Reply With Quote
tim pool cant understand what the very purpose of advertisement is
Would have to see more to know if he's going anywhere with that.
But he tends to prefer innocuous subject matter.
Aren't District Attorneys elected in California? How many votes did Willie Brown get?
He’s an idiot
Watched yesterday - she's one smart cookie - nice outfit too.
People are saying she's perhaps the greatest legal mind ever
sez "No Man Is Above the Law"
but refuses to say, when "Trashman Is Above the Law", on Cons utional issues:
can the President pardon himself? no answer
can the President change the date of the Pres election? no answer
She's just another lying rightwing CATHOLIC POS
Give up on this nominee, bou - she looks un-attackable - it's a lock.
She's as attackable as Trash was convictable after impeachment.
The Repugs and People Like You are what's wrong with America.
Embarrassing
Disturbing evidence emerges that Amy Coney Barrett is willing to bend the law to benefit Republicans
Amy Coney Barrett’s involvement in the court fight over the 2000 presidential election,
when she was a member of George W. Bush’s legal team, shows
she is willing to bend the law to benefit Republican candidates,
“That’s what’s so disturbing about Amy Coney Barrett,
because that’s exactly what President Trump wants to do right now,”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/dis...it-republicans
Trash's "transaction":
"I put you on SCOTUS, you elect me for 2nd term"
Definitely disqualified, but we knew that based on the fact she's married to the opposite sex.
She went full MAN CAMERA TV WOMEN but forgot the last part.
Even Trump managed his way through and she couldn’t.
"Leahy got her to acknowledge that, in 2006, she signed a public letter from St. Joseph County Right to Life, an Indiana anti-abortion group, which, in some of its other literature, had taken the position that
in-vitro fertilization is equivalent to manslaughter.
Barrett said that she signed the letter, which she had failed to disclose
in the materials she sent to the committee,
“almost fifteen years ago quickly on my way out of church”
and hadn’t been aware of the group’s other materials, a point she repeated later in the hearing.
Leahy also quizzed Barrett about a lecture she gave to the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a Christian program run by an ultraconservative organization called Alliance Defending Freedom.
“Were you aware of the A.D.F.’s decades-long efforts to recriminalize sexuality?” Leahy asked.
Barrett replied, “I am not aware of those efforts, no.”
These
expressions of ignorance were jarringly at odds with the voluminous knowledge and instant recall she displayed in many of her other answers.
a lengthy dissent she wrote in a 2019 case, Kanter v. Barr, in which she argued that the state of Wisconsin didn’t necessarily have the right to issue a law banning someone who has committed a nonviolent felony from buying firearms
the individual concerned—in this case, Rickey Kanter, an entrepreneur who had been convicted of mail fraud for bilking Medicare out of millions of dollars—had a proclivity for violence.
“Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk,
permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment,”
“But to the extent, Senator Durbin, that
you’re suggesting I have some sort of agenda
on felon voting rights,
or guns, or
campaign finance, or
anything else,
I can assure you, and the whole committee, that I do not.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ightening-sham
Lots of great on the "sham" testimony of fraud, liar Barret.
Merrick Garland Sitting in Parked Car in Mitch McConnell’s Driveway
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY —Merrick Garland is sitting in a parked car in Mitch McConnell’s driveway, hoping for a meeting with the Senate Majority Leader, Garland has confirmed.
Garland, who has been sitting in his Nissan Sentra in McConnell’s driveway since Monday, said that
he is “encouraged” by recent developments indicating that
Republicans have changed their minds about confirming a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.
"Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham thought it was a terrible idea in 2016,
but for whatever reason they’ve really come around,” he said.
“All I can say is, playing the waiting game is about to pay off big time for one Merrick Garland.”
Garland, who has not seen McConnell enter or leave his home since the judge first parked his Sentra in the driveway, was baffled by
speculation that the Kentucky senator has been hiding in his kitchen to avoid an encounter with him.
“That makes zero sense to me,” Garland said.
“If I’m going to be confirmed before the election,
we’ve got to get going on this thing.”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/merrick-garland-sitting-in-parked-car-in-mitch-mcconnells-driveway
Barrett offers few views during hearing but her ruling on a case involving the N-word is going viral
in 2019 as a judge in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
she wrote a mind-boggling opinion on a workplace harassment lawsuit that came after an employee was terminated.
