jimnyc
09-27-2020, 04:22 PM
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! https://i.imgur.com/Gc6fiKy.gif
They tell you that you will lose your rights, but then show no examples of her decisions leading to people losing their rights. They cite nothing but her views, statements, speeches & events. Understood that the views carry weight - but with no history of using them in her decisions as they imply, it doesn't matter much.
She is going to bring about major cases all on her own to the court, she'll write the arguments, and then she'll convince all 9 justices to vote in favor. :laugh:
And to add some humor, read words of wisdom below from an ID10T!
---
Kiss Your Rights Goodbye When Amy Coney Barrett Joins SCOTUS
President Trump’s plan to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court is a shocking political spectacle. The formal announcement Saturday will come the day after Ginsburg became the first woman and the first Jew to lie in state at the Capitol, and less than 40 days before the presidential election.
In 2016, Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, 260 days before that year’s election.
The nomination is also a remarkable achievement for the religious right. In less than four years, Trump will have selected three of the court’s nine justices (and notably, the three youngest justices, who are likely to have the longest terms on the bench), all of whom are religious conservatives affiliated with (or chosen by) the right-wing Federalist Society.
Like Judge Garland, who was denied even a hearing, Judge Barrett is unquestionably qualified. She has written numerous scholarly articles on a wide variety of legal and philosophical issues, and unlike some recent Trump nominees, appears to have a spotless ethical record.
But Barrett is also an arch-conservative who has espoused troubling views about the intersection of her personal beliefs with her role as a judge, and who will fundamentally alter the American legal landscape on a number of issues.
Obviously, abortion is the highest-profile of these, and it’s easy to see why every major anti-abortion organization in America hailed Barrett when she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit. She has criticized Roe v. Wade as “judicial fiat” and an “erroneous decision.”
And at a Notre Dame Law School event 2013, she asked, rhetorically, “Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?”
That, of course, is intrinsically an anti-choice position. We don’t ask whether it would be better or worse for a state to violate constitutional rights–for Mississippi to outlaw Islam, for example, or Vermont to ban the Republican party. If a constitutional right is at issue–as the Supreme Court held in Roe–then the whole point of judicial review is that it doesn’t matter if it would be “better” for legislatures to fight it out.
Barrett made a similar argument regarding same-sex marriage. In a 2016 lecture she agreed with the dissenters in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that invalidated same-sex marriage bans, saying that while legislatures could grant same-sex marriage rights, it wasn’t for the courts to decide. “It’s really a who decides question,” Barrett said.
Once again, to say it’s a “who decides” question is to conclude that there is no constitutional right at issue.
Likewise on other issues, in which Judge Barrett has, without a single exception I could find, taken the right-wing point of view: Obamacare (“Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning”), immigration, guns, and others.
Finally, as has been widely reported, Barrett is a devout religious conservative. She is a member of a charismatic Catholic group called “People of Praise,” which has some unusual practices and teaches extremely conservative social teachings about men and women.
On its own, none of that matters since Barrett’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on her fitness as a Supreme Court justice.
However, Barrett has made several troubling statements regarding how religious belief impacts the roles of lawyers and judges. Most famously, she said in 2006 that a legal career should be “a means to an end,” namely “building the Kingdom of God.” Now, despite much liberal hand-wringing over this comment, it, alone, is not so problematic. It may simply mean to build a more just and equitable world, as the Bible requires. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg herself had Biblical injunctions to pursue justice on her chamber walls.
Rest - https://www.yahoo.com/news/kiss-rights-goodbye-amy-coney-223409247.html
Barbra Streisand: Amy Coney Barrett ‘Will Set the Country Back Decades’
Barbra Streisand told her 700,000 Twitter followers that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a wife, mother of seven, who’s received bipartisan praise for her judicial decisions, was picked out of spite, and Barrett will “set the country back decades,” should her nomination be confirmed.
The left-wing pop diva and Joe Biden backer said Judge Barrett is the “polar opposite” of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, opposes “the right to choose,” and Obamacare. “A spiteful Donald Trump picked a woman who is the polar opposite of RBG. Barrett opposes the ACA and a woman’s right to choose her reproductive decisions. She will set the country back decades. Remember the GOP did this in November,” Barbra Streisand tweeted on Sunday.
https://i.imgur.com/GU340zV.png
The Walls singer goes off on left-wing politics weekly on her Twitter feed. A few days before her attack on Judge Barrett’s integrity, Streisand was attacking President Trump for what she claims is his desire to make our air and water dirty.
“Do we want to have a President who deals with the reality of climate change, who favors clean air and water, and embraces the jobs of the future in renewable energy?” Streisand tweeted on Friday. “Or does the country really want Donald Trump, who doesn’t deal with reality at all, like Covid-19?”
https://i.imgur.com/Vv1eL7h.png
Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/27/barbra-streisand-amy-coney-barrett-will-set-the-country-back-decades/
They tell you that you will lose your rights, but then show no examples of her decisions leading to people losing their rights. They cite nothing but her views, statements, speeches & events. Understood that the views carry weight - but with no history of using them in her decisions as they imply, it doesn't matter much.
