The Obscene, the Proxy and the last Hurrah
On Sunday morning the President announced that he was f ully recovered from COVID-19 and was about to return to the campaign trail for what will be the final big push before the election. Monday he will be in Sanford Florida and then it's off to PA, Iowa and a possible town hall on Thursday. Once again he is a huge underdog, courtesy of China. Will the old 2016 formula of non-stop rallies work again? He hasn't had much luck in this iconic year of modern day misery:
The House Speaker will not do anything that might give him a victory, he became infected with covid-19 a week ago, he was overbearing in his debate with Biden, there will not be a vaccine before the election and even John Durham will not release findings so close to an election. In addition, the President has been his own worst enemy in the midst of it all. He stepped all over a good night by his VP, while lashing out at some of his finest appointments - Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and AG William Barr for not pursuing political enemies. With so much at stake, can he do it one last time?
Then there is the frontrunner: the proxy
Today Joe Biden made an outrageous statement, which he had to walk back. He said that the Senate appointing a Supreme Court Justice now was "un-Constitutional." And here I thought the Constitution provides for presidents to fill vacancies.
On the raging issue Biden helped create, he was again asked about packing the Court. If you recall he first told us that answering the question would make news. Then he told us it would be a distraction. Now he says “You will know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.” The voters don't deserve to know? The problem is that the current President has legally filled enough judicial vacancies to change the direction of the Court. If the dems get enough power they could simply change the rules and get it all back in an instant.
"The Washington Examiner /YouGov study found 34 percent of registered voters surveyed said they would support Democrats if they sought to expand the size of the court beyond nine members, while 47 percent said they were opposed. Sixty percent of Democrats said they were supported the idea, while 18 percent were opposed and 22 percent were undecided. Independents opposed the idea 45-32 percent, while Republicans opposed it 84-5 percent."
https://www.mediaite.com/news/1-in-3-voters-support-packing-the-supreme-court-even-fewer-want-it-to-be-liberal-new-survey/
It's all about appeasing the base. The radical base also demands that the Senate filibuster be ended forthwith and DC & Puerto Rico be made states and if we can read between the lines, ending the Durham investigation should Joe/Kamala win.
Then the Woman:
Monday morning at 9:AM EST Amy Coney Barrett will begin what is supposed to be four days of hearings (questions begin on Tuesday). Democrats are expected, at the very least to ask her to recuse herself from any ACA decisions. It seems that the SCOTUS will hear the merits of ACA the week after the election and that has become a major talking point for progressives. The big question is - will democrats again go way over the top and viciously go after this highly qualified woman?
They have to satisfy their base. What satisfies the democrat base frequently repulses decent human beings. If polls are to be believed - Joe Biden has the election all but won. Can you imagine the optics of demonizing & demeaning a 48 year old mother of seven?
Will the democrats blow it all to stop Barrett?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
Could Trump win on a huge misplay by Senate democrats?
Could Trump win on a huge misplay by Senate democrats?
It's quite likely...they seem to have a talent for over reach and doing stupid stuff.
I think my question is already being answered!
Which question?
Good Afternoon
This question in Post 1
Could Trump win on a huge misplay by Senate democrats?
He is a huge underdog courtesy of not being fit for office. The bottom dropped out of his polls for two recent reasons.
One, he gave the worst debate performance in American history, and , two, he held a super spreader event that showed his total incompetence to protect people, he couldnt even protect himself and his wife. These are devastating events. Trump is not worthy, and we all know it.
But even without considering the last two weeks at all he is still completely unfit for office.
All you do is always manage to avoid that fact.
Actually one big reason - the pandemic!
He was a shoe-in back in January
In your imagination.
Donald Trump is not fit to hold office. That is that. You think you can make him fit for office by attacking the other party. Its not going to work Vic. People have watched Donald Trump in power for four years and the American people are largely appalled, and they were appalled last January too.
Here's what they were saying last year during the democratic primaries when we had a booming economy:
I think Jane Fonda said it best: "Covid was God's gift to the left" and I firmly believe most on the left feel that way!
I know most people are tired of all the politics and want this election to simply be over! Our readers need to consider how consequential this election is.
Remember - If you vote for Joe Biden - this person could be president in a matter of months:
Better her than him
I've never heard any democrat dispute Tex's point.
I believe democrats ran this senile old man because he looks like a moderate. If he wins she takes over.
