Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has 'no agenda' on Obamacare, abortion

[herfiehandbag]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The entire uproar from the Dems seems to be about abortion and the ACA, but she will not be the only justice and in any event the SCOTUS isn't just about abortion and health care.

As a Catholic I "recuse myself" from the abortion arguments over her appointment. But I don't agree with you on affordable health care. The Trump administration's long campaign to strike down Obamacare is about to go before the Supreme Court in what is a politically highly charged case, and she is being appointed, in a hurry, in an equally politically highly charged process. It is very clearly an attempt to appoint a justice who holds particular views on certain key matters, in a hurry, as very shortly the control of the Senate and indeed the Presidency may well change hands. 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

As a Catholic I "recuse myself" from the abortion arguments over her appointment. But I don't agree with you on affordable health care. The Trump administration's long campaign to strike down Obamacare is about to go before the Supreme Court in what is a politically highly charged case, and she is being appointed, in a hurry, in an equally politically highly charged process. It is very clearly an attempt to appoint a justice who holds particular views on certain key matters, in a hurry, as very shortly the control of the Senate and indeed the Presidency may well change hands. 

I disagree with you. IMO she is being rushed through to put another conservative on the court, as Trump may lose and the senate may become Democrat majority.

IMO the same would happen even if the ACA was not on the agenda.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched the committee again today ( interesting that CNN didn't show it despite doing so yesterday- could it be because it's obvious that she's doing very well and should be a shoo in for confirmation? ).

Kudos to her as she handled the attacks of the Dem members so calmly. IMO she owned Kamala Harris.

 

When asked as to why she submitted herself and her family to the expected assault, her answer was impressive.

 

I'm sure she will be a credit to the SCOTUS.

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Kudos to her as she handled the attacks of the Dem members so calmly. IMO she owned Kamala Harris.

Sure she did. Like when Kamila Harris asked her what she thought about his claim that he was choosing justice to overturn  Roe v. Wade. Barrett's answer was that she knew nothing about that. Not exactly believable.

 

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When asked as to why she submitted herself and her family to the expected assault, her answer was impressive.

That question is what's called a "gimme". A setup for an easy shot. And you're impressed by that? You're easily impressed.

Edited October 14, 2020 by placeholder
,

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, polpott said:

I was raised as a Roman Catholic. Trust me, they have been ingrained in her since birth.

Actually, it's not that she's a Catholic, but rather that she's a member of this weird sect within the church called "The People of Praise". Among other things they encourage the lunacy that is known as "speaking in tongues".  Women are supposed to be subservient to men. Barrett attained the rank of handmaiden. Even when she went to college she stayed with a family that is a member of this group. So in her formative years she was very much cloistered. Her husband also was raised in this sect. 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I watched the committee again today ( interesting that CNN didn't show it despite doing so yesterday- could it be because it's obvious that she's doing very well and should be a shoo in for confirmation? ).

Kudos to her as she handled the attacks of the Dem members so calmly. IMO she owned Kamala Harris.

 

When asked as to why she submitted herself and her family to the expected assault, her answer was impressive.

 

I'm sure she will be a credit to the SCOTUS.

You repeatedly characterize examination of the nominee as ‘attacks/assaults’ either because you have no idea what is the duty of Senators during an appointment hearing or because you don’t like seeing the nominee examined.

 

I doubt many supporters of US democracy are impressed with her fudged dodging a straight answer to the question  “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?”

 

Don’t be mislead by her squirming and wriggling, the correct answer is an unequivocal ‘no’.

 

You’ll get the reason why when you get around to reading the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

[BobBKK]

I have no idea what is in her heart. I know one thing the Dems are not asking questions they are giving out political statements and sentimentality. What a circus US politics has become (from both sides!  I blame the Dems and their constant games. I don't like Republicans, been a Labour supporter all my life, but I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something!  This judge might be very conservative but I think she's sincere. If the Dems pack the SC what will happen once GOP get back control?  do ANY of them care about USA anymore?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have no idea what is in her heart. I know one thing the Dems are not asking questions they are giving out political statements and sentimentality. What a circus US politics has become (from both sides!  I blame the Dems and their constant games. I don't like Republicans, been a Labour supporter all my life, but I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something!  This judge might be very conservative but I think she's sincere. If the Dems pack the SC what will happen once GOP get back control?  do ANY of them care about USA anymore?

Another "I don't like Trump but..." When you actually start criticizing Trump, I'll believe you.

And your assertion that the Democrats aren't asking questions is belied by the post directly above yours. Let me quote to you the relevant passage that you seem to have missed.

 

"I doubt many supporters of US democracy are impressed with her fudged dodging a straight answer to the question  “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?”

