ADVERTISEMENT

Trumps SCOTUS nominee belongs to a Cult

I expected nothing less from a TDS infected stooge like you.

moe-howard-18970619-allfamous.org-3.jpg


Better that than a MAGAT boot licker....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
Lagoa appears to be a more strict constructionist, similar to Gorsuch. I'd favor her over Barrett.

I don't think Barrett's religion should be an issue based on how she's answered those questions in her previous confirmation hearing. When it comes to conservative judges, my issue tends to be how they favor "national security" and law enforcement when it comes to the 4th amendment. The 4th Amendment contains enumerated rights to the people, and is not superseded by any subsequent amendment.
All of those mentioned are highly qualified, but I'm in agreement with you that Lagoa seems to be a better fit for the Roberts Court, like Gorsuch.
 
I would breathe a lot easier with another Gorsuch type in there. If Trump did challenge the election results, I think that Gorsuch would rule against him unless the challenge was legitimate. Somebody like Kavanaugh would probably agree with Trump no matter how flimsy his argument. We definitely don't need another loyalist on the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg and mstp1992
Lagoa appears to be a more strict constructionist, similar to Gorsuch. I'd favor her over Barrett.

I don't think Barrett's religion should be an issue based on how she's answered those questions in her previous confirmation hearing. When it comes to conservative judges, my issue tends to be how they favor "national security" and law enforcement when it comes to the 4th amendment. The 4th Amendment contains enumerated rights to the people, and is not superseded by any subsequent amendment.

During the 2018 elections I watched our senatorial debate here and the question of Kavanaugh came up. Donnelly the incumbant D at the time had voted against it for the same reason I was opposed to Kavanaugh. The anti-Clinton, anti-George Soro's tirade he went on during the hearings. The Republican was predictably all for him. They had the libertarian candidate there and I believe she said that she would have opposed him because he was weak a particular amendment, I think it might have been the 4th amendment but I'm not sure.

I would have liked to hear her expound on that view but I think she was sort of invited to be a side-show in a lot of ways. And she didn't really do herself any favors because she said some crazy things including that Indiana should quit growing corn and soybeans and start growing hemp. You could tell this woman really liked weed, it came up a lot from her during the debate even when the question had nothing to do with weed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
I would breathe a lot easier with another Gorsuch type in there. If Trump did challenge the election results, I think that Gorsuch would rule against him unless the challenge was legitimate. Somebody like Kavanaugh would probably agree with Trump no matter how flimsy his argument. We definitely don't need another loyalist on the court.

Kavanaugh hasn’t been a ‘loyalist’ in any way, shape or form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
I would breathe a lot easier with another Gorsuch type in there. If Trump did challenge the election results, I think that Gorsuch would rule against him unless the challenge was legitimate. Somebody like Kavanaugh would probably agree with Trump no matter how flimsy his argument. We definitely don't need another loyalist on the court.

I second this. I'd love another John Roberts (except I would want him to be more pro-life). But Roberts and Gorsuch don't strike me as complete loyalists to Trump. Kav does however. People can go back and look but my opinion on Kav the entire time was that without any strong evidence of the sexual assault, we should behave as though he didn't commit it and I felt that we never really crossed the threshold of what I would consider to be strong evidence. The worst thing you could say is that the evidence seemed to indicate that he was more of a partier in high school and college than he wanted to admit.

But when he went on that rant saying all of this was the work of the Clinton's and Soros, my view was this guy lacked the character to be a fair judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg and TheCainer
A person's religion should not disqualify them from being a federal judge. Now, if a person sincerely believes in the tenets of their religion, that's an entirely different matter. Simply going to church to be seen is okay.
A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.

Barrett said this at a talk for law students at the University of Notre Dame, where Barrett got her law degree and later taught, according to IndyStar.

This quote of hers should scare a lot of people.
 
A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.

Barrett said this at a talk for law students at the University of Notre Dame, where Barrett got her law degree and later taught, according to IndyStar.

This quote of hers should scare a lot of people.

Isn't it God's job to build the Kingdom of God? I dropped out of Catholic school after 8th grade but I don't remember talking about that. We were taught that Jesus died for our sins (our many many many many sins - they liked to talk about our sins) and that we should believe that. But not about building a Kingdom. Unless that's a really weird way to talk about almsgiving.
 
"A Roman Catholic, she is a life-long adherent of the People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group " These are like polar opposites for anybody who cares about truth
 
Kavanaugh hasn’t been a ‘loyalist’ in any way, shape or form.
Perhaps you are right.

Either way, I want a well vetted nominee. Senators should be afforded a reasonable amount of time to read through the candidates opinions and legal history, and the Senate should be given reasonable time to prepare questioning and ask them during hearings. And then given ample time to process this information to vote.

Doing all of this by October 9 comes across as a very unreasonable timeline to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
Perhaps you are right.

