Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Political discussions
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

Oops, Biden is a bigot:
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:58 pm
If you use the term "sexual preference" you're a bigot.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/merria ... tt-hearing
Your words.

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:59 pm
Oops, Biden is a bigot:
Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6938
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by JoltinJoe »

DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm
BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:59 pm
Oops, Biden is a bigot:
Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm


Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.
Joe - we are discussing here appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose very job is to interpret and "nit-pick" words, definitions, and laws.

The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

I don't find the use of 'preference' offensive, but you can certainly argue that it is outdated.

When questions of discrimination arise in the future, this definition will be vital.

Whether it annoys you or not.

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 9332
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: Fence Sitter & Ball-Sack Splitter

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by UNI88 »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm


Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.
How will the Uumpa Truumpas deflect from the underlying truths of the many memes that mock him if they can't nit-pick words and minute details?

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54233
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by AZGrizFan »

DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm
BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:59 pm
Oops, Biden is a bigot:
Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
You mean the definition of a term that, up until 3 days ago, was REGULARLY used by the left and their voices, the LGBT and their official newspaper, etc., etc.? Talk about reaching (not you) for something to try and “zing” her on....
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

AZGrizFan wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:02 pm
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm


Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
You mean the definition of a term that, up until 3 days ago, was REGULARLY used by the left and their voices, the LGBT and their official newspaper, etc., etc.? Talk about reaching (not you) for something to try and “zing” her on....
I don't know who uses it and who doesn't but it was an interesting angle to raise. The whole debate of 'born this way' vs 'preference' is not at all new. I wonder they'd expected her to not use the term?

The emotional grandstanding on both sides (like Cruz's one man act on religious freedom this AM) was something else and she did a great job of keeping her blinders on.

And no one called her a bigot.

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6938
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by JoltinJoe »

DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:07 pm
JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm


There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.
Joe - we are discussing here appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose very job is to interpret and "nit-pick" words, definitions, and laws.

The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

I don't find the use of 'preference' offensive, but you can certainly argue that it is outdated.

When questions of discrimination arise in the future, this definition will be vital.

Whether it annoys you or not.
Actually, it is not the judge's job to nit-pick words.

It is the job of the judge to give words their plain and ordinary meaning.

There is no "evolution" of a word going on here. What is going on is that a special interest group is trying to control language in order to accuse others who rely on settled meaning of language of being regressive or unenlightened. And a significant portion of the population, being malleable, will accept that they harbor some bigotry because they have used a "toxic" term like "sexual preference." The goal is to make people become uncomfortable with common language, so that they will not speak on a subject.

Controlling language means you get to control speech which means you get to control thought.

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47151
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:41 am
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:07 pm


Joe - we are discussing here appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose very job is to interpret and "nit-pick" words, definitions, and laws.

The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

I don't find the use of 'preference' offensive, but you can certainly argue that it is outdated.

When questions of discrimination arise in the future, this definition will be vital.

Whether it annoys you or not.
Actually, it is not the judge's job to nit-pick words.

It is the job of the judge to give words their plain and ordinary meaning.

There is no "evolution" of a word going on here. What is going on is that a special interest group is trying to control language in order to accuse others who rely on settled meaning of language of being regressive or unenlightened. And a significant portion of the population, being malleable, will accept that they harbor some bigotry because they have used a "toxic" term like "sexual preference." The goal is to make people become uncomfortable with common language, so that they will not speak on a subject.

Controlling language means you get to control speech which means you get to control thought.
Agree on the thought control concerns. This is where the left is dangerous. More political theater and nothing to lose sleep over. But orientation is more accurate.

Words do have meanings and meanings change. For example, just because you might “prefer” women as noted above doesn’t mean you are “oriented” to them or that you won’t settle for something else. The reasons are your own of course.
Image
Image
Image

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:59 pm
Oops, Biden is a bigot:
Is "The Left" the new name of the Biden campaign?


Who cares? this is a non issue. NEXT!
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:44 pm


Not one person in that hearing accused Barrett of being a bigot.

It was an attempt to correct her on a more modern definition of the term, and that definition truly has evolved. If you disagree with that, it's a whole new conversation. I'm guilty of the same outdated term.