I have to assume democrats are ok with that.
Why do you people keep lying about Biden being senile? Do you think that nonsense is going to get you votes?
Donald Trump has on more than one occasion called Kamala Harris a communist. What is Trump's proof she is a communist, or is Trump Joe McCarthy 2020 ? For that matter what is his proof she is a "monster" ? , which he called her the other day.
People are laughing at Trump, not with him.
Not only is he senile but he doesn't have the stamina to be president.
Obama originally had it right when he told Biden not to embarrass himself by running. Then when it came down to the only moderate and a Socialist, Obama had everyone rally round Biden. The media, everyone in the DNC got behind him. If he gets past the finish wire it will be mission accomplished. Then he will be asked to step down.
Don't call people liars. We can do the same thing. Let's keep it civil.
And she called him a racist. She even called Biden a racist.
It's the way it is these days.
What is your evidence that Joe Biden is senile? The fact that you and the other right wingers like to repeat it over and over? Biden did fine in the debate.
It boggles the mind, and not in a good way, that you think Trump is fit for office and Joe Biden is not.
Don't you remember all the gaffes he made? All the times he didn't know where he was?
They are all over YouTube and they have been posted here numerous times. Why do we have to re-post it over & over?
Biden did fine in the debate.
Yes, he did and he did fine a few times before that. It doesn't make sense to me - unless he was given special drugs.
It boggles the mind, and not in a good way, that you think Trump is fit for office and Joe Biden is not.
I've got almost 4 years of achievements, despite massive resistance. What have you got?
Because of all the videos out there showing biden babbling incoherently. Surely you’ve seen at least some of them.
And no, i don’t think it will sway anybody here, i mention it to counter your constant attacks on my candidate and his supporters.
Donald Trump walked right past his car, when it was right in front of him all the time. He was lost.
Trump has repeatedly mispronounced words to the extent that it has caused speculation that he had a stroke. We don't hang our hopes on him losing the election on his inability to speak properly , there are many worse things on his resume.
The right has tried to paint Biden as mentally unfit, problem is no one outside the Trump base is buying it. The strategy is a complete failure.
Your candidate is a known serial liar, known crook, known bigot, known moron, and known cheat.
And honestly, he has botched as many words as Biden has.
You can truthfully say the same things about biden, but that’s ok?
Having a limited vocabulary and missing your car doesn't quite equal senility. The far more important thing is the accomplishments. Trump has finally changed the trajectory of the judiciary, he grew an incredible economy, he rebuilt the military, he got us some fair trade deals and don't forget criminal justice reform and the tax cut. Progressives may not like any of that, but for Conservatives, those were achievements!
The right has tried to paint Biden as mentally unfit, problem is no one outside the Trump base is buying it.
I'll take your word that you don't buy it, but as I said, I think that many on the left love the idea of Biden as the proxy to get Harris into the White House.
The strategy is a complete failure.
It's not a strategy. Many people voting for Biden are simply voting against Trump. They have to know Joe is long gone mentally. They simply want Trump out.
I allow you to saying that once. Keep doing it and I regard it as taunting.
It is factual. If you knew more about Trump like some of us do you would know that.
Instead you do the see no evil hear no evil speak no evil routine.
Trump has slurred his words on numerous occasions. It is not simple mispronouncing.
As far as drugs go, there have been long standing rumors that Trump snorts Adderall.
"We'd go in the back and crush up Adderall. "
I think I'm with the 56% of registered voters that told Gallup that they are better off than they were 4 years ago (under Obama/Biden), while only 32% said they were worse off.”
Sorry, I'm not into rumors and unnamed sources.
You know what I'm into?
PERFORMANCE!
like his debate performance? when he loses that will have been the nail in the coffin
No John, not personality or deportment - PERFORMANCE!
yes, he performed at the debate in a way that is costing him any chance at re-election. He once again demonstrated that night that he is totally unfit to hold office.
He was way over the top and he looked like a bully. The strange thing is that my article poses the question - if all that, plus other things, gets negated based on what Senate democrats do this week. Remember that, John?
Once again you've got us talking Trump.
I'm counting on those Senate democrats acting like animals and demeaning that woman! They can't help themselves.
“yes, he performed at the debate in a way that is costing him any chance at re-election.”
so why the constant negativity? Why not celebrate? You’ve got it in the bag, right? You should rest easy now because there is no way trump can win.
