Just read that her father was a big oil lawyer. He worked for Shell Oil in New Orleans there on Poydras all of his life. The father had no real-world legal experience. He was a corporate hack engrained with anti-environmental and big oil business ideology. She certainly absorbed all of that in her youth and adulthood and it will translate to her opinions on the bench if she is confirmed. Nothing there for the average American to be proud of. And she is a constitutional originalist. So the original constitution excluded blacks as human beings and relegated women to second class citizenship or as Borat would say, "Only bears and men ride inside of cars. Women on top." Being an originalist only means she will use the archaic language of the constitution to twist a decision to accommodate her core values. If she is confirmed the lives of women and the LGBT community will be for the next 40 years thrown back in time to second class status. The African American and other minority communities will be abused once again.

As it should be
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Regardless of your assumptions of how she may or may not think or may or may not vote for a certain issue (based on nothing but your personal opinion), she will be confirmed, whether you like it or not.

You think men can get angry and dangerous, wait until you see the backlash from women if Roe v Wade is overturned. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Abortion regulation like may issues - is and should be a State legislative issue....

The States have the right to control and regulate issues on abortion - Roe v Wade did not
guarantee an abortion at any moment a woman might choose to end a pregnancy....

Get over your imaginary indignations....

Let Democracy work....

Trouble is Democrats frankly don't like individual State democracy they want to dictate civic
policy nationwide.... But that is NOT what the Constitution says....

Basic human rights should not vary from state to state.

letting women vote has ruined the nation. enjoy the downward spiral.

I believed T-rump would agree with you.

What do you believe now?

I’m shaking in my waders

ACB is going to be a great SCOTUS Justice....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......for a very long time. She will be the 3rd Justice for President Trump. What do you think are the odds of getting a fourth one during his second term? Maybe somebody of color? .....to replace Breyer. He’s likely the next one to kick the bucket. Dude is 82 years old. Talk about making Liberals cry!! Baaahahhhaahahahaha


Sent from the ISS using Tapatalk.

For a lawyer you sure don't know how things work under our Constitution !


FYI - after just 4 days of Early Voting 4 million Texans have voted - twice what we saw
in only 4 days in 2016 - wanna bet 90% were Trump votes - not a single Biden supporter
to be seen at my poling place but plenty for Crenshaw and Trump...

Cool campaign add....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6b_8OlwXU

ACB has more intellect and class in her little finger. She mopped the floor with the dems and they didn't even realize it. Guess they couldn't get any volunteers to claim sexual harassments so they had nothing. Trump 2020!

Gigafowl, for a layman you know exactly nothing about the law.

Well I know States have had the legal right to regulate abortion all along !

I also know no matter how much you howl at the top of your lungs Barrett will be confirmed !

Trump will also serve another 12 years too -

why should trump select some one in his 30 days? It wasn't right for obama to do it but it is alright for the bully to do it?

Obama DID nominate somebody during his last year of office. His nominee did not get a vote.


Sent from the ISS using Tapatalk.

A President serves a full 4 years - even RBG said so - Trump's term ends in January 2021...

Barrett was nominated with over 100 days till the end of Trump's first term and he
has every right and responsibility to nominate a replacement and with the Senate
in session that nominee has to be vetted and voted upon if the committee so chooses...

Obama lost the House and Senate after forcing his substandard health care on the people
so his nominee likely would have been voted down. If you want to get historical when
Lincoln decided not to nominate a replacement it was because the Senate had recessed
and gone home so no vote was even possible...

So there is no precedent in all of American history for a President not to do his Constitutional
duty and nominate a replacement in the last portion of his term....

Do you even want to talk about all the pardons Obama "sold" in his last weeks in office ? ? ?

Or the attempted use of the FBI to "tip" an election toward his party ? ? ?

Obama and Biden were among the worst and most inept leaders in their 8 years we have
ever seen so many of us cringe at the thought of another Biden term in office - we will see
on Nov 3rd or in the month afterward what the majority want going forward ! ! !

Senate Democrats say they will boycott a committee hearing Thursday where Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination is set to move forward, a longshot attempt that is unlikely to stall the federal judge's confirmation to the high court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote tomorrow afternoon on Barrett's confirmation to the high court, a vote that was expected to pass along party lines and send her nomination to the full Senate for a Monday vote — just eight days before Election Day.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Democrats on the committee said in a statement that they wouldn't show up on Thursday to grant these "sham" and rushed proceedings any legitimacy for a nominee that could "take away health care from millions and execute the extreme and deeply unpopular agenda" that Republicans have attempted for years.

"We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway," the statement said.

Schumer noted on the Senate floor Wednesday evening that Democrats not appearing for the hearing would mean a quorum was not present and thus the committee would not be able to move forward on Barrett's nomination.

"The bottom line is very simple: We should not be moving forward on this nomination," Schumer said from the Senate floor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee's rules outline that at least nine members of the majority (Republicans) and at least two members of the minority (Democrats) need to be present to conduct business. The rules also state that nominations and bills can't move forward unless a "majority of the Committee is actually present at the time."

While Democrats boycotting the hearing would technically mean the committee's rules would bar Republicans from moving forward on Barrett's nomination, it's likely not to stop the process.

Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted that "committee rules can't enforce themselves."

"Were a Democrat to raise a point of order in committee against proceeding, GOP majority could easily vote down the objection," she said on Twitter, noting that any attempt to enforce this rule would be quashed by Republicans who hold the majority.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said the panel will move forward on voting with or without Democrats.

"Judge Barrett deserves a vote and she will receive a vote. Judge Barrett deserves to be reported out of committee and she will be reported out of committee. Judge Barrett deserves to be on the Supreme Court and she will be confirmed," the South Carolina Republican said. "As to my Democratic colleagues’ refusal to attend the markup, that is a choice they are making. I believe it does a disservice to Judge Barrett who deserves a vote, up or down."

Graham said he wasn't worried about the precedent it could set by going around the committee's rules on a quorum, telling reporters, "I worry about the game they're playing, and we’re not gonna. She deserves a vote."