Hearing

Ugh.
Post Reply
Leawood
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:18 am

Hearing

Post by Leawood »

Durbin and Klobuchar are establishing that the nominee believes some felons deserve to bear arms but do not have to vote.
User avatar
sdoyel
Posts: 12426
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:18 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Hearing

Post by sdoyel »

"The real issue with covid: its not killing enough people." - randylahey

GTS Champ 2008
GTS Champ 2020*

“We good?” - Bill Self

RIP jhawk73

🇺🇦
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 15982
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Hearing

Post by jfish26 »

sdoyel wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:51 pm Also relevant:

https://twitter.com/jonathanalter/statu ... 05568?s=21
Of course she should. If she had any principle(s) beyond some combination of (a) naked ambition to prestige (I want to sit on the Supreme Court, reputation be damned) and (b) naked ambition to power (I want to apply my far-right views, reputation be damned), she would withdraw out of fear for being (rightly) viewed as tainted, for the entire duration of her stay on the Court.
Deleted User 89

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 89 »

nothing like having the support of your peers, lol
Deleted User 89

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 89 »

at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 15982
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Hearing

Post by jfish26 »

TraditionKU wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:15 pm at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
But, the gauntlet she had to run to even get on the short list would have selected against that sort of principled-ness. If you're the sort of person who would even consider this, you're not on the short list.
User avatar
twocoach
Posts: 18946
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:33 am

Re: Hearing

Post by twocoach »

All this whining by Dems just sets them up to look like dumbasses if the same thing happens in 4 years. I can guarantee that if a SC seat opens in 2024 and the Dems have control of Congress that they arent going to wait.

This is a big fat waste of time with a lot of grandstanding for no reason. Push this through and get back to work on COVID relief.
User avatar
sdoyel
Posts: 12426
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:18 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Hearing

Post by sdoyel »

"The real issue with covid: its not killing enough people." - randylahey

GTS Champ 2008
GTS Champ 2020*

“We good?” - Bill Self

RIP jhawk73

🇺🇦
Deleted User 89

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 89 »

damn
User avatar
jhawks99
Contributor
Posts: 15866
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 am
Location: Woodbury, MN

Re: Hearing

Post by jhawks99 »

Amy should be running instead of Joe.
Defense. Rebounds.
Deleted User 289

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 289 »

Amy was in my office and I had a brief 1 on 1 conversation with her. While she is an impressive woman, I wasn't thinking she's going to get my vote in the primary. She didn't and I'm glad she's not the nominee.
Deleted User 89

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 89 »

jhawks99 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:00 pm Amy should be running instead of Joe.
she would’ve gotten my vote

however, i saw her in Real Time with Bill Maher and came away unimpressed. she just cane across as too vanilla. she needed to show more fire in the primaries, but it’s tough when you’re a woman and have to walk the line of being fiery vs bitchy
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Hearing

Post by zsn »

They should get Katie Porter to question ACB. Then they can bring whatever is left of ACB to the Senate for questioning. I’ll be willing to wager that not much will be left of her. What an intellectual lightweight
Sparko
Contributor
Posts: 15074
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: Hearing

Post by Sparko »

jfish26 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:53 pm
TraditionKU wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:15 pm at minimum, she should have forced the circus to wait and to abide by the dying wish of RBG
But, the gauntlet she had to run to even get on the short list would have selected against that sort of principled-ness. If you're the sort of person who would even consider this, you're not on the short list.
There is so much truth there it stings.
Deleted User 310

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 310 »

TraditionKU wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:14 pm nothing like having the support of your peers, lol
She has had plenty of her peers and faculty/former teachers at Notre Dame come out and voice their support for her and say she is a worthy pick.

This is all such garbage.
Deleted User 310

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 310 »

jfish26 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:06 pm
sdoyel wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:51 pm Also relevant:

https://twitter.com/jonathanalter/statu ... 05568?s=21
Of course she should. If she had any principle(s) beyond some combination of (a) naked ambition to prestige (I want to sit on the Supreme Court, reputation be damned) and (b) naked ambition to power (I want to apply my far-right views, reputation be damned), she would withdraw out of fear for being (rightly) viewed as tainted, for the entire duration of her stay on the Court.
I doubt you were saying the same thing about Merrick Garland.

The lefts willingness/eagerness to character assassinate ANYONE who doesn't do what they want or believe exactly what they believe is nauseating. ACB by all accounts is a good person.

This political circus is embarrassing.
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Hearing

Post by zsn »

She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
Deleted User 289

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 289 »

zsn wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?
User avatar
Cascadia
Posts: 6677
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:15 am

Re: Hearing

Post by Cascadia »

Grandma wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm
zsn wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.
I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?
She’s religious
Deleted User 89

Re: Hearing

Post by Deleted User 89 »

understatement

her flavor of religion is more oppressive than most

not to mention the whole speaking in tongues thing, or exorcisms
Post Reply