Why not do it the Trump way and kick someone while they are down?
If there are undecided voters who vote on the issue of simple, singular issue of comportment, how do you think they'll feel about of a mother of seven being abused all week?
They are not going to get away with what they did to Kavanaugh.
How many voters are still undecided?
And this means so much to them, doesn't it? This is RBG's seat. We won't have to worry about Roberts anymore!
No one is going to say "they were mean to Amy Barrett so now I am going to vote for trump"
Not gonna happen, other than with people who were always going to vote for Trump anyway.
How do you come to the conclusion that Barrett's confirmation hearings will wipe out four years of trump's bad acting?
Are you saying you’re no better than trump?
and Trumps comportment , on a daily basis , which is abysmal, will mean nothing to these voters? I dont see it.
Well if you want to put it like that, there are very few people anywhere that aren't better than Trump.
I think it will turn many people off. It may even sway some voters to trump.
but, as someone once said, “voters don’t deserve to know.”
Oh, I see, so there aren't many who really care about how politicians talk or act? It seems to mean everything to quite a few here.
How do you come to the conclusion that Barrett's confirmation hearings will wipe out four years of trump's bad acting?
Women are sensitive to how a 48 year old mother is treated.
Your hallucinations are getting boring.
Not everyone went ga ga on the go go over Trump, John.
Ms Barrett is an exceptional Woman. Beware of smearing her!
That's right...We all know how they look down on middle America. Too bad Biden's handlers didn't put a muzzle on him just then.
Oh, I know, John. Let's see how "boring" it gets when the Senate democrats try and obstruct that hearing tomorrow and diminish the stature of the US Senate in the process.
Just think of the missteps if he wasn’t locked in his basement most if the time? Thankfully there were black women out there stocking grocery store shelves for him.
Lol, Good one!
That was the strangest thing. Before labor day he hid down there and when he came out he gradually began to focus. They have to have him on something.
“They have to have him on something.”
yeah, i think so too.
He was really bad for a while. They brought him out to a few puff interviews. He got better & better. It just doesn't make sense. Of course, the debate with the President, he benefited by the President constantly cutting him off. Left to his own devices he might have made a major blunder.
I'm watching it right now. All the Dems are talking about is the ACA, and some are also talking about Judge Barrett's religion. Lots of lies, hate-Trump rhetoric, and fear-mongering. Dick Blumenthal even went so far as to say that if she's confirmed, she must recuse herself from the Nov. 10 SCOTUS ACA hearing.
Currently, "Spartacus" is getting very dramatic ... again! He just ended by saying that he will NOT be voting for her confirmation (ha ha ha what a surprise)!
On the other hand, Republicans have discussed the purpose of today's hearing: the functions and duties of each governmental branch, "religious tests", clarifying the definition of "court-packing", the US Constitution, Civics 101 ... and very importantly, Judge Barrett's qualifications.
If you can't stop the confirmation, why not portray GOP Senators up for re-election as uncaring? Thought went into this. We can't afford to lose more than 4 Senators. This time around more Republicans have to defend their seats. A week after the election the SCOTUS will take a good hard look at the ACA. They are covering all bases.
Blumenthal even went so far as to say that if she's confirmed, she must recuse herself from the Nov. 10 SCOTUS ACA hearing.
That's going to be the new twist - having Justices take oaths of recusal as part of a confirmation hearing.
Currently, "Spartacus" is getting very dramatic ... again!
Drama for all the wrong reasons. Today's performance was another embarrassment.
It's just fear mongering and trying to scare some voters. The realty is there probably aren't more than 2 votes to throw out the ACA in the case before the Court. Almost no one expects the Court to throw it out now. But it scares people so Democrats are all over it.
The ironic thing is that all signs point to Barrett voting against the voiding of the ACA. She participated in a moot court exercise and she was one of 8 judges who unanimously voted to uphold the statute. Again, not that reality matters, it's just to scare last minute voters and when the case is actually decided, all the fear mongering will be forgotten.
How so?
No Tess, calling people names does not equal truth. Unfortunately there are others who don't understand that.
No one is responsible for dissuading Tex from expressing his fantasies.
Instead of calling it a fantasy, why don't you address it?
You can be the first! Tell us you are against replacing Biden with Harris or that it's not going to happen!
Now you got it!
Calling it a fantasy IS addressing it.
