Why you should fear Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge

[arewethereyet]

If Dems take the oval office, senate, and keep the house, there should be no expansion of the SC unless the majority of Americans want it. If the conservative court acts egregiously, the public will turn against them and support adding justices. Even then, it shouldn't be enough new seats to make liberal justices a majority, just enough for parity. If the court can manage not to piss off the public, congress shouldn't add seats. They SHOULD add PR as a state, though.

Did majority of Americans wanted the GOP to steal a Supreme Court seat?

Turning the other cheek simply means both of your cheek bones will be broken.    By the time the public turns against the GOP, there would be no recognizable United States left.

*bold mine

That ship already sailed.

[Dingo]

I mean it's obvious. Donny wants someone to decide the election in his favor. And he also gets brownie points from his Evangelical base.

[arewethereyet]

I mean it's obvious. Donny wants someone to decide the election in his favor. And he also gets brownie points from his Evangelical base.

Evangelicals generally have little use for Catholics and don't even consider them to be Christians.  Some go so far as to think Catholics are actually Satanists.  I don't think a devout, old school, traditionalist Catholic is in the top five choices when it comes to Evangelicals.  Barrett's selling point is being a Trump pawn.  She could be on the stand answering questions while throwing out chicken bones and murmuring voodoo chants...wouldn't matter to the die hard Trumpians.

[The Grand Nudger]

All things to all men. To trumpits she's a literal get out of jail free card. To evangelicals she's the final solution to the catholic issue. To never trumpers she's a principled non partisan jurist throwing balls and strikes.

[Dingo]

I mean it's obvious. Donny wants someone to decide the election in his favor. And he also gets brownie points from his Evangelical base.

Evangelicals generally have little use for Catholics and don't even consider them to be Christians.  Some go so far as to think Catholics are actually Satanists.  I don't think a devout, old school, traditionalist Catholic is in the top five choices when it comes to Evangelicals.  Barrett's selling point is being a Trump pawn.  She could be on the stand answering questions while throwing out chicken bones and murmuring voodoo chants...wouldn't matter to the die hard Trumpians.

Well, there is the whole Roe v Wade thing. I guess I just use pro-life and evangelicals interchangeably. When obviously there are other Christians who consider themselves to be prolife. But it just seems the Evangelical crowd is the most radical in that position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How the hell can you be qualified for a job interpreting the Constitution if you don’t know what’s in it??






Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

She knows just fine, particularly all the parts she'd like to get rid of. Consider this, the show that we're getting, is the set of answers to questions that the gop found less onerous than whatever would otherwise fall from her lips. All she has to do is shut the fuck up, and not say anything too embarrassing. No that it matters, mind you. They'd put a fucking goat on the supreme court if they could get it trained.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

She knows just fine, particularly all the parts she'd like to get rid of.  Consider this, the show that we're getting, is the set of answers to questions that the gop found less onerous than whatever would otherwise fall from her lips.  All she has to do is shut the fuck up, and not say anything too embarrassing.  No that it matters, mind you.  They'd put a fucking goat on the supreme court if they could get it trained.

It’s pretty goddam embarrassing for a Supreme Court nominee not to know the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, don’t you think? Kind of like applying for a job at McDonald’s and not knowing that bread is part of a hamburger.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not what she was prepped for. She was prepped to answer no questions at all, and being prepped for that is going to have some hilarious effects.

We here at mcdonalds do not have an opinion on what makes a hamburger a hamburger - that's up to the customer to decide, and I wouldn't want to say anything about it that would indicate to litigants that I would lean one way or the other.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's not what she was prepped for.  She was prepped to answer no questions at all, and being prepped for that is going to have some hilarious effects.

We here at mcdonalds do not have an opinion on what makes a hamburger a hamburger - that's up to the customer to decide, and I wouldn't want to say anything about it that would indicate to litigants that I would lean one way or the other.

Then either her prep was lousy or she ignored it. She made an attempt to answer the question and failed. She didn’t evade or obfuscate, she simply didn’t know (if she did know, then she would have done better than four out of five).

Boru