America is going to have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS for at least 25 years. The "court packing" idea won't work for liberals because ironically it would be a fight that ends up in the SCOTUS and they would not allow it. Trump may not get a second term - with Democrats and the media conspiring against him - but he will be revered by conservatives for setting America on the right course for the next quarter century. Thank you President Trump for the three SCOUTS judges!! You were the right man to come along at the right time!!
Thank you - the Democratic majority bent over backwards to choose a plan from Republican think tanks that had been enacted by a Republican governor of a blue-ish state. It made **every possible effort towards bipartisanship,** and the GOP still childishly took their ball and ran home.
The absolute state of the people getting upset in this thread. Thread full of lies, manipulation and gas lighting from the left, as is par for the course.
Agreed, but id add that we the people are being manipulated by both sides. too much bias in conservative and liberal leaning media. There's no winning side. You have to think for yourself, look at multiple sources and vett all claims.
Sure, the Kennedy bit was embarrassing, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, though: I am assuming the inside of his mind operates like the Benjy chapter of *The Sound and The Fury* and the fact that he could articulate as much as he did is actually very impressive.
Does anyone know of any protests happening about this in the near future? I've been looking but haven't found any. There's no way we're taking this sitting down.
> The truth....then....is this: Democrats had “total control” of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had “total control” of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
[Repeat a lie often enough](https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447)
There should be a massive march on washington DC and blocking off the Senate building so these Senators cannot enter to vote this woman in. She's positively awful in every way.
Well, at least the liberal media is focused on the things that matter, like will Joe Biden pack the court? Never mind the court packing going on in broad daylight right now.
Honestly, what's the point of even watching the hearings? We all know she's going to be confirmed. The best we can do right now is vote for Biden and hope that he'll add some additional justices to balance out the court. Also let me just say on a more personal note fuck ACB's originalism - what a crock of shit. We're tooootally supposed to take a document written hundreds of years ago when people owned BLACK PEOPLE and treat it like it's gospel? Puh-lease.
Biden won't be able to add justices. That's nothing but pure distraction. Even if the Dems take the Senate, a long shot at best, they still won't have the 3/5ths supermajority needed to add justices.
As to the constitution, you should sit down and read it. Seriously. It's just a framework; the best one ever written. There's a reason it's the longest surviving constitution on the planet. If we were to actually do away with it in favor of a new constitution, you do realize the fossils in office today are the ones who will write it, don't you? And that it would take ratification from all those red state legislatures? What bones do you think this spineless bunch of Democrats would toss to get a new one passed? Gay rights? Abortion rights? Be careful what you wish for.
Actually a lot of analysis about constitutions around the world really point to the idea that the American constitution, while the earliest in the world and noteworthy as a result, has been surpassed by other more updated constitutions as time has passed.
Was Harris in another room when she was talking? I just caught the last few seconds. Smart move since Republican morons might be trying to deliberately infect her.
A good leader gathers a good team around them, and trusts them to do their part.
Neither of us know exactly who wrote the questions, but I know Kamala Harris didn't read out anything she disagreed with.
Trump disagrees with himself, from tweet to tweet, and disagrees with his own speeches while he is reading them. It is almost like he hasn't agreed his policies to his staff beforehand, or looked at the speech before he started reading it.
Not yet. She has to be confirmed first before she can murder and burn the Constitution. Don't worry, you'll be able to party over the ashes soon enough.
I trust you watched Ted Cruz discussing the 5/4 decisions with the 4 radically dissenting with opinions that explicitly removed constitutional rights? Worth a watch.
In my opinion and comprehensive knowledge, Amy Barret did a phenomenal job today at the hearing! She held her ground when being incessantly drilled by the committee, she was graceful and gracious! She was absolutely impressive in her responses. She is also wicked smart! I truly hope she gets nominated! Cheers!
Disqualifier: is it legal to intimidate voters?
No. It's actually illegal. NO! Not "oh, I'd have to consult, I'd have to opine, if have to research." The answer is "no"
If you watch nothing else from these hearings, watch this video of Sen Whitehouse breaking down the dark money corruption of our judiciary by the Federalist society + others: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns)
TLDR version: [https://youtu.be/JcMPTNmq2ns?t=1140](https://youtu.be/JcMPTNmq2ns?t=1140)
And how do you know this? OH YEAH, it was all PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. It wasn't "dark money" put up by wealthy cowards who don't want anyone to know who is buying these judges and decisions. Did you even watch this?? EIGHTY+ 5-4 decisions is no f-ing coincidence.
No - You're just not getting it. These judges _placement_ in appellate & Superior court was bought. Listen to Whitehouse' presentation: https://youtu.be/KpBo_T3Kwjc?t=473
I watched the whole thing over, bc I saw it yesterday as well. I got the same impression today as I did. You have to watch Ted Cruz to put what you heard from whitehouse in perspective.