Tell me that the office of the VP isn't specifically designed to ensure the continuity of succession. Unlike so many here, I do not rely on a magic 8 ball to predict future events.
Those who insist that the Democrats are PLANNING to INTENTIONALLY elect Biden and replace him with Harris, I suggest that they provide some evidence on which they base that conclusion.
All you had to say was that you don't believe it will happen
I will put you down for saying it ain't so. I am saving the article.
To be reopened in the AM.
Tonight's stat to think about:
"Since primaries were born in 1912, no incumbent has ever lost the general election after receiving 75% or more of the votes from their party in the primaries. Trump received 94% of all cast in the 2020 Republican primaries."
Good night
Which one of those elections had ads like this
That's an anti-Trump voter, which has little to do with low turnout for Joe.
Btw, Happy Columbus Day
Is that how they are going to spend all that money?
Let's see how many show up in Sanford tonight.
I'm guessing that Trump wins Florida.
So no other presidential campaign has featured so many disaffected people from the incumbents party openly supporting his opponent. Correct? Correct. That is probably a negating factor against your theory.
I don't think it is. I know where the middle class stands.
Btw, the Catholic, Originalist Judge has arrived. She graduated top of her class at Notre Dame Law School. At 48 she will be the youngest to serve on the Court.
Lindsey Graham just said that they are going to confirm Barrett because they can. It is constitutional.
What a recommendation !
He says a president is elected for four years therefore they can nominate (and have confirmed) judges during all four years. Yet the Republicans did not allow that right to Obama. The Republicans "reason" for this contrary set of choices is that Trump has a senate majority of his own party.
What does the majority or minority party in the Senate have to do with it? Senators can, and are supposed to, vote for judicial nominees on their qualifications, not by party line. Therefore a nominee of a president from either party should be able to be confirmed if senators vote their conscience and not by party dictate.
McConnell is saying that all votes will be party line votes so what is the point of nominating a judge by a president whose party does not control the Senate. This is extremely wrong , and I say that in the moral sense.
We all know that Trump and his lackeys dont care about fairness. Its kind of their life story.
I assume he got the idea from Justice Ginsburg.
What does the majority or minority party in the Senate have to do with it?
Ask Harry Reid
McConnell is saying that all votes will be party line votes
I think democrats have demonstrated that. They once gave Justice Scalia all their votes and now they are likely to give his former clerk none.
Your argument is , well, non-existent.
Every nominee should get a hearing and a vote. Only the Republicans denied that right ( to Garland)
There is an ever increasing argument that a SC justice should not be confirmed a few days before a presidential election though.
The Republican assertion that they are doing it because the constitution allows it is both self serving and dishonest.
There is no "right" to either
That doesn't make any sense. The only "ever increasing" is coming from mad Democrats.
he Republican assertion that they are doing it because th
With a straight face John, tell us President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Schumer wouldn't be in process of confirming a justice if the situation was reversed.
The ever increasing is coming from the calendar.
Scalia was the last time the Senate Dems acted normally in a confirmation hearing. Republicans continued to treat Democratic nominees with deference until Garland, when they finally acted like the Democrats had been since 1987.
Biden demonstrated what kind of a weasel he was way back then: "Say the administration sends up Bork and, after our investigations, he looks a lot like Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the {special-interest} groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take.''. Once the special interest groups spoke up, Biden right away followed orders from the left win special interests. That's the story of his career, talk like a moderate and then do whatever the left tells him.. He's got a family to enrich off the government teat, after all. Can't anger the liberal money men.
Sorry, I can think that simplistically.
So, you would have preferred that Republicans went through the process of a hearing - one that would have been like Kennedy & Biden's hearing for Judge Bork?
Do you know why Obama nominated Garland? Because he didn't appear to be an activist! Obama knew the Republicans at that point had the power to reject anyone he nominated and he knew that Hillary was a huge favorite to win the 2016 election (and she would nominated a hard line progressive). It was politically a smart move. Mitch McConnell rolled the dice and he won. End of story!
Every nominee should get a hearing and a vote.
Say's any party in the minority thinking the majority might have defectors.
There is an ever increasing argument that a SC justice should not be confirmed a few days before a presidential election though.
By whom?
The Republican assertion that they are doing it because the constitution allows it is both self serving and dishonest.
The word would be pragmatic.
