Page 1 of 7
Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:20 pm
by Leawood
Durbin and Klobuchar are establishing that the nominee believes some felons deserve to bear arms but do not have to vote.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:51 pm
by sdoyel
Also relevant:
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:06 pm
by jfish26
sdoyel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:51 pm
Also relevant:
Of course she should. If she had any principle(s) beyond some combination of (a) naked ambition to prestige (I want to sit on the Supreme Court, reputation be damned) and (b) naked ambition to power (I want to apply my far-right views, reputation be damned), she would withdraw out of fear for being (rightly) viewed as tainted, for the entire duration of her stay on the Court.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:14 pm
by Deleted User 89
nothing like having the support of your peers, lol
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:15 pm
by Deleted User 89
at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:53 pm
by jfish26
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:15 pm
at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
But, the gauntlet she had to run to even get on the short list would have selected against that sort of principled-ness. If you're the sort of person who would even consider this, you're not on the short list.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:02 pm
by twocoach
All this whining by Dems just sets them up to look like dumbasses if the same thing happens in 4 years. I can guarantee that if a SC seat opens in 2024 and the Dems have control of Congress that they arent going to wait.
This is a big fat waste of time with a lot of grandstanding for no reason. Push this through and get back to work on COVID relief.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:35 pm
by sdoyel
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:38 pm
by Deleted User 89
damn
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:00 pm
by jhawks99
Amy should be running instead of Joe.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:07 pm
by Deleted User 289
Amy was in my office and I had a brief 1 on 1 conversation with her. While she is an impressive woman, I wasn't thinking she's going to get my vote in the primary. She didn't and I'm glad she's not the nominee.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:14 pm
by Deleted User 89
jhawks99 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:00 pm
Amy should be running instead of Joe.
she would’ve gotten my vote
however, i saw her in Real Time with Bill Maher and came away unimpressed. she just cane across as too vanilla. she needed to show more fire in the primaries, but it’s tough when you’re a woman and have to walk the line of being fiery vs bitchy
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:21 pm
by zsn
They should get Katie Porter to question ACB. Then they can bring whatever is left of ACB to the Senate for questioning. I’ll be willing to wager that not much will be left of her. What an intellectual lightweight
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:22 pm
by Sparko
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:53 pm
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:15 pm
at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
But, the gauntlet she had to run to even get on the short list would have selected against that sort of principled-ness. If you're the sort of person who would even consider this, you're not on the short list.
There is so much truth there it stings.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:26 pm
by Deleted User 310
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:14 pm
nothing like having the support of your peers, lol
She has had plenty of her peers and faculty/former teachers at Notre Dame come out and voice their support for her and say she is a worthy pick.
This is all such garbage.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:31 pm
by Deleted User 310
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:06 pm
sdoyel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:51 pm
Also relevant:
Of course she should. If she had any principle(s) beyond some combination of (a) naked ambition to prestige (I want to sit on the Supreme Court, reputation be damned) and (b) naked ambition to power (I want to apply my far-right views, reputation be damned), she would withdraw out of fear for being (rightly) viewed as tainted, for the entire duration of her stay on the Court.
I doubt you were saying the same thing about Merrick Garland.
The lefts willingness/eagerness to character assassinate ANYONE who doesn't do what they want or believe exactly what they believe is nauseating. ACB by all accounts is a good person.
This political circus is embarrassing.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm
by zsn
She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm
by Deleted User 289
zsn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm
She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:16 pm
by Cascadia
Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm
zsn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm
She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?
She’s religious
Re: Hearing
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:37 pm
by Deleted User 89
understatement
her flavor of religion is more oppressive than most
not to mention the whole speaking in tongues thing, or exorcisms