For the love of God, please just let Amy Barrett talk for herself. Trump stooges are the only people that can screw this up:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kayleigh McEnany says in briefing that Amy Coney Barrett is a "Rhodes scholar." <br><br>Barrett did not receive a Rhodes Scholarship, but rather received a bachelor's degree from Rhodes College in Memphis.<br><br>When reporter points that out, McEnany says, "My bad" <a href="https://t.co/Nj065CIsxp">https://t.co/Nj065CIsxp</a> <a href="https://t.co/YpIFz4W1PA">pic.twitter.com/YpIFz4W1PA</a></p>— CBS News (@CBSNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1311695582730354690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
WHOM HAS HE REPLACED?
A president’s ability to reshape the courts depends partly on factors beyond the president’s control—including the nature of the available vacancies. Trump might have shifted the court-of-appeals balance more decisively had he been able to replace more Democratic appointees, but circuit vacancies haven’t accommodated him. Table 4a shows that less than two-fifths of his circuit judge appointees replaced Democratic appointees. By contrast, at this early fourth-year point, over half of Obama’s appointees replaced judges appointed by Republican presidents.
The thing that gets me is that this woman is a Harvard Law grad. She's not the typical dumb-blonde news bimbo that Trump would normally pick up, she's an educated woman. Now, that's not to say that just because you graduated from somewhere you're smart, but still.
Schumer now using Covid as a reason to delay ACB...
Pretty weak.
What is your issue with it?
This is just another "tool", and the Dems said they would use every tool available to obstruct ACB. If you think the Dems would be singing the same song if the shoe were on the other foot, I can't help you.
You say obstruct, they say tool, it's all politics. The faux outrage over this is quite cute, though. I mean, who cares, McConnell will get his nominee through.
lol"We oppose this embrace........"
What is your issue with it?
You say obstruct, they say tool, it's all politics. The faux outrage over this is quite cute, though. I mean, who cares, McConnell will get his nominee through.
Then why question it?
Questioning YJ's calling of Schumer weak. Rational people shouldn't care, because McConnell will likely still get his way. I think that's pretty clear.
It's weak because everyone sees right through it. Pure politics and 0% sincerity. Plain and simple.
We can have football teams playing on Saturday and Sunday while managing cases that pop up, why can't the Senate. You know it's pure politics, so not sure why you're even climbing this tree.
Hard to get outraged over something so predictable, and so weak.
Questioning YJ's calling of Schumer weak. Rational people shouldn't care, because McConnell will likely still get his way. I think that's pretty clear.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisies. When you claim to be the arbiter on what deserves outrage, you open yourself up for criticism on your selective choices.
Calling liberals snowflakes and having "faux outrage" for the ACB nomination, but then calling Schumer weak? Lmao.
I mean, regardless of what Schumer does or doesn't do, he is a weak man. If he wasn't from a prominent state, i doubt he'd even be a known dude. He has the charisma is an empty roll of toilet paper. He's no Cocaine Mitch.
To me its absolutely amazing that New York and California have 3 objectively bad Senators. One would expect them to do better.
What is your issue with it?
Instead of the expand/pack the Court question, I would like to have had each answer "Are you in favor of term limits for SCOTUS judges?"
The average tenure of justices is likely to increase to 35 years on the bench over the next century, compared with 17 years over the previous 100 years, based on the justices from Kennedy back to those on the bench in 1917.
That means there likely will be only another 25 appointees over the next 100 years, starting with the Trump presidency and including Justice Gorsuch at age 49 and the replacement for Justice Kennedy. Coney Barrett is 48.
This contrasts with the 47 appointments in the previous 100 years, beginning at the start of Woodrow Wilson’s second term in 1917 and ending with the last day of the Obama administration. There were 61 appointments in the 100 years from 1861 through 1961, the end of Dwight Eisenhower’s administration.
The average life expectancy in 1860 was 40 years, which has almost doubled by today. Confirmation should also revert to confirmation requiring sixty Senators.
Justices 1789 to Present
Here we go. Let the whining begin.
Time to find out what is really in her high school yearbook.
Can't wait to hear her say that Roe v Wade is "settled law" and say that she would vote to kick back any legislation that did not acknowledge that. Five sitting Justices are Catholic and thirty percent of Congress is Catholic.