 

Don’t be mislead by her squirming and wriggling, the correct answer is an unequivocal ‘no’."

 

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have no idea what is in her heart. I know one thing the Dems are not asking questions they are giving out political statements and sentimentality. What a circus US politics has become (from both sides!  I blame the Dems and their constant games. I don't like Republicans, been a Labour supporter all my life, but I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something!  This judge might be very conservative but I think she's sincere. If the Dems pack the SC what will happen once GOP get back control?  do ANY of them care about USA anymore?

Trump has made it "All about me". The Dems are fighting fire with fire. I don't agree with that philosophy but its the only way to win the election. Hopefully normality and democracy will be restored once trump has been punted into the long grass.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have no idea what is in her heart. I know one thing the Dems are not asking questions they are giving out political statements and sentimentality. What a circus US politics has become (from both sides!  I blame the Dems and their constant games. I don't like Republicans, been a Labour supporter all my life, but I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something!  This judge might be very conservative but I think she's sincere. If the Dems pack the SC what will happen once GOP get back control?  do ANY of them care about USA anymore?

Have to agree with that. One senator spent the entire time pontificating and barely gave her time to answer one question.

IMO some spent their time campaigning rather than asking relevant questions.

 

I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something! 

Exactly, but seems the Dems either don't understand that or don't care.

 

do ANY of them care about USA anymore?

I'm sure some do, but not in the majority.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I loathe the pc Dems more than I loathe Trump and that's saying something! 

Exactly, but seems the Dems either don't understand that or don't care.

Yet another case of I don't like Trump but...

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I disagree with you. IMO she is being rushed through to put another conservative on the court, as Trump may lose and the senate may become Democrat majority.

IMO the same would happen even if the ACA was not on the agenda.

 

That is pretty much what I said.

Trump needs a clearly conservative majority in the court - especially as he intends to try and use the court to decide the outcome of the election.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

That is pretty much what I said.

Trump needs a clearly conservative majority in the court - especially as he intends to try and use the court to decide the outcome of the election.

especially as he intends to try and use the court to decide the outcome of the election.

 

You are psychic?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

especially as he intends to try and use the court to decide the outcome of the election.

 

You are psychic?

Given how the current conservative justices support restricting voting rights  it's not much of a stretch.

[BobBKK]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yet another case of I don't like Trump but...

Oh people are not allowed to dislike Trump and dislike Dems more in your book?  what you attempt, here, is a rather clumsy "if you dislike Trump you MUST love Dems". It doesn't work and is illogical as Spock would say. 

[BobBKK]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Given how the current conservative justices support restricting voting rights  it's not much of a stretch.

Voting Rights had always been "here is polling day - go vote' what you really mean is voting enhancement for your cause no matter if they are convicts, illegals or non-citizens.

[Orton Rd]

She does not appear to support a woman right to murder babies, good. Women's right to chose should be about when to have sex and using contraception, rights do not include killing kids for convenience.

[polpott]

7 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

She does not appear to support a woman right to murder babies, good. Women's right to chose should be about when to have sex and using contraception, rights do not include killing kids for convenience.

Aborting a foetus, not a baby. Her body, her right. Up to her not some religious zealot who doesn't know her or her circumstances. Do rapists generally use a condom? Do they give the woman a choice?

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by polpott

[Dumbastheycome]

Interesting to watch her quite readily discuss some hypothetical considerations of law but when asked about interference in the process of an election and being read the specifics of the law under the auspices of the Constitution with clear relevance of it to current attempts and activities by GOP  supporters she suddenly changed her tactical replies  to decline an opinion on a hypothetical scenario !

I think she knows her primary role if appointed  is to assist the GOP  and Trump to retain political superiority. If that can be accomplished then Trump's wish list will  follow.

A person who has lived a lifetime immersed in a fringe religious sect who has made  well known her personal views about issues contrary to the teachings involved in that indoctrination can not help but  be swayed in judgement even if all considerations in a case involves all and  any tenets or precedents.

Were cases brought to the SCOTUS all evaluated according to such criteria surely that would result in a unanimous ruling every time?

[Dumbastheycome]

13 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

She does not appear to support a woman right to murder babies, good. Women's right to chose should be about when to have sex and using contraception, rights do not include killing kids for convenience.

To the extreme of pregnancies  resulting from proven rape and  incest ! Congenital deformities as a result of exposure to chemical elements in the  community !

The Catholic Church still disapproves of  contraception !

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Oh people are not allowed to dislike Trump and dislike Dems more in your book?  what you attempt, here, is a rather clumsy "if you dislike Trump you MUST love Dems". It doesn't work and is illogical as Spock would say. 

Not so. What I mean is I've never seen people making this claim who actually are ever critical of trump. It's one instance of a practice known as concern trolling where buy one tries to make oneself seem impartial but is really not.

