world

Barrett keeps Democrats, Trump at bay in Senate hearing

31 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN, LISA MASCARO and LAURIE KELLMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


31 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

But she was careful not to take on the president who nominated her

And odds are she will also not go against the dark money backed, far right wing organizations and individuals, including the Federalist Society pushing her nomination.

Republicans do have a dark-money network that they tap to fund these judicial confirmation battles.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/federalist-society-judicial-crisis-network-amy-coney-barrett.html

2 ( +7 / -5 )

She seems to be a lady whose view on life is mainly framed by religion and I doubt she can make any decision outside of her framework based on the Mediterranean of 3000 years ago.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

And odds are she will also not go against the dark money backed, far right wing organizations and individuals, including the Federalist Society pushing her nomination.

What dark money? If the Federalist Society Society can send cash of money to the candidates they choose and that’s bad, why is it ok for Soros and celebs and big tech to back their candidates?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

ACB - the good choice.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I do find it interesting that Trump didn't hold off a nomination until after the election, dangling the SC seat as a carrot.

Instead, it's turned into a stick, prodding democrats into voting in even larger numbers.

I suspect it's because he has known for months he's going to lose, and is just trying to build a legacy, and get a boost to his brand before he leaves, so that he can pay off the $400 million in personal debts coming due in a few months.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

So you “suspect” some stranger to you, knows something?

Yes. I suspect it.

I'm not sure why you put the word suspect in quotes, do you think I have actual information knowing for sure, and that I'm just pretending to only suspect it?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What dark money? If the Federalist Society Society can send cash of money to the candidates they choose and that’s bad, why is it ok for Soros and celebs and big tech to back their candidates?

Why don’t you do some research on that. The dark money coming from the right dwarfs anything coming from the left.

Personally, I don’t think money from anyone should be pouring into groups that write amicus briefs that influence judges. I believe in an independent, nonpartisan judiciary.

Do you agree?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Get ready for the courts to put the breaks on progress. Conservatives are getting their wish to roll back society to the 50s.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Barrett claims she only wants to uphold the law as written. But she refuses to acknowledge the law against voter intimidation.

She once ruled in favor of expanding gun rights for ex-felons, but ruled against expanding their voting rights. When asked about the reason for this inconsistency, she claimed that voting rights are “collective” and not individual. That doesn’t sound particularly like an originalist reading of the Constitution.

Barrett has been groomed for this position for years. She knows what she’s there to do. She can pretend otherwise, but everyone knows the game.

What a patriot.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ACB, always eager in the past to emphasize her service to her old boss, Scalia, and present herself as a devotee of his school of strict constitutional fundamentalism worshipping at the altar of his voodoo "originalism" while piously tending the flame of his judicial legacy, has been dodging and weaving during the hearings in a blatantly transparent attempt to evade all questions that would reveal the rickety edifice of her legal bona fides.

ACB's whiny disingenuousness and lack of candor whenever asked to give an opinion was especially egregious under questioning by Kamala Harris whose skillful prosecutorial probing exposed ACB's caginess and "faulty memory" or, as many might interpret it, her dishonesty in her desperation to get a job she does not deserve.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Democrats questioning her, especially Harris, looked like fools.

Harris was asking her if COVID-19 is infectious and if smoking causes cancer, hoping she would say no.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Excellent choice. They had to change the meaning of a word in the dictionary to try to create an attack.

actually changed the dictionary within 24 hours after she said something. then claimed what she said was offensive based on the new definition.

oh and Biden used the same term a few months ago. But he’s fine, of course.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It is pathetic to see these clumsy and poorly thought out attacks being used by the Democrats. Harris was the worst, it was like something from a junior high school debate tournament. By contrast, ACB was cool and deftly swatted them aside.

It is quite sad to see an intelligent, accomplished, moral woman being attacked.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Don't trust a single word she says.

And evading the important questions doesn't bode well for the future of abortion rights, LGBT rights and the outcome of the election. Which, like Trump said, is fradulent - just not for the reasons he claimed.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Why don’t you do some research on that. The dark money coming from the right dwarfs anything coming from the left. 

I actually see a lot more Bearkats money going to the left. A lot more.

Personally, I don’t think money from anyone should be pouring into groups that write amicus briefs that influence judges.

Or any election, I agree.

I believe in an independent, nonpartisan judiciary. 

Do you agree?

Of course.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Don't trust a single word she says.

That statement should be addressed to old Joe and him wanting to pack the courts.

