sho nuff
Footballguy
Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).Oh my god! Cancel the nomination!
Im not saying it should...but its not just some nothing here.
Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).Oh my god! Cancel the nomination!
Of course the liberal-biased media is going to use words like "omission" and "failed to disclose" to imply she is nefariously hiding something. When in fact there could be a thousand benign reasons why those events weren't included (e.g. standard of materiality, deemed relevance, etc.)Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).
Im not saying it should...but its not just some nothing here.
I mean seriously though. Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago? Of course you don't.Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).
Im not saying it should...but its not just some nothing here.
It’s widely reported People of Praise was the inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale.This handmaid stuff is crazy. This is dystopian fiction level stuff. Wow.
She could just go back and look at her professional calendar...I mean seriously though. Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago? Of course you don't.
The devout Catholic is pro-life. People are going to act surprised she gave talks on pro-life things?
I mean, maybe judges keep professional calendars from 7 years ago? I don't.She could just go back and look at her professional calendar...
I bet a lot of people have access to their calendar from 7 years ago.I mean, maybe judges keep professional calendars from 7 years ago? I don't.
Yes...its the liberal media's fault. Of course...always easy to use that as an excuse for everything.Of course the liberal-biased media is going to use words like "omission" and "failed to disclose" to imply she is nefariously hiding something. When in fact there could be a thousand benign reasons why those events weren't included (e.g. standard of materiality, deemed relevance, etc.)
If the Committee feels they need additional information not included in the original submission, they'll ask for an update. Or bring it up during the hearings.
A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN "it is a very normal practice" for Supreme Court nominees to update their questionnaire, noting that several current Supreme Court justices also supplied updated copies.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html
And likewise, I bet a lot of people don't.I bet a lot of people have access to their calendar from 7 years ago.
Ummm...yeah, I think applying for such a position you would remember if you gave such speeches. When you are on track to such positions, yeah, you keep records and keep stuff updated.I mean seriously though. Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago? Of course you don't.
The devout Catholic is pro-life. People are going to act surprised she gave talks on pro-life things?
I have my calendars back to the early 90's when I started my career and I'm a big nobody. However, after reading this thread, think I might have a bon fire tonight.I bet a lot of people have access to their calendar from 7 years ago.
Look at Mr. Fancy, big timing us.The only two exceptions that I can think of were times when I was asked to speak about marijuana legalization and Obamacare in my role as an economist. Those were memorable because they involved getting up in front of a large public audience in the evening as part of a panel of speakers. Sitting around and conversing with a student group is a lot more pleasant, involves way less work and preparation, and isn't at all memorable.
BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.On a related note, Lindsey Graham refused to get a COVID test before his debate tonight. He doesn't want to get the nomination delayed.
He doesn’t want anything to risk the SCOTUS hearing, including contracting covid or a false positive screening test?BobbyLayne said:BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.
Either he is afraid of the test or he has Covid.
There is no other conclusion.
He’s in a tossup race and just jumped on top of a grenade.
(incredibly enough, people sometimes survive that #truestory)
I mean maybe the Republicans think avoiding debates is a winning strategy. After Election Day if they win, then maybe it is.BobbyLayne said:BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.
Either he is afraid of the test or he has Covid.
There is no other conclusion.
He’s in a tossup race and just jumped on top of a grenade.
(incredibly enough, people sometimes survive that #truestory)
https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-amy-coney-barrett-trump-prosecuted-removed-societyLiberal pundit Keith Olbermann referred to President Trump as a “terrorist” and called for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and others to be “prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society” in a lengthy rant on his personal YouTube channel on Thursday.
It will turn out to be the worst influence Trump has had on this countryMuch like confirming a nominee right before an election, court-packing can be good or bad depending on which party is doing it.
Republicans have been the ones doing it lately -- at the state level.
https://www.governing.com/now/Court-Packing-Its-Already-Happening-at-the-State-Level.html
This isn't a Trump thing. It's much worse than that.It will turn out to be the worst influence Trump has had on this country
I could be wrong in saying this. I have no memory of Trump’s comments on court packing from the 2016-2018 era. But I’m very skeptical that Trump would have been ethically against court packing if the votes were there. McCain, Collins, Murkowski and Flake would have been against it, I’m sure. Probably others.I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house. He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to. Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.
