Amy Coney Barrett Should be Confirmed ASAP

Does the left not understand that if Roe is struck down as a Constitutional right because it is no where to be found in the Constitution, they can muster 38 states to amend the Constitution and finally have it embodied in the Constitution? And if they don't yet have 38 states to amend the Constitution, they have plenty of states where abortion will be available and they can put their millions where their mouth is and help the women seeking abortions until they do get 38 states. Right now it would take 3 or less more states to accomplish this.



Let the people decide through their elected representatives.

Save the Equal Rights Amendment


http://bostonreview.net/law-justice-...ghts-amendment

Congress set a deadline for ratification that expired in 1982. Only thirty-five states had ratified by that deadline, but the ERA has made a surprising comeback in the past three years. In 2017 the Women’s March gave Nevada the momentum to ratify it; in 2018 the #MeToo movement moved Illinois legislators to ratify; and then, after the “Pink Wave” in 2018 got a record number of women elected to Congress and state legislatures, Virginia ratified in January 2020.

I just like the intellectually dishonest statement of "we need to wait to vote so the people have a voice". People have had a voice in this matter. They made their decision on Tuesday, Nov. 8th, 2016 and that decision runs from Jan 20th 2017 to Jan 20th, 2021.

The people will have their voices heard again in the next few week, and the result of that decision will run from Jan 20th 2021 to Jan 20th 2025, and if half the court dies in a plane crash in September 2024, then whomever is president then gets to fill the seats if they have a friendly Senate that will work with them., that's how it works.

Grassley can't even fuckin' read. How about age limits? Not just term limits for Senators.

I agree on age limits 25/75 for all guberment , and limits of 15/20 years for all courts Just me I guess.

I agree on age limits 25/75 for all guberment , and limits of 15/20 years for all courts Just me I guess. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

It is my opinion that the Founders made a slight grammatical error in the age limit for President. They specifically stated 35 years old. That minimum age seems reasonable to us at some level. However, at the time, 35 was also the average life expectancy. So in essence, they were really saying that they envisioned seasoned, aka mature or people with long term life experiences, i.e. really old, persons holding that office

I just like the intellectually dishonest statement of "we need to wait to vote so the people have a voice". People have had a voice in this matter. They made their decision on Tuesday, Nov. 8th, 2016 and that decision runs from Jan 20th 2017 to Jan 20th, 2021.

The people will have their voices heard again in the next few week, and the result of that decision will run from Jan 20th 2021 to Jan 20th 2025, and if half the court dies in a plane crash in September 2024, then whomever is president then gets to fill the seats if they have a friendly Senate that will work with them., that's how it works. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Obviously you were not around in 2016.

Because you just spent 10 minutes writing the most hypocritical statement in this thread.

3 e mails or texts as he reads his opening statement.

4

Grassley can't even fuckin' read. How about age limits? Not just term limits for Senators. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

More nonsense from 9500- ever heard of a six year Senate term - and elections evey six years???
Of course not - 9500- Read the Constitution

Why are the DPST's screaming about 'Impachment again - Trump won the election in 2016 - as pointed out above eloquently By Mister glock.

DPST's cannot ever forgive not giving H.. 'Her turn". and blame trump - not the american people and their choice.



They may well vote Imepachment again int the nazi pelosi House in order to tie up Congress and the hearings. Foolish act - the Senate led by McConnell and grassley and Graham will finish SC nominee deliberations before turning to any articles of impeachment.

it would be fun to watch the ridiculous nazi Pelosi try to force through Articles of Impeachment - and 'Grounds" for the Articles - and traipse them over to the senate with her little retinue of idiots and her monogrammed pen signing ceremony like the POTUS signs a Bill passed by congress.

Remember how well it worked the first time - nazi Pelosi???
I hope she does it - and makes herself and the whole foolish DPST party appear even more small minded, vindictive, and mean-spirited before Nov 3!!!


Civil War is coming - and Eric Swalwell wants to 'Nuke You" - with the support of 9500!!!

Why are the DPST's screaming about 'Impachment again - Trump won the election in 2016 - as pointed out above eloquently By Mister glock.

DPST's cannot ever forgive not giving H.. 'Her turn". and blame trump - not the american people and their choice.



They may well vote Imepachment again int the nazi pelosi House in order to tie up Congress and the hearings. Foolish act - the Senate led by McConnell and grassley and Graham will finish SC nominee deliberations before turning to any articles of impeachment.

it would be fun to watch the ridiculous nazi Pelosi try to force through Articles of Impeachment - and 'Grounds" for the Articles - and traipse them over to the senate with her little retinue of idiots and her monogrammed pen signing ceremony like the POTUS signs a Bill passed by congress.

Remember how well it worked the first time - nazi Pelosi???
I hope she does it - and makes herself and the whole foolish DPST party appear even more small minded, vindictive, and mean-spirited before Nov 3!!!


Civil War is coming - and Eric Swalwell wants to 'Nuke You" - with the support of 9500!!! Originally Posted by oeb11

It is my opinion that the Founders made a slight grammatical error in the age limit for President. They specifically stated 35 years old. That minimum age seems reasonable to us at some level. However, at the time, 35 was also the average life expectancy. So in essence, they were really saying that they envisioned seasoned, aka mature or people with long term life experiences, i.e. really old, persons holding that office Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

that's one idea for a "living" constitution the left mightn't like

but then again, any ambiguity appeals to them

My Democrat friend knows how I feel about religion seeing as how we are both Agnostic but I can't make him understand why I support the nomination of Barrett. He insists that she will bring her Catholic beliefs to her position. Gee, where have I heard that before? JFK anybody? Did the Left worry about Ginsburg bringing her Jewish beliefs to the highest court?

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

every one brings their beliefs with them into everything

the leftists bring their idea of morality with them and their feelings of slights and , as compared to conservatives, have been known frequently to adjust rulings on the law to fit their ideas and feelings

as opposed to leftists, amy coney barrett, much like other conservatives, is constrained by the written text of a law and how it comports with the written text of the constitution, the meanings of which have been fairly distilled by prior proper court analysis

I'd say there are fewer self imposed constraints on leftist judges

the nature of being a conservative allows for the constitution to be a shield and sword for us all

whims of leftists don't afford one the luxury of being secure in the law

in regard to acb and being a practicing catholic, the left fears a proper constitutional application much more than her religion, though as a conservative she is in many ways held to the stasis of prior court decisions. the left would fear any conservative justice nominee, but certainly they do detest the religious.

and many irreligious people have pointed out the absurdity of the constitutional right to an abortion.

your friends fear is misplaced

"It's not easy to be a conservative woman."

Lindsey Graham