milt
She won’t comment on marital privacy extending to contraception?
Derp
Eventually Your breath of fresh air is going to make it illegal for you to waste your precious bodily fluid milt on thinking about Blake and Reck. You can’t waste your cells squirting in tree holes either.
I doubt your wife can abort any more kids at this point.
Have heart, Cuck Garden.
Welcome to the 21st century and into 2020, derp.
Packhole23 undoubtedly turned on.
Yes, this lady is short on a lot of answers. She’s not really even trying.
I wonder why the dems even show up to these hearings. Let them confirm her and give the people even more reasons to vote them all out.
Hear! Hear!
Damn, you can't even use a tired cliche right. They were doing this in the 20th century. I just noted that, FFS.
Where does it hurt?
Will Hunting can you believe Feinstain?
Term limits should really be a thing.
#FeinsteinResign is trending on twitter
I'm hopeful that the stunt she pulled today sparks enough outrage that Schumer picks a judiciary chair who's not her if he's majority leader.
Amy Coney Barrett Wants to Decide If You’re Virtuous Enough to Vote
Less well known, however, is her belief that a person’s virtue should determine their eligibility for basic civil rights like the right to vote.
she also wants to drag voting and political rights back to the Jim Crow era.
, Barrett argued for limiting participation in political rights for people not deemed “virtuous.”
What Barrett conveniently left out of her argument is that
all of her historical legal examples were used to disenfranchise
women,
people with disabilities, and
people of color.
Barrett to argue for the application of “virtue” to other cons utional rights.
Rather than limit her dissent to the case in front of her, Barrett wrote an overreaching opinion that argued for limiting citizens’ rights to vote and serve on juries.
Barrett noted that historically, states deprived people of voting rights and jury service if they had certain “infamous crime” felony convictions, but
she failed to mention that this was a particular tool used to disenfranchise Black people in the Jim Crow South after the Civil War.
Although many states had “criminal disenfranchisement” laws in place before the war,
felon disenfranchisement was expanded after the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to include more crimes and therefore disenfranchise more people.
Barrett further argued that historically, voting and jury service could be limited based on a “mental fitness” requirement, essentially supporting able-ist restrictions on people’s voting rights based on mental disabilities.
White, Christian, able-bodied men were assumed to have sufficient moral virtue for political life,
while people of color, women, non-Christians, and people with disabilities, were required to prove their morality and mental fitness to access their political rights.
This is the ugly history of the sort of virtue jurisprudence that Barrett advocates.
Her focus on stripping rights from people who aren’t virtuous enough for her liking
ignores one of the critical questions noted by the majority in Kanter:
whether the state has a reasonable interest in denying people access to their Second Amendment rights.
what is the state’s interest in keeping “non-virtuous” people from voting or from serving on juries?
Except for discriminatory purposes, the state has no such interest.
According to Barrett, people serve on a jury and vote not because they have the right to do so but because it is for the collective good.
This argument might have worked in the 19th century, but it is now 2020, and
we have decades of legislation and jurisprudence that shows
such limitations result in discrimination, biased jury verdicts, and nondemocratic elections.
Barrett’s argument in favor of “virtue” requirements for participating in the political process is an hetical to an inclusive democracy.
A U.S. citizen shouldn’t be required to prove “virtue” in order to access their rights.
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/...nough-to-vote/
Did I say I like abortion derp ?
Do you know what contraception is?
No need for you to worry about it.
Wasting all those cells in various places that will not lead to a child; you are next cell waster.
Only produce sperm if it results in a child dont ya know. They will throw the law at your wacking off ass.
How many mixed children do you have, then?
Yeah I would deflect too if I backed myself in a corner like you have Mr. Fresh Air.
How many good healthy reproductive cells have you offered up to tree holes?
Your good lady will make sure you stop that.
autocratic, fascist Christian Sharia on the march
With Amy Coney Barrett, a once-fringe legal philosophy goes mainstream
The Blackstone fellowship, organized for 20 years by the nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, aims to train Christian lawyers to “foster legal systems that fully protect our God-given rights.”
If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it would represent a culmination of decadeslong efforts by the conservative Christian legal movement to move from the periphery of the legal world into the mainstream.
conservative Christian legal groups have always focused entirely on religious liberty issues.
