cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.

---

your opinion doesnt match the peoples opinion... the gop senate grew in 2018

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.

---

your opinion doesnt match the peoples opinion... the gop senate grew in 2018

---

Earlier you wrote that some of what I wrote was opinion. Why can't you identify which part was not?

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Neither has Kavanaugh.

---

Is that why he cried like a little bit, er baby?

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.

---

your opinion doesnt match the peoples opinion... the gop senate grew in 2018

---

Earlier you wrote that some of what I wrote was opinion. Why can't you identify which part was not?

---

wrong thread... you lose track?

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.

---

your opinion doesnt match the peoples opinion... the gop senate grew in 2018

---

Earlier you wrote that some of what I wrote was opinion. Why can't you identify which part was not?

---

wrong thread... you lose track?

---

You're running. I have to keep you honest.

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.

---

your opinion doesnt match the peoples opinion... the gop senate grew in 2018

---

Earlier you wrote that some of what I wrote was opinion. Why can't you identify which part was not?

---

wrong thread... you lose track?

---

You're running. I have to keep you honest.

---

not running, i answered. Lets keep topics where they go and stop deflecting a thread

bill cosby never cried he just denied

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Let's see where the Senate stands next January before we decide the "people" have endorsed McConnell's tactics. The 3018 Senate map tilted decidedly in the GOP's favor absent Kavanaugh. The Democratic losses where not in what I would call battleground states.

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Neither has Kavanaugh.

---

Is that why he cried like a little bit, er baby?

---

wow.... that's a pretty pathetic response.
by that logic, Bill Clinton never actually had sex with Monica... after all, he never cried.
Manson never killed anyone.... no tears.
Hitler was a good guy cause he never cried.
and Anita Hill was guilty as hell because she cried during her hearing.

hey wait a minute... didn't Blaisey Ford cry during her testimony too... dang, now they are both guilty!

---

In the failed clutch of circumstance, Anita Hill neither winced nor cried aloud. She took her abuse from those old men like a real woman. Kavanaugh could learn a lot from her, when he's not crying of course.

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Neither has Kavanaugh.

---

Is that why he cried like a little bit, er baby?

---

wow.... that's a pretty pathetic response.
by that logic, Bill Clinton never actually had sex with Monica... after all, he never cried.
Manson never killed anyone.... no tears.
Hitler was a good guy cause he never cried.
and Anita Hill was guilty as hell because she cried during her hearing.

hey wait a minute... didn't Blaisey Ford cry during her testimony too... dang, now they are both guilty!

---

In the failed clutch of circumstance, Anita Hill neither winced nor cried aloud. She took her abuse from those old men like a real woman. Kavanaugh could learn a lot from her, when he's not crying of course.

---

So only real women should just be strong and take abuse from old men? Interesting.

I think Jinx needs to reboot you.

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Neither has Kavanaugh.

---

Is that why he cried like a little bit, er baby?

---

wow.... that's a pretty pathetic response.
by that logic, Bill Clinton never actually had sex with Monica... after all, he never cried.
Manson never killed anyone.... no tears.
Hitler was a good guy cause he never cried.
and Anita Hill was guilty as hell because she cried during her hearing.

hey wait a minute... didn't Blaisey Ford cry during her testimony too... dang, now they are both guilty!

---

In the failed clutch of circumstance, Anita Hill neither winced nor cried aloud. She took her abuse from those old men like a real woman. Kavanaugh could learn a lot from her, when he's not crying of course.

---

You are sooooo right!!!

Kavanaugh is a rapist and so is Clarence Thomas... because of emotions!

If that just doesn't show how pathetic the left are....
You actually base guilt or innocence on the tears. No need for a court of law anymore, just ask cinque if someone cried or didn't cry.

This is yet another reason why no one should ever listen to your opinions. Logic, reason, facts, data.... nope... you just base it all on emotions. Sick.

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

wuzzybear said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.

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.

---

Was King David's plot to have Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed a gift to God? Then why did David become king to begin with.

This is a gift from God, not Trump. Barrett is orthodox Catholic with 7 kids, 2 of which are adopted Haitians and one with special needs. So she MUST be the choice bc I wanna microwave 10 bags of popcorn and watch the Dems insult, attack, excoriate, denigrate, and annihilate her with that on her resume. She was an honored professor of political science at Notre Dame and she has that suburban mom look going on too. Everything the Rep want for a nominee is contained with her.