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

especially as he intends to try and use the court to decide the outcome of the election.

 

You are psychic?

No, has he not said that he expects the outcome to be decided by the court?

Edited October 15, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[Tie Dye Samurai]

On 10/13/2020 at 11:02 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Please define what in your opinion constitutes "a religious zealot" and then provide the proof you have which leads you to believe Judge Barrett is one. 

 

It seems you base your views on political considerations.

religious zealot seems a bit harsh just because you dont like her views on certain issues....it remains to be seen if her views on abortion are rooted in her religious believes or if she has a legal opinion that supports her view. it will be interesting to read her opinion when Roe comes up again. I think assuming that her religion's doctrine is what drives her opinion on abortion is dangerous without reading her opinion and does her a disservice.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Tie Dye Samurai

[bluehippie]

On 10/13/2020 at 11:12 PM, polpott said:

Easy to see why Trump likes her.....she's an accomplished liar.

Liar, who you referring to? You must be confused, her name ain't Biden.

But, since you brought it up, I'd like to see you prove it! C'mon dude PROVE that ACB lied or is a liar!

Your LIES however live right here and should be stricken.

Edited October 15, 2020 by bluehippie

[onthedarkside]

A series of bickering posts and replies have been removed.

 

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Voting Rights had always been "here is polling day - go vote' what you really mean is voting enhancement for your cause no matter if they are convicts, illegals or non-citizens.

Thanks for the cliches. Your claim about illegals voting is demonstrably false. 5 states with government entirely in the hands of Republicans found nothing about illegals voting and only a very few cases of green card holders voting. And in the later case, no evidence of conspiracy. As for ex convicts voting, the citizens of Florida voted overwhemingly to let ex convicts have the vote. To thwart that, the Florida legislature made the ex convicts pay prohibitive fines to regain the vote. So much for respecting the will of the people. 

In addition to which you don't seem acquainted with the practice of gerrymandering whereby Republicans have engineered districts so as to maximize Republican seats. Because of this gerrymandering, Democrats need to get 5% more of the popular vote just to hold their own in the House of Representatives. In a few Republican states the citizens have voted to pass referenda to use independent experts - psephologists - to do redistricting in a fair way. The Republican governors and legislators have always opposed these referenda.

The Supreme Court's conservative members - who claim that the court shouldn't intervene in matters that were the province of legislatures, nonetheless pretty much gutted the Voting Rights Act, which protected minorities, on the grounds the legislatures weren't up to doing the job. 

[BobBKK]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for the cliches. Your claim about illegals voting is demonstrably false. 5 states with government entirely in the hands of Republicans found nothing about illegals voting and only a very few cases of green card holders voting. And in the later case, no evidence of conspiracy. As for ex convicts voting, the citizens of Florida voted overwhemingly to let ex convicts have the vote. To thwart that, the Florida legislature made the ex convicts pay prohibitive fines to regain the vote. So much for respecting the will of the people. 

In addition to which you don't seem acquainted with the practice of gerrymandering whereby Republicans have engineered districts so as to maximize Republican seats. Because of this gerrymandering, Democrats need to get 5% more of the popular vote just to hold their own in the House of Representatives. In a few Republican states the citizens have voted to pass referenda to use independent experts - psephologists - to do redistricting in a fair way. The Republican governors and legislators have always opposed these referenda.

The Supreme Court's conservative members - who claim that the court shouldn't intervene in matters that were the province of legislatures, nonetheless pretty much gutted the Voting Rights Act, which protected minorities, on the grounds the legislatures weren't up to doing the job. 

Oh Dems have never altered boundaries to ensure they get elected?  really?  DYOR

[bluehippie]

23 hours ago, J Town said:

That was a litmus test probe to see if she had ANY understanding of basic law and current affairs. She failed miserably at both.

You must have been watching the Simpson's, not the SCOTUS hearings.. ACB schooled all those in attendance with her legal and constitutional knowledge. She failed at nothing in the legal sphere and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Edited October 15, 2020 by bluehippie

[BobBKK]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Not so. What I mean is I've never seen people making this claim who actually are ever critical of trump. It's one instance of a practice known as concern trolling where buy one tries to make oneself seem impartial but is really not.

Really? you have not looked very hard. Many of my posts are critical of Trump. I have stated I am pro-choice, for example, think Biden will win, another example, think he was foolish over many comments and I have said so on here. Sounds like you are the one trolling here. I say, publicly, I do NOT like Trump or many or his policies and have said I would not vote for either. I am pro choice, pro weed and also pro law and order. I am anti pc liberals too. I am a true neutral and comment on a case by case basis and I find lib dems far more dishonest than ego Trump.