16 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

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

Actually, just recently, the Democratic governor of NJ proposed doing just that to benefit Democrats. But his proposal was shot down thanks to the intervention of evil Democratic liberals in the NJ legislature.

22 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

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

Not nearly to the extent the Republicans have done:

Analysis: Partisan gerrymandering has benefited Republicans more than Democrats

https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6

I think some of the anti ACB talk is a bit unfair. I don't agree with her politics or religious beliefs but she is a high quality candidate for the bench. Though she is likely to make conservative decisions, I don't think she would do Trump's bidding in any way, shape or form once she is on the bench. 

This contrast with Trump appointees in some lower courts that are unqualified and are picked just because they will do the Republican partys' bidding.

2 hours ago, bluehippie said:

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.

 

"You must have been watching the Simpson's..."

 

Hopefully, many will:

 

The Simpsons list 50 reasons not to reelect Donald Trump in new ‘Treehouse of Horror’ episode

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-simpsons-donald-trump-treehouse-of-horror-halloween-special-b1015417.html

 

 

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by Morch

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think some of the anti ACB talk is a bit unfair. I don't agree with her politics or religious beliefs but she is a high quality candidate for the bench. Though she is likely to make conservative decisions, I don't think she would do Trump's bidding in any way, shape or form once she is on the bench. 

This contrast with Trump appointees in some lower courts that are unqualified and are picked just because they will do the Republican partys' bidding.

She doesn't have to do Trump's bidding. She was selected because given her extremely conservative record, she will do mostly what right wing conservatives expect her to do. Keep in mind that she is a favorite of the Federalist Society. Their views are extremely right wing.

Federalist Society funded trips to universities and conventions by Amy Coney Barrett

The Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group, paid for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to take six trips in her first year as a federal appeals court judge, according to her 2018 financial disclosure report.

The Federalist Society paid for her to go to Columbia Law School, Hillsdale College in Michigan, Stanford Law School, Yale Law School, a law student symposium in Washington and the society’s convention in Washington.

Judges do not have to reveal how much was spent on their behalf, but the Federalist Society paid for travel, lodging, meals and her convention registration, according to the disclosure report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html