I expected nothing less from a TDS infected stooge like you.
Better that than a MAGAT boot licker....
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I expected nothing less from a TDS infected stooge like you.
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.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 The 4th Amendment contains enumerated rights to the people, and is not superseded by any subsequent amendment.
This is not the RCC dude.Attacking Catholics is not a bad idea?
Honestly, I don't know much about Barrett. But that vote has me troubled. And I would also feel way more comfortable with Lagoa.I appreciate the response but it didn’t answer the question.
As it stands, I prefer Lagoa.
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 The 4th Amendment contains enumerated rights to the people, and is not superseded by any subsequent amendment.
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 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.
A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.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.
Perhaps you are right.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.
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.
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.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.
Welcome back OiT... with some of your best bullshit ever blazing!bilderbergs, freemasons, illuminati installed obama and bill clinton and bush and trump, to get people in these cults intalled. it just is what it is
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.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?
Not really. That is what eager young staffers live to.be abused for...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.
Average days to confirm is 67. Rs are trying to do it in 18. No way this is reasonable.Not really. That is what eager young staffers live to.be abused for...
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.Average days to confirm is 67. Rs are trying to do it in 18. No way this is reasonable.
How so? Her nomination is a done deal and will not change any presidential voters minds.
I'm still surprised that Laura Ingraham isn't at the top of Trump's list.She has been compared to "if Laura Ingraham" was nominated.
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.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?
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.
*tenetsShe clearly believes in her religions tenants. The question is will she be able to set that aside and rule on the law and the facts. She has stated several times she can. She has also said if she could not she would recuse herself
Lets face it. Anymore the Protesting,looting and burning Democrats are a cult.Cult is the new existential.
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.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.
Lots of Catholics are not fans of Pope Francis.Biden is Catholic.
Trump has called Pope Francis "disgraceful."
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.
.Papal ban of Freemasonry - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But the Republicans are the uneducated rubes, am I right?*tenets