Huge round of applause for your new justice Amy Coney Barrett!

That's a misrepresentation but then you usually do that.............

I don't.

Meanwhile I thought you far right crazies only like to bend rules when it's your turn, but cry like babies when the other side does it. Like how Joe will do it.

Her confirmation is not a surprise to anyone, and I bid her good fortune in her future tenure.

@Sevenizz: Just when I thought you couldn’t get sillier with your trolling, you one up yourself.

The left puts qualifications above everything, then your side lies so you can manipulate people into thinking otherwise or to delegitimize the choice.

Kamala is more than qualified, you just say otherwise to put her down. As pointed out above, Amy is not qualified, you just think she is because Trump told you to.

@zaryia: What a dumb accusation. I don’t support abortion in any scenario. Be it gender selective abortions, minorities, and most Democrats.

How dare you?

I never said that.

I was noting how you don't mind when people die through other inhuman practices. Actual people too, not even a few cells.

Oh and you don't support abortion for rape or even if it's only 1 month old and not even a baby in any way? Crazy!

I think people are overreacting with the SCOTUS thing. Nothing will happen.

Sarah Palin 2.0

I think this sums it up accurately.

So again, you prove the arguments of the right 100% factually correct. The issue the left has with ACB is she's not a political activist, which you believe are the only ones "equipped" for the Supreme Court. The SC rules on matters based on their legality with the constitution, and written law. What the **** does "climate science" have to do with any of this? It's up to congress to write laws regarding that, and it's only the job of the Supreme Court to decide if the laws written are constitutional or not. Period.

Awesome, so you won't mind when Biden stacks.

She was asked a question where her answer would indicate if she accepts established and factual science. If, for example, she were asked if the Earth were flat or spherical and she responded the same in kind, would we still be brushing it off? Legal cases are often predicated on scientific results and evidence to determine rulings. Failing to acknowledge material truths when asked outright indicates she's largely unable make this distinction and would ultimately fail at her duties.

Setting up a bad precedent because the democrats overreacted? Yes.

Because Republicans will do just that when they're in power. Completely destroying the purpose of checks and balances. Just like the democrats did with the senate and their nuclear option.

What do you mean setting up bad precedent. It's been done several times.

But they already did this. It's time to balance their mess.

@HoolaHoopMan: They don't consider it science or fact. Just another wedge issue.

@Gaming-Planet: "Because Republicans will do just that when they're in power. Completely destroying the purpose of checks and balances. Just like the democrats did with the senate and their nuclear option."

The Republicans will do it anyway as soon as it suits them. You're completely misreading the judicial nuclear option situation.

@zaryia: That's a reckless way of thinking that will only lead to a perpetual mess.

Stacking has been done but very different reasons. This time? Oh muh racism muh wahmen rights. Cry me a river.

Again, what in the **** does it have to do with doing the job at the Supreme Court? Judges rule based on the letter of the law, not by feelings and emotions. SC cases are predicated on the letter of written law as written in the constitution or by congress. Do you seriously not have even the slightest clue how the three branches of government actually work?

@eoten: they asked her that question, and lawsuits related to it may happen.

google packing the court. that is what happening.

Joe has to win first, and even then he'd need a majority house and senate, at which point he wouldn't even get enough people on his own side to support it.

Nice strawman.

@eoten: Yes he would

@mrbojangles25 Oh gods... that gives me TERRIBLE vibes.

The way you described her, gives me VERY strong vibes of my ex-wife. Who refused to stand on her own 2 legs, and basically identified and defined herself through me rather than her own merits. Basically didn't have a life outside of me.

We don't?

Otherwise I would have supported Donald Trump: America's first special needs president.

@Sevenizz: Lol that was by far your best comment. Kamala fit the qualifications of gender and a minority over real qualifications. Hard to deny that. I can't believe Joe openly acknowledged how he planned to choose his running mate.

The funny part is, women and blacks can't stand her.

So like what the GOP has been doing for a while now. Guess only they are allowed to power grab, and in ways that undermines most of the population.

For dumber reasons, yes.

Sure, if the activists do overturn Roe (the reason they rammed her in, by their own words), stack the court.

Imagine, if you will, the reaction to a non Democrat openly declaring he/she was going to pick a running mate not of a protected class.

Same goes for the left in general.

