|
|
Post by fuji on Oct 13, 2020 20:09:23 GMT
Holy crap! She doesn't even know basic laws. Amy Klobuchar just called her out on voter intimidation and she didn't seem to know it was against the law. She has little experience as a judge and is a religious extremist. That should be enough to have everyone questioning the ethics of this decision. Of course, ethical Republicans in Congress is an oxymoron.
Seriously. This is a nightmare.
What are the chances it won't happen? I know...it's already decided, but I can dream. Right?
Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Oct 13, 2020 20:30:03 GMT
Depends on the GOP senators, if they have enough votes. Mitch feels great has enough votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 13, 2020 20:51:45 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 13, 2020 20:58:39 GMT
There is absolutely no chance that Mitch McConnell will not get his way in ramrodding her through.
She could just sit there and sing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song in response to each question and she would still be confirmed.
Her faculty colleagues at Notre Dame have issued a letter calling for her NOT to be confirmed. It won’t matter.
The hearings are complete and total sham. None of it matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 13, 2020 21:08:08 GMT
There is absolutely no chance that Mitch McConnell will not get his way in ramrodding her through. She could just sit there and sing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song in response to each question and she would still be confirmed. Her faculty colleagues at Notre Dame have issued a letter calling for her NOT to be confirmed. It won’t matter. The hearings are complete and total sham. None of it matters. FYI - the faculty of the law school have written in her support (23 of them signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee) The letter in opposition was from faculty in other departments. But I agree with you that unless there's another COVID outbreak, none of this matters. |
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,921 
|
Post by pinklady on Oct 13, 2020 21:09:32 GMT
Nope. Her answers to the questions from Senators are down right scary.
They would not have started he proceedings if they did not have enough votes to confirm.
|
|
purplebee
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,790
|
Post by purplebee on Oct 13, 2020 21:48:30 GMT
I listened to a brief bit of the hearing with Amy K questioning on my way home from work. I was so frustrated with the lack of response that I didn’t bother to listen to any more after I got home. She knows exactly what she is doing. She has been prepped NOT to answer anything, and the GOP side is letting her get away with it. She is a total trump stooge and she will be our next SC justice. Deplorable....
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 13, 2020 21:54:41 GMT
No. Which is why she’s basically taking the equivalent of the 5th on a lot of questions she’s asked. She knows it doesn’t matter.
Seriously.... when she refused to directly answer something because it was hypothetical. You’re not on SCOTUS yet, so every question about how you’ll handle something there *IS* hypothetical.
Also her voice grates on me.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 13, 2020 21:58:14 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. Oh yeah she knows the law, it’s partly why she’s not answering certain things, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 13, 2020 22:05:28 GMT
She’s a shoe in with this administration.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 4, 2024 19:29:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2020 22:46:07 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. I’m okay with this. I’m more concerned with the way the Repugnicans in Congress outright lie and are proud of their lies. That’s what bothers me most. Yes, the SC has been liberal in the majority of the last 50 years but I’m not afraid of a conservative court. I am afraid of a Repugnican majority in either of the houses of Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 13, 2020 23:18:19 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. I’m okay with this. I’m more concerned with the way the Repugnicans in Congress outright lie and are proud of their lies. That’s what bothers me most. Yes, the SC has been liberal in the majority of the last 50 years but I’m not afraid of a conservative court. I am afraid of a Repugnican majority in either of the houses of Congress. The thing is that she’s not even a normal conservative. She’s a far-right wackadoodle, certifiable, being nominated only because it will appease the far-right wackadoodles who make up the core of Trump’s base. Congressional majorities come and go, but SCOTUS seats are for life. A third of the court, for the foreseeable future, will have been nominated by Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Oct 13, 2020 23:23:49 GMT
It was a done deal before these hearings even started.
Give her hell Harris 💪🏼
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 13, 2020 23:27:49 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. I’m okay with this. I’m more concerned with the way the Repugnicans in Congress outright lie and are proud of their lies. That’s what bothers me most. Yes, the SC has been liberal in the majority of the last 50 years but I’m not afraid of a conservative court. I am afraid of a Repugnican majority in either of the houses of Congress. I am. These Supreme Court seats are for life. It’s worse than a congressional majority, which is not. |
|
|
|
Post by cindyupnorth on Oct 13, 2020 23:33:41 GMT
I am very disappointed that she will be nominated, and by such a POS President. Esp since she is so young, and the seat is for life. It's disheartening for all women. I keep hoping something..anything..will come up to delay the nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 14, 2020 0:09:40 GMT
I’m okay with this. I’m more concerned with the way the Repugnicans in Congress outright lie and are proud of their lies. That’s what bothers me most. Yes, the SC has been liberal in the majority of the last 50 years but I’m not afraid of a conservative court. I am afraid of a Repugnican majority in either of the houses of Congress. I am. These Supreme Court seats are for life. It’s worse than a congressional majority, which is not. I too am much more concerned about the Supreme Court than congressional majority. |
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Oct 14, 2020 0:24:47 GMT
Here's what I don't get. How can the GOP use her confirmation as a reason to vote for them in November if they plan to have her confirmed before election day? We keep getting mailers from Thom Tillis with something about how important her confirmation is and to vote for him. Well, I think that is what they say because I really can't speed read fast enough to see what they say between the mailbox and the recycling bin.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 4, 2024 19:29:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2020 0:29:18 GMT
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,811
|
Post by Just T on Oct 14, 2020 0:38:33 GMT
I am very disappointed that she will be nominated, and by such a POS President. Esp since she is so young, and the seat is for life. It's disheartening for all women. I keep hoping something..anything..will come up to delay the nomination. I agree.
