This is bad, even for you. Memorization is a prereq?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:50 pmShe 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?Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pmNot 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.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 6 at 7:00p 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
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...
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
No but answering even one easy question should be. Even naming a couple would be ok. She’s just using the answers she rehearsed even when it’s not needed.Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:26 pmThis is bad, even for you. Memorization is a prereq?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:50 pmShe 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?Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pmNot 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.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
She did a great job with the hearing and has proven to be one of the best nominees I have ever seen. And as others said, unlike Kagan, she is a sitting judge so she knows the gig pretty well.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
She’s been a judge for 5 minutes and apparently has no knowledge of any subject... a little thin I must say... this is a thing Trump appointees are known for. From the party of machiavelli I expect nothing less.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8605
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
She named 4! I'm not sure what your sources are, but they are WRONG!Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:41 pmNo but answering even one easy question should be. Even naming a couple would be ok. She’s just using the answers she rehearsed even when it’s not needed.Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:26 pmThis is bad, even for you. Memorization is a prereq?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:50 pmShe 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?Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pmNot 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.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
I saw that... I stand partially corrected. But she didn’t get the 5th one. For a law professor thats pretty bad. It’s the 1st amendment after all...audiophile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:54 pmShe named 4! I'm not sure what your sources are, but they are WRONG!Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:41 pmNo but answering even one easy question should be. Even naming a couple would be ok. She’s just using the answers she rehearsed even when it’s not needed.Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:26 pmThis is bad, even for you. Memorization is a prereq?Rate This wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:50 pmShe 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?Bryce wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 pmNot 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.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8605
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
anxiety?
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Over what a preordained dog and pony show?
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
I agree with you that its embarrassing that Democrats have used this process as a partisan hackfest. These dem mental midget shitheads are asking her how she'd rule on hypothetical cases. She rightfully stated she'd base her decisions on law, not policy priorities.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
It's the exact same tactics that the Republicans would employ if the roles were reversed. Most of it is about riling up their base. There isn't much else to gain from the whole thing for them. They can't stop it. The only alternatives were to sue and or not show up. both of which look petulant. So they stick to riling up the base and she sticks to her scripted talking points. That includes the time she almost used the wrong one and said "oh wait..."...Matt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:51 pmI agree with you that its embarrassing that Democrats have used this process as a partisan hackfest. These dem mental midget shitheads are asking her how she'd rule on hypothetical cases. She rightfully stated she'd base her decisions on law, not policy priorities.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Democrats are typically petulant children, so it's not a surprise when they act the part.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
**This space lives rent-free in BMW's head**
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Ah... and Republicans typically channel their inner Machiavelli and grasp at power they then do nothing with (ahem Mitch).. I think that evens out...
See you do the team thing without even realizing it.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8605
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Amy Coney Barrett...
Amy helps the disabled:
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!