Ruth Bader Ginsburg

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,499
8,098
113
B.C.
You have a lot of anger towards RBG, is it the whole fear of women in power thing? What's going on there? Btw, did you see the photos or watch the videos? Because I spotted clerks who were not white.
No anger , just contempt . But continue of your analysis , it is amusing .
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,499
8,098
113
B.C.
And it's funny listening to the tight White right suddenly get upset over an allegation that non-Whites are being ignored or discriminated against.
I almost resemble that remark chief . Unlike you I am a simple Indian , no hereditary chiefs in my line .
 

Mockingbird

Council Member
Nov 27, 2019
2,337
126
63
Calgary
No anger , just contempt . But continue of your analysis , it is amusing .


Hmm, na seems more like anger to me. And it's okay to admit that strong successful women intimidate you. I get why you're knocking her down, I understand it.

Am I amusing you? That's great! I knew you got a kick out of me. Wanna play some more?
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,845
2,729
113
New Brunswick
Lol, Trump says he couldn't hear the people yelling vote him out and honor her wish, what a load of crap, he could hear it. I thought it was disrespectful of him to show up there. Good on the crowd.


Yeah, if you watch the video and the close up video he's at first dozing off (keeps his eyes closed for longer than a second or two a couple of times) and then they start booing, then they chant lock him up, he leans to Melania and they immediately retreat.

He heard it and can't admit he heard it and how it hurt his widdle boy feelings.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Turns out this paragon of virtue has one non-white clerk in her 40 years on the federal benches.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
How soon before the triggered males come out against the female nominee?

Trump expected to announce conservative Barrett for court

Democrats face limited options to prevent confirmation of Trump's Supreme Court pick

it a step further and scrapped the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.

That's how the Democrats find themselves without the most effective procedural weapon to prevent Trump's Supreme Court nominee from going forward.

"I think it is a consequence of the action that the Democrats originally took in 2013," said Richard Arenberg, author of Congressional Procedure: A Practical Guide to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress.

While Reid's move may have been understandable at the time, "it was short-sighted," Arenberg said. "It was clear that it was a slippery slope."

Impeachment again?
In an interview with ABC News This Week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't rule out moving to impeach the president or Attorney General Bill Barr to try and prevent the Senate from voting on Trump's court pick.

But Reynolds said even if the Democratic-controlled House moved quickly enough to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate, Republicans could dispense with it quickly with a simple majority vote.

McConnell has said the Senate has "more than sufficient time" to vote on the nominee before the election.


What next?
It is possible that something controversial emerges from the nominee's past, which would put more pressure on the time constraints.

"The only thing that could change all of this, as has happened in the past, if something appears in the nominee's record ... such that a sufficient number of Republicans are upset and don't want to confirm," Oppenheimer said.

In 2018, allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh prolonged his nomination process, with an additional hearing held for his accuser, though his nomination was ultimately confirmed.

If the vote to confirm is not held before the election, the Democrats have one hope of derailing Trump's nomination: If Biden takes the White House, some Republicans might be more inclined to vote with them.
 

Mockingbird

Council Member
Nov 27, 2019
2,337
126
63
Calgary
Turns out this paragon of virtue has one non-white clerk in her 40 years on the federal benches.


One non-white? Are you forgetting about the East Asians that she hired? I know you'll fire back Walter stating that she hired only one black, backed by the guy that thinks rape is the same as having a sex life, and that would be a valid point. But are we to discard her body of work over her lifetime? Or do you hate her just because she opposed Trump? Or wait, do you hate her just because she's a woman?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
One non-white? Are you forgetting about the East Asians that she hired? I know you'll fire back Walter stating that she hired only one black, backed by the guy that thinks rape is the same as having a sex life, and that would be a valid point. But are we to discard her body of work over her lifetime? Or do you hate her just because she opposed Trump? Or wait, do you hate her just because she's a woman?
Only one non-white in forty years. What are the odds?
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Not as soon as fake Real Americans pretend to give a shit about women's equality.

Like the MSM on Trump's nominee? Are they writing for "Real Americans"?

This is the kindest article I read this morning from the usual suspects sowing doubt of Barrett

Who is Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s latest nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court?

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated by U.S. President Donald Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

Trump announced on Saturday that he had chosen the staunchly conservative Barrett, who has spent the past three years on a federal appeals court — a position she was also nominated to by Trump.

Trump called her "a woman of remarkable intellect and character" who is "eminently qualified."

If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett, 48, would become the youngest justice on the country's highest court, where she could likely sit for decades. That Senate confirmation has essentially been guaranteed, with most Republicans in the majority saying they will support Barrett.

Here's a look at the judge's history and what both her supporters and opponents have to say.

Who is Amy Coney Barrett?
Barrett was born and raised in New Orleans, La., and earned her undergraduate degree in English literature in 1994 at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. She received her law degree from Notre Dame Law School, a Catholic institution in Indiana, in 1997 and has taught at the school since 2002.

After serving as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a stalwart conservative who died in 2016, Barrett worked from 1999 to 2001 at the Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin law firm in Washington, D.C.

