Amy Barrett
13,910 Views |
252 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Osodecentx
She would do a great job.
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Any chance, just for fun... to see liberal heads explode... Trump could nominate Candace Owens?
R E L A X
It's only a joke!!
R E L A X
It's only a joke!!
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
Rhodes College representing! One of the most beautiful campuses you will ever see.
Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!Baylor3216 said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
She would be a great choice. Not sure there is any chance of it happening.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.
Kamala is anti-Catholic. Time to make this an election issue.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/12/kamala-harriss-anti-catholic-assault-previews-what-would-happen-in-her-administration/
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/12/kamala-harriss-anti-catholic-assault-previews-what-would-happen-in-her-administration/
Nuts is putting it nicely. They will riot like there is no tomorrow. Then again, they are gonna riot anyway, but this just ramps up the stakes on both sides. I think that is good for Trump. Funny, but not, how this is turning out to be strictly a ethics and morality issue. As a Christian, how could I ever support any pro-choice candidate. I drew my line in the sand years ago and now its time to fortify that line.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!Baylor3216 said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
30yrs ago I was pro-choice but said I hope the choice would be life. No longer do I believe that. Life begins at conception PERIOD.
"the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!" about any nominee.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!Baylor3216 said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
I don't either. I don't think McConnell will have the votes for this candidate or any other. It would be a tough vote to cast for Reps that are in competitive states. It might be even tougher if the vote occurs after the election. Dems and Independents that are opposed to Trump will be motivated to not let the Reps sneak in another conservative judge and will try to keep the Reps from having the votes after the election to confirm.Forest Bueller said:
She would be a great choice. Not sure there is any chance of it happening.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
If the confirmation was to occur before the election and the Reps in competitive states vote a judge in, I can see people wanting payback.
Either way it is a huge gamble for the Reps to force something this close to election time. There seems to be no safe play if they are going to try to get a judge in before the new Senate is seated.
The way I see it you may be weighing the options of getting the conservative judge in and making re-election more difficult for both Trump and the Senate or skipping the confirmation until 2021 in the hopes that Trump is still in office and the Senate is still in Rep hands. What is the priority? I think the chances of both happening are slim.
After what the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh and his family, Trump should light this candle with no reservations.57Bear said:"the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!" about any nominee.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!Baylor3216 said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
She is my choice. I just confirmed her. She starts Monday!
Dude, you must be related to me somehow. Everything you post is almost to the letter what I think. You are right. If Trump wants to solidify his position as CEO of America then throw Barrett in there and let the wolves rip her skin off, then the anarchists will show up to disrupt everything and let the Dems defend that action. THIS IS A NO BRAINER !!!!!RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:After what the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh and his family, Trump should light this candle with no reservations.57Bear said:"the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!" about any nominee.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!Baylor3216 said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.
She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.
In honor of RBG, her replacement should be confirmed by a vote of 98-2.
Wuzzy and RD2 are my brothers from different Mothers, easy to see how good genetics from Dad shaped our thinking, right on bros.
Are they going through her HS yearbook yet?
blackie said:I don't either. I don't think McConnell will have the votes for this candidate or any other. It would be a tough vote to cast for Reps that are in competitive states. It might be even tougher if the vote occurs after the election. Dems and Independents that are opposed to Trump will be motivated to not let the Reps sneak in another conservative judge and will try to keep the Reps from having the votes after the election to confirm.Forest Bueller said:
She would be a great choice. Not sure there is any chance of it happening.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
If the confirmation was to occur before the election and the Reps in competitive states vote a judge in, I can see people wanting payback.
Either way it is a huge gamble for the Reps to force something this close to election time. There seems to be no safe play if they are going to try to get a judge in before the new Senate is seated.
The way I see it you may be weighing the options of getting the conservative judge in and making re-election more difficult for both Trump and the Senate or skipping the confirmation until 2021 in the hopes that Trump is still in office and the Senate is still in Rep hands. What is the priority? I think the chances of both happening are slim.
This isn't sneaking a justice in. The President, who isn't a lame duck, and the Senate are the same party. Time to be dominant and not hide in the corner.
Perhaps so, but it doesn't go without great risk as I theorized. The sneaking that I was referring to was getting one in under the wire while independent voters are still deciding on which way to jump off the fence. These idiots in DC should have learned by now that they never have the last word.Jack and DP said:blackie said:I don't either. I don't think McConnell will have the votes for this candidate or any other. It would be a tough vote to cast for Reps that are in competitive states. It might be even tougher if the vote occurs after the election. Dems and Independents that are opposed to Trump will be motivated to not let the Reps sneak in another conservative judge and will try to keep the Reps from having the votes after the election to confirm.Forest Bueller said:
She would be a great choice. Not sure there is any chance of it happening.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
If the confirmation was to occur before the election and the Reps in competitive states vote a judge in, I can see people wanting payback.
Either way it is a huge gamble for the Reps to force something this close to election time. There seems to be no safe play if they are going to try to get a judge in before the new Senate is seated.
