All Things Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,642
Reaction score
2,208
Points
113
The responses above are made by morons. Scalia and RBG were passed with huge numbers. Ask Sasse why Garland didn't get a vote.

Also, newsflash to Sasse. Politicians both appoint and confirm Justices. Appointments are inherently political. Moreover, judges are picked and pushed because parties want them to exact an ideology upon the country. If thst wasn't true, then there wouldn't be a fight about judges as long as the judge nominees are qualified. They'd all pass 100-0.

You're all dummies.
The constitution limits politicians power. If one party supported limiting power, and another party did not, then their judges would reflect those principles. That’s the divide. Increased power and control for Washington DC, or not.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,772
Reaction score
1,634
Points
113
The libs did manage to achieve one thing today. They literally got Webster's dictionary to redefine a word to fit their new narrative. This is real "1984" stuff. When you have the power to literally completely change the definition of words, then whatever you're saying today could be held against you as being racist tomorrow.

 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,206
Reaction score
1,338
Points
113
I never heard those in charge of most of the government cry and whine so much. Pathetic
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
809
Points
113
This has been a 20 hour infomercial for term limits and the need to drain the swamp. I'm not sure which Dem is more dislikable: Harris? Booker? Kloby? They are all awful.

1602684718078.png
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,482
Reaction score
680
Points
113
If this were about qualification, this would be disqualifying.
Ironic that Amy K is attempting to intimidate...
She got her panties handed to her so she's lashing out at anything. Her true incompetency has been exposed.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,879
Reaction score
2,871
Points
113
If she's lying and she does side in an improper ruling to overrule the popular vote and decide the outcome of the election, there's always impeachment at some point down the road.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
12,355
Reaction score
991
Points
113
If she's lying and she does side in an improper ruling to overrule the popular vote and decide the outcome of the election, there's always impeachment at some point down the road.
ACB is so far superior in literally any aspect of the clowns questioning her. Right bad?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,608
Reaction score
3,513
Points
113
ACB is so far superior in literally any aspect of the clowns questioning her. Right bad?
Juxtapose her poise, wisdom and ability to work without notes against the Democrat candidate for President and his socialist would be VP! LOL! :ROFLMAO:

That empty note pad is going to be a nice meme against slow Joe.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,608
Reaction score
3,513
Points
113
If she's lying and she does side in an improper ruling to overrule the popular vote and decide the outcome of the election, there's always impeachment at some point down the road.
Wow! TDS
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,772
Reaction score
1,634
Points
113
If she's lying and she does side in an improper ruling to overrule the popular vote and decide the outcome of the election, there's always impeachment at some point down the road.
The imaginary world these libs live in. Earth to Bad, come in Bad, we live in a Republic where there is this concept called the Electoral vote, it's not the Popular Vote that decides elections. Once you've packed the Supreme Court you libs can do anything you want at any time without being bound by that old outdated rag called the Constitution, but for now, the Consitution still applies.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
1,717
Points
113
If this were about qualification, this would be disqualifying.
Amy informing her of the statute was a good moment. This candidate is rated as well qualified. I guess I believe that given her history but she behaved at moments like someone who really didn't have a strong grasp of the law. She described a decision making process that relied heavily on others (clerks, fellow judges, and other colleagues). At one point I wondered if most of us could be high level judges if we had so much assistance in our decision making process.

I realize no judge could be well acquainted with the controlling law on all of the issues that might come before her but these were high profile issues and, on at least abortion rights, she has spoken or written extensively on that in the past.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,746
Reaction score
1,171
Points
113
Did you get any on each other during this circle jerk of idiocy?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,642
Reaction score
2,208
Points
113
If this were about qualification, this would be disqualifying.
She stated at the outset that she wouldn’t respond off the cuff. This is dumb gotcha politics. You don’t have to fall for it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,642
Reaction score
2,208
Points
113
So, the Dems decided that their attack line on ACB was going to be her use of the term “sexual preference”. Within hours, Webster changed their definition of preference to now make it an offensive term. This is truly Orwellian.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
2,296
Points
113
So, the Dems decided that their attack line on ACB was going to be her use of the term “sexual preference”. Within hours, Webster changed their definition of preference to now make it an offensive term. This is truly Orwellian.
HOLY ****!

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY IS IN ON IT!!

Words lean left!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,642
Reaction score
2,208
Points
113
HOLY ****!

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY IS IN ON IT!!

Words lean left!
Ah, you think it’s a coincidence that Webster’s changed a word definition within hours of that word becoming the central attack on a Trump nominee?
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,772
Reaction score
1,634
Points
113
We'll see. This could be a setup question. All you need to do is get one person who's willing to lie and make up something that the judge supposedly said decades ago. This was the libs Kavanaugh strategy, where you had Ford show up in the last moment (the world traveller all of sudden was afraid to fly so it took an extra week for her to arrive...). Ford couldn't remember where the supposed sexual assault happened, or even what year it happened, and didn't tell anyone when it supposedly did happen, but the libs of course took her word for it as being absolute truth. Kavanaugh had detailed records of his calendar from his highschool days showing it was all a setup and lie, but that didn't matter to the libs. The MSM ran with it, and libs still believe it today. There's someone somewhere in the judge's life that is a lyin' liberal and would just love to become the poster child as to how they worked to stop the nomination approved. The repubs should stop the confirmation hearings now, say it's obvious she's qualified, and approve her nomination immediately.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,772
Reaction score
1,634
Points
113
Oh oh, cjb's head is going to explode on this one, a wife that says "she has her own mind" and "can think independently".

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
47,999
Reaction score
5,744
Points
113
Amy informing her of the statute was a good moment. This candidate is rated as well qualified. I guess I believe that given her history but she behaved at moments like someone who really didn't have a strong grasp of the law. She described a decision making process that relied heavily on others (clerks, fellow judges, and other colleagues). At one point I wondered if most of us could be high level judges if we had so much assistance in our decision making process.

I realize no judge could be well acquainted with the controlling law on all of the issues that might come before her but these were high profile issues and, on at least abortion rights, she has spoken or written extensively on that in the past.
I'm not sure if she really didn't know that voter intimidation was illegal or she was just in robot "I can't answer" mode. If they'd ask if murder was illegal would she have said "I'd have to hear the testimony and consult"? You'd hope not, but I'm not sure.
 
Top Bottom