Acceptable registrations in the queue through January 10 at 7:30a 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

Amy Coney Barrett...

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Rate This
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Rate This » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:25 pm

zzand wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:21 pm
"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.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4396
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Bryce » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:31 am

zzand wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:21 pm
"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.


Democrats were all for riots, until they were against them.

zzand
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by zzand » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 am

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.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4396
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Bryce » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 am

zzand wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 am
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.


Democrats were all for riots, until they were against them.

Rate This
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Rate This » Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am

Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 am
zzand wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 am
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.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4396
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Bryce » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:26 am

Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am

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


Democrats were all for riots, until they were against them.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6109
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by audiophile » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:29 am

Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am
Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 am
zzand wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 am
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? :blink

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!!

km1125
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by km1125 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:51 am

Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:26 am
Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am
She can’t even get universal questions correct or won’t answer them.
Examples please?
I was wondering the samething.



Matt
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Matt » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:55 am

audiophile wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:29 am
Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am
Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:58 am
zzand wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:42 am
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? :blink

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
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Rate This » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:26 pm

Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:26 am
Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am

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.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6109
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by audiophile » Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:19 pm

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

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!!

Rate This
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Rate This » Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:29 pm

audiophile wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:19 pm
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.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4396
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Bryce » Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pm

Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:26 pm

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.


Democrats were all for riots, until they were against them.

Mr.Transistor
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:43 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Mr.Transistor » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:20 pm

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
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Amy Coney Barrett...

Post by Rate This » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:50 pm

Bryce wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pm
Rate This wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:26 pm

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?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic