I am going to stay optimistic and give her the benefit of the doubt. A little worried about her equivocation on “following the law wherever it takes you” - I wanted her to say “follow the constitution first”.
Also I didn’t need the bit about women in law RBG trailblazer blah blah blah. Take your gender politics somewhere else. I know it’s a gesture of good faith, it just doesn’t sit right with me ......
I also question a lot of his appointments. But you have to remember we're talking about politics on a scale that Game of Thrones portrays in fiction. It's real life, though. Sometimes you have to put someone in a position of power rather than just killing them outright. Which also happens at that level. Look at Putin's polonium poisonings, or the Saudi Prince torturing his enemies. China unleashing plagues across the world. This shit is for real and I think Trump has just had to make deals to stay in power during the never-ending coup attempt. If you look at it this way, it makes his calm confidence even more amazing.
POTUS had to pick someone that they've already confirmed in the Senate, so that this seat gets filled asap.
They can't drag on this process past election day. There will be many rulings that requires a full Supreme Court in coming months, with how the Democrats and Deep State are going to create chaos with mail-in ballots and refusal to concede the elections.
It does no good to ram someone through the Senate only to have them vote against your interest, though. I can't see him making that mistake. I think I understand his political appointments that haven't worked out, but this is for real and he knows it. He really does want to make America great again, and he personally, intimately knows how important judges are.
List the rulings you’re not in favor of, with links. Or does your hesitation come from the deluge of shill posts on this site over the last couple of weeks which without evidence (no links) suggested it?
he Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that
"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."
Thanks for being so informed and for sharing. I think you’re right and wish more could see it. I also wish more people could see past their noses and would wonder why CNN is suddenly running stories with an uncharacteristically not completely anti-trump spin.
Did Barrett agree to every single line of this decision, which was not written by her? How does that work? Because she agreed with the ruling itself, does that mean conclusively that she is in 100% agreement with every single line written in this document that was written by another person she shared the bench with?
(No, it doesn’t. That’s why your case is weak. If you want to stir controversy, at LEAST use decisions that she herself wrote.)
Lol. Did you ever stop to wonder why all the RINOs (including Murkowski) suddenly stopped saying they’d oppose a pre election nomination as soon as it was whispered that it would be ACB?
Do you think they suddenly stopped being RINOs? Or do you think there just might be something concerning in all of them flipping to support?
How blind do you have to be not to be at least a little worried by that?
There is a lot of pressure. Palin is a threat to Murkowski. Romney got his start in “business” from Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father, and she is in custody - I’m sure she’s got dirt on Romney that he is afraid of getting out. Probably thinks he can curry favor with the president when it comes out.
No. It doesn’t worry me at all.
Yo don’t think trump has a better handle on it at his level than you do at your level?
Yes. I do. And I support his pick out of both that conviction and a trust in him that he has earned.
Even if he’s made some bad picks in the past he’s waded through more shit than anyone I’ve ever seen and he’s still here fighting.
But even though I support him and his choice it is a lifetime appointment and I am worried. And talking about that worry is neither concern trolling, nor shilling, nor disloyalty.
Especially not when it is clearly rational and very informed discussion like KafkaGoesWest’s posts.
Ugh. Have you been reading KafkaGoesWest’s posts? There’s 100 times more substance there than in anything you’ve posted.
You’re essentially arguing for us all to just rubber stamp anything our side proposes without thought... in other words you want us to be just like the left.
And you’re marginalizing and hurling epithets (shill, concern troll) against any discussion you disagree with. Again just like the left.
She thanked Trump, say some obligatory nice things about the judge she's replacing, and spent the rest of the time talking about her family. I love her now.
Roberts is scum and clearly blackmailed. Why else wouldn’t he read Rand Paul’s question to Schiff which would’ve revealed the whistleblower??????
I highly doubt she flew to pedo island or did anything else she could be blackmailed for, like Roberts.
She simply did not have any time, between her distinguished law career and raising her large family hand on.
I am going to stay optimistic and give her the benefit of the doubt. A little worried about her equivocation on “following the law wherever it takes you” - I wanted her to say “follow the constitution first”.
Also I didn’t need the bit about women in law RBG trailblazer blah blah blah. Take your gender politics somewhere else. I know it’s a gesture of good faith, it just doesn’t sit right with me ......
I agree with you pede and I’m a woman. I heard that and was like oh well hopefully it isn’t downhill from here
extrinsic. its not part of all politics, its part of human nature.
WHOMEVER POTUS PICKS , PLEASE HONOR HIS JUDGMENT 🙏✌💖
That's a great piece of advice, that last bit.
List of her opinions on the 7th Circuit
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1309866511125876736
I also question a lot of his appointments. But you have to remember we're talking about politics on a scale that Game of Thrones portrays in fiction. It's real life, though. Sometimes you have to put someone in a position of power rather than just killing them outright. Which also happens at that level. Look at Putin's polonium poisonings, or the Saudi Prince torturing his enemies. China unleashing plagues across the world. This shit is for real and I think Trump has just had to make deals to stay in power during the never-ending coup attempt. If you look at it this way, it makes his calm confidence even more amazing.
