So I’m stuck on the crunch recovering from surgery and got to watch almost the entire Supreme Court hearing. My two takeaways.
1) she’s an amazing woman. I do not think you could make a fictional character as top notch.
2) Like Kavanaugh, she won’t overturn Roe. I think the court will allow state laws with restrictions and may eventually return to the original decision with those limits, but I don’t see a blanket overturning.

On another note, Harris came off as the classless person she is.
On the other hand,  Booker showed why he was able to for president, but also why he lost early.He’s missing something.
Ben Sass of Nebraska should do more. He must not be a huge Trump fan because that guy in front of a crowd would bring people in.
Amy Klobuchar is a very, angry person.
My Jr Senator from Missouri, Hawley, fancies himself a presidential candidate in 8 years but I don’t see it.

btw if you heard the hearings then you'll see what a hypocrite Barrett is, and how she'll a 'textualist' or 'originalist' when it suits her.

For example the law that a convicted Felon whose served his time can never vote ever again, and the law that a convicted Felon who served their time cannot obtain a gun license.

The law in both cases is clear. There is no qualification on the type of felon. She claim to simply interpret the law as written. However she dissented in the opinion about voting, in that she thinks it's fine to deny the vote, but when it came to the gun ownership she wanted to apply her own interpretative judicial activism and talk about whether the 'felony' was violent.

The point is not whether the law about a felon and gun ownership should have stood or not, the point is that she's only a textualist when it serves her purpose. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that she uses the terms 'textualist' and 'originalist' but she picks and chooses when. In other words, she's not either of them.

But just the fact that she is willing to go along with the charade and life appointment that the Republicans are foisting up the general US population while they are actually voting just shows that as a Judge, she doesn't have good Judgement, because her appointment will always be seen as raw political power and so by accepting this charade, she diminishes the Supreme Court in the eyes of the majority of the US public.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/15/20 at 19:36:51:



Hello fcukwit, you completely missed the point it's not about whether her dissent was right or wrong, idiot, as i already said, it's that she want to call herself a 'textualist' someone who interprets the law as written when it suits her, but when it doesn't suit her she miraculously decides to be what she says she isn't, i.e. a Judge who legislates from the bench and puts extra words in the law that are not there.

To deny voting rights, she goes word for word, to deny guns to felons, she puts words that aren't there. in other words, she is a fcuking lying hypocrite. Who wants to ram her religious kookiness down the throats of the majority of US women.

Don't worry, though if that angry majority give Biden the Senate, then that WILL be a mandate to do what he has to do.

LoL, you started it sunshine. Go back and read your post. We went through this years ago remember. You want name calling you'll get it back in spades. But this is good for you isn't it, because you don't need to think which is a bit of a strain for you. Name calling is all you have.

Pip pip!

I had to Google it...
Drongo----Dumbass, idiot (Aussie slang) Australian slang: A "no-hoper" or fool.

..and fcukwit... I already knew that one.

Let's stop this please.
...or not.
I'm not your mother.  

This thread is locked

Serow