Amy Coney Barrett

[wildcat09 29258]

The real bonus of not engaging them on their obvious horseshit is how angry it clearly makes them.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

20 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I imagine you’re 40ish years late to win an award for that post. 

Good, makes me only 20 years behind the settled legal decision that was clear.

[formermav43 4599]

1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

Good, makes me only 20 years behind the settled legal decision that was clear.

No award for math either.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

No award for math either.

Lol, I’m crying for thinking it was the 60s and not the 70s. Shattered

[Bama Chick 28596]

Can the simps defending this nominee clear up three things for me?

1 - Do you believe a judge that only has three years of experience is qualified to be a SC Justice?

2 - Do you agree with her position that convicted felons have the constitutional right to own a gun but not the constitutional right to vote?

3 - Are you comfortable with the fact that with her confirmation we will have three justices - Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett - that worked on the Bush legal team or consulted the Bush legal team during the 2000 election recount?

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

In cases of rape, the unborn wear the guilt...

Fucking terrible take, take the neg and fuck yourself pussy.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

6 hours ago, slorch said:

why is it our obligation.

Stop random fucking.

 

it's funny as fuck how y'all act like sex just overwhelms the individual.

Another stupid ass take.  You fucking suck and I’m sure your kid is ashamed of you.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Another stupid ass take.  You fucking suck and I’m sure your kid is ashamed of you.

Just one of them?   LOlz.

[Underdog 28457]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

That's great.  Pretty simple argument to make without intersecting it with a developmentally challenged 5 year old.  But you guys do you. 

lol

[Horn Dog 9674]

10 hours ago, GRHorn said:

The laws should be changed by Congress who are held to account by elections.  I believe the power should lie with them like the founders intended. 

This sounds great and all, but lets be clear.  You want GOP congresses and GOP Presidents to be able to change laws.  You do not want Dem congresses and Dem Presidents to be able to pass laws, and when they do you have no issue with the SC overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.  I know you won’t do it, but it would be really refreshing if you  could just be honest about it.

[Thatguy 8505]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:04 PM, Mapache said:

Such hypocrisy

 

   Man, she is spitting hot fire here. I was busy watching the Lakers game. Being a devout Catholic, I am sure she stood by her word and refused the nomination, right?

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

12 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Would you like to talk about her "super-precedents" analysis?

Note (from here law journal article linked above) - ACB wrote some things are unconstitutional yet cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court at this stage." ". . . in the case of so-called “super precedents”—decisions that no serious person would propose to undo even if they are wrong—an originalist justice will not have to choose between fidelity and faint-heartedness." 

"No one is likely to ask the Supreme Court to rethink arguably nonoriginalist decisions like the constitutionality of the Social Security Administration, paper money, or segregated public schools—and if anyone did ask, the Court would deny certiorari."

Stated another way - originalists question the constitutionality of SS, paper money and forced segregation of school districts. What's left out of her super-precedents - the right to privacy.

Why?

I think this is a decent point of view- it’s refreshing for an originalist to acknowledge that an originalist perspective on the constitution isn’t a get out of reality free card or a  good reason (in and of itself) to reorder society. The idea of a super precedent seems fairly self-evident to me. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

11 hours ago, slorch said:

why is it our obligation.

Stop random fucking.

 

it's funny as fuck how y'all act like sex just overwhelms the individual.

If you’re a Christian it’s your obligation because Christ told you it was. 

 

“Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

“Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did not do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 

 

On my 3rd year OB rotation we took labor and delivery call at parkland, at the time the highest volume L&D in the country. Youngest we had come in during my 8 weeks of call was 12. She got pregnant when she was 11. Her uncle raped her (probably more than once but at least once). She never told anyone but it became obvious when she started showing. Oh and this was mid 90s and uncle had AIDS. Tom Hanks in Philadelphia AIDS not the Magic Johnson kind. Little girl and her baby were HIV+. She wound up having a C section for failure to progress. Otherwise the baby —and maybe she— would have died. You will never convince me a person in her situation should be forced to carry a child to term. It just adds tragedy to tragedy  

Thats an extreme example but every unwanted pregnancy has a backstory. And carrying the child to term may result in more tragedy or unbelievable blessings (or both). But ultimately only one person has to risk her health, wellbeing, and maybe life to find out how it turns out. She should be the one making the choice not the government. And I say this as someone who likely would have been aborted had I been conceived after roe v wade 
 

If you believe in God you should trust Him to handle it this issue. You can busy yourself trying to make sure the poor have food, shelter and clothing, and work on leading them to Christ if that is one of your talents. 
 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Can the simps defending this nominee clear up three things for me?

