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.

---

George-

Explain to me how "Obamacare" as you call it or the "Affordable Healthcare Act", as mis-leading as that is, if eliminated, would cause 20 million Americans to lose healthcare.

1) is ACA working?
2) is it "affordable"?
3) is it an alternative to govt or employer-sponsored healthcare?
4) did it solve the issue of indigent care?
5) did it address the real issue, retail ACLs from our facilities/networks?

Just wondering.

quash said:

---

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.

---

It sounds like some wild fiction. When most people talk about the court, they aren't concerned with old decisions as much as stopping new bad ones that strip liberties away. I'd buy they were interested in protecting the second amendment and getting rid of a self evidently unconstitutional ACA and protecting free speech from the gay mob. Voting for Trump primarily to overturn a circa 40 yr old decision? No. There was plenty of evil, unconstitutional, socialist, tyrannical things to be concerned about the court facilitating well beyond abortion.

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.

---

Yeah, except McConnell broke no law or no rules - then and now. So not quite sure what you're saying when you "the means".... you mean following the rules established?

quash said:

---

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.

---

Ok. It was just interesting because I heard Geraldo Rivera say the same thing yesterday and thought then it was just an opinion. Whoever was doing the interview disagreed with him, fwiw.

Booray said:

---

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.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

Booray said:

---

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.

---

The idea of "Americans" is what is at stake here. Just because we share an accident of geography doesn't make us all members of the same tribe, in a sense. Culture matters very much. Absent the necessary instruments of unity, there is truly no such thing as the "American people". There are just people living in proximity placing demands on others that others may not be willing to be constrained by. Always grates on me to hear politicians of either party speak of "uniting the people" when the only way that can be accomplished is to crush the opposition.

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

To write off every politician is to give in to cynicism. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good: name your big issues, find somebody who fights for those issues, and don't worry about whether they went to a frat party in blackface twenty years ago, or worked at Monsanto (in marketing <gasp>) or did something else that you aren't crazy about but that is many times smaller than your core issues. Be an informed voter, vote the whole ballot and vote your values. Elections are not about picking winners. Voting your values means you never regret a vote even if a candidate lets you down; you can't control them, just your vote.

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.

---

Not just abortion.
A paraphrase of a NYTimes editorial from yesterday:

There used to be a bipartisan tradition of confirming well-qualified nominees for the court. Democrats trashed it with their trashing of Robert Bork. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of approving well-qualified nominees for lower courts. Democrats trashed it by filibustering George W. Bush's appellate court nominees. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of respecting the filibuster. Democrats trashed it by blowing up the filibuster in 2013. There used to be a tradition of the Judiciary Committee treating nominees with a sense of fairness. Democrats trashed it when they used uncorroborated allegations to try to block and besmirch Brett Kavanaugh.
In short, whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump's next nominee this close to a presidential election, it's a venial one compared with what the other side has done, and may still do.
Nor, I imagine, is that everything your caucus colleagues are telling you. The left, they say, is engaged in a full-scale attack on traditional American values, from freedom of speech to the presumption of innocence to the right to bear arms to the need to enforce our immigration laws to the broader concept of law and order.

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Appreciate the intellectual honesty in that post.

Osodecentx 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.

---

Not just abortion.
A paraphrase of a NYTimes editorial from yesterday:

There used to be a bipartisan tradition of confirming well-qualified nominees for the court. Democrats trashed it with their trashing of Robert Bork. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of approving well-qualified nominees for lower courts. Democrats trashed it by filibustering George W. Bush's appellate court nominees. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of respecting the filibuster. Democrats trashed it by blowing up the filibuster in 2013. There used to be a tradition of the Judiciary Committee treating nominees with a sense of fairness. Democrats trashed it when they used uncorroborated allegations to try to block and besmirch Brett Kavanaugh.
In short, whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump's next nominee this close to a presidential election, it's a venial one compared with what the other side has done, and may still do.
Nor, I imagine, is that everything your caucus colleagues are telling you. The left, they say, is engaged in a full-scale attack on traditional American values, from freedom of speech to the presumption of innocence to the right to bear arms to the need to enforce our immigration laws to the broader concept of law and order.

---

If you are going to say it is a paraphrase of an editorial, lets paraphrase the whole editorial. Which was a plea to Mitt Romney to vote against the nomination.

Talk about out of context!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opinion/mitt-romney-supreme-court-nominee.html

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

Not just abortion.
A paraphrase of a NYTimes editorial from yesterday:

There used to be a bipartisan tradition of confirming well-qualified nominees for the court. Democrats trashed it with their trashing of Robert Bork. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of approving well-qualified nominees for lower courts. Democrats trashed it by filibustering George W. Bush's appellate court nominees. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of respecting the filibuster. Democrats trashed it by blowing up the filibuster in 2013. There used to be a tradition of the Judiciary Committee treating nominees with a sense of fairness. Democrats trashed it when they used uncorroborated allegations to try to block and besmirch Brett Kavanaugh.
In short, whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump's next nominee this close to a presidential election, it's a venial one compared with what the other side has done, and may still do.
Nor, I imagine, is that everything your caucus colleagues are telling you. The left, they say, is engaged in a full-scale attack on traditional American values, from freedom of speech to the presumption of innocence to the right to bear arms to the need to enforce our immigration laws to the broader concept of law and order.

---

If you are going to say it is a paraphrase of an editorial, lets paraphrase the whole editorial. Which was a plea to Mitt Romney to vote against the nomination.

Talk about out of context!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opinion/mitt-romney-supreme-court-nominee.html

---

Boo
I should have said excerpt. My sincere apologies for this egregious offense. Please forgive me.

I find that a cut and paste of long editorials aren't read. The argument from the editorial is exactly right. I'll rely on you for the link.

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

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.

---

Barack Obama consulted with Orrin Hatch about the Merrick Garland pick. Hatch told him that Garland would be confirmed because he was a moderate and old enough that his tenure would be relatively short.

Ronald Reagan regularly worked with Tip O'Neill.

Clinton and Gingrich got things done.

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.

---

Possibly if Trump would go with Barbara Lagoa, instead of Amy Barrett, since Barrett is the favorite of more Far Right and Right to Life people, it would be looked upon as an olive branch. Child of Immigrants, Hispanic woman of color, Cuban/American, more moderate by most accounts. She got a lot of democratic support in her last appointment. She checks a lot of the boxes that the left now seem to require.

Maybe she would be accepted.

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

Live and let live. Not a difficult concept for most folks.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

Probably because the entire court is made up of Yale and Harvard grads. 2 schools in the Northeast. Where 1/3 people are Catholic. Literally the epicenter of Catholicism in America.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

Live and let live. Not a difficult concept for most folks.

---

What does that mean?

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

It should not even be an issue for the Court to wade into. The matter should be solved by the States' Legislatures or the People, whom you now insist must have a role in selecting the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

Gorsuch was raised Catholic. OTOH, his Episcopal Church in Colorado is fairly liberal.

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

It should not even be an issue for the Court to wade into. The matter should be solved by the States' Legislatures or the People, whom you now insist must have a role in selecting the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg.

---

Didn't Mitch insist that?

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

Probably because the entire court is made up of Yale and Harvard grads. 2 schools in the Northeast. Where 1/3 people are Catholic. Literally the epicenter of Catholicism in America.

---

That doesn't seem quite right either.

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

It should not even be an issue for the Court to wade into. The matter should be solved by the States' Legislatures or the People, whom you now insist must have a role in selecting the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg.

---

Didn't Mitch insist that?

---

That happened long before Mitch was in the Senate.