So let the show begin cuz you know if your alzheimer candidate who has never done anything in 48yrs yet still his net worth is multi-millions from a govt job, gets run over by the squad you are still get your house burned down, your children raped and beat, and your guns won't defend you cuz they will have been confiscated.

I'M READY FOR THIS FIGHT YESTERDAY. QUITE THE CONTRARY, IT IS TRUMP'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO CONFIRM CUZ IF THE ELECTION GOES TO SCOTUS HOW WILL THEY DECIDE ANYTHING AT 4-4. It also is a great barrier to keep your antifa party from stealing the elections via mail fraud. So, yeah, bring it !!!

The American people voted for a Rep prez and a Rep senate which means they WANT this process to go forward now. What don't you understand about that? Didn't work in '16 due to 2 separate parties occupying those branches. Me thinks you are just another in a long line of Trump haters and not Biden supporters.

---

I'm starting to think Lagoa might be the better pick. Cuban mother of 3 whose Father left Cuba to bring them to America. The Dems would go crazy trying to figure out how to attack her with their identity politics game. Plus they just nominated her with over 80 votes in the Senate. That is extremely rare these days.

---

I think I agree with you here, riflebear. Yes, Barbara Lagoa was passed through by a vote in the Senate of 80-15 to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just last September. How would the Senators that voted in favor of her last September justify changing their vote to NO for the Supreme Court?

This would indeed put great pressure on the Dems. How could the "Party of Inclusion and woke" vote against the daughter of Cuban immigrants? This scenario would be fun to watch.

---

None of the people on that Federalist Society of judges puts pressure on Democrats

---

Cinque no response to Barrett's actual resume I posted on the previous page?

Or is her Catholic faith the only thing that disqualifies her?

---

She has an inspiring vitae but that in no way makes her sui generis within a sea full of qualified women.

---

Who is your choice?

---

Biden's pick.

---

Who would you like that to be? Any independent research on your part?

---

We don't have a list provided to us like the Federalist Society provides to Republicans, so I won't pretend to have personally vetted anybody.

---

So you are just talking out your ass?

---

Because I don't have a name to give you? Really?

---

I figured Biden would have a pick shovel-ready. Or has anybody told him about the court vacancy yet?

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Neither has Kavanaugh.

---

https://news.rhodes.edu/stories/president-hass-message-rhodes-community-regarding-alumna-amy-coney-barretts-94

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

They considered him. They would have voted no--he was never going to be confirmed. The only reason Dems pushed it was to try and get certain Senators to have to vote no on the record. And McConnell didn't allow the vote to protect those Senators.

All just politics, as is the current posturing by both parties. Both parties made political moves and dressed them up as altruistic with Garland. And the supposed "flip flopping" by both parties today, along with the associated rhetoric, is no different.

The suggestion that either party is principled and doing anything other than using politics to their full advantage is delusional.

---

They didn't consider him; they considered who appointed him and who might appoint someone else.

And "protecting the senators" is what I am talking about. A senator's job is to cast votes.

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

They considered him. They would have voted no--he was never going to be confirmed. The only reason Dems pushed it was to try and get certain Senators to have to vote no on the record. And McConnell didn't allow the vote to protect those Senators.

All just politics, as is the current posturing by both parties. Both parties made political moves and dressed them up as altruistic with Garland. And the supposed "flip flopping" by both parties today, along with the associated rhetoric, is no different.

The suggestion that either party is principled and doing anything other than using politics to their full advantage is delusional.

---

They didn't consider him; they considered who appointed him and who might appoint someone else.

And "protecting the senators" is what I am talking about. A senator's job is to cast votes.

---

Just to be clear--all this idiotic angst is because Dems couldn't cause a spectacle to earn political points in 2016. It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court. IF there had been a vote, the 10 seat GOP advantage would have resulted in a no. Everything both parties did at the time was entirely about posturing and had nothing to do with casting votes.

---

You have found a way to rationalize the idea that the GOP's refusal to consider a qualified, moderate jurist to SCOTUS is somehow excused because Obama allegedly knew that the GOP would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS.

Maybe, just maybe the problem mostly falls on a party that would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS?