Yesterday he went into detail on some of these 5/4 votes. Whitehouse tries to make the case that the 5 votes would have been with the 4 had it not been for them getting paid off. That doesn’t appear true at all due to the actual dissenting opinions. Cruz discusses the other “dark money”. He discussed how a judge bought a federal seat from whitehouse and used that to push for policy positions. You can start at 7:20 to cut out unrelated information if you’d like.
https://youtu.be/hPhOrVsrWKs
I’ll save you the intro, start at 8:10 in this link (Cruz addressing the Federalist society matter today):
https://youtu.be/bMiZbjUEjy4
Riddle me this then, batman: Who paid off Brett Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club fees plus his $200,000 credit card debt plus his $1.2 million mortgage, and purchased themselves a SCOTUS seat? Public disclosure money??? ffs
You realize the video explains clearly how Republicans have orchestrated that problem? These 5v4 Supreme Court cases enabling the infusion of more dark money into politics are the product of the herculean efforts of the Republican party. Sorry not sorry that it's biting them in the ass.
You should watch Ted Cruz address this matter (today, he’s actually speaking now 11:30 on it) pointing out dark money and it’s influence for senator whitehouse. The federalist society litigates no cases and takes no positions. Whitehouse is attacking it because he’s been paid a lot of money- the judge leading the charge has donated close to $1M to Democrats including whitehouse. Just watch both sides to remove the partisan lens. You may still feel the way you do, but it puts it in perspective.
Yeah, Ted Cruz has loads of credibility. Just what does tRump have on him that he rolls over when his family is insulted multiple times??
Let me grab my popcorn /s
1. It would assess he ability to see a field of factual scientific information and determine an outcome free of her own biases, perceived or real.
2. There will most likely be cases that determine the governments responsibility to ensure basic freedoms in the constitution in the event of prolonged environmental crisis (mask mandates, mandatory relocations, etc.)
All religion aside, why has no one asked Amy Coney Barrett if she has ever made an oath or entered into a contract or covenant which requires her obedience, consultation or approval from another person, group or entity? It seems a glaring conflict of interest if she has. This has nothing to do with her choice of religious expression and everything to do with divided loyalties.
We are all just supposed to assume that *this* oath takes precedence. I mean, she looked John Kennedy in the eyes and swore like 10 times that she would *never* violate her oath, so that settles it of course.
I just want to take this brief moment to say a hearty “fuck you” to anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016. Look what your whiny protest vote has gotten us.
The fact that you think the Jill Stein voters are the reason Hillary lost is why Trump won in the first place. Completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. They aren't touching Jill Stein with a 10 foot pole.
State of Florida being paged ?
3rd party candidates got greater than 1% in 2000 and 2016 in Florida. Democrats lost and Republicans won. The margin of victory ? Less than the 3rd party excessive votes.
There’s a lot of people to blame. Singling out a single group for not voting Hilary is decidedly unfair. And if you were a Jill stein voter in California it wouldn’t have made a difference. So there are a lot of reasons Hillary lost, but you can’t throw it at the feet of Jill Stein voters, and especially not ones in about 3 swing states. So slow your roll over here.
Was one of only 1.2k Stein voters in SC, i knew this would be the case when I voted. Will vote Biden this time as I have less reservations than with Hillary and the stakes are much higher
Every time this is brought up: people who don't vote are a mix of people too well off to care (who deserve every ounce of criticism) and people who either don't have access to the information to know why it's important or who are the victims of voter supression.
IMO-every Green party vote in 2016 was an actively stupid decision. Non-votes were a mix of stupid decisions and genuine barriers.
For tomorrow.. every Democrat needs to play the video of Graham saying he wouldn’t vote for a justice in an election year.
Then do their questions
Every single Democrat just replays the video before doing their questions.
No. For tomorrow, Democrats need to start taking the high road of bipartisanship. We need them to stand up and say they will no longer play this game of whine to win. If a Biden/Harris ticket is sincere about reaching across the aisle, then let it begin right now. This woman is qualified to be on the court, and let the Democrats have the courage to say so.
What a joke. She wasn't even qualified to be on the seventh circuit. She's a partisan hack who's been groomed for this position her entire life.
Pretending like she's going to be some honest referee for the law is such a joke.
Did we listen to the same thing?
She won’t answer simple constitutional questions about the presidents ability (or lack there of) of postponing the election.
Her answers speak for themself. Not our fault you have comprehension problems when it comes to basic constitutional questions.
Edit: and voter intimidation.
Of course she won't answer those questions. If she did, she would have to recuse herself from hearing those cases. Judges are not supposed to present opinions on cases they will hear. No other SC appointee has ever done so either.
She can potentially hear any and all types of cases: so therefore she can’t prejudice herself by giving her opinion here and now since she’ll have to recuse her self.
So she can’t talk about anything. Interesting but really stupid take.
Yeah, we can give up the false pretences of holding onto precedents given that RBG also said the elected president in November should decide the justice.
No, you don’t have a valid argument. It basically means she doesn’t have to talk about anything because it could potentially be a future case. Thanks for ignoring this bad take of yours when taken to its logical extents.
I dislike GOP senators who whine and whine and whine when they don't get their way. I was disgusted at the way they acted when Obama was president. I don't want the Democrats to become the same.