Either way, I want a well vetted nominee. Senators should be afforded a reasonable amount of time to read through the candidates opinions and legal history, and the Senate should be given reasonable time to prepare questioning and ask them during hearings. And then given ample time to process this information to vote.

Doing all of this by October 9 comes across as a very unreasonable timeline to me.

Since the candidates we know about are all on a circuit court of appeals, shouldn't we just be concerned with their record since they were confirmed?
 
A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.

Barrett said this at a talk for law students at the University of Notre Dame, where Barrett got her law degree and later taught, according to IndyStar.

This quote of hers should scare a lot of people.

I don't believe she can leave her religious beliefs at the door when she enters the judiciary, I suspect it will taint all of her opinions. Because of that Lagoa would be the better choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
She will set a record for non answer answers at her confirmation hearing. If there is one. Mitch and Lindsey may say a hearing isn't needed, move the nomination from committee, and schedule a vote.
This, they're talking like Dems wouldn't even participate, so a hearing may not even really happen prior to confirmation. Maybe a few softballs then a vote.

Probably a smart play by Dems, silence is the only way they can make their beef with Rs and not with a female. Given how deeply invested D's are in identity politics, this is their best play.

It's good on another level too. Most Americans don't want to see the pick rushed, and are well aware of the hypocrisy of R's vs the Garland appointment.

Fascinating stuff.

Guess how much it will impact any of our day to day lives? That's right, almost none.
 
Since the candidates we know about are all on a circuit court of appeals, shouldn't we just be concerned with their record since they were confirmed?
Maybe. But even under this standard, she has still written over 100 opinions to analyze. Working through all of them, in just a few days, would seem unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
Democratic Senators asking questions need to keep one thing in mind - there is literally no question that they ask which will be answered in a manner that would result in more than 4 Republican Senators voting "no," her withdrawing her candidacy or DT Barnum withdrawing her candidacy. Ask the questions that will generate answers to motivate the 11/3 vote. I.e. "What is your impression of the doctrine of stare decisis?" and "Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be settled law?" and "Do you agree or disagree with the Court's reasoning in Hobby Lobby?" and "Do you agree with the Court's reasoning in Citizen's United?"

If she answers as I expect with a bunch of non-answers and non-committals, then those should be immediately thrust into campaign ads. Talk about how DT Barnum is trying to pack the Court to get rid of Obamacare with no replacement identified in four years. Talk about how he's attempted to pack the Court with justices who have no problem holding that fictitious entities (i.e. corporations) can have religious beliefs, who have no problem with finding that dark money can dictate elections and will allow individual rights to be trampled under the guise of so-called religious beliefs.

With RBG's passing and the GOP's highly expected hypocritical approach to rushing a new SCOTUS nominee either before the election or in a lame duck session, DT Barnum getting another nominee on the court became certain. The last thing that the Democrats need to do is to make Amy Comey Barrett into a sympathetic figure. In my mind, she's a flipping religious wing-nut zealot that I want nowhere near the bench. But I'm very much resigned to the fact that she will be nominated and she will be confirmed. Hopefully she doesn't speak in tongues and wave snakes as she's reading her opinions. (I kid . . . kind of).

The counter-punch has to be delivered at the ballot box at the presidential and congressional levels. If successful, as soon as Biden is sworn into office and the new Congress is seated, then it will be time for the comeuppance. Start with elimination of the filibuster and then start jamming through strong legislation. After all . . . all of these judges appointed by The Federalist Society . . I mean appointed by DT Barnum . . . should be hesitant to "legislate from the bench" and thus should be extremely deferential to legislation passed by both houses of Congress.
 
Hasn't it already been pretty much established that she will put her religion ahead of the constitution?

Some of us remember when JFK had to reassure the nation that he wouldn't do that. Apparently now it's a plus, not a negative.

Putting your religion or God first should result in automatic impeachment. We have a few Justices who might have to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
Have to disagree on this one. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be working hard to get a Liberal on the Court in the time available.

Where does the 18 days come from?
18 days come from October 9, the last day the Senate is in session until after the election. It is less than a third of the average confirmation and less than half of a fast confirmation. It is cutting corners at insane levels.

If the Dems were doing this, I would be ashamed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
A person's religion should not disqualify them from being a federal judge. Now, if a person sincerely believes in the tenets of their religion, that's an entirely different matter. Simply going to church to be seen is okay.

From Article VI of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
kavanaugh, a jesuit freemason weirdo, and his wife is probably somehow related to a guy who was a dem killer and conspirator and maybe even part of the jfk assasination, got installed. so there is that.
You realize that Freemasons do not like Catholics, right? Also, that the Catholic Church does not want its members to belong to that organization? So keep swinging away and making yourself look stupid.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
ADVERTISEMENT