Without a doubt, Obama's nominees, Sotomayor and Kagan glided through without being mauled!
Republicans continued to treat Democratic nominees with deference until Garland, when they finally acted like the Democrats had been since 1987.
Correct.
That's the story of his career, talk like a moderate and then do whatever the left tells him.
And never more so than now!
Mitch did everything in his power for a win. If he had the power to do it as the leader of the Senate, then he did it, political norms be damned.
When Democrats are in that seat and do whatever it takes for a win, such as packing the court, should we expect Republicans to sit in silence and not object because 'might makes right'? That seems to be what you're saying and even praising McConnell for.
I'll remember to tell you the same when we have 13 justices with a 7 to 6 liberal majority. Make sure you don't cry to much or complain about 'political norms' or claiming somehow that betrays the constitution. Republicans have set the new level of civility in government, which is take no prisoners and scorch the earth of any opponents no matter how immoral or hypocritical, so they better not come crying to the masses when they receive the same. Of course, Republicans monumental hypocrisy means they will certainly be whining and crying about being mistreated by the party in power as soon as they get kicked to the curb, but they will be mute to the majority who will turn deaf ears and refuse to listen to the Mitch that cried wolf.
At least you are being honest unlike your presidential candidates.
Everyone take note; This is what the democrat base wants.
Biden voters don't deserve to know what Biden thinks on a topic, per Biden. They just vote on faith...
Perhaps they too are "playing politics" as Mitch has been doing. Why should they give an honest answer to these dishonest scum? Whatever they say will be used as fodder to twist and feed to right wing extremists and boot licking sycophants.
Like everyone was supposed to "take note" when McConnell and Graham were claiming the moral high ground over refusing to give Obama's nominee even a hearing? The hypocrisy of conservative Republicans truly knows no bounds.
All they did was not confirm a nominee, without slandering him. They just didn't confirm him which has happened throughout our nation's history. Since 1987 Democrats have resorted to every slimeball tactic in the book to try and destroy any justice nominated by a Republican starting with stealing Bork's video rental history. Even Souter was met will "You will kill women protests." They tried to filibuster Bush nominees and did filibuster Gorsuch. Biden promised to not seat a Bush nominee in 1992. The same with Schumer in 2008. Every nominee gets almost unanimous Democratic opposition and has for over 30 years. Democrats have done everything in their power to stop every Republican nominee since Bork.
And then when Republicans, finally, played by their rules in 2016 they had a meltdown.
And it's not just judges, Harry Reid was so proud he lied about Mitt Romney's taxes that he bragged about it and justified it simply by saying "We won."
To blame Republicans for setting the standard is about as ignorant a statement as one can make.
Anyone who dares question dear leader about court packing is "dishonest scum?"
Stalinism is back, baby!
"There is not reason for such a recusal, which would be unprecedented in these circumstances. Moreover, it should establish a dangerous precedent of nominees securing their positions by promising results or positions if confirmed by the Senate."
And now for a photo of Joe Biden and his supporters yesterday:
The polls say he's up by double digits
This hearing already has a different feel to it. Could democrats have learned their lesson about vicious attacks?
LOL. The only Democrat who has spoken is Feinstein and she is always polite.
Are we going to be subjected to an alternate reality as you comment on the play by play?
Let’s see if Spartacus shows up.. or Kamala makes an ass of herself trying for some “gotcha” question again. People forget how ridiculous she made herself.
No, John I waited for the recess. Fear not Sen Blumenthal brought some of the usual hyper partisanship back in. Too bad you don't have the protestors in the room.
Like pit bulls and then they brought in progressive activists like Christine Blassey Ford to make lewd outrageous allegations. Remember how that nightmare ended? Republicans (through a request via Sen Flake) conceded to another FBI investigation. It took another week. After the FBI gave the Senate the results the opposition suddenly ended. Democrats have never pushed for the release of what the FBI found!
Now they are claiming that this prospective nominee is determined to end ACA!
He was in the room ... dramatic as usual.
She's talking now (remotely from her office in the same building). She started off by chastising Lindsey Graham for holding an "in person" session in the middle of a pandemic when Senators were infected. Then she went on a bleeding heart ACA nonsense ramble.
No surprises from either one.
PS -- In Finnish, kamala means horrible. Oh, the irony!
LMAO!
Can you prove that claim/smear?
It's not about masks, John.
For people who get close to Lee it is.