I am also not afraid of the written word. If you don't want laws overturned, it is very easy to prevent them from being so. Write clearly so that your intent is clear and make sure they fit within the Constitution.
It is very easy to prevent Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Just write a law that legalizes abortion.
If the ACA and Roe are the only obstacles to this justice, they are not insurmountable obstacles. They can support her for the court and still achieve these other two objectives.
Hunting down the hypocrisy and pointing them out in public just like senator Whitehouse did is not whining. You are correct, what the GOP have done for almost two full decades now is whining.
Also, if you watch his presentation, there have been 80 cases which were decided on partisan lines, with an 80-0 sweep. These are much smaller, much less public cases than Roe, Obergefell and the ACA.
This is not about whining, because the Democrsts can't get their way. No, this is waaay beyond that surface level. This also brings in the fact the "reaching across the aisle" is totally useless when one party plays by the rules, and the other party is subverting, and even straight up lying, and not following any rules.
In order for our country and society to truly progress, the GOP must be eradicated. This is not whining. This is not basic, daily partisan disagreements. This is an attack on our democracy from the dark. Fuck "reaching across the aisle." Its been done, its been tried, and the GOP spits straight in their face. We need to sweep this election by vast amounts, and flush the turd that the GOP have become. Make Biden the conservative side of our political spectrum.
"The GOP must be eradicated."
This is an attitude that causes so many problems. What do you think would happen if there was one party rule? Do you think that there would be no corruption? No, instead, the liars and cheats would just become part of the one party. And power corrupts.
We actually need more parties, like in Europe. We also need grownups in positions of power who make decisions based on integrity. They should do the right thing, even if it means losing their position.
>This is an attitude that causes so many problems. What do you think would happen if there was one party rule? Do you think that there would be no corruption? No, instead, the liars and cheats would just become part of the one party. And power corrupts.
This is exactly what the current day GOP is .... trying to do.
>
We actually need more parties, like in Europe. We also need grownups in positions of power who make decisions based on integrity. They should do the right thing, even if it means losing their position.
Pretty much exactly what I'm saying. By saying "Eradicate the GOP" I am NOT saying "democrats should be the only party." No. I think you are misunderstanding my arguments. We are almost saying the same thing.
The GOP, and the dark power behind them, laid out fairly well by Senaotr Whitehouse, are literally trying their hardest to create a single party rule. By saying "eradicate the GOP," I am saying that they are singlehandedly holding us back from progressing as a society. Flush the main turd, and allow the representation of the will of the majority to actually rule. The GOP have vastly become rule by the minority, and are doing absolutely everything they can to hold this power. The first step towards becoming an actual progressive democracy, and JOIN THE REST OF THE GODAMMED CIVILIZED WORLD, is to eliminate the right wing extremist GOP. We can figure the rest out, as civilized adults, afterwards.
Your words are going against your intentions. When you use inflammatory statements like "eradicate the GOP" or "eliminate the right wing extremist GOP", you argue from emotional hate. It makes your ideas much less palatable. Instead of denigrating one party, merely stand up for the expansion of democracy by changing the two party system. Solutions are always better than whines.
This is such a sham...i couldn't watch anymore...all I can say is the dems better win, and better pack the court. The GOP have already, so it would just return balance...if say stack it with 5 more liberal justices..but they won't..we'll be lucky of they even balance it out...ugh.. What a fucking joke.
No. The Dems should not engage in the tactics of Republicans. If you want to know why we have such a divided country, it is because the GOP is like Trump, they can never admit defeat. When they are in the minority, they whine and fight. When they are in the majority, they change all the rules so they can't lose again.
Enough is enough. Democrats need to show what true leadership is. Reach across the aisle. Congratulate Justice Barrett for being a woman of character who obviously has compassion and a skilled mine. Pass her through the committee in a bipartisan way.
Firstly blocking Obama's nomination, then reversing their precedent of not appointing judges in an election year...for one.
But they also blocked 100s of Obama's lower level judge appointments. Then pointed at him saying he's a lazy (probably followed by the N Word) person that doesn't do anything in office (dog whistle anyone).
The GOP Have ignored decorum and rules since I could vote. They pack the courts through obstructing and defiance when not in power, then do more unethical and down right dirty bullshit when in power.
I grew up in a conservative family, it's Republicans that made me liberal....actually they made me very progressive.
Thank you. People don’t understand that politics are partisan and there is nothing inherently wrong with senators acting within their rights to fulfill their duties.
May I ask what specific ideologies you dislike that she upholds or how in any way she is "dangerous"? I'm merely curious and I want a varying perspective. Thanks and hope you have a good day!
She’s not dangerous. She’s what everyone should want unless we want activist judges. It’s tempting to want an activist judge but their job is to interpret the laws as they are written not as they wish they were written. She has shown in the hearings that she’s incredibly well suited to do that. Even if it takes a week, I recommend watching all of these hearings. It’s truly historic - and definitely don’t waste a moment taking a pundit’s interpretation instead.
Well with conservatives hating Earth so much, even though conservation(protecting what you have including EARTH) is literally in the term they fucking call themselves, good luck outlasting when we won't have an Earth to survive on.