1 - Do you believe a judge that only has three years of experience is qualified to be a SC Justice?

2 - Do you agree with her position that convicted felons have the constitutional right to own a gun but not the constitutional right to vote?

3 - Are you comfortable with the fact that with her confirmation we will have three justices - Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett - that worked on the Bush legal team or consulted the Bush legal team during the 2000 election recount?

1) No.

2) If the state can constitutionally deprive a felon of life how the constitution not permit depriving them of weapons or the franchise?

3) No, but elections have consequences.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Guest]

@sawbonz

I love it when people tell me what Christ would compel me to do.

I also don't believe in the "make life better through eugenics" line of thought.  It's freaking horrific, as is abortion.

The child doesn't know the circumstances of its conception.  That's why i don't believe in abortion as a solution to rape.  If there is a choice to be made between the mother's life and that of the child, that is when abortion is a viable option, IMHO.

 

All of that being said, we're never going to agree on abortion.  I have been open about saying Roe V Wade should not be pursued as some "threat to society."  It's a waste of fucking time. I firmly believe in raising children who would never have an abortion, except to save a life. 

  Changing the law isn't going to stop abortion, either. The topic is extremely divisive in a discussion that is far, far more reaching than just the right to choice or right to life.  I certainly do not think Roe V Wade ever gets taken down. The topic is just a wedge driver.   I hate the tactic( not pointed at you,) but rather the thread.

Edited September 27, 2020 by slorch

[Sawbonz 27436]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

@sawbonz

I love it when people tell me what Christ would compel me to do.

I also don't believe in the "make like better through eugenics" line of thought.  It's freaking horrific, as is abortion.

The child doesn't know the circumstances of its conception.  That's why i don't believe in abortion as a solution to rape.  If there is a choice to be made between the mother's life and that of the child, that is when abortion is a viable option, IMHO.

 

All of that being said, we're never going to agree on abortion.  I have been open about saying Roe V Wade should not be pursued as some "threat to society."  It's a waste of fucking time. I firmly believe in raising children who would never have an abortion, except to save a life. 

  Changing the law isn't going to stop abortion, either. The topic is extremely divisive in a discussion that is far, far more reaching than just the right to choice or right to life.

I’m a little confused. You seem to be using your religious beliefs to justify your opposition to abortion yet you feel no obligation based on your religious beliefs to care for poor children and single mothers? 
 

also wrt your personal views on when abortion is acceptable do you want the law to be in line with those views?

Edited September 27, 2020 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31283]

12 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Would you like to talk about her "super-precedents" analysis?

Note (from here law journal article linked above) - ACB wrote some things are unconstitutional yet cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court at this stage." ". . . in the case of so-called “super precedents”—decisions that no serious person would propose to undo even if they are wrong—an originalist justice will not have to choose between fidelity and faint-heartedness." 

"No one is likely to ask the Supreme Court to rethink arguably nonoriginalist decisions like the constitutionality of the Social Security Administration, paper money, or segregated public schools—and if anyone did ask, the Court would deny certiorari."

Stated another way - originalists question the constitutionality of SS, paper money and forced segregation of school districts. What's left out of her super-precedents - the right to privacy.

Why?

Setting aside her religious inclinations, an academic who maintains that a decision is wrong because it is not originalist is really way too doctrinaire to serve on the Supreme Court.

Anyone with a lick of honesty and practicality is going to admit that no constitutional interpretive philosophy is correct every time.  Because there are many occasions where it just doesn't apply or doesn't supply any framework for decision.

I think even Antonin Scalia would concede that originalism is his preferred approach and is a better approach than others in most cases, but would not say that any decision that applied something other than an originalist interpretation is flat wrong as a result.  Or that a correct result could not be obtained through another interpretive device.

It's like trying to say one single theory explains gravity or light for all cases.  It's crazy.

It also kind of sounds like she's trying to discern the will of God or some other "absolute" rectitude.  That's nuts.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

37 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think this is a decent point of view- it’s refreshing for an originalist to acknowledge that an originalist perspective on the constitution isn’t a get out of reality free card or a  good reason (in and of itself) to reorder society. The idea of a super precedent seems fairly self-evident to me. 

The net result is good, but it can be stated a lot more simply:  settled law is settled law and stare decisis demands that we not overturn it without compelling reason and not just because we have the votes to do it.

Some of the thoughts underlying that strike me as a bit nutty and certainly uselessly academic.  But, I am going off very little information.

I really think she's un- or insufficiently qualified.  Too much academia, too little real world.  That's an objection I have to many of them, but they tend to have more real-world (even if the real-world is governmental) experience.

