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.
Linking a decision that she was part of (which was actually a decision that gave Pritzker the leeway to allow church worship services but not battle of the bands or picnics at the church property) just because the author of that decision who was not ACB made a passing comment about a concerning case, is consensus cracking.
If a SINGLE FUCKING POST contained a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY ACB I would consider it relevant. So far, nothing.
I agree the decision was concerning. Barrett didn’t fucking write it, though.
You agree the decision was concerning. And while Barrett didn’t write it the decision she supported did cite it and therefore rely on it.
Meaning she relied on a decision that you yourself admit is concerning to form her judgment on an issue.
And you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that her reliance on a concerning (your own words) precedent to inform her views on an important issue is actually concerning to some of us?
I’m beginning to think that you’re the shill. For ACB.
So your argument is that since she didn’t write the actual text of a decision which cited as support a decision that you yourself agree is concerning, but instead only concurred with it, It has no bearing on her jurisprudence?
That makes no sense. Judges are accountable for their rulings and decisions even if they aren’t the one who actually wrote the text they are agreeing with.
No one has been saying she is definitely a bad pick. But there is more than enough reason to be skeptical. Particularly considering the gravity of a lifetime appointment.
Telling me to shut the fuck up in all caps while providing nothing but a repetitive demand for an unreasonable level of justification of my healthy skepticism that ACB is not potentially another Roberts in disguise, while every RINO in the senate reverses their opposition to a pre-election appointment...
All while telling me that rulings she concurred with don’t count because they aren’t in her own words...
is proof to me that you are a totally disingenuous shill. LOL
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.
No, I want SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT.
Linking a decision that she was part of (which was actually a decision that gave Pritzker the leeway to allow church worship services but not battle of the bands or picnics at the church property) just because the author of that decision who was not ACB made a passing comment about a concerning case, is consensus cracking.
If a SINGLE FUCKING POST contained a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY ACB I would consider it relevant. So far, nothing.
I agree the decision was concerning. Barrett didn’t fucking write it, though.
You agree the decision was concerning. And while Barrett didn’t write it the decision she supported did cite it and therefore rely on it.
Meaning she relied on a decision that you yourself admit is concerning to form her judgment on an issue.
And you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that her reliance on a concerning (your own words) precedent to inform her views on an important issue is actually concerning to some of us?
I’m beginning to think that you’re the shill. For ACB.
No, I didn’t say that at all.
I said the SPECIFIC reference BY THE JUDGE WHO WROTE THE DECISION which was a passing statement - was concerning.
She did not herself cite that concerning thing.
Again. ANY PERSON WHO HAS A DECISION THAT SHE ACTUALLY FUCKING WROTE THAT IS CONCERNING
Please link it at once. If she’s so cOncErNiNg there should be enough of them, right?
So your argument is that since she didn’t write the actual text of a decision which cited as support a decision that you yourself agree is concerning, but instead only concurred with it, It has no bearing on her jurisprudence?
That makes no sense. Judges are accountable for their rulings and decisions even if they aren’t the one who actually wrote the text they are agreeing with.
No one has been saying she is definitely a bad pick. But there is more than enough reason to be skeptical. Particularly considering the gravity of a lifetime appointment.
And by the way. I’ve never heard anyone use a term like “consensus cracking” who wasn’t on the left.
Consensus cracking is a tactic used by cia disinfo teams etc, media matters/David brick types to infiltrate and divide.
You telling me that you’ve only heard leftists use it is a proof to me that you are a totally disingenuous shill.
Post a link to a Barrett decision that she wrote that is of concern. Or....SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Right back at ya.
Telling me to shut the fuck up in all caps while providing nothing but a repetitive demand for an unreasonable level of justification of my healthy skepticism that ACB is not potentially another Roberts in disguise, while every RINO in the senate reverses their opposition to a pre-election appointment...
All while telling me that rulings she concurred with don’t count because they aren’t in her own words...
is proof to me that you are a totally disingenuous shill. LOL