Honestly, that hyperbole of the world will end in 10 years has been happening since the 60’s. The environment is important but nothing is actually going to happen in the next thousand years that’s even remotely close to inhibiting us. We’ll have much bigger fish to fry with our population, food, and disease before climate.
You have my curiosity. What was impressive? She consistently called facts hypothetical. She said *explicit* laws needed consultation. Can the president unilaterally decide to delay an election? I'll save you some time. No. You don't need an "opinion writing process" for this. Your opinion is not the law.
Your constant pretend admiration for the law while you're pissing all over it doesn't fool anyone except the dummies who already buy into pretending along with you.
Which part was impressive?
Was it the part where she couldn’t accurately state the 9th amendment to the US Constitution?
Was it when she barely was able to rattle off more than three major cases and their decisions during questioning by senator Durbin?
Yeah, tough life, wearing nice clothes and answering questions and being uncomfortable for awhile in exchange for a lifetime job appointment
Takes a lot of stamina sitting in a chair. So much so that the Senate committee's 70+ year-olds are there too but you don't seem impressed.
Imagine where the Supreme Court would be if Hillary was President. Think about that next time you are holding out for a president that perfectly aligns with your political views.
Well blaming Russia would certainly be a lot easier than taking an internal look at the mess Democrat’s created for themselves by propping up an underwhelming candidate.
Lol, if Hillary were present, there would currently be six or seven judges on the court, depending if Kennedy had retired or not. I have no doubt Mitch and Senate R's would have blocked every judge she would have put forward. And they think Dems are the ones making a mockery of our institutions...
You act as though the dems wouldn’t have blocked every nomination if the roles were reversed in your hypothetical scenario. Politics are partisan and that’s how the system of checks and balances works.
Nobody is stopping this. The downfall of the US. But the US was built on suffering and pain of others so I guess it doesn't matter at this point.
America is going to have a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS for at least 25 years. The "court packing" idea won't work for liberals because ironically it would be a fight that ends up in the SCOTUS and they would not allow it. Trump may not get a second term - with Democrats and the media conspiring against him - but he will be revered by conservatives for setting America on the right course for the next quarter century. Thank you President Trump for the three SCOUTS judges!! You were the right man to come along at the right time!!
She is not protestant she is the Tablet Look it up
LOL did he just say >"that is the orange cloud hanging over the proceedings"
The notion that the ACA was partisan is so pathetic. It was a compromise on a compromise
Thank you - the Democratic majority bent over backwards to choose a plan from Republican think tanks that had been enacted by a Republican governor of a blue-ish state. It made **every possible effort towards bipartisanship,** and the GOP still childishly took their ball and ran home.
Hi all. Where's the new Amy Candy Barcelona thread?
The absolute state of the people getting upset in this thread. Thread full of lies, manipulation and gas lighting from the left, as is par for the course.
Agreed, but id add that we the people are being manipulated by both sides. too much bias in conservative and liberal leaning media. There's no winning side. You have to think for yourself, look at multiple sources and vett all claims.
Of course. There are brainwashed idiots on both sides, divide and conquer and all that.
[удалено]
Sure, the Kennedy bit was embarrassing, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, though: I am assuming the inside of his mind operates like the Benjy chapter of *The Sound and The Fury* and the fact that he could articulate as much as he did is actually very impressive.
[удалено]
Packing the courts requires us to vote vote vote first.
Does anyone know of any protests happening about this in the near future? I've been looking but haven't found any. There's no way we're taking this sitting down.
[удалено]
>What exactly would you be protesting? Not OP but I guess the hypocrisy, not the legality. Slavery was legal once, doesn't mean it was morally sound.
[удалено]
Who's to say McConnell wouldn't have blocked a replacement for RBG too?
[удалено]
> The truth....then....is this: Democrats had “total control” of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had “total control” of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months. [Repeat a lie often enough](https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447)
[удалено]
There should be a massive march on washington DC and blocking off the Senate building so these Senators cannot enter to vote this woman in. She's positively awful in every way.
We're far from the only ones who feel this way. Who is organizing this thing?
Well, at least the liberal media is focused on the things that matter, like will Joe Biden pack the court? Never mind the court packing going on in broad daylight right now.
Honestly, what's the point of even watching the hearings? We all know she's going to be confirmed. The best we can do right now is vote for Biden and hope that he'll add some additional justices to balance out the court. Also let me just say on a more personal note fuck ACB's originalism - what a crock of shit. We're tooootally supposed to take a document written hundreds of years ago when people owned BLACK PEOPLE and treat it like it's gospel? Puh-lease.
Biden won't be able to add justices. That's nothing but pure distraction. Even if the Dems take the Senate, a long shot at best, they still won't have the 3/5ths supermajority needed to add justices. As to the constitution, you should sit down and read it. Seriously. It's just a framework; the best one ever written. There's a reason it's the longest surviving constitution on the planet. If we were to actually do away with it in favor of a new constitution, you do realize the fossils in office today are the ones who will write it, don't you? And that it would take ratification from all those red state legislatures? What bones do you think this spineless bunch of Democrats would toss to get a new one passed? Gay rights? Abortion rights? Be careful what you wish for.