The way I see it you may be weighing the options of getting the conservative judge in and making re-election more difficult for both Trump and the Senate or skipping the confirmation until 2021 in the hopes that Trump is still in office and the Senate is still in Rep hands. What is the priority? I think the chances of both happening are slim.
This isn't sneaking a justice in. The President, who isn't a lame duck, and the Senate are the same party. Time to be dominant and not hide in the corner.
Agreed. It will be a centerpiece of the fall elections either way. Everyone will take this issue into consideration at some level - but not because they will be swayed by new arguments, but simply because they will be energized by the appointment.Jack and DP said:blackie said:I don't either. I don't think McConnell will have the votes for this candidate or any other. It would be a tough vote to cast for Reps that are in competitive states. It might be even tougher if the vote occurs after the election. Dems and Independents that are opposed to Trump will be motivated to not let the Reps sneak in another conservative judge and will try to keep the Reps from having the votes after the election to confirm.Forest Bueller said:
You She would be a great choice. Not sure there is any chance of it happening.
She should get a vote. Just like I said Merrick Garland should have gotten a vote.
He wouldn't have gotten past Senate. I don't think she does either.
If the confirmation was to occur before the election and the Reps in competitive states vote a judge in, I can see people wanting payback.
Either way it is a huge gamble for the Reps to force something this close to election time. There seems to be no safe play if they are going to try to get a judge in before the new Senate is seated.
The way I see it you may be weighing the options of getting the conservative judge in and making re-election more difficult for both Trump and the Senate or skipping the confirmation until 2021 in the hopes that Trump is still in office and the Senate is still in Rep hands. What is the priority? I think the chances of both happening are slim.
This isn't sneaking a justice in. The President, who isn't a lame duck, and the Senate are the same party. Time to be dominant and not hide in the corner.
Honestly, evangelicals and Christians generally are more likely to show up for the President and GOP simply because this is a Supreme Court battle and this always is a benefit to conservatives. It never fails to be an issue that is better for our side. This won't change if the appointment is pending or if it has been completed.
Progressives won't be more incentivized to vote if the appointment is made and approved by the Senate prior to the election. Instead they will be somewhat deflated by the move. Alternatively, if it is left to be accomplished post-election, they probably will have somewhat better turnout.
Either way, the President and the Senate majority have nothing to gain by waiting.
And stupid Colorado will still vote Blue...
6 Presidents have nominated a SCOTUS judge even after they lost their election but before the new President came into office.
GOP better not cave here. Shame on Collins and Murkowski for already wussing out. They could vote for an incredible women to the Supreme Court and have an amazing legacy as a Senator because of it.
I'm tired of Trump being a misogynist again and voting a female to SCOTUS.
GOP better not cave here. Shame on Collins and Murkowski for already wussing out. They could vote for an incredible women to the Supreme Court and have an amazing legacy as a Senator because of it.
I'm tired of Trump being a misogynist again and voting a female to SCOTUS.
Dems say nothing will be off the table the Senate goes forward with a pick.
So what has been off the table in recent times? Dems are already trying to destroy our law enforcement and burn down our cities.
So what has been off the table in recent times? Dems are already trying to destroy our law enforcement and burn down our cities.
I disagree with Barrett's politics but (1) the president is entitled to his choice so long as the nominee is fit regardless of their politics (I said the same thing when Kavanaugh was nominated but felt he displayed a lack of judicial demeanor sufficient to reject him) and (2) she appears to stick to her judicial philosophy without regard to her politics, maybe she can show Alito and Kavanaugh how that works.
Would still prefer Sen. Cruz.
Would still prefer Sen. Cruz.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.Jack and DP said:
Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.
So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.
Biden can say alot of things... so many of them false, but he can say them...George Truett said:Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.Jack and DP said:
Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.
So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.
What is false?Gruvin said:Biden can say alot of things... so many of them false, but he can say them...George Truett said:Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.Jack and DP said:
Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.
So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.
Trump has failed miserably in the COVID crisis. This is fact. Nearly 200,000 dead from COVID say so. The vast majority of Americans also say so.
SCOTUS will throw out Obamacare if another radical is seated. This will mean 20 million Americans will lose their healthcare AND tens of millions more will lose protection for preexisting conditions.
I know Trump is hoping to flip the script, but it's not going to work. It just makes his COVID failure worse.
so Trump should ignore the will of the people? Marquette research study said it was and appropriate to nominate and have hearings in 2020 by all three groups- Rep, Dem, and IndependentsGeorge Truett said:Sadly, what the latest SCOTUS grab by Republicans will produce is greater momentum for Dems to pack the court.Jack and DP said:
Any conservatives still think Trump should hold off on filling the seat?
I'm against that, but it's going to be hard to fight against if Trump and McConnell succeed.
It was the will of the people when Garland should have had a hearing and it is still the will of the people. You are in the minority of thinking they should wait even after the complete jerk move by the senate in 2016