Amy Coney Barrett - let the games begin

T

TreeFrogTrader

As we prepare to go forward with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, let us take a minute to spell out the exact provision of the the United States Constitution that will be violated by the dems and the media immediately and consistently - It's what they do.
Unless it's a muslim.

In fairness to the dems though, they are not just anti-Christian. They are famously anti-Semitic as well and getting worse by the day.


CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

ARTICLE VI - CLAUSE 3

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."



.
 
Its too bad Trump couldn't find a hardcore borderline Sharia-law judge who was totally against gays, abortion and women's rights. Not because I support being against any of that but it would have been fantastic seeing the left attack them.
 
I read that -and this was a bit of a surprise for me- Tim Kaine voted to confirm Amy Barrett for the appellate court. Definitely not saying that he will do that for the Supreme Court but it does show the pickle that some of these dems are in if they start tearing into her. He obviously sensed that torpedo-ing a woman is not a woke thing to do. I don't know. Truthfully, I don't understand it. Would have to read up more.

Joe Manchin also voted to confirm her but the reason there is more obvious. And that reason will still be there when he votes on the Supreme Court nomination unless he wants to do the "well she's okay for the appellate court but not the supreme court" routine. It can be done but it is not pretty and people see you throw up in your mouth a little when you try it. So go for it.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Joe Manchin also voted to confirm her but the reason there is more obvious. And that reason will still be there when he votes on the Supreme Court nomination unless he wants to do the "well she's okay for the appellate court but not the supreme court" routine. It can be done but it is not pretty and people see you throw up in your mouth a little when you try it. So go for it.
More...




Speaking of the aforementioned Joe Manchin. Yep, he has some thinking to do. The pubs may have more votes than they think. He obviously was a possibility but can not be counted on, yet.



Manchin defends Supreme Court candidate Barrett: 'It's awful to bring in religion'


https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...didate-barrett-its-awful-to-bring-in-religion
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I read that -and this was a bit of a surprise for me- Tim Kaine voted to confirm Amy Barrett for the appellate court. Definitely not saying that he will do that for the Supreme Court but it does show the pickle that some of these dems are in if they start tearing into her. He obviously sensed that torpedo-ing a woman is not a woke thing to do. I don't know. Truthfully, I don't understand it. Would have to read up more.

Joe Manchin also voted to confirm her but the reason there is more obvious. And that reason will still be there when he votes on the Supreme Court nomination unless he wants to do the "well she's okay for the appellate court but not the supreme court" routine. It can be done but it is not pretty and people see you throw up in your mouth a little when you try it. So go for it.
More...
Tim Kaine is a nut-butter but he seems to understand the Constitution.

So they are going to attack a qualified nominee based on her religion? Bad move.
 
Feinstein is openly whining about how she probably does not have enough dirt up her sleeve to stop Barrett.

Y'all will recall that when she ran out of material on Kavanaugh she leaked the name of Blasey Fraud and her story to launch that scam.

She is a dirty hack along with the rest of her buddies. They will have some kind of scam going though. That crew never runs out of dirty tricks. That's another reason to move this confirmation along. You don't want to allow them more time to regroup and go into overtime with another scam as they did with Kavanaugh.


Top Senate Judiciary Democrat Feinstein says she doesn't 'have the power' to block Trump's Supreme Court nominee

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-doesnt-have-power-block-nominee/3517291001/
 
Okay, I made an oblique point a couple days ago that only got about a 2 on the meter with some but I return to it based on recent developments.

My point was that the press and some here were either erroneously or presumptively concluding that some- and I mentioned Murkowski- who said that they did not support voting to confirm before the election would therefore vote against the nominee or abstain if a vote were to be held. That is not necessarily a given. Those are two different issues. As I said, Senators and all legislators do not always get their preferred outcome on a motion but then go on to support the larger issue nevertheless. And sometimes not. You have to see.

Okay, it's sounding like an oblique point again and your eyes are glazing over again. Got it.

But, meanwhile out in the real world we have Lisa Murkowski saying now that she still thinks the vote should be later rather than sooner but that she may nevertheless support the nominee if she passes muster. This is politics after all. Positions do get weaseled and backtracked and technically she would not be reversing her position.

Lefterrhoids, you are soooo screwed on this nomination scenario. The republicans are standing together tighter than a bull's arse at flyswatting time.

Murkowski loosens stance on Supreme Court nominee, says she may vote for Trump's pick

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-supreme-court-nominee-may-vote-trumps-pick
 
Last edited:
Oh, they will start tearing into Amy Coney Barrett with her being a Catholic. Next, they will find a way to say she is a racist. Anything including, the kitchen sink they will throw against her. Democrats made the case for appointing a RBG replacement with their continued efforts at massive election fraud with mass mailing of ballots and ballot harvesting. Now, we cannot afford not to fill the US Supreme Court seat before the November 3, 2020 elections. She will probably, end up ruling on one of the numerous disputes on election fraud.
 
smallfil said:
Oh, they will start tearing into Amy Coney Barrett with her being a Catholic..
More...

There are five justices on the court already that were born as and are Catholic. Not including Gorsuch was Catholic but switched over to Catholic- lite and became and Episcopalian because they are better dressers.

The dems don't actually give a damn about your religion as long as you are a good dem. You could be a muslim wackjob who is openly sympatico with terrorist countries and groups that blow people up, have sex with very young children, hate jews and question the holocaust, and beat the living shiite out of their wives. That's fine. You can still get elected to Congress as a dem and they will not touch your religion with a ten foot pole or give you any religious tests whatsover if you are considered for a public position. No sireee. This country was founded on religious freedeom, they will be the first to argue. If you are Catholic, you are an extremist, but if you married your brother, hey, mind your own business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top