What's the deal with Amy Coney Barrett?

[Brian4Liberty]

It would be good to know more about her. A one issue Supreme Court nomination would be very bad. Everything I hear about her revolves around abortion, nothing about anything else. We don't need another Roberts in there.

I don't know that I've seen a "candidate" for anything pushed as much by the establishment as Amy Coney Barrett. Calling her by three names is like a blatant marketing scam. Replace three name "Darth Vader Ginsberg" with "Amy Coney Barrett".

I get the feeling another Roberts is being pushed here.

[Pauls' Revere]

I don't know that I've seen a "candidate" for anything pushed as much by the establishment as Amy Coney Barrett. Calling her by three names is like a blatant marketing scam. Replace three name "Darth Vader Ginsberg" with "Amy Coney Barrett".

I get the feeling another Roberts is being pushed here.

I think that the single issue bit is largely due to RBG and the abortion history with her. Its going to be the issue regardless of who the nominee is. "Are they pro-life or Pro-Choice" there is this default ideology that the next one must be "just like" RBG otherwise the Earth will stop rotating around the Sun.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think that the single issue bit is largely due to RBG and the abortion history with her. Its going to be the issue regardless of who the nominee is. "Are they pro-life or Pro-Choice" there is this default ideology that the next one must be "just like" RBG otherwise the Earth will stop rotating around the Sun.

Thought I heard a positive story about ACB (let's go ahead and give her a three letter acronym now, like RBG or AOC) from the New York Neocon Times the other day. I can't help but feel there is a set-up going on in all of this.

[Pauls' Revere]

Thought I heard a positive story about ACB (let's go ahead and give her a three letter acronym now, like RBG or AOC) from the New York Neocon Times the other day. I can't help but feel there is a set-up going on in all of this.

Wtf, omg ACB LOL! smdh 4tptb

[enhanced_deficit]

It would be good to know more about her...

She has 7 children, that's all we need to know.
There are also no reports of her taking a ride in Epstein's plane.

The Less More You Know!

H/T NBC media mis-information wing.

[dannno]

She allegedly made a poor legal decision recently regarding COVID lockdowns, not sure if she has a good legal explanation for that.

[donnay]

I don't know that I've seen a "candidate" for anything pushed as much by the establishment as Amy Coney Barrett. Calling her by three names is like a blatant marketing scam. Replace three name "Darth Vader Ginsberg" with "Amy Coney Barrett".

I get the feeling another Roberts is being pushed here.

You're absolutely on the right track.

[Slave Mentality]

She is down with Uncle Sugar running your life and is cool with them needling you against your will. It’s no wonder that they are pushing her tyranny loving ass.

[RJB]

I doubt she will get the nod. Presidents tend to release a name. That candidate takes all the flack. Then the president nominates an unknown.

Although in Trump's case, he rarely does what most presidents do.

[Anti Globalist]

If she is pro lock down, then I don't want anything to do with her.

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

If she is pro lock down, then I don't want anything to do with her.

I'm with you there. I was excited to read about her one very pro-2nd Amendment ruling, but if she is defending the lockdowns, I'm out.

[RJB]

This is one of the most insane hit pieces that I have ever seen.

[VIDEODROME]

I think she was appointed Federal Judge in 2017 and previously was a lawyer and teacher. Is just a few years experience as a Judge really enough to nominate someone to the Supreme Court?

[Mini-Me]

She allegedly made a poor legal decision recently regarding COVID lockdowns, not sure if she has a good legal explanation for that.

I don't have all the facts, but from my understanding this was not a "pro-lockdown" political decision, but a narrow legal rejection of the sketchy argument the plaintiffs were presenting:

The plaintiffs were making a weak legal argument against state-level lockdowns on the basis of the 14th Amendment, and it would have arguably been a stretch to accept it. Doing so might also set a precedent eroding states' rights in other cases where an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment is more dangerous...kind of like how a stretchy interpretation of the 9th Amendment got us Roe vs. Wade. If you don't see yet how that might be dangerous with the 14th, think about where the farthest reaches of LGBTQP stuff is going, where the P stands for Pedophile.

Saying "We can't kill the lockdowns on these grounds" is not the same thing as saying, "The lockdowns are okay." Unlike the almost-70-year-old Saint Benitez, being a serious Supreme Court candidate means she doesn't [yet?] have the luxury of ignoring the plaintiffs' actual arguments and making better ones FOR them that they never actually introduced. (YMMV on whether judges making pro-Constitutional arguments the plaintiffs didn't think of, is being an activist judge.) She had to go with what they presented, and it seems like they dropped the ball.

It's still possible that she's a snake in the grass, but jumping to that conclusion based on this decision seems prejudicial to me. In the past she's ruled for expansive interpretations of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments, and that combination is generally reassuring: The first one shows she's no left-winger, while the last one shows she's no Kavanaugh-like neocon.

[phill4paul]

I really haven't had time to go over his picks. They are all clowns in gowns that re-interpret original intent. And always will be.

So does anyone have a short list of qualifications for his contenders?

From what little I've read Barbara Lagoa would be a slam dunk pick and pick up the Latino vote.

[dannno]

I don't have all the facts, but from my understanding this was not a "pro-lockdown" political decision, but a narrow legal rejection of the sketchy argument the plaintiffs were presenting:

The plaintiffs were making a weak legal argument against state-level lockdowns on the basis of the 14th Amendment, and it would have arguably been a stretch to accept it. Doing so might also set a precedent eroding states' rights in other cases where an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment is more dangerous...kind of like how a stretchy interpretation of the 9th Amendment got us Roe vs. Wade. If you don't see yet how that might be dangerous with the 14th, think about where the farthest reaches of LGBTQP stuff is going, where the P stands for Pedophile.

