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 e******n, 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”, “m*****a”, “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 e******ns, 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 e******n 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 world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an e******n, 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”, “m*****a”, “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 e******ns, 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 e******n disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.

The package in question is a C****-** stimulus, period, whose purpose is to help businesses and individuals whose situations have been turned upside down by the p******c.

It is not a taxpayer bailout for Democrat politicians whose gross fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted their cities and states -- that's between them and their v**ers, not them and every taxpayer in America -- it is not a taxpayer infusion of mad money for teacher's unions, nor is it the taxpayer's gift to i*****l a***ns who aren't even supposed to be here.

Your ilk has virtually zero respect for the hard earned money of "other people," as is evidenced by your complete lack of hesitation when it comes to padding a bill with unrelated, politically motivated spending.

Had Pelosi been negotiating realistically and in good faith, the stimulus would no doubt have soared through the Senate, been signed by the president and even now, that stimulus money would be in the hands of those who so desperately need it.

There is absolutely no argument for Pelosi's rejection of the partial stimulus proposed in the meantime that would relieve those in need in a timely manner.

Oh, yeah, that's right. She said it herself on national television: "I refuse to allow those in need to receive checks with Trump's name on them."

There is no sane, human argument you can make that justifies Pelosi's allowing pure politics to deprive Americans in need.

She is essentially holding those citizens hostage to her political agendas, and that is despicable in every way, shape and form. By defending her actions, you, by extension, are despicable as well.

The package in question is a C****-** stimulus, period, whose purpose is to help businesses and individuals whose situations have been turned upside down by the p******c.

It is not a taxpayer bailout for Democrat politicians whose gross fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted their cities and states -- that's between them and their v**ers, not them and every taxpayer in America -- it is not a taxpayer infusion of mad money for teacher's unions, nor is it the taxpayer's gift to i*****l a***ns who aren't even supposed to be here.

Your ilk has virtually zero respect for the hard earned money of "other people," as is evidenced by your complete lack of hesitation when it comes to padding a bill with unrelated, politically motivated spending.

Had Pelosi been negotiating realistically and in good faith, the stimulus would no doubt have soared through the Senate, been signed by the president and even now, that stimulus money would be in the hands of those who so desperately need it.

There is absolutely no argument for Pelosi's rejection of the partial stimulus proposed in the meantime that would relieve those in need in a timely manner.

Oh, yeah, that's right. She said it herself on national television: "I refuse to allow those in need to receive checks with Trump's name on them."

There is no sane, human argument you can make that justifies Pelosi's allowing pure politics to deprive Americans in need.

She is essentially holding those citizens hostage to her political agendas, and that is despicable in every way, shape and form. By defending her actions, you, by extension, are despicable as well.

The package in question is a C****-** stimulus, period, whose purpose is to help businesses and individuals whose situations have been turned upside down by the p******c.

It is not a taxpayer bailout for Democrat politicians whose gross fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted their cities and states -- that's between them and their v**ers, not them and every taxpayer in America -- it is not a taxpayer infusion of mad money for teacher's unions, nor is it the taxpayer's gift to i*****l a***ns who aren't even supposed to be here.

Your ilk has virtually zero respect for the hard earned money of "other people," as is evidenced by your complete lack of hesitation when it comes to padding a bill with unrelated, politically motivated spending.

Had Pelosi been negotiating realistically and in good faith, the stimulus would no doubt have soared through the Senate, been signed by the president and even now, that stimulus money would be in the hands of those who so desperately need it.

There is absolutely no argument for Pelosi's rejection of the partial stimulus proposed in the meantime that would relieve those in need in a timely manner.

Oh, yeah, that's right. She said it herself on national television: "I refuse to allow those in need to receive checks with Trump's name on them."

There is no sane, human argument you can make that justifies Pelosi's allowing pure politics to deprive Americans in need.

She is essentially holding those citizens hostage to her political agendas, and that is despicable in every way, shape and form. By defending her actions, you, by extension, are despicable as well.

The package in question is a C****-** stimulus, period, whose purpose is to help businesses and individuals whose situations have been turned upside down by the p******c.

It is not a taxpayer bailout for Democrat politicians whose gross fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted their cities and states -- that's between them and their v**ers, not them and every taxpayer in America -- it is not a taxpayer infusion of mad money for teacher's unions, nor is it the taxpayer's gift to i*****l a***ns who aren't even supposed to be here.

Your ilk has virtually zero respect for the hard earned money of "other people," as is evidenced by your complete lack of hesitation when it comes to padding a bill with unrelated, politically motivated spending.

Had Pelosi been negotiating realistically and in good faith, the stimulus would no doubt have soared through the Senate, been signed by the president and even now, that stimulus money would be in the hands of those who so desperately need it.

There is absolutely no argument for Pelosi's rejection of the partial stimulus proposed in the meantime that would relieve those in need in a timely manner.

Oh, yeah, that's right. She said it herself on national television: "I refuse to allow those in need to receive checks with Trump's name on them."

There is no sane, human argument you can make that justifies Pelosi's allowing pure politics to deprive Americans in need.

She is essentially holding those citizens hostage to her political agendas, and that is despicable in every way, shape and form. By defending her actions, you, by extension, are despicable as well.

The package in question is a C****-** stimulus, period, whose purpose is to help businesses and individuals whose situations have been turned upside down by the p******c.

It is not a taxpayer bailout for Democrat politicians whose gross fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted their cities and states -- that's between them and their v**ers, not them and every taxpayer in America -- it is not a taxpayer infusion of mad money for teacher's unions, nor is it the taxpayer's gift to i*****l a***ns who aren't even supposed to be here.

Your ilk has virtually zero respect for the hard earned money of "other people," as is evidenced by your complete lack of hesitation when it comes to padding a bill with unrelated, politically motivated spending.

Had Pelosi been negotiating realistically and in good faith, the stimulus would no doubt have soared through the Senate, been signed by the president and even now, that stimulus money would be in the hands of those who so desperately need it.

There is absolutely no argument for Pelosi's rejection of the partial stimulus proposed in the meantime that would relieve those in need in a timely manner.

Oh, yeah, that's right. She said it herself on national television: "I refuse to allow those in need to receive checks with Trump's name on them."

There is no sane, human argument you can make that justifies Pelosi's allowing pure politics to deprive Americans in need.

She is essentially holding those citizens hostage to her political agendas, and that is despicable in every way, shape and form. By defending her actions, you, by extension, are despicable as well.