Who would do that?
Have you ever heard the word "precaution" Vic ?
Yes John, I'm familiar with the word.
Senator Lee isn't wearing a mask during his opening statement, because he's been cleared by his physician. His virus load was ZERO. People DO recover ... many of them very quickly. That's why, John.
Are we going to be subjected to Lindsey Graham screeching like a loon all week? Was there ever an angrier fool leading a Senate committee?
Only if they go as far over civilized boundaries like they did with Justice Kavanaugh!
Can't wait to hear how Coney Barrett led a rape gang in high school and Senate Democrats can prove it by decoding messages in her yearbook..
Talk about loons
Once they are reduced to year books, we'll know we are near the end.
The one who was over the line was Kavanaugh. He was so uncivilized he had to apologize to Sen. Klobuchar. I guess you forgot.
That's funny...I leave that one for our readers.
Oppressively hot - due to climate change.
All you have to do Tess is to go to YouTube and compare how Judges Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh were treated with that of Sotomayor and Kagan.
Why am I not surprised?
I really have to give credit to this Woman. She had to sit all morning with a mask on listening to all that political theatre. Now she introduces herself to the Committee and the nation and she is doing it with grace.
This article will be reopened tomorrow at 9AM EST.
UPDATE:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats will not "supply quorum" for votes on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, effectively declaring that they'll boycott the process in an attempt to stall her confirmation.
The New York Democrat made the statement Sunday about the quorum, which is a minimum number of senators needed for a vote. In the full Senate, the quorum is 51 members, and, for the chamber's Judiciary Committee, a quorum is nine members including two in the minority Democratic party.
"We will talk about when the actual vote occurs in committee and on the floor," Schumer said in a press conference. "Democrats will not supply the quorum. Period."
Schumer's declaration means that if one or fewer Democrats turn up for the scheduled Oct. 22 vote for Barrett, the Judiciary Committee cannot move the nomination to the full Senate. The move would likely have no effect in the full Senate, where there are 53 Republicans.
But there are several ways around the move, Fox News reported :
"Most notably, the Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination from the committee, allowing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to call the nomination for a full vote. The committee itself could also change its rules to get rid of the requirement that two Democrats be present, James Wallner, a senior resident fellow for governance at the R Street Institute told Fox News."
justthenews.com/government/courts-law/schumer-democrats-will-boycott-vote-trumps-supreme-court-nominee
"Feinstein noted that Ginsburg stated that the Constitution supports abortion in her hearing. That is a good set up for the question since it negates the impact of the "Ginsburg Rule." However, Barrett pivoted to cite Kagan instead."
Kagan refused to answer the same question saying that she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on abortion questions. The Democrats supported her in refusing to answer the questions."......Jonathan Turley
Yet both Barrett and Turley seem desperate to ignore the fact that Kagan had little to no judicial or written record on abortion whereas both Ginsburg and Barrett DO.
"Justice Scalia "railed" against the use of legislative history ... True, and refreshingly expressed by a nominee at a confirmation hearing!"....Andrew McCarthy
"When Justice Ginsburg was confirmed, she said that she would offer no hints or forecasts on cases that could come before the court. Democrats accepted that from Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Suggesting it's unacceptable from Judge Barrett is theater."....Retired Senator Orrin G Hatch
too bad trump's handmaiden nominee already has.
Handmaiden as coming from the Christian Bible?
Do you have an issue with Catholics?
negative. I dated catholic girls exclusively in high school. they hated condoms, I knew the latin phrase that instinctively made them drop to their knees, and they were always under a hard deadline on friday and saturday nights to have something big to confess on sunday mornings. not their fault they belonged to a church with a genocidal history.
So the answer was yes.
There is no greater proponent for abortion and birth control than the average Catholic female.
Sen. Leahy is actually questioning Barrett on whether she knows the cost of insulin and then added "I would not expect you to."
Is Barrett being nominated for the Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Then Leahy brought up the Box case on fetal remains in 2018 and Barrett's dissent. You know, the case that the Supreme Court eventually came around to support her view and reversed itself on.
She uses no notes?
What a Woman!
Durbin just asked Barrett what she felt in watching the George Floyd video, Barrett said it had a huge impact on her as the mother to two black children. She said that she wept with her children over the video.
What a great answer!
That's one that Durbin probably wished he never asked.