643 Bears said:

---

It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court.

---

Cracker, please. Most of y'all voted for Trump because of the makeup of the court. AKA abortion.

By rationalize, you mean I actually remember 2016 as opposed to creating an alternative set of facts?

They rejected Garland. There are multiple ways to do so. All this "failed to consider" is stupid, as if Senators go to confirmation hearings without any idea how they will vote and are waiting to hear from the nominee to make a decision. And do you really want to get into an exercise of evaluating the history of which party actually fairly considers the opponent's nominees?

You're upset the GOP didn't want to confirm the guy you like.

So win next time. That's how it works.

quash said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court.

---

Cracker, please. Most of y'all voted for Trump because of the makeup of the court. AKA abortion.

---

First, didn't vote for Trump.

Second, wth are you talking about? Talk about a non-sequitur.

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

The words "because it's an election year" probably were said, but they didn't need to give any reason at all. They could have just ignored Garland with no reason at all.

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

quash said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court.

---

Cracker, please. Most of y'all voted for Trump because of the makeup of the court. AKA abortion.

---

I certainly voted for Trump primarily in hopes of multiple opportunities to fix our courts. However, abortion was maybe 3 or 4 on my list of priorities. Would be interesting to see any credible data supporting your assertion.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court.

---

Cracker, please. Most of y'all voted for Trump because of the makeup of the court. AKA abortion.

---

I certainly voted for Trump primarily in hopes of multiple opportunities to fix our courts. However, abortion was maybe 3 or 4 on my list of priorities. Would be interesting to see any credible data supporting your assertion.

---

It's not data based, it's what posters were saying 4 years ago on BF.

Booray said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

They considered him. They would have voted no--he was never going to be confirmed. The only reason Dems pushed it was to try and get certain Senators to have to vote no on the record. And McConnell didn't allow the vote to protect those Senators.

All just politics, as is the current posturing by both parties. Both parties made political moves and dressed them up as altruistic with Garland. And the supposed "flip flopping" by both parties today, along with the associated rhetoric, is no different.

The suggestion that either party is principled and doing anything other than using politics to their full advantage is delusional.

---

They didn't consider him; they considered who appointed him and who might appoint someone else.

And "protecting the senators" is what I am talking about. A senator's job is to cast votes.

---

Just to be clear--all this idiotic angst is because Dems couldn't cause a spectacle to earn political points in 2016. It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court. IF there had been a vote, the 10 seat GOP advantage would have resulted in a no. Everything both parties did at the time was entirely about posturing and had nothing to do with casting votes.

---

You have found a way to rationalize the idea that the GOP's refusal to consider a qualified, moderate jurist to SCOTUS is somehow excused because Obama allegedly knew that the GOP would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS.

Maybe, just maybe the problem mostly falls on a party that would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS?

---

You may call it blame. I call it winning. That was the point of the election for me.

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

643 Bears said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

They considered him. They would have voted no--he was never going to be confirmed. The only reason Dems pushed it was to try and get certain Senators to have to vote no on the record. And McConnell didn't allow the vote to protect those Senators.

All just politics, as is the current posturing by both parties. Both parties made political moves and dressed them up as altruistic with Garland. And the supposed "flip flopping" by both parties today, along with the associated rhetoric, is no different.

The suggestion that either party is principled and doing anything other than using politics to their full advantage is delusional.

---

They didn't consider him; they considered who appointed him and who might appoint someone else.

And "protecting the senators" is what I am talking about. A senator's job is to cast votes.

---

Just to be clear--all this idiotic angst is because Dems couldn't cause a spectacle to earn political points in 2016. It has nothing to do with the makeup of the court. IF there had been a vote, the 10 seat GOP advantage would have resulted in a no. Everything both parties did at the time was entirely about posturing and had nothing to do with casting votes.

---

You have found a way to rationalize the idea that the GOP's refusal to consider a qualified, moderate jurist to SCOTUS is somehow excused because Obama allegedly knew that the GOP would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS.

Maybe, just maybe the problem mostly falls on a party that would refuse to consider a qualified, moderate jurist for appointment to SCOTUS?

---

You may call it blame. I call it winning. That was the point of the election for me.

---

Right. Because the most important thing is to beat the enemy, composed of other Americans. Washington's farewell address should be required reading.