For a judge who
a) believes in literal interpretation and
b) will be faced with issues of civil rights which have also evolved in the court

...It was an attempt to question the consistency of those values against her conservative personal beliefs.

She did a great job of responding to it and they moved on.

something something 'snowflake' ... something something 'fake news' ... :lol:
There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.
I've now agreed with BDK and Joltin Joe in the same 1 hour time frame. You all know how crazy that makes me.....damnit!!!
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47151
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:55 am
BDKJMU wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:59 pm
Oops, Biden is a bigot:
Is "The Left" the new name of the Biden campaign?
Good question.
Image
Image
Image

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:07 pm
JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm


There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.

The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

So if there's a genetic influence then it's not a choice..which means we are born male or female. gay or straight. Right?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6938
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by JoltinJoe »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:56 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:51 pm


There's nothing offensive about "sexual preference." Nothing about the term implies that the speaker is conveying that a person's sexual preference is chosen.

I know I was born with my sexual preference. My sexual preference is for women. Because my sexual preference was in-born, I would believe that the sexual preference of others, whatever it may be, is also something that is in-born.

We all need to stop nit-picking words and finding reasons to be offended -- when no one is trying to offend us.
I've now agreed with BDK and Joltin Joe in the same 1 hour time frame. You all know how crazy that makes me.....damnit!!!
Your problem is when you don't agree with me. :mrgreen:

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:30 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:56 am

I've now agreed with BDK and Joltin Joe in the same 1 hour time frame. You all know how crazy that makes me.....damnit!!!
Your problem is when you don't agree with me. :mrgreen:
I beg to differ. :kisswink:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:59 am
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:07 pm



The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

So if there's a genetic influence then it's not a choice..which means we are born male or female. gay or straight. Right?
I agree with that line of scientific reasoning, Senator CCU.

User avatar
DuckDuckGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:56 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by DuckDuckGriz »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:41 am
DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:07 pm


Joe - we are discussing here appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose very job is to interpret and "nit-pick" words, definitions, and laws.

The scientific definition has evolved. There is scientific evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation.

I don't find the use of 'preference' offensive, but you can certainly argue that it is outdated.

When questions of discrimination arise in the future, this definition will be vital.

Whether it annoys you or not.
Actually, it is not the judge's job to nit-pick words.

It is the job of the judge to give words their plain and ordinary meaning.

There is no "evolution" of a word going on here. What is going on is that a special interest group is trying to control language in order to accuse others who rely on settled meaning of language of being regressive or unenlightened. And a significant portion of the population, being malleable, will accept that they harbor some bigotry because they have used a "toxic" term like "sexual preference." The goal is to make people become uncomfortable with common language, so that they will not speak on a subject.

Controlling language means you get to control speech which means you get to control thought.
My argument is for modernizing any official scientific definition, not for controlling language or banning particular use of a term within the common vernacular.

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54233
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by AZGrizFan »

DuckDuckGriz wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:58 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:41 am


Actually, it is not the judge's job to nit-pick words.

It is the job of the judge to give words their plain and ordinary meaning.

There is no "evolution" of a word going on here. What is going on is that a special interest group is trying to control language in order to accuse others who rely on settled meaning of language of being regressive or unenlightened. And a significant portion of the population, being malleable, will accept that they harbor some bigotry because they have used a "toxic" term like "sexual preference." The goal is to make people become uncomfortable with common language, so that they will not speak on a subject.

Controlling language means you get to control speech which means you get to control thought.
My argument is for modernizing any official scientific definition, not for controlling language or banning particular use of a term within the common vernacular.
Well you’re in the minority there. :lol:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

Here is the likely timetable for the prospective confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

As is custom, the committee is holding the nomination over for a week. The Senate Judiciary Committee will again meet to consider Barrett’s nomination at 1 pm ET on Thursday, Oct. 22.

The committee will vote to send the nomination to the floor (technically the “calendar,” but that’s another story). A nominee does not have to have a “favorable” recommendation from the committee to go to the floor. Robert Bork received an “unfavorable” recommendation from the committee in 1987 (and was defeated on the floor). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was sent to the floor with “no recommendation” in 1991 before being confirmed.