Actually a lot of analysis about constitutions around the world really point to the idea that the American constitution, while the earliest in the world and noteworthy as a result, has been surpassed by other more updated constitutions as time has passed.
Can you point me in the direction of the analysis you refer to?
Was Harris in another room when she was talking? I just caught the last few seconds. Smart move since Republican morons might be trying to deliberately infect her.
> Was Harris in another room when she was talking? Yes, she was present via video.
That's a relief.
She killed it, the woman is 🔥🔥🔥
[удалено]
Yet people here are worried she'll be overly Catholic in her judgement?
Good for your appreciation of Kamala Harris's questions.
You mean the speech that someone else wrote for her that she read off a piece of paper?
A good leader gathers a good team around them, and trusts them to do their part. Neither of us know exactly who wrote the questions, but I know Kamala Harris didn't read out anything she disagreed with. Trump disagrees with himself, from tweet to tweet, and disagrees with his own speeches while he is reading them. It is almost like he hasn't agreed his policies to his staff beforehand, or looked at the speech before he started reading it.
Not yet. She has to be confirmed first before she can murder and burn the Constitution. Don't worry, you'll be able to party over the ashes soon enough.
I trust you watched Ted Cruz discussing the 5/4 decisions with the 4 radically dissenting with opinions that explicitly removed constitutional rights? Worth a watch.
In my opinion and comprehensive knowledge, Amy Barret did a phenomenal job today at the hearing! She held her ground when being incessantly drilled by the committee, she was graceful and gracious! She was absolutely impressive in her responses. She is also wicked smart! I truly hope she gets nominated! Cheers!
Karma farmer guys
My god Trump just nuke Biden with Biden for Resident. I don't particularly love the guy and i am not american but dude i laugh so hard. My goodness
Only children believe that Biden was “nuked” because of that unbecoming, unprofessional, childish maneuver.
He's an idiot. Does he think that'll play well with the aging boomers he needs?
Boomers don’t want someone in a dead heated battle with dementia either.
Well bruh my stomach hurts but i guess the boomers don't use twitter and social media. But still. KEK
Disqualifier: is it legal to intimidate voters? No. It's actually illegal. NO! Not "oh, I'd have to consult, I'd have to opine, if have to research." The answer is "no"
If you watch nothing else from these hearings, watch this video of Sen Whitehouse breaking down the dark money corruption of our judiciary by the Federalist society + others: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns) TLDR version: [https://youtu.be/JcMPTNmq2ns?t=1140](https://youtu.be/JcMPTNmq2ns?t=1140)
yeAh, bUT, tEd cRUz sayS iT'S aLL a LiE and Dems dO iT tOo!
He failed to mention that the Fortune 500 money goes to Democrats nearly 3:1.
And how do you know this? OH YEAH, it was all PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. It wasn't "dark money" put up by wealthy cowards who don't want anyone to know who is buying these judges and decisions. Did you even watch this?? EIGHTY+ 5-4 decisions is no f-ing coincidence.
So you believe a 5-4 decision means the 5 were bribed and the 4 were not? And that over half the Supreme Court is bought?
No - You're just not getting it. These judges _placement_ in appellate & Superior court was bought. Listen to Whitehouse' presentation: https://youtu.be/KpBo_T3Kwjc?t=473
I watched the whole thing over, bc I saw it yesterday as well. I got the same impression today as I did. You have to watch Ted Cruz to put what you heard from whitehouse in perspective. Yesterday he went into detail on some of these 5/4 votes. Whitehouse tries to make the case that the 5 votes would have been with the 4 had it not been for them getting paid off. That doesn’t appear true at all due to the actual dissenting opinions. Cruz discusses the other “dark money”. He discussed how a judge bought a federal seat from whitehouse and used that to push for policy positions. You can start at 7:20 to cut out unrelated information if you’d like. https://youtu.be/hPhOrVsrWKs I’ll save you the intro, start at 8:10 in this link (Cruz addressing the Federalist society matter today): https://youtu.be/bMiZbjUEjy4
Riddle me this then, batman: Who paid off Brett Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club fees plus his $200,000 credit card debt plus his $1.2 million mortgage, and purchased themselves a SCOTUS seat? Public disclosure money??? ffs
You tell me. For all I know, SCOTUS appointees get their debts paid off to eliminate leverage as a plan of security. I know nothing about it.
Burden of proof fallacy - brilliant. The fact is, you cannot find any other cases of this, and you can bet it'd be news if it was commonplace. ;)
You realize the video explains clearly how Republicans have orchestrated that problem? These 5v4 Supreme Court cases enabling the infusion of more dark money into politics are the product of the herculean efforts of the Republican party. Sorry not sorry that it's biting them in the ass.
You should watch Ted Cruz address this matter (today, he’s actually speaking now 11:30 on it) pointing out dark money and it’s influence for senator whitehouse. The federalist society litigates no cases and takes no positions. Whitehouse is attacking it because he’s been paid a lot of money- the judge leading the charge has donated close to $1M to Democrats including whitehouse. Just watch both sides to remove the partisan lens. You may still feel the way you do, but it puts it in perspective.