Her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, also graduated from Notre Dame. Together they have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs.

A devout Catholic, Barrett has expressed her religious beliefs in legal papers, including one she co-authored in 1998 where she argued that faithfully Catholic judges are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty and should recuse themselves in certain cases.

Despite this, Barrett has said her religious faith would not affect her decisions as a judge.

In 2017, Trump nominated Barrett to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate confirmed her with a 55-43 majority, with four Democrats joining their Republican colleagues in voting to confirm.

During her confirmation hearing, Republicans criticized Democrats for pressing Barrett on her faith. Sen. Chuck Grassley said it could be seen as a “religious test” for the job.

Read more: Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to U.S. Supreme Court

She was reportedly on the shortlist for the Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Barrett and her family have also been tied to the Christian group People of Praise, with other members saying the Barretts are members. Barrett has not commented on the group, which does not publicly list its members.

The group allegedly expects women to be subservient to their husbands, while leaders within the organization dictate much of members' lives, according to past members.


History of conservative opinions
Barrett has long expressed sympathy with a mode of interpreting the Constitution called originalism, in which justices try to decipher original meanings of texts in assessing if someone’s rights have been violated. Many liberals oppose that strict approach, saying it is too rigid and doesn’t allow the Constitution to change with the times.

In a 2019 dissent in a gun-rights case, she argued a person convicted of a nonviolent felony shouldn’t be automatically barred from owning a gun. All but a few pages of her 37-page dissent were devoted to the history of gun rules for convicted criminals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

She also authored a ruling that makes it easier for college students who have been accused of sexual assault to challenge how their schools dealt with their cases. Barrett and her colleagues revived a lawsuit by a male student who had been suspended from Purdue University after sexual assault allegations. He accused the school of discriminating against him on the basis of his gender.

She wrote that in the case it was plausible Purdue officials chose to believe the female accuser "because she is a woman" and to disbelieve the male student accused "because he is a man."

Barrett's views on abortion
Although Barrett has never ruled on a direct case that would deny abortion, liberals and pro-choice advocates view her judicial record nervously.

Barrett has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, according to a 2013 article in Notre Dame Magazine.

In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett listed seven so-called "super-precedents": cases that no justice would dare reverse, even if they believed they were wrongly decided. They included Brown vs. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional, and the group of five Civil Rights Cases of 1883.

Not included in the list, however, was Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that affirmed a woman’s right to abortion. Scholars don’t include it, she wrote, because public controversy swirling around it has never abated.

Read more: U.S. Senate Republicans plan vote on Trump’s Supreme Court pick ahead of election

Since joining the appeals bench in 2017, Barrett has heard two abortion-related cases where she favoured restricting access, both of them based in Indiana.

The first saw Barrett join dissenters in favour of a law that would have required doctors to notify parents of a minor seeking an abortion — without allowing that minor to prove to a judge that they were mature enough to make the decision on their own.

In the second case, Barrett favoured rehearing a state law banning abortions related to sex, race or disability (including life-threatening decisions) and another that regulated that fetal remains from abortion procedures be buried or cremated.

While the majority struck down the so-called "reason ban" on grounds it violated Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would later overturn a stay on the fetal burial and cremation clause, saying it did not reasonably restrict access to an abortion.


When asked directly whether she would rule against Roe vs. Wade or if she would protect abortion rights, Barrett has side-stepped the question.

During her 2017 confirmation, she was asked if she viewed abortion as always immoral.

“If I am confirmed (to the 7th Circuit), my views on this or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge," she said, without answering the question directly.

What have Republicans said?
As Barrett quickly emerged as the frontrunner for the Supreme Court nomination following Ginsburg's death, Republicans have sung Barrett's praises while also criticizing Democrats for using her faith against her.

Trump himself has called Barrett "outstanding" after meeting with her at the White House ahead of the nomination.

Vice-President Mike Pence defended Barrett when asked whether her affiliation with People of Praise — which is based in Indiana, where Pence previously served as governor — would complicate her ability to serve on the high court.

“I must tell you the intolerance expressed during her last confirmation about her Catholic faith I really think was a disservice to the process and a disappointment to millions of Americans,” he told ABC News, calling her an "extraordinary jurist."


According to multiple reports, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has told Trump that Barrett is the best choice for the Supreme Court seat.

What have Democrats said?
Although Democrats have yet to comment on Barrett specifically when talking about the upcoming Supreme Court battle, party members heavily scrutinized her policies and religious views during her 2017 confirmation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett during the hearing that Barrett's views suggested religious tenets could guide her thinking on the law.

“The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern," Feinstein told Barrett, which drew rebuke from Republicans.

Read more: Republicans hopeful filling Ginsburg’s Supreme Court spot will help shift U.S. election

Democratic senators have told CNN that they will press Trump's nominee to recuse themselves if the results of the November presidential election end up at the Supreme Court. Trump has suggested that is a possibility, citing mail-in ballots.

Other senators have mulled boycotting the confirmation hearings altogether to protest what they call a rushed process so close to the election.

She is not a "Real American" because she is a conservative with strong Catholic beliefs?