Durbin has done a good job of showing Amy Barrett tends toward being unwittingly evil.
Dick Durbin is evil., intentionally. Slimiest weasel in the Senate. Which pretty much makes him the slimiest weasel on the planet.
And considering how her answer is already being shared by conservatives on social media, it only helped her.
Is that your take?
Durbin hit Barrett for supposedly fueling gun violence while Barrett effectively demonstrated that she simply needed a showing of dangerousness to deny the 2nd Amendment right. (you know - a valid legal reason!)
Barrett wants law enforcement to go case by case as to whether felons should be denied the right to buy and own guns. Durbin rightly pointed out that is absurd.
Originalism is bullshit. And her particular style of originalism is unintentionally evil.
Not sure I agree but at the same time, I wonder if she is going with the "it depends on the crime" and whether or not it was violence that had gun or other weapons involved.
No John, Barrett wants a valid legal reason to deny 2nd Amendment rights. She is quite right different states have a wide range of things that constitute what a felony is.
Originalism is bullshit.
No John, Originalism is what should define every Supreme Court Justice. No justice should be deciding cases via empathy!!!
And her particular style of originalism is unintentionally evil.
People trying to destroy this well qualified Woman are evil.
I'm going to put something up about originalism sometime in the hear future. It is bullshit designed to sustain right wing views.
I'll be sure to stop by.
I'll try and have my note pad and a strong Conservative Woman!
It's not states that deny felons the right to own firearms. Oh and BTFW, the Congress was well aware that each state defines felonies when they codified that law.
As the Committee takes a recess, I think it's fair to say it's been a good morning for Judge Barrett.
I believe Mitch McConnell reacted this way:
I only watched a few minutes, but commentators I respect are saying it was as good as a nominee has ever done.
Absolutely. She was magnificent!
I think that photo is from a debate in Kentucky, not this hearing.
You may be right, but it fits with how he must feel about this nomination and how he must feel about what has been achieved with the Judiciary.
It's hard to believe Whitehouse is talking about dark money in politics - something he is currently under scrutiny for.
" https:// wsj.com/articles/sheld on-whitehouse-goes-dark-11600816031 …
Whitehouse is attacking the commitment to picking pro-life justices but Democrats insisted on picking only pro-choose nominees.
Sheldon Whitehouse is the best prosecutor in Congress.
I assume you mean he was the senator who explicitly threatened the Supreme Court to rule against the Constitution's 2nd amendment lest he push to "pack the court."
I get a kick out of the idea that when the 5 Conservatives vote together it represents "bias", but when the 4 liberals more typically vote together it is not!
He did make Barrett sit there silently for a half hour.... Good job!
Although his legacy will always be Sheldon Whitehouse, yearbook detective.
Barrett did very well with deft invocation of the Ginsburg rule in Klobuchar's pointed questioning.
CNN's John King: Barrett "would be getting 70 votes or more" in Senate if nominated by another GOP president"
http:// hill.cm/cts28ue
Did I hear Sen Sasse compare Sen. Whitehouse's chart presentation to those from "A Beautiful Mind?"
Would being aborted and put into a medical waste dumpster be considered a “pre-existing” condition?
That's Mazie from Hawaii now talking, the emphasis always on the wrong word.. On into the night it goes...Basically this hearing is a series of campaign stump speeches by Democrats, peppered with lies, and the constant insulting to the intelligence of the American people
How did she ever land a spot on the judiciary committee? Between her and stolen valor Blumenthal, the Democratic Senators have done a fine job at exposing their own jaw dropping ignorance.
One thing about Hirono - any pretense of fairness is tossed aside. Did she really declare "the distinction between "policy" and the "law" as "artificial" and a "fiction?"
Are people listening to this?
To the contrary, they are systematically exposing Barrett's personal views. They may not prevent her from being confirmed but they are helping put the lid on Trump's political coffin.
I am (and I've watched yesterday and today), but many on the radical left don't pay attention or are totally clueless about how government works.
ACB has evoked the Ginsburg Rule numerous times, but the Dems STILL don't understand.
She's validating every derogatory stereotype conservatives have of liberal jurisprudence. She's a walking caricature.
ACB deserves an award for listening to this with a straight face.
. Barrett toughest challenge is keeping a straight face and not falling asleep while the Democrats filibuster with speeches. They give speeches and then ask questions they don't understand.. As the baseballcrank said about hirono: "Hirono's tone of voice constantly suggests a person reading something aloud for the first time without knowing what most of the words mean."
are helping put the lid on Trump's political coffin.