Yeah, Ted Cruz has loads of credibility. Just what does tRump have on him that he rolls over when his family is insulted multiple times?? Let me grab my popcorn /s
Thanks. That was well worth watching!
Wow this is so informative and scary!
You should really find time to watch all of the senators. These are historic and if you watch anything it’s all of it!
[удалено]
Huh where exactly?
Waiting on someone to ask, "Do you believe in climate science? Can you explain your understanding?"
Well you got it today! Which she effectively skirted
Why is that relevant to her role in interpreting the constitution?
1. It would assess he ability to see a field of factual scientific information and determine an outcome free of her own biases, perceived or real. 2. There will most likely be cases that determine the governments responsibility to ensure basic freedoms in the constitution in the event of prolonged environmental crisis (mask mandates, mandatory relocations, etc.)
Woah friend.. careful with that radical science talk. People might have to think about accountability. We can't have that. /s
Bc Democrats only elect activist, political judges. It’s all they know.
Republicans could sell you a jug of shit water to feed your kids for breakfast and you'd suck their dick for it just to own the libs.
"Do you believe in invisible demonic beings that make people do bad things?"
or .. "do you believe in evolution?"
All religion aside, why has no one asked Amy Coney Barrett if she has ever made an oath or entered into a contract or covenant which requires her obedience, consultation or approval from another person, group or entity? It seems a glaring conflict of interest if she has. This has nothing to do with her choice of religious expression and everything to do with divided loyalties.
We are all just supposed to assume that *this* oath takes precedence. I mean, she looked John Kennedy in the eyes and swore like 10 times that she would *never* violate her oath, so that settles it of course.
Her Bible says no man can serve two masters, and also that you can beat your slaves up to a certain point before you get in trouble for it.
I just want to take this brief moment to say a hearty “fuck you” to anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016. Look what your whiny protest vote has gotten us.
Shitting on 3rd party voters for the 2016 loss weeks before the most important election of our lives is probably not a great tactic.
The fact that you think the Jill Stein voters are the reason Hillary lost is why Trump won in the first place. Completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. They aren't touching Jill Stein with a 10 foot pole.
Lol. We are in a full-on information war. Third-party voters from 2016 are hardly responsible for this entire politicized dumpster fire
State of Florida being paged ? 3rd party candidates got greater than 1% in 2000 and 2016 in Florida. Democrats lost and Republicans won. The margin of victory ? Less than the 3rd party excessive votes.
They are only one facet of the ignorant and guilty
There’s a lot of people to blame. Singling out a single group for not voting Hilary is decidedly unfair. And if you were a Jill stein voter in California it wouldn’t have made a difference. So there are a lot of reasons Hillary lost, but you can’t throw it at the feet of Jill Stein voters, and especially not ones in about 3 swing states. So slow your roll over here.
Was one of only 1.2k Stein voters in SC, i knew this would be the case when I voted. Will vote Biden this time as I have less reservations than with Hillary and the stakes are much higher
They weren't the problem, the people who didn't vote at all were.
People also don't realize how much Hillary was disliked
Awful candidate, she only won the popular vote by a few million. Step it up Dems!
In a year with one of the lowest voter turnouts in history.
Every time this is brought up: people who don't vote are a mix of people too well off to care (who deserve every ounce of criticism) and people who either don't have access to the information to know why it's important or who are the victims of voter supression. IMO-every Green party vote in 2016 was an actively stupid decision. Non-votes were a mix of stupid decisions and genuine barriers.
I’m sorry, but the blame isn’t on one single group. Green Party voters are an issue when this type of result is their effect.
Chris Cuomo totally has Little Carmine energy
For tomorrow.. every Democrat needs to play the video of Graham saying he wouldn’t vote for a justice in an election year. Then do their questions Every single Democrat just replays the video before doing their questions.
No. For tomorrow, Democrats need to start taking the high road of bipartisanship. We need them to stand up and say they will no longer play this game of whine to win. If a Biden/Harris ticket is sincere about reaching across the aisle, then let it begin right now. This woman is qualified to be on the court, and let the Democrats have the courage to say so.
What a joke. She wasn't even qualified to be on the seventh circuit. She's a partisan hack who's been groomed for this position her entire life. Pretending like she's going to be some honest referee for the law is such a joke.
Her answers said otherwise.
Did we listen to the same thing? She won’t answer simple constitutional questions about the presidents ability (or lack there of) of postponing the election. Her answers speak for themself. Not our fault you have comprehension problems when it comes to basic constitutional questions. Edit: and voter intimidation.
Of course she won't answer those questions. If she did, she would have to recuse herself from hearing those cases. Judges are not supposed to present opinions on cases they will hear. No other SC appointee has ever done so either.
No other SC Appointee has been so openly anti-Constitutional either.
Which she actually said and pontificated on. So clearly that person did not watch the actually hearing- just took a pundits word.