She is going to bring about major cases all on her own to the court, she'll write the arguments, and then she'll convince all 9 justices to vote in favor. :laugh:
And to add some humor, read words of wisdom below from an ID10T!
---
Kiss Your Rights Goodbye When Amy Coney Barrett Joins SCOTUS
President Trump’s plan to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court is a shocking political spectacle. The formal announcement Saturday will come the day after Ginsburg became the first woman and the first Jew to lie in state at the Capitol, and less than 40 days before the presidential election.
In 2016, Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, 260 days before that year’s election.
The nomination is also a remarkable achievement for the religious right. In less than four years, Trump will have selected three of the court’s nine justices (and notably, the three youngest justices, who are likely to have the longest terms on the bench), all of whom are religious conservatives affiliated with (or chosen by) the right-wing Federalist Society.
Like Judge Garland, who was denied even a hearing, Judge Barrett is unquestionably qualified. She has written numerous scholarly articles on a wide variety of legal and philosophical issues, and unlike some recent Trump nominees, appears to have a spotless ethical record.
But Barrett is also an arch-conservative who has espoused troubling views about the intersection of her personal beliefs with her role as a judge, and who will fundamentally alter the American legal landscape on a number of issues.
Obviously, abortion is the highest-profile of these, and it’s easy to see why every major anti-abortion organization in America hailed Barrett when she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit. She has criticized Roe v. Wade as “judicial fiat” and an “erroneous decision.”
And at a Notre Dame Law School event 2013, she asked, rhetorically, “Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?”
That, of course, is intrinsically an anti-choice position. We don’t ask whether it would be better or worse for a state to violate constitutional rights–for Mississippi to outlaw Islam, for example, or Vermont to ban the Republican party. If a constitutional right is at issue–as the Supreme Court held in Roe–then the whole point of judicial review is that it doesn’t matter if it would be “better” for legislatures to fight it out.
Barrett made a similar argument regarding same-sex marriage. In a 2016 lecture she agreed with the dissenters in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that invalidated same-sex marriage bans, saying that while legislatures could grant same-sex marriage rights, it wasn’t for the courts to decide. “It’s really a who decides question,” Barrett said.
Once again, to say it’s a “who decides” question is to conclude that there is no constitutional right at issue.
Likewise on other issues, in which Judge Barrett has, without a single exception I could find, taken the right-wing point of view: Obamacare (“Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning”), immigration, guns, and others.
Finally, as has been widely reported, Barrett is a devout religious conservative. She is a member of a charismatic Catholic group called “People of Praise,” which has some unusual practices and teaches extremely conservative social teachings about men and women.
On its own, none of that matters since Barrett’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on her fitness as a Supreme Court justice.
However, Barrett has made several troubling statements regarding how religious belief impacts the roles of lawyers and judges. Most famously, she said in 2006 that a legal career should be “a means to an end,” namely “building the Kingdom of God.” Now, despite much liberal hand-wringing over this comment, it, alone, is not so problematic. It may simply mean to build a more just and equitable world, as the Bible requires. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg herself had Biblical injunctions to pursue justice on her chamber walls.
Rest - https://www.yahoo.com/news/kiss-rights-goodbye-amy-coney-223409247.html
Barbra Streisand: Amy Coney Barrett ‘Will Set the Country Back Decades’
Barbra Streisand told her 700,000 Twitter followers that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a wife, mother of seven, who’s received bipartisan praise for her judicial decisions, was picked out of spite, and Barrett will “set the country back decades,” should her nomination be confirmed.
The left-wing pop diva and Joe Biden backer said Judge Barrett is the “polar opposite” of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, opposes “the right to choose,” and Obamacare. “A spiteful Donald Trump picked a woman who is the polar opposite of RBG. Barrett opposes the ACA and a woman’s right to choose her reproductive decisions. She will set the country back decades. Remember the GOP did this in November,” Barbra Streisand tweeted on Sunday.
https://i.imgur.com/GU340zV.png
The Walls singer goes off on left-wing politics weekly on her Twitter feed. A few days before her attack on Judge Barrett’s integrity, Streisand was attacking President Trump for what she claims is his desire to make our air and water dirty.
“Do we want to have a President who deals with the reality of climate change, who favors clean air and water, and embraces the jobs of the future in renewable energy?” Streisand tweeted on Friday. “Or does the country really want Donald Trump, who doesn’t deal with reality at all, like Covid-19?”
https://i.imgur.com/Vv1eL7h.png
Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/27/barbra-streisand-amy-coney-barrett-will-set-the-country-back-decades/