The committee will need a simple majority vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced earlier this week that he would put the nomination on the floor on Friday, Oct. 23.

Here’s where it gets a little tricky.

If the committee finishes the nomination on Oct. 22, the Senate can’t formally consider it until Oct. 23. Keep in mind, that could begin at 12:00:01 a.m. ET Friday if McConnell really wants to hit the gas pedal.

McConnell must move to shift the Senate into executive session (versus legislative session) to specifically consider the Barrett nomination. Such a process likely requires a vote -- but is not debatable (subject to a filibuster). That vote could be by roll call, a voice vote or by unanimous consent (so long as there is no objection by any senator). Democrats could create some mischief at this stage by not having a quorum present or demanding a quorum be present -- but not helping constitute a quorum.

This step to go to executive session requires a simple majority. And once the Senate is in executive session for Barrett, the clerk “reports” (reads aloud) the nomination before this Senate.

There is no “motion to proceed” on this type of nomination, based on a precedent set in the late 1970s by the late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.V. Thus, there is no way Democrats could filibuster just starting debate on the nomination. However, Democrats could try to filibuster on the back end.

At this stage, McConnell could file cloture to curb debate and overcome a filibuster. McConnell could do this as early as Friday, Oct. 23.

Regardless of when McConnell files cloture, by rule, the “cloture petition” (to end debate on the nomination) ripens for a vote after an intervening day.

So, if McConnell files cloture to end debate on Friday, Oct. 23, then Saturday, Oct. 24, is the intervening day. The cloture petition would ripen on Sunday, Oct. 25. By rule, the Senate can begin voting to end debate on the nomination one hour after the Senate meets, following the intervening day. Again, if they really want to hit the gas, this could happen at 1 a.m. ET on Sunday, Oct. 25.

But, we don’t know that they will move that expeditiously. It’s more likely the Senate votes to end debate on the nomination on Monday, Oct. 26, or later in the week.

Under the provisions of “Nuclear Option II” (where McConnell established a new precedent -- not a rules change -- lowering the bar to end a filibuster on Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to 51 to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch), the Senate would vote to end debate on the nomination. That entails a simple majority. Once cloture on the nomination is “invoked” (halting a filibuster), debate is then limited to 30 hours.

Once 30 hours have expired, the Senate may take an up-or-down vote on the nomination itself. It only needs 51 votes to confirm Barrett.

That’s why we believe the actual confirmation of Barrett won’t happen until the middle or end of the week of Oct. 25, likely Oct. 28-30.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-co ... reme-court

Makes my head hurt..
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17800
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:30 pm
As for the nominee, I'm fine with Barrett. She's intelligent and has some verve, so I like that in my SCOTUS justices. A little on the young side, but I understand why they'd do that as well.
I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54233
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by AZGrizFan »

houndawg wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:09 am
GannonFan wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:30 pm
As for the nominee, I'm fine with Barrett. She's intelligent and has some verve, so I like that in my SCOTUS justices. A little on the young side, but I understand why they'd do that as well.
I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
:lol: :lol:

Go back to sleep old man. :kisswink:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 9332
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: Fence Sitter & Ball-Sack Splitter

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by UNI88 »

houndawg wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:09 am
GannonFan wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:30 pm
As for the nominee, I'm fine with Barrett. She's intelligent and has some verve, so I like that in my SCOTUS justices. A little on the young side, but I understand why they'd do that as well.
I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
Are you talking about Barrett or Omar?

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14667
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

houndawg wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:09 am
GannonFan wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:30 pm
As for the nominee, I'm fine with Barrett. She's intelligent and has some verve, so I like that in my SCOTUS justices. A little on the young side, but I understand why they'd do that as well.
I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11230
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by HI54UNI »

Senate Judiciary Committee just unanimously advanced Barrett's nomination to the full Senate.
Spoiler: show
Yes I know the D's boycotted the vote but it doesn't make the above any less true. :lol:
All my posts are satire.

Post Reply