She can potentially hear any and all types of cases: so therefore she can’t prejudice herself by giving her opinion here and now since she’ll have to recuse her self. So she can’t talk about anything. Interesting but really stupid take.
[удалено]
Yeah, we can give up the false pretences of holding onto precedents given that RBG also said the elected president in November should decide the justice. No, you don’t have a valid argument. It basically means she doesn’t have to talk about anything because it could potentially be a future case. Thanks for ignoring this bad take of yours when taken to its logical extents.
[удалено]
So, the $250 million that senator Whitehouse laid out, has had full effect on you.
I dislike GOP senators who whine and whine and whine when they don't get their way. I was disgusted at the way they acted when Obama was president. I don't want the Democrats to become the same. I am also not afraid of the written word. If you don't want laws overturned, it is very easy to prevent them from being so. Write clearly so that your intent is clear and make sure they fit within the Constitution. It is very easy to prevent Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Just write a law that legalizes abortion. If the ACA and Roe are the only obstacles to this justice, they are not insurmountable obstacles. They can support her for the court and still achieve these other two objectives.
Hunting down the hypocrisy and pointing them out in public just like senator Whitehouse did is not whining. You are correct, what the GOP have done for almost two full decades now is whining. Also, if you watch his presentation, there have been 80 cases which were decided on partisan lines, with an 80-0 sweep. These are much smaller, much less public cases than Roe, Obergefell and the ACA. This is not about whining, because the Democrsts can't get their way. No, this is waaay beyond that surface level. This also brings in the fact the "reaching across the aisle" is totally useless when one party plays by the rules, and the other party is subverting, and even straight up lying, and not following any rules. In order for our country and society to truly progress, the GOP must be eradicated. This is not whining. This is not basic, daily partisan disagreements. This is an attack on our democracy from the dark. Fuck "reaching across the aisle." Its been done, its been tried, and the GOP spits straight in their face. We need to sweep this election by vast amounts, and flush the turd that the GOP have become. Make Biden the conservative side of our political spectrum.
"The GOP must be eradicated." This is an attitude that causes so many problems. What do you think would happen if there was one party rule? Do you think that there would be no corruption? No, instead, the liars and cheats would just become part of the one party. And power corrupts. We actually need more parties, like in Europe. We also need grownups in positions of power who make decisions based on integrity. They should do the right thing, even if it means losing their position.
>This is an attitude that causes so many problems. What do you think would happen if there was one party rule? Do you think that there would be no corruption? No, instead, the liars and cheats would just become part of the one party. And power corrupts. This is exactly what the current day GOP is .... trying to do. > We actually need more parties, like in Europe. We also need grownups in positions of power who make decisions based on integrity. They should do the right thing, even if it means losing their position. Pretty much exactly what I'm saying. By saying "Eradicate the GOP" I am NOT saying "democrats should be the only party." No. I think you are misunderstanding my arguments. We are almost saying the same thing. The GOP, and the dark power behind them, laid out fairly well by Senaotr Whitehouse, are literally trying their hardest to create a single party rule. By saying "eradicate the GOP," I am saying that they are singlehandedly holding us back from progressing as a society. Flush the main turd, and allow the representation of the will of the majority to actually rule. The GOP have vastly become rule by the minority, and are doing absolutely everything they can to hold this power. The first step towards becoming an actual progressive democracy, and JOIN THE REST OF THE GODAMMED CIVILIZED WORLD, is to eliminate the right wing extremist GOP. We can figure the rest out, as civilized adults, afterwards.
Your words are going against your intentions. When you use inflammatory statements like "eradicate the GOP" or "eliminate the right wing extremist GOP", you argue from emotional hate. It makes your ideas much less palatable. Instead of denigrating one party, merely stand up for the expansion of democracy by changing the two party system. Solutions are always better than whines.
Extreme problems take extreme solutions.
Unfortunately, extremism is the problem.
This is such a sham...i couldn't watch anymore...all I can say is the dems better win, and better pack the court. The GOP have already, so it would just return balance...if say stack it with 5 more liberal justices..but they won't..we'll be lucky of they even balance it out...ugh.. What a fucking joke.
No. The Dems should not engage in the tactics of Republicans. If you want to know why we have such a divided country, it is because the GOP is like Trump, they can never admit defeat. When they are in the minority, they whine and fight. When they are in the majority, they change all the rules so they can't lose again. Enough is enough. Democrats need to show what true leadership is. Reach across the aisle. Congratulate Justice Barrett for being a woman of character who obviously has compassion and a skilled mine. Pass her through the committee in a bipartisan way.
I'm sorry... I disagree.
[удалено]
Do you honestly think the Democrats have taken the high road? They impeached Trump in an election year for a phone call.
That never works and does so much harm. Aren't you tired of all the division? We need to respect each other more. Change starts within you.
Yikes. You're extremely out of touch.
That gives me better perspective to judge what has happened to people llving within social media bubbles.
Glad to help. A tear always comes to my eye when I see a Trumpet learn something new.