Kamala Harris was not a very good pick.

Who would you have preferred?

It's been answered. Please learn how to read. The law does not exist in some ethereal vacuum of existence. It must take reality and physical properties of the universe into account. If you deny basic science and materialistic truths of the world you won't be able to do your job as a judge.

@Maroxad: yup, she is a 1940's kind of woman, which explains why the regressive right like her and the progressive left do not.

Also unqualified but, hey, who is these days, amirite?!

You really don't have a clue what the Supreme Court actually does.

• Elizabeth Warren
• Pete Buttgieg
• Hillary Clinton
• Andrew Yang
• Michael Bloomberg

On the top of my head.

Edit: Bernie Sanders wouldnt have been a bad pick either, if only he was a bit younger.

She shouldn't have received a hearing. If Garland had received a hearing back in 2016, I'd have no issue with Barrett's nomination. Instead, Congressional Republicans made up a rule to benefit themselves and then ditched it when it was convenient. That's not leadership and they made anyone who actually believed their 'principle' argument look like idiots. They should have either heard Garland back then or remained consistent now. Those kinds of shameless power grabs absolutely should not continue.

How is the Hoolahoopman wrong?

Isn't she of the opinion that because sentencing someone to death is against her belief, she can not be the judge of a case where that is the possibility?

I don't agree with having political leaning judges on the supreme court. In fact I want all my judges to have a strong background in STEM field. To be able to recite the scientific method from heart, and not be swayed by media or bias. In my world, a judge who has strong religious beliefs that influences their decision making would be automatically disqualified from being a judge. The republicans pushed this judge through even though they were against the democrats bringing in Garland back in the days, which is the height of being a damn hypocrite. But if she or the supreme court decides to touch abortion rights (which I don't actually agree with), or lgbtq or any other social progressive ideologies, then she should not be on the court. In fact if Biden wins, and the supreme court starts enacting right wing ideologies, then Biden needs to start packing the courts, bring in some more moderates.

Great to see someone who appears to be well rounded with a great family on the Supreme Court.

I judge people by who they are, not their gender or skin color, but I'm sure the feminist are thrilled to see a woman that has risen in a male dominated field while raising 7 school aged children promoted to the highest court in the land.

That's nice. I prefer qualifications though.

So do I! Is there anyone who doubts her qualifications? Didn't seem like any Democrats in the hearing raised any questions about them. Instead they asked if she was a sexual predator and lectured her about why the phrase "sexual preference" is "offensive and outdated". Even though Democrats have used it for years and even this year.

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

your fine with both rape and incest related issue. cheers mate you just lost everyone thaT MIGHT agree with you.

@firedrakes: *you’re

Adoption exists. What did the baby do to deserve murder?

my point has been proven.

Didn't much matter since whoever trump nominated would get it. She's not qualified.

@firedrakes: Which was...?

@Sevenizz: you dont care about the woman health if baby will kill her,rapes or incest. hell i know for a fking fact with your wording you never talk to a rape victim.

you that type of person that will tell another sex. this is what your going to do and like it. seeing you got no other choice...

i dont see a single person now agreeing with you. and i wont replying back to a a ho

Congrats to ACB. she will be a great justice.

@firedrakes: I’m going to do my very best to decipher that really bad grammar so bear with me.

Of course I care about the woman’s health. Where did I say otherwise? While extremely rare, pregnancy complications can endanger the health of the mother. As long as every effort is made to save the baby, I’m not gonna deny that there may be a possibility a pregnancy must be terminated. But again, it’s extremely rare. I’m also concerned with the mother’s mental health. In many instances, she may suffer from deep depression due to having her baby murdered. As for rape and incest, we’re looking at another very rare scenario. But the baby had nothing to do with it and doesn’t deserve murder as punishment. Part and parcel of being a human.

I don’t need anyone to agree with me to solidify my pro life positions. But I’m not the only pro life person in this thread. I’d rather be called an a-hole than support abortion in any form. Sorry.

Yeah, it's not about women's health. You'd rarely find anyone on the right argue against it in the situation where the mother is likely to die, which ultimately would kill the child as well. That's a strawman they use to try to paint those who disagree with their arguments to try make themselves seem like the reasonable ones. The vast majority is purely for convenience. Because someone was too lazy to use birth control, or too irresponsible to make better decisions.