My cousin, who is a very conservative evangelical Christian, who in the past few years went through a very bad divorce from a very abusive husband, is all gaga over her. She posted something on social media about no matter what side of politics you are on, you gotta admit she is is a great choice. I so badly wanted to say all sorts of things to her.
IMO, NOTHING will delay or derail her nomination. Trump managed to get through Brett I love beer Kavanaugh. If that is possible, anything is.
|
|
|
|
Post by cindyupnorth on Oct 14, 2020 0:38:52 GMT
For SC Justice - William Douglas was the longest at 36 years. RBG 27 years. The average is 16 years. How old were those judges when they were nominated? Barrett is ONLY 48 yrs old. |
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,073
|
Post by mimima on Oct 14, 2020 0:44:28 GMT
For SC Justice - William Douglas was the longest at 36 years. RBG 27 years. The average is 16 years. How old were those judges when they were nominated? Barrett is ONLY 48 yrs old. Since RBG was 87 when she passed, she must have been 60 at confirmation. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 14, 2020 1:42:03 GMT
For SC Justice - William Douglas was the longest at 36 years. RBG 27 years. The average is 16 years. How old were those judges when they were nominated? Barrett is ONLY 48 yrs old. She’s almost exactly my age. This is not the influence on our government I hoped GenX would have. We are better than this! |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 14, 2020 2:04:51 GMT
How old were those judges when they were nominated? Barrett is ONLY 48 yrs old. She’s almost exactly my age. This is not the influence on our government I hoped GenX would have. We are better than this! Yes! Please go back to forgetting about us! 😂 |
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,073
|
Post by mimima on Oct 14, 2020 2:13:21 GMT
How old were those judges when they were nominated? Barrett is ONLY 48 yrs old. She’s almost exactly my age. This is not the influence on our government I hoped GenX would have. We are better than this! She's my calendar age, but almost a year older than me as she was born in January and I was born at the end of the summer. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Oct 14, 2020 2:39:05 GMT
We Dems need to get our act together and unify on expanding the SC if we get the Senate and the WH because Breyer is next. He was born in 1938. I don’t know how much longer he’ll be on the bench, but if Trump wins a 2nd term, forget 6-3, we’ll be looking at 7-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Oct 14, 2020 2:39:45 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. Really? Because THIS is what happened today. For those of you who do not want to click, Barrett was asked “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?” The only answer is NO. She responded "Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process.” The 20th Amendment to the Constitution requires: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January … and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” So darcy you can see she does NOT know basic laws. To not know the Constitution is awful. To not know this amendment is TERRIFYING. Oh wait, are you going to say I only gave one example? Here's another from today: “Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?” Again, an easy question with an obvious answer. The U.S. Code (Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 594) calls for a fine, imprisonment or both for “whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote.” But Barrett answered differently. “I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” she said. So either she knows and has decided she is not going to follow the Constitution or she doesn't know. Which one is it? These are NOT hypothetical situations. These are situations that Trump has said may occur if he feels like it. Voter intimidation has occurred in numerous states. Be terrified if this woman is put on the SC. TERRIFIED. All our rights are being destroyed as women, as families, as LGBTQ, but even more frightening is the fact that she does NOT know the law or the Constitution. Irrefutable facts darcy . What do you have to say about that? |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 14, 2020 2:49:28 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. Really? Because THIS is what happened today. For those of you who do not want to click, Barrett was asked “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?” The only answer is NO. She responded "Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process.” The 20th Amendment to the Constitution requires: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January … and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” So darcy you can see she does NOT know basic laws. To not know the Constitution is awful. To not know this amendment is TERRIFYING. Oh wait, are you going to say I only gave one example? Here's another from today: “Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?” Again, an easy question with an obvious answer. The U.S. Code (Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 594) calls for a fine, imprisonment or both for “whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote.” But Barrett answered differently. “I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” she said. So either she knows and has decided she is not going to follow the Constitution or she doesn't know. Which one is it? These are NOT hypothetical situations. These are situations that Trump has said may occur if he feels like it. Voter intimidation has occurred in numerous states. Be terrified if this woman is put on the SC. TERRIFIED. All our rights are being destroyed as women, as families, as LGBTQ, but even more frightening is the fact that she does NOT know the law or the Constitution. Irrefutable facts darcy . What do you have to say about that? Of course she knows that. She just wasn’t going to answer the question with anything that could be used against her. And with her confirmation in the bag, she doesn’t have to. Not knowing and not answering because you know it’s in the bag, are two entirely different things. Like Elaine said, she could sit there singing Mickey Mouse songs and she’d STILL get the nomination. It’s a done deal. |
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by pinklady on Oct 14, 2020 3:00:26 GMT
I don’t get why republicans are praising her for not having any notes. Who the fuck needs notes when you don’t answer a single question.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 14, 2020 3:06:02 GMT
She admitted that she or her husband owns a gun, so I think we can forget about reasonable gun safety, too, as well as the Affordable Care Act and women’s reproductive rights.
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by pinklady on Oct 14, 2020 3:10:18 GMT
This woman is a vile disgusting human who will be on the Supreme Court so I need to just move on BUT this was too vile not to share:
|
|
