up ask her, "Does the Constitution contain in any way possible a right to privacy - yes or no?"

 

If she demurs, keep asking "Yes or No?" for the entire allotted time.

Amy comey barret 👏does 👏 not 👏owe 👏 you 👏 a 👏thing 👏including 👏an 👏answer

#girlboss

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Just straight up ask her, "Does the Constitution contain in any way possible a right to privacy - yes or no?"

 

If she demurs, keep asking "Yes or No?" for the entire allotted time.

 

Why harass the nice lady like that? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oh, she absolutely doesn't.

 

But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be forced to say that she doesn't know if a Constitutional right to privacy exists over and over and over again.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Oh, she absolutely doesn't.

 

But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be forced to say that she doesn't know if a Constitutional right to privacy exists over and over and over again.

Clearly you don't know how to weaponize bad faith sexism

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Guest]

Marsha Blackburn definitely requires everybody to refer to her as Senator, even her grandkids.

[Kal-El814]

33 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why these hearings or debates are even a thing anymore. Nobody getting nominated to the Supreme Court or a Dem/GOP POTUS candidate is going to have meaningful unknowns about them in 2020. If we accept that the GOP had the votes to confirm a nominee before she was officially named, if she's allowed to get up there and be coy / play dumb, if presidential candidates just get to lie, drep, and stump the whole time, what is the actual fucking point of any of this? It's all stale ass leftovers from a time where candidates might not have ever interacted before a debate, before 24 hour news, cycles, and before political betting markets could project who the candidate would be before RBG died.

[Uaarkson]

I’m actually amazed that this country made it as far as it did under this joke of a system. It was basically dumb luck.

 

If Democrats don’t learn to play dirty fast, it’s game over. They’re gonna fucking roll over while we transform into Handmaid’s Tale.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

I don't understand why these hearings or debates are even a thing anymore. Nobody getting nominated to the Supreme Court or a Dem/GOP POTUS candidate is going to have meaningful unknowns about them in 2020. If we accept that the GOP had the votes to confirm a nominee before she was officially named, if she's allowed to get up there and be coy / play dumb, if presidential candidates just get to lie, drep, and stump the whole time, what is the actual fucking point of any of this? It's all stale ass leftovers from a time where candidates might not have ever interacted before a debate, before 24 hour news, cycles, and before political betting markets could project who the candidate would be before RPG died.

Best case, putting this shit out there and she still gets confirmed increases the odds of getting the judiciary expanded

[cusideabelincoln]

7 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

It’s beyond her “politics”. Anyone who dodges basic questions in the manner she does, her blank note pad, and her entire demeanor does not strike me as a “nice person”, but a shitty person who is going to do shitty things with the power she could (will) soon wield. If you’re going to do shitty things, you’re a POS, full stop, regardless of the smile and front you put on while doing so.

 

Yep, I tuned in for 15 minutes late in the day and she is one of those fake nice people.  And every answer she gave could be summed up as "we'll see."

[Guest]

I don’t think she is fake nice, but it’s mostly irrelevant to the proceedings. The issue is with such a small court that the ideological underpinnings of each justice is magnified to a ridiculous degree. If the court were 20+ in size, any individual justice makes little difference. Even a near complete flipping of ideological positions like Ginsburg to Barrett would be unlikely to matter to any significant degree.
 

Make a 27 member court comprised of three 9 member panels, with rotating membership. Have different panels grant cert for the others do panels can’t cherry pick cases they want to rule on.

 

Reform the whole stupid thing.

[Uaarkson]

If by reform you mean revolt against in revolutionary war, sure.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t think she is fake nice, but it’s mostly irrelevant to the proceedings. The issue is with such a small court that the ideological underpinnings of each justice is magnified to a ridiculous degree. If the court were 20+ in size, any individual justice makes little difference. Even a near complete flipping of ideological positions like Ginsburg to Barrett would be unlikely to matter to any significant degree.
 

Make a 27 member court comprised of three 9 member panels, with rotating membership. Have different panels grant cert for the others do panels can’t cherry pick cases they want to rule on.

 

Reform the whole stupid thing.

Hell yeah, and have the Dems appoint the whole lot of them

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

It’s honestly kinda on brand for a conservative to forget about the right to redress  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I stand by my statement from a few weeks ago that this Court's (potential) rulings will be the catalyst for the (inevitable) dissolution of the United States as a political entity.