That would have looked unseemly. Basically this is a chance for both parties to grandstand so they’ll do it and vote. The result is locked in.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Amy Coney Barrett...
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Gee, I thought I was being sarcastic back on 09/22.
Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon
Post by Bryce » Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:00 am
Well, lets see how many men the democrats trot out claiming Amy Coney Barrett molested them in high school.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Bryce, you knew they were going to go there. Not with the rancor they did last time but it is part of their playbook. They have no real reason to block her, not that they can, other than the mantra, It's not fair, it's our turn, so they do what they can to embarrass her. Not working thought, she is smarter, and cooler than any of them.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
I really think the underlying reason they feel they need to block her is because when they nominate someone, they know that their liberal personal beliefs will influence the decisions that they make. It is inconceivable to them that someone would make decisions based solely on the law.zzand wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 amBryce, you knew they were going to go there. Not with the rancor they did last time but it is part of their playbook. They have no real reason to block her, not that they can, other than the mantra, It's not fair, it's our turn, so they do what they can to embarrass her. Not working thought, she is smarter, and cooler than any of them.
From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
She can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them. She’s a b-league or maybe c-league nominee. This is a small-ball person we’re about to toss on the court.Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 amI really think the underlying reason they feel they need to block her is because when they nominate someone, they know that their liberal personal beliefs will influence the decisions that they make. It is inconceivable to them that someone would make decisions based solely on the law.zzand wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 amBryce, you knew they were going to go there. Not with the rancor they did last time but it is part of their playbook. They have no real reason to block her, not that they can, other than the mantra, It's not fair, it's our turn, so they do what they can to embarrass her. Not working thought, she is smarter, and cooler than any of them.
From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Examples please?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Why do you speak of Kagan this way?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 amShe can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them. She’s a b-league or maybe c-league nominee. This is a small-ball person we’re about to toss on the court.Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 amI really think the underlying reason they feel they need to block her is because when they nominate someone, they know that their liberal personal beliefs will influence the decisions that they make. It is inconceivable to them that someone would make decisions based solely on the law.zzand wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 amBryce, you knew they were going to go there. Not with the rancor they did last time but it is part of their playbook. They have no real reason to block her, not that they can, other than the mantra, It's not fair, it's our turn, so they do what they can to embarrass her. Not working thought, she is smarter, and cooler than any of them.
From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.
She wasn't even a judge before becoming a supreme court justice.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
You beat me to this. I was going to ask him why he was re-watching the Kagan hearings.audiophile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:29 amWhy do you speak of Kagan this way?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 amShe can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them. She’s a b-league or maybe c-league nominee. This is a small-ball person we’re about to toss on the court.Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 amI really think the underlying reason they feel they need to block her is because when they nominate someone, they know that their liberal personal beliefs will influence the decisions that they make. It is inconceivable to them that someone would make decisions based solely on the law.zzand wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 amBryce, you knew they were going to go there. Not with the rancor they did last time but it is part of their playbook. They have no real reason to block her, not that they can, other than the mantra, It's not fair, it's our turn, so they do what they can to embarrass her. Not working thought, she is smarter, and cooler than any of them.
From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.
She wasn't even a judge before becoming a supreme court justice.
RT is taking a page from TCFS' book and making stuff up. ACB has been masterful in schooling the partisan hacks.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Sen. Kennedy trying to make her sound like she has command of issues or has tried to understand things (presumably trying to make her seem smart or something)...
She couldn’t give more than generic answers when asked if she had an opinion on climate change. She couldn’t answer when asked if a president can delay an election according to the constitution (hint: NO). I mean come on... those aren’t even partisan questions and they aren’t hard to give an answer on. At one point she even started to use the wrong canned response and and said “no wait” and changed her answer. What a joke.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
If you want to know something you can read their past decisions.
Oh wait, Kagan didn't have any.
Oh wait, Kagan didn't have any.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
A friendly senator asked the question to try to help her out!audiophile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:19 pmIf you want to know something you can read their past decisions.
Oh wait, Kagan didn't have any.
As for past decisions... you or I could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There’s no requirement for a law degree or anything else. It’s even happened before that a friendly person with no law experience period was put up there.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Not all very qualified scientists can agree about the presence or cause of climate change. How can one expect a Supreme Court Justice to have a definitive opinion?
“You know, I’m certainly not a scientist, I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm views on it.”
I guess if I was going to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court, on any issue, I would prefer justices that didn't have a "firm view" on the subject. Firm views are seldom changed by evidence or argument.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
-
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:43 am
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
I guess if I was going to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court, on any issue, I would prefer justices that didn't have a "firm view" on the subject. Firm views are seldom changed by evidence or argument.
[/quote]
Bingo!
I like her
The Dems keep trying to pin her down with the "gotchas" and hold her words against her. Not gonna happen!
[/quote]
Bingo!
I like her
The Dems keep trying to pin her down with the "gotchas" and hold her words against her. Not gonna happen!
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
She can’t even name the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment... don’t you suppose that’s a tad important to know considering she’ll be working with the document?Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pmNot all very qualified scientists can agree about the presence or cause of climate change. How can one expect a Supreme Court Justice to have a definitive opinion?
“You know, I’m certainly not a scientist, I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm views on it.”
I guess if I was going to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court, on any issue, I would prefer justices that didn't have a "firm view" on the subject. Firm views are seldom changed by evidence or argument.