If anyone walks away from this impressed with the Democratic Senators' questions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Hirono doesn't seem to understand what a judge actually does. As Ilya Shapiro wrote:
"Hirono seems amazed that ACB would apply the law rather than simply ruling for whichever side she considers more sympathetic."
I've seen a number of people making comments like this that reflect how badly she's doing.
Republicans should yield their time to Hirono.
Democrats should force Hirono to yield her time to Klobucher.
She's so out of her depth with this...
Mazie, as usual, is twisting everything. She just said that ACB's opinions are always the same as Scalia's. ACB has REPEATEDLY said that she is her own person.
The best part of today so far was when Cornyn asked her to hold up her notes, and she held up a BLANK US SENATE PAD OF PAPER!
That's the way I saw it too. Her sitting there brave and open to interrogation. The more people see her imo, the more they will admire her.
Not one idiot Dem Senator has been able to break her. I'm very impressed with her professionalism and poise while Dems demean and lecture her for HOURS.
Oooo! Dramatic Spartacus has the floor now!
I have nothing against her, she seems like a nice lady and is certainly smart and accomplished. The problem with her is that she is coming off as a heartless originalist who would throw her grandmother under the bus to comply with her originalist beliefs. Sort of automatic in that regard.
Nothing has happened to derail her confirmation, but so what?
how can one come off as a heartless originalist who would throw her grandmother under the bus, yet seem nice? lol.
her devotion to her conservative legal beliefs is stronger than her niceness . But she seems nice.
Originalism is bullshit. We live 230 years after the constitution was written. Neither women nor people of color had many of the rights then that they have now, so how can words or thoughts confined to 1790 explain or solely guide our modern world?
The Supreme Court decisions that reaffirmed all manner of equal rights were not written by originalists.
Interpretation of the constitution and intent is a tricky thing indeed. All we can hope for is that scotus interpretations adhere as closely as possible to the constitution and the founders intent while leaving political bias out of their decision.
I think it has worked very well so far. What parts of the constitution should we alter or delete to fit the times? The only part i would alter is the birthright clause.
That's insane. Originalism is the very foundation of our legal system, that concept is The law is what it says it is. You can't have a just system if you don't know what the law will be on a particular day because it can be changed on a whim. That's why it's written down and not just up to a judge to make up on the spot,.
And as any originalist, or anyone who passed eighth grade civics will tell you, the "original text" of the Constitution provides the method for it to be changed. If the founders didn't intend the text to have meaning, there would be no point in including the amendment process.
Freedoms not confined by 18th Century mores just as it should not be defined by political persuasion in 2020
What baffles me is that after Trump, the a supposed Hitler wannabe, Democrats still want no fixed laws to restrain leaders from doing whatever they want. You'd think, if they meant what they say about Trump, that restraining arbitrary power would be a priority for Democrats. Instead, they are even more committed to giving even greater arbitrary power to unelected justices. At some point, that power to arbitrarily change the Constitution will be used against your desires. The wheel turns. It always does.
There are these things called Amendments. They are as much as part of the Constitution as anything written in 1787.
Why should the politics referring to a monarchy in 17th century England determine what gun control should exist in 2007? Scalia used 17th century British law ( a hundred years before the US constitution was written) to inform his decision on Heller. It's ridiculous.
Every Supreme Court decision is a "well reasoned" one, as is every dissent. Originalism is not a guidance from on high, it is a political posture.
Because English common law informs Constitution
It's amazing. 2,500 years ago the plebeians demanded the laws of Rome be written down so all could know what the rules were and to stop their being exploited by nobles who could change it at their whim. Fixing their rights and making them literally written in stone diffused the tension in Roman society and served as the foundation of Roman justice, based on the principle that defined laws that would be enforced as written, to flourish. Now, progressives want to ditch the foundation of jurisprudence and return to the days when the elite simply made whatever laws they felt suited them on that particular day. Don't bother with the Constitution or the US Statute book, the law can mean whatever suits the morals of 5 unelected justices .
The founders understood the lessons to be learned from the Republics and democracies that proceeded us. The ignorance of progressives with regards to history shows in their inability to even understand the basis for the founder's theories of government.
I'll leave it open for now - I'll be back.