Amy Coney Barret appointed to the Supreme Court

Fortunately, the Supreme court doesn't work like your fantasy football league does....

 

Gosh.... sooo... what happens when Trump is reelected? Given your theory he should work with his republican house and senate and draft a set of legislation that caps the Supreme court at 13 after he successfully nominates 4 more conservative judges. And after that, push a constitutional amendment that caps the SCOTUS at 13 for ever more. Think about the generations of success that would provide...

 

First of all, you do understand that we know that your emphasis on Obama's second name is purely racist. Second, I think they both should have had their appointment. Despite the fact that Scalia's seat became open over a year before Obama's term ended, and this one is filled when We The People (remember those? They are mentioned in the Constitution) were already voting. But once Republicans used the excuse to not give Merick Garland his hearings, it's pure hypocrisy to have appointed Barret. Democrats have all the right in the world to pack the Supreme Court. And Democrats need to demand it!

 

Refusing to answer normal questions only because they were asked by Democrats. She knew that Republicans would push her in no matter what, so she didn't care for the representatives of We The People to make an informed decision. She just relied on Republican partisanship.

 

Damn, it's too early to start the "every time a liberal poster invokes the race card game".... We'd be drunk by 1000... Here's the thing. You simply believe in a world where democrats demand, and they get. It doesn't actually work that way. If Obama had actually tried to find a candidate that republicans would confirm, he should have tried. He didn't try. And his candidate wasn't confirmed. That is the way the government works. So perhaps had democrats not been so anxious to pack the court with activist judges, we wouldn't be where you think we are. So, Obama got to exercise his right to nominate a candidate, and the Senate exercised their prerogative not to accept it. Period. No one got injured, or fouled, but in your own slanted view of the world. And when you suggest that "democrats need to demand it", isn't that what you folks always do? Cause that's the way the plantation is supposed to work?

 

If Trump is reelected, none of this will matter. Our Democracy will cease to exist and we will live in a dictatorship. Thanks, Republicans!

 

Trying to play fair got us to this point. That being a SC, and a federal bench, with a majority that does not reflect the views of the public. It's time to do what Repubs do. Use power ruthlessly when you have it. With the moral justification being the actions to be taken will be done so minority control of the courts is mitigated and the will of the majority prevails.
Let's see what comes out of Biden's judicial reform commission. But anything less than addressing the Repub power grab in the SC with an expansion of seats on the bench is unacceptable. The time for playing nice is over. It's hammer time.

 

"Normal questions"? You mean like "have you ever sexually assaulted"... that kind of "normal question"? Laughable. You the person aren't entitled any more than what ms Ginsburg crafted as the measure for answering which I don't see you questioned while she was seated. Did you rail against her wishes not to answer "normal questions" when she was nominated? I doubt it.

 

You are making an unsubstantiated assumption when you say "Refusing to answer normal questions only because they were asked by Democrats.". And even if that were true that does not mean she signaled that she would be partisan.

 

A great day for America....she is a high qualified Judge and will do a great job on the bench

 

Sniff.... When you say "none of this will matter", what does that mean to you? If, as I suggested, you'd be against him packing the court though, right? And why is it that only you get to determine appropriate? You have been pretty constitutionally wrong most of the thread already. Why should anyone take your comment seriously?

 

It's cute how you are pretending the democrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing if Hillary had won the presidency.

 

Go ahead and pack the supreme court, it would be a dream come true, then the Democrats and Republicans will be divided for century's to come. And more lowering the bar , more tit for tat , more hatred instead of compromise..


Burn it all down

 

I'm not sure how we can know she's highly qualified as a judge. She's only been doing the job for two years.

 

Looking over the web this morning, you'd think that Eugenics was suddenly the most important issue for Democrats. hmm... like it ever wasn't....

 

Didn't you applaud when Obama got a Peace prize? you folks have no shame or long term memory....

 

So Trump will force mexico to pay for the wall?

Good and God forbid Trump mandates we buy a product from a private company

 

Normal like, have you ever sexual assaulted anyone? The Dems asking sexist, bigoted questions...they embarassed the Senate, and the Judicial branch with their behavior...and should have been removed from the Capitol for their behavior.

 

You can look at her record on the bench, as well as her resume.

Every Judge has to start somewhere, they aren't born Judges

 

I don't think the poster who emphasized Obama's second name, which is usually done to produce an impact that pleases racists, is a liberal.

And you repeating the "racist card" talking point will not dissuade anybody from pointing out the fact.

The ignorance expressed above is quite tangible. Merick Garland was proposed by Republicans.

 

I'm referring to questions like if it is illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls. Not answered because it was a Democrat who asked.

 

The only person here throwing the race card, is you. You made an assumption, and frankly cannot back your assertion with anything substantive. I call him Barry. Why? Because he was Barry for decades before he got the angry revolutionary bug and reverted to Barrack. (That actually seems pretty racist to me, just sayin)

Hmm.. I suggest Nina doesn't have a source or citation for her blurb that you snatched from Wiki.. Just sayin. As the Chief Judge of the DC court, that liberal has overseen some of the most ludicrous judicial decisions in our history. I suggest, if anything, Republicans might have suggested just to use the block. His nature wasn't ever conservative, his decisions aren't considered conservative, nor originalist. He's been prone to lecture from the bench in support of his activism. He's a bullet dodged.

 

Again, you are assuming. I thought you stuck to facts.

 

Yes. You do understand one opening happened 9 months before an election and the other 2 months, right?

 

LOL.. I have an entire list from blockhead Kamala, down low booker, Hirazi, and more. These are the questions that you've referenced, but suddenly you don't want to acknowledge those?