It would have required legislation subject to filibustering.I could be wrong in saying this. I have no memory of Trump’s comments on court packing from the 2016-2018 era. But I’m very skeptical that Trump would have been ethically against court packing if the votes were there. McCain, Collins, Murkowski and Flake would have been against it, I’m sure. Probably others.
I think that's giving him, McConnell really, too much credit.This isn't a Trump thing. It's much worse than that.
I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house. He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to. Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.
For state-level Republicans, however, it's all cool. These governors and state legislators decided to take this banana republic step that even Trump wouldn't take. First of all, these folks are at least as and probably more representative of red-state Republicans than Trump, so the fact that they're willing to do stuff like this suggests that it's less a Trump thing and more of a Republican thing. Second, these people who are state legislators today will be tomorrow's senators and presidential candidates. That bodes very poorly for the party's future.
In other words, I would not be optimistic about the GOP returning to normalcy after Trump. This is going to continue until the party starts paying a price for tearing down norms.
We are already starting to see these type of candidates in federal elections. Look at the Delaware Senate race. We have QANON cultists running in Oregon and Georgia.This isn't a Trump thing. It's much worse than that.
I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house. He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to. Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.
For state-level Republicans, however, it's all cool. These governors and state legislators decided to take this banana republic step that even Trump wouldn't take. First of all, these folks are at least as and probably more representative of red-state Republicans than Trump, so the fact that they're willing to do stuff like this suggests that it's less a Trump thing and more of a Republican thing. Second, these people who are state legislators today will be tomorrow's senators and presidential candidates. That bodes very poorly for the party's future.
In other words, I would not be optimistic about the GOP returning to normalcy after Trump. This is going to continue until the party starts paying a price for tearing down norms.
CDC recommends a 10 day quarantine for non-severe disease.
If he's cleared by doctors, why would he need a mask? If he's not cleared by doctors, he should lose his job.BobbyLayne said:
According to twitter, she used the term "sexual preference." I reckon she did that on purpose.Amy just crushing all the talking points thrown at her by Dianne Feinstein. There has to be at least 50 points difference in IQ between the two.
Is that considered a bad term now?According to twitter, she used the term "sexual preference." I reckon she did that on purpose.
I must have missed that part. I listened to abortion, guns and then ACA. Nothing was sticking.According to twitter, she used the term "sexual preference." I reckon she did that on purpose.
It is not the preferred term because it suggests that being gay is a choice. The preferred term is sexual orientation.Is that considered a bad term now?
Interesting. I've never thought the word "preference" suggested choice.It is not the preferred term because it suggests that being gay is a choice. The preferred term is sexual orientation.
I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself -I must have missed that part. I listened to abortion, guns and then ACA. Nothing was sticking.
Dianne showed her incompetence when they were talking about guns and she referenced back to Roe v saying how many people die because of guns. Then she had a long drawn out question about ACA lifetime payouts limits that Amy nicely pointed out has nothing to do with the case coming up in a couple of weeks, saying something like "the court is going to rule on the constitutionality of ACA, it's up to congress to determine the specific benefits it does or doesn't provide".
Didn't hear that part either, I guess they each have 30 minutes and my commute is only half that.I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself -
@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?
Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.
I think "punting" on hypothetical questions is how every nominee has handled all such questions for as long as I can remember. So I would take the answer with a grain of salt, even though it seems her likely prepared reply managed to punt in a way which seems a bit dishonest to the specific question asked. (Note- I am not saying she was being dishonest just that it seems she kind of outsmarted herself as I doubt she would "need" to consult those particular sources for this particular question.)I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself -
@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?
Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.
Really? Been viewed that way since at least the 1990s in the queer community.Interesting. I've never thought the word "preference" suggested choice.
and the trendlines are likely running in directions that will continue to widen that gap.Amy just crushing all the talking points thrown at her by Dianne Feinstein. There has to be at least 50 points difference in IQ between the two.
I think "punting" on hypothetical questions is how every nominee has handled all such questions for as long as I can remember. So I would take the answer with a grain of salt, even though it seems her likely prepared reply managed to punt in a way which seems a bit dishonest to the specific question asked. (Note- I am not saying she was being dishonest just that it seems she kind of outsmarted herself as I doubt she would "need" to consult those particular sources for this particular question.)
Yea - and the media should keep asking Biden about it. Just like they are doing.You know, kind of like what Biden is doing.