Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

Well then, this would be the first time you have referenced Fox News without calling them fake news, or fake opinions, or whatever.

Very good, I say

 

If you' really wanna call **** upon yourself, say BLUE LIFES MATTER"!

 

Obviously, judge Burrett had her sights on the SCOTUS bench for a while, and adopted this sneaky strategy to tie Democrats' hands when the time comes. Very conning of her! This alone should disqualify her!

 

Yes, we can call the Democrats "waaacist" for opposing her.

 

What is the predominant religion in Haiti... Catholic, but they also all 100% Voodoo! Now, judge Barrett will undoubtedly pick traits of voodoo religion from her children, and thus force it on the rest of SCOTUS Justices and onto the United States.

Here's a scary thought, eh?

 

Go ahead and find any post where I have called Fox News fake.
You claim I do it every time I reference Fox so it should be pretty easy.

 

I am sure they have their armies out trying to find someone to accuse her of an improvable undefendable act.

 

....which should be immediately dismissed as umprovable.

 

Here it comes

"Republicans rushed to defend President Trump's potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday after social media users launched an attack on her and the two children she adopted from Haiti.

It came after a Democratic activist questioned the legitimacy of the adoption and called for them to be investigated.

'I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti,' Dana Houle wrote. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Haiti-ahead-potential-Supreme-Court-pick.html

Attack her for saving two children from the horrors of Haiti.

 

Remember the Roy Moore episode? And I have voted AGAINST Moore everytime he has run. They pulled a woman out of the woodwork to make scurrilous charges that could neither be proved or defended, full of holes and questions, witnesses refuting her claims but swung the election and the day after the election it all disappeared

 

Regardless of your position on this, you know that if the ACA goes down at SCOTUS and the Democrats hold the Presidency, House and Senate, they will immediately push for (probably elective) Medicare for all, even if that's seen as a radical pipe-dream in the here and now? This is a Trojan Horse and an absolute gift to them.

Conservatives harping on about the cost and the deficit are going to get laughed out of Dodge in a post Trump world.

It's kind of like the same-sex marriage debate where social conservatives would not even contemplate Federally recognized civil unions; sometimes going as far as to legislatively ban any kind of legal recognition whatsoever. If they had recognized that compromise, that's where we might still be now but no they pushed so hard that the pushback was even harder.

Ban civil unions get same-sex marriage.

Strike down the ACA, get Medicare for all.

It's going to happen and good luck trying to get that struck down in the future if it does.

 

Yeah, it’s like slavery n’ stuff.

 

It is funny how people make up their minds about a person they've never met and know nothing about, only based on who nominated them.

I don't know much about her either. I have read that she has 7 children, 2 of them adopted from Haiti, one of them with special needs (Down syndrome). It is hard for me to think that a person doing such things can be a bad person. It is also hard for me to see how such a person could strike down the ACA or other government welfare, knowing full well that one of her children probably will need assistance for the rest of their lives. Maybe they have enough money to set up a trust for that child, so he is covered for the rest of his life. You never know, people do things against their own interest all the time.

In any case, I don't think the Dems will have any serious grounds to oppose her. She will sail trough.

 

if she votes to strike it down it would be because it’s unconstitutional. we don’t want judges up holding illegal laws simply because of their self interest

 

Exactly. Conservatives want judges that uphold the law and liberals want justices that will vote the way they want them to on their pet political issues.

 

You guys always hide behind your view of the constitution. Newsflash: The ACA is 10 years old and hasn't been found un-constitutional yet. The only way for you to get it repealed is to appoint activist conservative judges you hope will find it un-constitutional. Will Barrett be that one? Will she vote for repeal, kicking 10s of millions of people exactly in the same situation as her disabled son off their health insurance? That's your hope. I say, we'll see.

 

well actually parr’s have been.

and the lower court ruled a big part jusr was that’s what is in heading to the scotus.

i don’t know how she’ll rule i just know if it goes that’s why it will go not because of her own self interest. that’s not how judges should be ruling

 

You act if there was no health insurance before Obamacare.

 

No matter who Trump selects, I'll give all you guys one guess on who isn't making the selection. That's the important thing.

 

It is fundamentally unconstitutional due to the mandate(temporarily repealed but likely to be restored in a Biden-Harris administration).

Specifically, it violates the 4th amendment as income is deemed property and by virtue of the mandate, the government is unlawfully seizing our property.

 

Don't give the Democrats ideas, Dutch. They'll be blaring the horrors and dangers of Barrett spreading her "voodoo terrorism" all over MSNBC, CNN, and all the other hyperliberal, agit-prop "news" media mills....

Why not? What else have they really got to bitch about... except their manufactured fears that somehow as a Supreme Court Justice she will single-handedly overturn 'Roe v Wade'...? SHE AIN'T 'WONDER WOMAN'....

The funny part is that if these goofy libs would bother to ASK most Conservatives what we think about the idea of throwing out abortion rights, a huge number of us would say, "Hell, NO!"

They never bother to think that if THEY don't want their unborn children/fetuses/blobs-of-tissue, etc., then why the hell would they suppose that we on the Right want them?! We've already got a big enough welfare burden!

 

The filibuster cloture 3/5 vote is dead largely thanks to Harry Reid.

McConnell extended its death to Supreme Court confirmations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

 

She seems pretty awesome.

As much as I dislike McConnell and Trump, I have no problem with Amy so far.

 

Actually – we need government to force you to pay for the healthcare of those others, the same we need government to force you to pay for the army, police, firefighters, custom officers, NASA, CIA/FBI and other services.

 

I agree. Very good video. I see myself in her teaching philosophy. She is a continuing academic, which I like. Her approach to children seems to be also very likable. I don't think she will be a stiff bean counter like Alito and Kavanaugh. It will be hard for Dems to oppose her.