“They have a longing for what religious liberty protections were before 1990,”
“They’re trying to have the courts reread the Cons ution in a way that
elevates religious liberty rights over all other individual rights,
as well as the public interest.”
religious liberty claims has focused primarily on two issues:
religious ins utions’ ability to access state funding, and
religious individuals’ ability to exercise their beliefs around sexual norms in public life and in their private business.
“By and large the president [has a strong] record of nominating originalist, cons utionalist judges.”
“Your legal career is but a means to an end,” she told the graduates. “That end is building the kingdom of God.”
what the “end” is, most say it’s for the free exercise of religion to have the protection and deference of a fundamental right.
But obligating someone to obey a law only when it coincides with their religious beliefs, wrote Justice Scalia,
“permit[s] him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself.’”
it could be much easier for religious objectors to gain exemptions from laws.
“Some religious exemptions are appropriate and necessary,”
But “they need to be given sparingly, or else we really undermine democracy itself.”
Justice Ginsburg
The majority, she wrote,
“casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree,” allowing
“the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs.”
“So long as
there are people who want to silence dissent and silence people with a religious belief they disagree with,
we will always have work.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2020/1006/With-Amy-Coney-Barrett-a-once-fringe-legal-philosophy-goes-mainstream?icid=rss
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-16-2020 at 05:05 AM.
18 hours of questions, few answers:
What we learned about Amy Coney Barrett
Barrett took a particularly rigorous approach to the strategy used by all modern Supreme Court nominees:
avoiding saying anything
about issues that could turn into court cases and almost nothing about cases that courts have already decided.
She would not say whether separating children from their parents to deter immigration was wrong,
whether President Donald Trump can delay the election or pardon himself, or even, in a series of particularly notable responses,
whether climate change is real.
Nor would she say whether a host of Supreme Court decisions, including ones on abortion and gay rights, were ripe for reconsideration.
“Though past nominees have also
avoided answering some of the senators’ questions, Barrett took this to a whole new level,”
“Having studied how forthcoming nominees have been since public confirmation hearings at which nominees testified began in 1939, I think
Barrett will rank as among the least responsive nominees in American history.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/bidens-campaign-is-prepping-for-trump-refusing-to-concede
"advise and consent"? IT!
Amy Coney Barrett Is Not Pro-Life
Trump's Supreme Court nominee has no regard for Americans protected by the Affordable Care Act.
make no mistake, despite Barrett’s evasive answers on the ACA (and nearly every other topic), she is on the record opposing Obamacare.
In a 2017 law review article, Barrett questioned the cons utionality of the Affordable Care Act and sided with Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent
from Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority in a 2012 decision arguing that the ACA’s individual mandate is a cons utional tax.
"this Supreme Court nomination is being done in the name of the pro-life movement.
But it doesn’t really feel like they’re that concerned about my life or my family’s life.”
Barrett also represents the Trump Administration’s complete contempt for the lives and health of the American people during the pandemic.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...t-not-pro-life
Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of 'unconscionable cruelty' in teen rape case
her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to
a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard.
After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that
the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because
the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.
Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court,"
he had raped her during and after her pregnancy
at a jail run by the controversial former Sheriff David Clarke.
unanimous opinion that the county was not responsible for the guard's conduc
https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/watchdog-group-accuses-amy-coney-barrett-of-unconscionable-cruelty-in-teen-rape-case/
"Mean Girls"
ACB and similar hate-driven Christian Taliban will continue to weaponize "free exercise" clause
New HOLE Texas rule lets social workers turn away clients who are LGBTQ or have a disability
Social workers called the change "incredibly disheartening," while
Gov. Greg Abbott's office said it was necessary
a state regulatory board's decision this week
to remove protections for LGBTQ clients and clients with disabilities who seek social work services.
The Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners voted unanimously Monday to change a section of its code of conduct that establishes when a social worker may refuse to serve someone.
The code will no longer prohibit social workers from turning away clients on the basis of
disability,
sexual orientation or
gender iden y.
(DISABLED BAG )Gov. Greg Abbott's office recommended the change
The Republican-led Texas Legislature has long opposed expanding nondiscrimination protections to LGBTQ Texans in employment, housing and other areas of state law.
https://www.salon.com/2020/10/17/new...ility_partner/
Poor Elena had her VP nomination stolen; now she's lamenting that she's not the Supreme Court nominee.
Will Hunting
Seriously messed up lady.
Guess divorced and remarried people would not be able to vote.
Derp would have a court order against him prohibiting him from being within 1 mile from a polling place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)