Edited September 27, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

Well said

[Biff Tannen 45499]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Can the simps defending this nominee clear up three things for me?

1 - Do you believe a judge that only has three years of experience is qualified to be a SC Justice?

2 - Do you agree with her position that convicted felons have the constitutional right to own a gun but not the constitutional right to vote?

3 - Are you comfortable with the fact that with her confirmation we will have three justices - Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett - that worked on the Bush legal team or consulted the Bush legal team during the 2000 election recount?

Uh, I’m gonna go with a resounding YES for question number three. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Some settled law deserves(d) to be overturned.  Plessy v. Ferguson (which was),  Dred Scott (which was by the 14th Amendment, but should have been anyway); Korematsu (which hasn't been but is largely irrelevant), and probably Buck v. Bell (also mostly irrelevant), I'm sure there are other examples.

Watching "On The Basis of Sex," which I think is a pretty good movie, but maybe it's because I'm a law geek, there is a quotation attributed to Paul Freund (a top con law scholar in the 40s, 50s):

The Court “should never be influenced by the weather of the day but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era.”

It's actually stated in a lecture for Marty Ginsburg that Ruth was attending on his behalf while he was recovering from cancer surgery or chemo or something.

It's not referred to again in the movie (that I noticed), but was a guiding principle for RBG.  I thought that was pretty good.

Some academics, and perhaps the entire originalist "sect" think that neither the weather nor the climate is applicable to the Court, that it applies some immutable principles to the issues it addresses.  Others, particularly of the more liberal bent, seem to think the Court should respond to the "daily forecast."

Anyone with a more realistic or practical bent probably has to agree with Freund's statement.

Edited September 27, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29258]

Korematsu was recently “overturned.” I use quotation marks there because the decision purporting to overturn it, Trump v. Hawaii, actually substantively ratified it while pretending otherwise.

[bad_teammate 13132]

RBG and Obama both failed in their own ways to protect Roe. The GOP is evil, but that's not new. When an evil person beats you because you like to pretend they aren't evil so you can feel holy then you're a bad leader and shouldn't be trusted.

The Dems got owned. Trump gets a third SC judge in his 4-year term.

Complete and total losers. If we want to not be losers in the future we should look at our personnel and coaching instead of constantly fucking crying at the refs. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

RBG and Obama both failed in their own ways to protect Roe. The GOP is evil, but that's not new. When an evil person beats you because you like to pretend they aren't evil so you can feel holy then you're a bad leader and shouldn't be trusted.

The Dems got owned. Trump gets a third SC judge in his 4-year term.

Complete and total losers. If we want to not be losers in the future we should look at our personnel and coaching instead of constantly fucking crying at the refs. 

Even though I believe Amy will vote to overturn Roe I think she will be on the losing side of 5-4 decision if there are still only 9 judges at the time. Then the anti abortion crowd will go absolutely nuts. 

[wildcat09 29258]

I swear to god the next time I see a Democrat say that some Republican is going to save something we care about I’m going to get punchy.

They’ve given up the pretense that they’re not fucking evil. It’s insane that some Democrats can’t.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

They stole an election in 2000 and then started completely unnecessary wars that have killed 1+M people.

They surpassed the Democrats in evil a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago. Clinton tried very hard to match them in the 90s but they have spent the last 20 years just breaking away astonishingly.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I'm catching up on this nomination, having mostly been concerned with the machinations of majority Senate controlling the consideration of a particular nominee.

 

Can somebody explain exactly what about the ACA might be unconstitutional?  Trump already got rid of the most "offensive" part for many Americans.  What about the remainder of the act is illegal?

The idea that insurance companies must be compelled to cover preexisting conditions is not new.  Bill Clinton drove that home while he was President.

What's the issue here?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I swear to god the next time I see a Democrat say that some Republican is going to save something we care about I’m going to get punchy.

They’ve given up the pretense that they’re not fucking evil. It’s insane that some Democrats can’t.

 

Same same. I'm still a little amazed at those that look at Roberts and say, 'oh he'll do the right thing.'

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

My 2 cents is that she isn't qualified. She lacks experience and should not have been nominated.

 

 

 

 

[Horn Dog 9674]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm catching up on this nomination, having mostly been concerned with the machinations of majority Senate controlling the consideration of a particular nominee.

 

Can somebody explain exactly what about the ACA might be unconstitutional?  Trump already got rid of the most "offensive" part for many Americans.  What about the remainder of the act is illegal?

The idea that insurance companies must be compelled to cover preexisting conditions is not new.  Bill Clinton drove that home while he was President.

What's the issue here?

