5233
Comments (282)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
5
rev4 5 points ago +7 / -2

Why's everyone hating on ACB? she describes herself as an originalist which is pretty good, no?

8
MissoulaWes1776 8 points ago +9 / -1

its like when a dude puts on a dress and declares himself a her. still a dude.

7
Trump-2024 7 points ago +10 / -3

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing. She'll betray us on matters of immigration, 1A and probably 2A. Her recent rulings have sided with lockdowns and against churches. But hey, at least she'll be strong on abortion, until the Pope cucks out. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that way.

0
Hardcouer 0 points ago +1 / -1

She's been rock solid on 2A. Rock solid. And not a flaky rock either, we're talking a big monolithic piece of granite. Also on immigration. And abortion.

3
Libertysheimdall1 3 points ago +5 / -2

Because for some reason the folks on here trust a plaintiff's lawyer named Robert Barnes more than they trust Trump (who had ACB as #2 last time around, after Kav) or Mike Davis (Twitter: @mrddmia) who is the "guy behind the guy" on so many of the judge picks.

Maybe, maybe not. But hard evidence seems not to be part of the argument.

1
Anubis1 1 point ago +2 / -1

The problem is who has Trump's ear? Does he have time to read over all their case decisions when he has a billion other things to worry about? Or is it the case that he gets a summary from someone he trusts (who may not be trustworthy)? Trump has unfortunately surrounded himself with a group of people who hate him, and while most of them have been weeded out (Bolton), how many snakes are left in the grass?

1
HRoark 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hear meadows and the old school. Gop likes acb but desantis likes lagoa. Should be interesting.

1
Libertysheimdall1 1 point ago +1 / -0

That may indeed be true. I’m only saying that until someone proves why I should trust Barnes more, I can’t take his word for it.

1
Anubis1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can't link you to a single article or discussion to try to sway you. But he does do a podcast with a Canadian lawyer/youtuber who is pretty based called Viva Frei. He has represented some of the Covington kids (not Nick) in court, and he is very on the side of our civil liberties. He was a democrat (don't know how he plans to vote this year) but has been pretty pro-trump and seems to side against the authoritarian left on every issue.

He has two big videos on why ACB is a swamp choice and Lagoa is the better choice for the American people, one here:

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f6bf41c2628dc092f8f1467

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +2 / -1

Do you think Trump has personally reviewed her cases like Barnes has? Do you think if Trump did review them, he'd be able to understand them as well as a lawyer?

He gets his list from the federalist society and goes from there. Trump isn't a legal expert. He gets advice for the pick and Barnes is a hell of a lot better than any RINOs or swampers giving him advice.

1
Libertysheimdall1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Why? What proof is there that Barnes’ opinion means anything? Because he took a payday to sue on behalf of Sandmann?

2
Spez_BTFO 2 points ago +3 / -1

Because she has stated she sides with the Pope above anything else. No one is above the constitution, especially the Pope. Anyone who's vowed to put his opinion above the constitution shouldn't be a supreme court justice.

2
RenaissanceOfHope 2 points ago +3 / -1

Exactly. There’s a difference between having a Catholic on SCOTUS and a Catholic like Barrett who puts the Catholic Church above America.

2
cuntard 2 points ago +2 / -0

plus the current pope is a fucking cucked sjw