Thread discussing her corona decision
https://mobile.twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1309933909719670784
THISSS the left are still going to talk shit about her cause they have no standards in the end it will create more trump supporters
Let's be real, President Trump picked her because she's a woman.
And because it's a big fuck you to the Deep State who murdered Antonin Scalia, whom Amy Coney Barrett clerked for.
She's not a strict Constitutionalist and will most likely make many bad decisions in years to come.
It is what it is.
POTUS had to pick someone that they've already confirmed in the Senate, so that this seat gets filled asap.
They can't drag on this process past election day. There will be many rulings that requires a full Supreme Court in coming months, with how the Democrats and Deep State are going to create chaos with mail-in ballots and refusal to concede the elections.
It does no good to ram someone through the Senate only to have them vote against your interest, though. I can't see him making that mistake. I think I understand his political appointments that haven't worked out, but this is for real and he knows it. He really does want to make America great again, and he personally, intimately knows how important judges are.
Could Allison Eid be seen as a replacement for Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito? I want to believe Allison will be chosen in the second term.
I didn't see her name on epsteins flight logs. Seems like a winner to me for many other reasons but she isn't conflicted like Roberts.
I think she's pretty hot.
This is the right idea to hold onto.
List the rulings you’re not in favor of, with links. Or does your hesitation come from the deluge of shill posts on this site over the last couple of weeks which without evidence (no links) suggested it?
So, you want to hear her thinking on why she believes Jacobsen is a good decision? Me too.
he Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that
"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."
Not very unreasonable, if you ask me
Except it wasn’t in this case so your point is moot
You have poor reading comprehension.
Pritzker’s order had a religious exemption allowing more than 50 people to gather at a church for the purposes of religious services.
Depends on what aspect of the Jacobsen decision they were citing, Kafka.
If that’s your case against ACB, it’s fucking weak. You’re grasping at straws.
Thanks for being so informed and for sharing. I think you’re right and wish more could see it. I also wish more people could see past their noses and would wonder why CNN is suddenly running stories with an uncharacteristically not completely anti-trump spin.
Did Barrett agree to every single line of this decision, which was not written by her? How does that work? Because she agreed with the ruling itself, does that mean conclusively that she is in 100% agreement with every single line written in this document that was written by another person she shared the bench with?
(No, it doesn’t. That’s why your case is weak. If you want to stir controversy, at LEAST use decisions that she herself wrote.)
You’re a fucking shill
Even your username makes it obvious
Still trying to divide even after the nomination, hoping to get cover for Rino’s to vote against confirmation
Fuck you, shill
Ok, you got me there. I have not read Kafka and therefore should not have insulted you on grounds I do not understand.
Hayek I’ve read, Rothbard, Von Mises etc
I think I had Kafka mistaken for someone else
Thanks. Know about the others but will check out Kafka!
Lol. Did you ever stop to wonder why all the RINOs (including Murkowski) suddenly stopped saying they’d oppose a pre election nomination as soon as it was whispered that it would be ACB?
Do you think they suddenly stopped being RINOs? Or do you think there just might be something concerning in all of them flipping to support?
How blind do you have to be not to be at least a little worried by that?
There is a lot of pressure. Palin is a threat to Murkowski. Romney got his start in “business” from Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father, and she is in custody - I’m sure she’s got dirt on Romney that he is afraid of getting out. Probably thinks he can curry favor with the president when it comes out.
No. It doesn’t worry me at all.
Yo don’t think trump has a better handle on it at his level than you do at your level?
Yes. I do. And I support his pick out of both that conviction and a trust in him that he has earned.
Even if he’s made some bad picks in the past he’s waded through more shit than anyone I’ve ever seen and he’s still here fighting.
But even though I support him and his choice it is a lifetime appointment and I am worried. And talking about that worry is neither concern trolling, nor shilling, nor disloyalty.
Especially not when it is clearly rational and very informed discussion like KafkaGoesWest’s posts.
It’s definitely concern trolling and verges on consensus cracking. Not even once has anyone linked a concerning opinion that she herself authored.
Ugh. Have you been reading KafkaGoesWest’s posts? There’s 100 times more substance there than in anything you’ve posted.
You’re essentially arguing for us all to just rubber stamp anything our side proposes without thought... in other words you want us to be just like the left.
And you’re marginalizing and hurling epithets (shill, concern troll) against any discussion you disagree with. Again just like the left.
Skeptic of her as well. Not sold BUT if GEOTUS has picked her then I will buy in. He hasn’t led us astray yet so here we go.
Maybe so, but it's her rulings we'll have to live with, not her speech.
She thanked Trump, say some obligatory nice things about the judge she's replacing, and spent the rest of the time talking about her family. I love her now.
If you care that much about words, you havent learned anything from a Trump Presidency. Were better than that.