Amy Coney Barrett...

[Rate This]

"Hirono's question about rape/assault was abhorrent."I would have refused to even honor that dumb ass question with anything more than an eyeroll and then said do you have a serious question?

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.

[Bryce]

"Hirono's question about rape/assault was abhorrent."I would have refused to even honor that dumb ass question with anything more than an eyeroll and then said do you have a serious question?

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.

[zzand]

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.

[Bryce]

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.

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.

From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.

[Rate This]

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.

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.

From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.

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]

She can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them.

Examples please?

[audiophile]

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.

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.

From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.

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.

Why do you speak of Kagan this way?

She wasn't even a judge before becoming a supreme court justice.

[km1125]

She can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them.

Examples please?

I was wondering the samething.

[Matt]

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.

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.

From the testimony I've watched, and her background, I think she is the best SCOTUS nomination of my lifetime.

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.

Why do you speak of Kagan this way?

She wasn't even a judge before becoming a supreme court justice.

You beat me to this. I was going to ask him why he was re-watching the Kagan hearings.

RT is taking a page from TCFS' book and making stuff up. ACB has been masterful in schooling the partisan hacks.

[Rate This]

She can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them.

Examples please?

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]

If you want to know something you can read their past decisions.

Oh wait, Kagan didn't have any.

[Rate This]

If you want to know something you can read their past decisions.

Oh wait, Kagan didn't have any.

A friendly senator asked the question to try to help her out!

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.

[Bryce]

She couldn’t give more than generic answers when asked if she had an opinion on climate change.

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.

[Mr.Transistor]

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!

[Rate This]

She couldn’t give more than generic answers when asked if she had an opinion on climate change.

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.

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?