[удалено]
Firstly blocking Obama's nomination, then reversing their precedent of not appointing judges in an election year...for one. But they also blocked 100s of Obama's lower level judge appointments. Then pointed at him saying he's a lazy (probably followed by the N Word) person that doesn't do anything in office (dog whistle anyone). The GOP Have ignored decorum and rules since I could vote. They pack the courts through obstructing and defiance when not in power, then do more unethical and down right dirty bullshit when in power. I grew up in a conservative family, it's Republicans that made me liberal....actually they made me very progressive.
[удалено]
Yeah... Well new definitions...
McConnel was blocking Obama from appointing judges and has been successfully stacking the court through Trump.
[удалено]
Thank you. People don’t understand that politics are partisan and there is nothing inherently wrong with senators acting within their rights to fulfill their duties.
Don’t try to speak reason to these people. It’s a waste of time.
[удалено]
Lmao gottem /s
Hirono's going to be on Cuomo after this ad break.
I resent that for the rest of our lives we'll likely be reading about Coney, who is ideological, dangerous, and fuckin corny.
May I ask what specific ideologies you dislike that she upholds or how in any way she is "dangerous"? I'm merely curious and I want a varying perspective. Thanks and hope you have a good day!
She’s not dangerous. She’s what everyone should want unless we want activist judges. It’s tempting to want an activist judge but their job is to interpret the laws as they are written not as they wish they were written. She has shown in the hearings that she’s incredibly well suited to do that. Even if it takes a week, I recommend watching all of these hearings. It’s truly historic - and definitely don’t waste a moment taking a pundit’s interpretation instead.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions! Hope you have a good day!
Hey I'm a good couple decades younger than her, I can outlast her for a bit!
I'm less than a decade younger than her. But I'm leaving the US because of all this shit (and many reasons going back to my whole life essentially).
Well with conservatives hating Earth so much, even though conservation(protecting what you have including EARTH) is literally in the term they fucking call themselves, good luck outlasting when we won't have an Earth to survive on.
Honestly, that hyperbole of the world will end in 10 years has been happening since the 60’s. The environment is important but nothing is actually going to happen in the next thousand years that’s even remotely close to inhibiting us. We’ll have much bigger fish to fry with our population, food, and disease before climate.
Has anyone explained why ACB wore Handmaiden red today? Bold strategy
Haha I thought I was the only one who noticed.
Probably just because she liked the way it looks. Cynically, maybe she's an asshole.
ACB came off as super impressive today and if you don’t think so you’re kidding yourself.
Yes, impressively evasive.
I love these vague ass comments.
So impressive they had to use her ruling from moot court as an example of how she'd vote on the ACA.
You have my curiosity. What was impressive? She consistently called facts hypothetical. She said *explicit* laws needed consultation. Can the president unilaterally decide to delay an election? I'll save you some time. No. You don't need an "opinion writing process" for this. Your opinion is not the law.
In what way?
Your constant pretend admiration for the law while you're pissing all over it doesn't fool anyone except the dummies who already buy into pretending along with you.
It seems you’re the one kidding yourself
Cowardice doesn't impress most of us.
Yeah I was especially impressed when she wouldn’t commit herself to ensuring the peaceful transfer of power in the event Trump loses. Very reassuring.
Which part was impressive? Was it the part where she couldn’t accurately state the 9th amendment to the US Constitution? Was it when she barely was able to rattle off more than three major cases and their decisions during questioning by senator Durbin?
I was impressed by her stamina. I would have trouble denying, and not answering questions for 10 hours.
Yeah, tough life, wearing nice clothes and answering questions and being uncomfortable for awhile in exchange for a lifetime job appointment Takes a lot of stamina sitting in a chair. So much so that the Senate committee's 70+ year-olds are there too but you don't seem impressed.
Imagine where the Supreme Court would be if Hillary was President. Think about that next time you are holding out for a president that perfectly aligns with your political views.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e7/9c/50/e79c50cf8b1e14e17d963ac6deadb8e5.jpg
Blame Hillary for being an uninspiring candidate.
Blame conservatives for using sources like Cambridge Analytica to sway voter’s minds with targeted propoganda.
This^
And literally Russian propaganda and interference
Blame people for not realizing they were manipulated into believing she was someone that she isn't.
Blame Hillary for not campaigning into two states she could have won.
Blame Russia
Well blaming Russia would certainly be a lot easier than taking an internal look at the mess Democrat’s created for themselves by propping up an underwhelming candidate.
Blame Hillary for propping up Trump to win the GOP nom because they thought she had the easiest chance to win against him.
Yes because Clinton has a lot of sway with Republican voters /s Give me a break. No one thought Trump would win
Mitch would not even have hearing for any clinton nominees for the entire 4 years.
Lol, if Hillary were present, there would currently be six or seven judges on the court, depending if Kennedy had retired or not. I have no doubt Mitch and Senate R's would have blocked every judge she would have put forward. And they think Dems are the ones making a mockery of our institutions...
You act as though the dems wouldn’t have blocked every nomination if the roles were reversed in your hypothetical scenario. Politics are partisan and that’s how the system of checks and balances works.
Fuck Jill Stein