LIVE: Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court
Will Democrats try to ‘Kavanaugh’ her?
|
Listen to this article
|
We’re off the the races.
https://twitter.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1309968109437095937
BEFORE THE CEREMONY
Yup, the vicious attacks the malicious left is about to launch against her are going to go over with the American public *just fine* https://t.co/vQfwiZW60n
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 26, 2020
If they try to 'Kavanaugh' her, I may lose it. https://t.co/50sTOAXgIJ
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 26, 2020
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
Is it possible that Amy will be confirmed and then everything will just continue as it was with little change?
This afternoon as I walked past Prospect Park in Brooklyn, NY there was a small group gathered around a memorial to RBG, and one person was wearing a “handmaid” costume. I didn’t stop to exchange pleasantries, I just walked quickly past while muttering under my breath.
If they only made Haldol in an aerosol spray…
At the last minute, the Dems will haul out a frantically scrawled letter from a delusional nutjob who never actually met Barrett, but swears that he (or she) had some kind of scandalous encounter with Amy when she was in elementary school. We’ll be reminded that “accusers don’t lie.”
Gorsuch is the Justice to worry about, now, with his indefensible joining of the opinion expanding Title VII’s scope to homosexuals and “transgenders.” This was an open-and-shut case, a soft pitch to an alleged “textualist,” and Gorsuch whiffed, completely, proffering a ridiculous and atrocious opinion to rationalize why a statute whose explicit language doesn’t mention homosexuals and “transgenders,” and, whose legislative drafters never discussed or contemplated these groups, during their deliberations, should be expanded to include them.
Read the opinion — Gorsuch goes through such insane contortions, and, offers some incredibly poorly-reasoned examples, to justify his arrogance in re-writing the statute. According to him and the rest of the majority, discriminating against homosexuals unavoidably involves discrimination based upon sex. It’s a farce, one of the worst opinions handed down by the Court, in recent memory (a perfect pairing with the equally-atrocious DACA decision).
And, this case, alone, provides ample reason to be concerned about Gorsuch’s jurisprudence, as well as his intellect.
Primary attack point on Barrett? She chose not to take the sacrament of abortion. Also….she has shown that she can successfully be both a professional and Suzie Homemaker in a world of Fems demanding that this is impossible. In their world it is “either/or” and not “and”. FemDems hate that.
Nope. Read the comments about her ruling in Republicans of Illinois v. Pritzker.
Leave a Comment