Saying "We can't kill the lockdowns on these grounds" is not the same thing as saying, "The lockdowns are okay." Unlike the almost-70-year-old Saint Benitez, being a serious Supreme Court candidate means she doesn't [yet?] have the luxury of ignoring the plaintiffs' actual arguments and making better ones FOR them that they never actually introduced. (YMMV on whether judges making pro-Constitutional arguments the plaintiffs didn't think of, is being an activist judge.) She had to go with what they presented, and it seems like they dropped the ball.

It's still possible that she's a snake in the grass, but jumping to that conclusion based on this decision seems prejudicial to me. In the past she's ruled for expansive interpretations of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments, and that combination is generally reassuring: The first one shows she's no left-winger, while the last one shows she's no Kavanaugh-like neocon.

Thank you for the info

[eleganz]

I don't know that I've seen a "candidate" for anything pushed as much by the establishment as Amy Coney Barrett. Calling her by three names is like a blatant marketing scam. Replace three name "Darth Vader Ginsberg" with "Amy Coney Barrett".

I get the feeling another Roberts is being pushed here.

Agreed, don't like her, shes the wrong choice. Many poor rulings. If Trump goes through with this pick it'll be a hell of an improvement over RBG but nothing to smile about. Her nomination likely wont pass as easy as lagoa, who was confirmed 80-15.

[donnay]

I really haven't had time to go over his picks. They are all clowns in gowns that re-interpret original intent. And always will be.

So does anyone have a short list of qualifications for his contenders?

From what little I've read Barbara Lagoa would be a slam dunk pick and pick up the Latino vote.

Yes she would. She also represented Elian Gonzales pro bono. Lagpa has a much better track record.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes she would. She also represented Elian Gonzales pro bono. Lagpa has a much better track record.

The one thing we have to remember is that he can only lose three Republican/RINO votes so the Senate has a big say in who he gets to pick.

ACB will be a massive improvement over Darth Bader even if the worst interpretation of her record is correct.

[Swordsmyth]

Agreed, don't like her, shes the wrong choice. Many poor rulings. If Trump goes through with this pick it'll be a hell of an improvement over RBG but nothing to smile about. Her nomination likely wont pass as easy as lagoa, who was confirmed 80-15.

I have seen the argument made that so many Demoncrats voting for Lagoa is a bad sign.

[enhanced_deficit]

Interesting development, some of the high profile Deep Neocons are defending ACB; widely respected Iraq war championing neoconservative Joe Lieberman just came to ACB's defense and criticized those who were criticizing her 'because of her religious beliefs'. (Ironically, same Lieberman had praised and compared to Moses a controversial Deep Ziocons linked and lately Trump supporting pastor who had championed wars in the name of Jesus and also repeatedly used very offensive language about Catholics).

With limited info, still not convinced that this is another Deep Neocons play to game the base gullibles with clever marketing ahead of appointment. But anyone knows what are her stances on Forever Wars authorizations, Deep State (perpetual wars profiteers wing)/Deep Neocons, civil liberties, America-First etc?

Joe Lieberman slams 'un-American' criticism of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Catholic faith

Former senator, 2000 Dem VP choice calls criticism of judge's religion 'really abhorrent'

foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

[Swordsmyth]

Interesting development, some of the high profile Deep Neocons are defending ACB; widely respected Iraq war championing neoconservative Joe Lieberman just came to ACB's defense and criticized those who were criticizing her 'because of her religious beliefs'. (Ironically, same Lieberman had praised and compared to Moses a controversial Deep Ziocons linked and lately Trump supporting pastor who had championed wars in the name of Jesus and also repeatedly used very offensive language about Catholics).

With limited info, still not convinced that this is another Deep Neocons play to game the base gullibles with clever marketing ahead of appointment. But anyone knows what are her stances on Forever Wars authorizations, Deep State (perpetual wars profiteers wing)/Deep Neocons, civil liberties, America-First etc?



foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

Rand says she is good and for those who listen to Judge Swamp he also says she is good.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1309963184565084160

[VIDEO] Judge Nap discusses Amy Barrett

[enhanced_deficit]

Rand says she is good and for those who listen to Judge Swamp he also says she is good.

.. and also for those who listen to Deep Neocons like Joe Lieberman, she is not bad.

Rand is better than 98+% of politicians but his political stances do seem to evolve from time to time as he gains more political maturity; not too long ago he had called GOPA globalists funded leader 'less presidential than a speck of dirt' if recall correctly.

[donnay]

The one thing we have to remember is that he can only lose three Republican/RINO votes so the Senate has a big say in who he gets to pick.

ACB will be a massive improvement over Darth Bader even if the worst interpretation of her record is correct.

Her siding with Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), is a real problem for me.

[RJB]

I saw some of my progressive friends go nuts about this meme. It blasphemed the newly canonized RBG.

[Brian4Liberty]

I saw some of my progressive friends go nuts about this meme. It blasphemed the newly canonized RBG.

What do we call RBG now? St. Ruth? Lord Bader?

[Pauls' Revere]

I think she was appointed Federal Judge in 2017 and previously was a lawyer and teacher. Is just a few years experience as a Judge really enough to nominate someone to the Supreme Court?

What does the constitution say about that?

[Anti Globalist]

What do we call RBG now? St. Ruth? Lord Bader?

I'll stick with calling her a witch.

[unknown]

I don't know that I've seen a "candidate" for anything pushed as much by the establishment as Amy Coney Barrett. Calling her by three names is like a blatant marketing scam. Replace three name "Darth Vader Ginsberg" with "Amy Coney Barrett".

I get the feeling another Roberts is being pushed here.

If the "establishment" actually likes her, she must be a piece of $#@!.

[unknown]

This is one of the most insane hit pieces that I have ever seen.

If shes pro-life, thats obviously a good thing.