I am sure someone smarter will explain this better but my understanding is the GOPs argument is the law was passed under Congresses authority to tax (the penalty for not having insurance being a tax).  Then the GOP came along and reduced the penalty to $0.   Now they say since the penalty is $0, there is no tax and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional 

[zork 629]

Quote

Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

 

 

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-26/amy-coney-barrett-deserves-to-be-on-the-supreme-court

[hobbes2702 12846]

15 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Great argument. I'll remember that when someone states he did something, and me, a Christian, states something else that'll be in my mind forever.

I’m not going to argue with your delusions.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

11 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I am sure someone smarter will explain this better but my understanding is the GOPs argument is the law was passed under Congresses authority to tax (the penalty for not having insurance being a tax).  Then the GOP came along and reduced the penalty to $0.   Now they say since the penalty is $0, there is no tax and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional 

That makes no sense.  I get what you're saying, but it's semantic.  The remainder of the act is in no way "unconstitutional", so the argument is that the means by which it was passed renders it unconstitutional, since as it stands now it would not make it through the process?

[JimmyJames 12271]

She’s been on the bench three years. In no way is she qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Trump thinks she will help him steal the election and the anti abortion crowd knows she will vote to overturn roe v Wade.  That’s it. The libertarian members of our board support her for unknown reasons. 

[workswithseed 2037]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some settled law deserves(d) to be overturned.  Plessy v. Ferguson (which was),  Dred Scott (which was by the 14th Amendment, but should have been anyway); Korematsu (which hasn't been but is largely irrelevant), and probably Buck v. Bell (also mostly irrelevant), I'm sure there are other examples.

Watching "On The Basis of Sex," which I think is a pretty good movie, but maybe it's because I'm a law geek, there is a quotation attributed to Paul Freund (a top con law scholar in the 40s, 50s):

The Court “should never be influenced by the weather of the day but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era.”

It's actually stated in a lecture for Marty Ginsburg that Ruth was attending on his behalf while he was recovering from cancer surgery or chemo or something.

It's not referred to again in the movie (that I noticed), but was a guiding principle for RBG.  I thought that was pretty good.

Some academics, and perhaps the entire originalist "sect" think that neither the weather nor the climate is applicable to the Court, that it applies some immutable principles to the issues it addresses.  Others, particularly of the more liberal bent, seem to think the Court should respond to the "daily forecast."

Anyone with a more realistic or practical bent probably has to agree with Freund's statement.

Jacobson v Massachusetts 

[workswithseed 2037]

28 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m not going to argue with your delusions.

Then why say anything? You already have in your mind.

[wildcat09 29258]

43 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I am sure someone smarter will explain this better but my understanding is the GOPs argument is the law was passed under Congresses authority to tax (the penalty for not having insurance being a tax).  Then the GOP came along and reduced the penalty to $0.   Now they say since the penalty is $0, there is no tax and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional 

The technical word for the arguments at the heart of their recent assault on the ACA is “bullshit.” Nobody took it seriously when it was filed. Even conservative and libertarian legal commentators thought it was essentially frivolous. Of course, the last challenge to the ACA was frivolous bullshit too.

Republican judges don’t feel like they’re bound by any norms, precedent, or even clear text. It’s all just legal Calvinball to them.

[formermav43 4599]

19 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

She’s been on the bench three years. In no way is she qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

This is a silly argument. As an example without looking up every single Justice to have ever served, 9 of 17 Chief Justices had no prior judicial experience (including the likes of John Marshall and Earl Warren). Of the other 8, Stone and Rehnquist were promoted from within and lacked any judicial experience before serving on SCOTUS. Of the 6 who had experience, most was very limited; she’s been on the bench already longer than Roberts was at his appointment, for instance.

Your criteria is completely ahistorical.

[TexasBeta 1261]

Can the simps defending this nominee clear up three things for me?

1 - Do you believe a judge that only has three years of experience is qualified to be a SC Justice?

2 - Do you agree with her position that convicted felons have the constitutional right to own a gun but not the constitutional right to vote?

3 - Are you comfortable with the fact that with her confirmation we will have three justices - Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett - that worked on the Bush legal team or consulted the Bush legal team during the 2000 election recount?

Kagan has no judicial experience prior to nomination.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-justices-were-never-judges-before-appointment-11552596987

[bad_teammate 13132]

People are just backfilling rationales to justify their opposition to her candidacy.

You/we lost. Get over it and figure out how to push these feckless fucking fucks in the Democratic Party to actually win.

[edit]

DON'T LET GREAT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD

DON'T EAT YOUR OWN

YOU'RE A RUSSIAN TRUMP BOT

Edited September 27, 2020 by bad_teammate

[hobbes2702 12846]

33 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Then why say anything? You already have in your mind.