Barrett wrote on behalf of three judges on the panel who all agreed on the ruling.
In this case, Terry Smith, a Black Illinois transportation employee,
claimed he was called a racial slur (the N-word) by his white supervisor, Lloyd Colbert.
The judges upheld the original ruling, and, somehow,
Barrett
found a way to both close her eyes to the inherent hostility of racial slurs and
effectively blame the worker for being fired.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1986413
Yep, ACB'c pro-business means anti-employee, anti-customer
Amy Coney Barrett gets defensive as Amy Klobuchar brings up nominee’s work in Bush v Gore
Klobuchar pointed out that Barrett would be the third justice who had worked on the Republican legal case in the Bush v. Gore decision that halted the Florida recount,
joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh,
and the nominee squirmed.
“I did work on behalf of the Republican side,” Barrett said.
“To be totally honest,
can’t remember
exactly what piece of the case it was.”
Klobuchar told her not to worry, that she would remind her.
“Many argue that Bush v. Gore, back to your earlier work, hurt the court’s legitimacy.
If you are confirmed, the Supreme Court will have not one, not two, but three justices — you, Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, who worked on behalf of the Republican Party in matters related to the Bush v. Gore case.
Do you think that that’s a coincidence?”
Barrett balked.
“Sen. Klobuchar, if you’re asking me whether I was nominated for this seat because I worked on Bush v. Gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate, that doesn’t make sense to me.”
Klobuchar said she just wondered why that kept happening.
“I just think it’s such a coincidence to me, I actually didn’t know it until yesterday,” Klobuchar said.
“Will having justices with this background, two of whom are appointed by the current president, decide any cases related to the upcoming election,
do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the court?”
you said you would announce your decision on recusal and wouldn’t commit to recusing,” Klobuchar said.
“Again, I think the public has a right to know that now three of these justices have worked on the Republican side on a major, major issue related to a presidential election.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/amy...n-bush-v-gore/
KloboKop hitting hard, esp in the context of Trash nominating a B v. G lawyer,
expecting ACB to "hanging chad" / stop-the-mail-in-ballot-counting-taking-"too"-long and re-elect Trash.
Exactly like Scalia, ACB is textualist/originalist when ruling for her politics, but activist when ruling against other politics.
AMY CONEY BARRETT’S TAKE ON VOTING RIGHTS ACT EXPOSES HER ENTIRE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY AS A LIE
Barrett claims to defer to the original meaning of statutes,
but when it comes to the Voting Rights Act,
that deference is out the window.
She is, she has repeatedly said, a “textualist”
who believes that the plain meaning of a statute reigns supreme,
that the job of writing those laws belongs strictly to Congress, and not to the courts.
She’s lying —
and
the lie was exposed nakedly in her assessment of the Supreme Court’s 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
Feinstein ... asked Barrett if she agreed with her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia’s conclusion that the act was a “perpetuation of racial en lement.”
Barrett declined to answer,
instead repeatedly framing the case as one in which
the Supreme Court decided whether the law’s key provision,
which required states with a history of discrimination to clear their voting law changes with the Department of Justice,
was “outdated and needed to be updated from the 1960s.”
Feinstein did not press Barrett on
the wild discrepancy between her claim that
the court could decide to “update” a statute because a number of decades had passed and
her belief in the firmness of originalism and textualism,
legal philosophies she says define her approach.
"I interpret the Cons ution as a law and that I interpret its text as text, and
I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.
So that meaning doesn’t change over time,
and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”
That discrepancy alone makes a stark contradiction between her stated approach and her actual approach to the law.
To make the Voting Rights Act look in need of a judicial update,
Barrett suggested that Congress hadn’t dealt with it since the 1960s.
That was a lie.
In 2006, a Republican Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act
after a yearslong series of negotiations between the parties.
it ultimately passed the House 390-33 and cleared the Senate 98-0.
It was then signed into law by President George W. Bush
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-hearing-voting-rights-act/
Feinstein might be old, but she sure -slapped ACB as a liar
ACB may have slipped. When asked by the press how she planned on dealing with questions from Coons, she said she treats all races equally.
Moar dictionary changes. I remember when potatoe used to be in it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mer...arrett-hearing
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
