One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
And so she evads like an orange pick
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 next>>
Oct 14, 2020 13:55:28   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:03:52   #
Sonny Magoo Loc: If you ain't Dutch you ain't much.
 
permafrost wrote:
She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
She has not spent nearly enough time practicing la... (show quote)


Sorry Charlie, we don't want tuna with good taste.
We want tuna that tastes good.
...and besides Kagan tastes good too...
..well so they said..

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:10:10   #
Liberty Tree
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)


You are against her because you want another liberal like Ginsberg who twisted the Constitution to fit her extreme left views.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:14:28   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)


You not worth a dirt under her shoe . ..)

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:17:20   #
Milosia
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
You are against her because you want another liberal like Ginsberg who twisted the Constitution to fit her extreme left views.


“You will vote for the Government you deserve ! ”
- Thomas Jefferson-

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:18:54   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Milosia wrote:
“You will vote for the Government you deserve ! ”
- Thomas Jefferson-


Thank God for that!!*

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:20:23   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)



| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:24:59   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)
Amy Coney Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department.

She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, as the number one student in her class, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Following her graduation from Notre Dame, she clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School, as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute.

After her one year clerkship with Justice Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett became a professor of law at her Alumni, the Notre Dame School of Law.

There she taught
LAW60307, Constitutional Law
LAW60308, Civil Procedure
LAW70201, Evidence
LAW70311, Federal Courts
LAW73303, Constitutional Theory Seminar
LAW73370, Statutory Interpretation Seminar

In 2017, Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals 7th district.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:25:35   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)


You are a total mess, and your interpretations
of reality have truly been affected by this thing called TDS.
I seriously doubt that in a nation populated by 340 million people, that one female in the middle of a confirmation hearing would have the agenda that you have dreamed up. Much less the financial capabilities to Orchestrate and Cunduct such a plot on the World Stage of your imagination.
You have truley lost it my friend

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:29:04   #
Liberty Tree
 
Milosia wrote:
“You will vote for the Government you deserve ! ”
- Thomas Jefferson-


And that is not the government you want to force on us.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:32:17   #
Lonewolf
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)


She also wouldn't answer could a president take away voteing rights because of race

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:37:39   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
Lonewolf wrote:
She also wouldn't answer could a president take away voteing rights because of race


Such a stupid question
NWR.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:45:29   #
Seth
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)


Which demonstrates your ignorance about the purpose of a SCOTUS justice.

She is being confirmed to a position in which the one, single, only consideration is the letter of the Constitution, not her personal 🎵feelings 🎶, as the Democrats seem to believe supercede a justice's (or any judge's, for that matter) duty to apply the rule of law.

It is not a job for a political activist, as the Democrats (your ilk) would prefer.

Yet, the not so Fine Steen and other Democrats are using up their hearing minutes preaching to her about Obamacare, the evils of Trump and all sorts of things not pertinent to the hearings at hand.

Fig A: a hand ✋

As she has repeatedly and correctly replied that it would be completely improper for her to mix her irrelevant personal beliefs with her qualifications to be confirmed to the Court.

It has been established that throughout her legal career, she has steadfastly remained an originalist, her teachings and her decisions deferring unerringly and homogeneously to the letter of the Constitution.

The only thing any thinking person could surmise by your post and by the nature of the Democrats' lines of "questioning" at the hearings thus far is that they are afraid of the Constitution because it is inconvenient for their political agendas.

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 14:56:14   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
This is such a dog and pony show. The questions asked from Democrat Senators that aren’t in a tight race are embarrassing to the country.
Seth wrote:
Which demonstrates your ignorance about the purpose of a SCOTUS justice.

She is being confirmed to a position in which the one, single, only consideration is the letter of the Constitution, not her personal 🎵feelings 🎶, as the Democrats seem to believe supercede a justice's (or any judge's, for that matter) duty to apply the rule of law.

It is not a job for a political activist, as the Democrats (your ilk) would prefer.

Yet, the not so Fine Steen and other Democrats are using up their hearing minutes preaching to her about Obamacare, the evils of Trump and all sorts of things not pertinent to the hearings at hand.

Fig A: a hand ✋

As she has repeatedly and correctly replied that it would be completely improper for her to mix her irrelevant personal beliefs with her qualifications to be confirmed to the Court.

It has been established that throughout her legal career, she has steadfastly remained an originalist, her teachings and her decisions deferring unerringly and homogeneously to the letter of the Constitution.

The only thing any thinking person could surmise by your post and by the nature of the Democrats' lines of "questioning" at the hearings thus far is that they are afraid of the Constitution because it is inconvenient for their political agendas.
Which demonstrates your ignorance about the purpos... (show quote)

| Reply
Oct 14, 2020 15:03:59   #
byronglimish Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
permafrost wrote:
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an election, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “militia”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay elections, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any election disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.
The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real wor... (show quote)



When I watched that, I wondered who would condemn her for it and give Biden, (finger banger guy) a pass for saying " voters don't have a right to know if he'll pack the court"

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.