If you’d like to make some arguments based on logic and facts then I’ll be all ears. When you make arguments based on how some mythical sky man feels then you aren’t making much argument.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

This is a silly argument. As an example without looking up every single Justice to have ever served, 9 of 17 Chief Justices had no prior judicial experience (including the likes of John Marshall and Earl Warren). Of the other 8, Stone and Rehnquist were promoted from within and lacked any judicial experience before serving on SCOTUS. Of the 6 who had experience, most was very limited; she’s been on the bench already longer than Roberts was at his appointment, for instance.

Your criteria is completely ahistorical.

Were any of those previous justices nominated by a guy like Donald trump because he thought they would help him steal an election?  This one is a little more important. 
 

I don’t care whether those in the past were qualified or not. The past is the past.  She is not. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Ok. Fine. Her lack of judicial experience, her lack of actual real law experience, combined with her views on abortion and the ACA make her unqualified for the Supreme Court. 
 

She’s going to be confirmed anyway. Trump thinks she will help her steal the election.  It’s inevitable. 

[formermav43 4599]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Were any of those previous justices nominated by a guy like Donald trump because he thought they would help him steal an election?  This one is a little more important. 
 

I don’t care whether those in the past were qualified or not. The past is the past.  She is not. 

 

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Ok. Fine. Her lack of judicial experience, her lack of actual real law experience, combined with her views on abortion and the ACA make her unqualified for the Supreme Court. 
 

She’s going to be confirmed anyway. Trump thinks she will help her steal the election.  It’s inevitable. 

These are different arguments. Your real objection is to being appointed by Trump. That’s fine. I was merely addressing your argument about experience, which is clearly wrong.

[Horn Dog 9674]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

That makes no sense.  I get what you're saying, but it's semantic.  The remainder of the act is in no way "unconstitutional", so the argument is that the means by which it was passed renders it unconstitutional, since as it stands now it would not make it through the process?

It absolutely makes no sense and as Wildcat points out, everyone including republicans laughed when the argument was made.  Yet here we are, and there is a great chance the “nonpartisan” SC, which is only interested in calling balls and strikes, will agree with this line of reasoning that most 5yr olds would recognize as nonsensical 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, formermav43 said:

 

These are different arguments. Your real objection is to being appointed by Trump. That’s fine. I was merely addressing your argument about experience, which is clearly wrong.

Fair enough. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

14 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

This is a silly argument. As an example without looking up every single Justice to have ever served, 9 of 17 Chief Justices had no prior judicial experience (including the likes of John Marshall and Earl Warren). Of the other 8, Stone and Rehnquist were promoted from within and lacked any judicial experience before serving on SCOTUS. Of the 6 who had experience, most was very limited; she’s been on the bench already longer than Roberts was at his appointment, for instance.

Your criteria is completely ahistorical.

Good post.  But just because it's ahistorical doesn't mean it's a silly argument.

Too many of the justices, in my opinion anyway, come from non-judicial and governmental positions.

Moar judicial and moar private practice, especially not biglaw practice (that's probably unavoidable, but something other than their appellate/supreme court practice), pls.

[formermav43 4599]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good post.  But just because it's ahistorical doesn't mean it's a silly argument.

Too many of the justices, in my opinion anyway, come from non-judicial and governmental positions.

Moar judicial and moar private practice, especially not biglaw practice (that's probably unavoidable, but something other than their appellate/supreme court practice), pls.

I’d agree with this, but I don’t think that was the argument he was making by boiling it down to years on the bench. More diverse legal backgrounds would be a good thing.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Ok. Fine. Her lack of judicial experience, her lack of actual real law experience, combined with her views on abortion and the ACA make her unqualified for the Supreme Court. 
 

She’s going to be confirmed anyway. Trump thinks she will help her steal the election.  It’s inevitable. 

Trump may think his appointees are going to help him out on some personal level, but, as with many things, he's smoking fucking crack.

Unless Trump's "personal needs" line up with a "winning" legal position, these Justices, with their lifetime appointments, give not one single fuck about Donald J. Trump.  See Trump v. Mazar's and Trump v. Vance, where the only help he got was from crazy-ass Thomas and crazy-ass Alito.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

“We have chosen to rely on male leadership at the highest level of our community based on our desire to be a family of families," Connolly said. "We follow the New Testament teaching that the husband is the head of the family, and we have patterned our community on this New Testament approach to family life."

 

This from the group she is a part of. It’s ok if you’re fine with it. Just Be honest and admit it and stop hiding it so you can somehow win anyway.