And evading the important questions doesn't bode well for the future of abortion rights, LGBT rights and the outcome of the election. Which, like Trump said, is fradulent - just not for the reasons he claimed.

She doesn’t and shouldn’t say, she’s a constitutional textualist and not an activist Justice, any issues regarding abortion or LGBT rights will come from the legislative branch and if liberals don’t like it, talk to your congressmen. Her job is to interpret how the law was written, not to influence or change it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is quite sad to see an intelligent, accomplished, moral woman being attacked.

It is quite democratic to see someone who will be making huge decisions about the lives of others grilled.

You obviously like this judge but partisanship shouldn’t figure in your approach.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Senate: You are being interviewed for a job where you will have to give your opinions. What are your opinions?

ACB: I don't have any opinions and I never have.

The Senate: Cool you're perfect.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ginsburg rule. simple.

Or the Biden rule about all his positions. Elect me, then I will tell you.

Or the Pelosi rule on Obamacare. Pass it to know whats in it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

You obviously like this judge but partisanship shouldn’t figure in your approach.

That’s ridiculous, of course there’s partisanship involved otherwise both sides wouldn’t be so emotionally involved. Again, the SC should rule on the law as it is written and if it falls within the parameters of the constitution, but of course I favor conservative causes. I’m a conservative.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Dems misogyny was horrible today. One particularly unpleasant Senator tried to claim that ACB doesn’t have her own mind and will do whatever Scalia would have wanted her to do. Imagine if a Republican had made a similar attack against wise latina Sotomayor or Kagen. They would have been roasted by the media. Then Senator Hirono asked questions implying that she had sexually harassed someone in the past. Does Feinstein pull out a lesbian from her high school class tomorrow claiming ACB raped her? You can never be sure what kind of stupidity the Dems will come up with next.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sneezy: The Senate: You are being interviewed for a job where you will have to give your opinions. What are your opinions?

ACB: I don't have any opinions and I never have.

Ginsburg Rule. But nice attempt at diminishing the accomplishments of a mother of seven, including one with special needs, who somehow is an accomplished academic, was selected to intern for the Supreme Court, is a circuit court judge, and is now nominated to the Supreme Court. The Left has a word for such attitudes - misogyny.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Toasted: And evading the important questions doesn't bode well for the future of abortion rights, LGBT rights and the outcome of the election. Which, like Trump said, is fradulent - just not for the reasons he claimed.

Hillary says Biden should not accept the results of the election if he were to lose. In fact Hillary and most of the Dems still have not accepted the results of the last one.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Does Feinstein pull out a lesbian from her high school class tomorrow claiming ACB raped her? You can never be sure what kind of stupidity the Dems will come up with next.

I, too, love to fantasize about things that I imagine people will do and then get angry about that fictional event.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the full Senate by the end of the month.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett will soon be Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and there is nothing that the democrat party's dark money backers can do about it. It will be interesting to see how the activist justices Sotomayor and Kagan will handle the competition?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They had to change the meaning of a word in the dictionary to try to create an attack.

actually changed the dictionary within 24 hours after she said something. then claimed what she said was offensive based on the newdefinition.

Why do conspiracy theorists think we know the details of the conspiracy they feel has exposed some deep secret cabal? Don’t they realize we live a life of evidence and fact rather than innuendo and conspiracy?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dunno what that word salad is intended to mean.

So why would the dictionary change the meaning of a word right after someone used it?

Why do conspiracy theorists think we know the details of the conspiracy they feel has exposed some deep secret cabal? Don’t they realize we live a life of evidence and fact rather than innuendo and conspiracy?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You obviously like this judge but partisanship shouldn’t figure in your approach.

That’s ridiculous, of course there’s partisanship involved otherwise both sides wouldn’t be so emotionally involved. 

Reading comprehension, Bass. I didn’t write that partisanship wasn’t involved. I wrote that it shouldn’t be involved.

Any judge, regardless of their beliefs, should be grilled thoroughly. Whining that one side is doing the grilling against someone you like is childish.

Grill all of them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Her career on the bench will always be tainted, and malodorous. Trumpstink won't wash.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Latent Lindsay is the biggest swamp creature going.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I didn’t write that partisanship wasn’t involved. I wrote that it shouldn’t be involved. 

Reading comprehension, I said, I agree.

Any judge, regardless of their beliefs, should be grilled thoroughly. Whining that one side is doing the grilling against someone you like is childish. 

Grill all of them.

Of course.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites