Jump to content

Anyone watching scotus hearing


HSFBfan

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Amy not only be on scotus she is qualified to be chief Justice 

She'll be running the bench. 

She didn't need notes. She knew statutes by heart. She knew the cases off the top of her head 

I have never seen anyone more qualified than her 

I agree with this. This woman is brilliant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blueliner said:

I agree with this. This woman is brilliant. 

Absolutely. I know democrats will vote no due to hatred of trump which is sad. She is extremely qualified. The ABA has said she is extremely qualified. Her students said she highly qualified. 

You couldn't get a more polished nominee. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mag44 said:

Your comments are WITHOUT STANDING...Show us all her DECISIONS that are based on Religion,her faith and NOT BASED ON LAW OR PRESIDENT....They don't don't exist and are a cruel and vicious claim, without merit by you and others who don't like her...Come on....your comments are below and are the the type RZ spews....

I admit, I have a strong bias against religious nuts. Her faith does shape views, they do in all of us. No one is bias free. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, noonereal said:

I admit, I have a strong bias against religious nuts. Her faith does shape views, they do in all of us. No one is bias free. 

 

Well then, it appears your comment and accusations are meritless.... That's nice, now you've stumped to RZ....It does not become you and your smarter than that...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mag44 said:

Well then, it appears your comment and accusations are meritless.... That's nice, now you've stumped to RZ....It does not become you and your smarter than that...

admitting a bias does not make one without merit 

Am I lazy in this debate? Yes. I have no energy to enter needless combat for what is a matter of a formality to unfurl. 

Be happy with this cross-eyed zealot. It is a done deed. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mag44 said:

Well then, it appears your comment and accusations are meritless.... That's nice, now you've stumped to RZ....It does not become you and your smarter than that...

Its amazing how the democrats attack Christians and jews but if you and me were ever to say something about the Muslims who have been enemies of America since Jefferson were an Islamophobe 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, noonereal said:

I admit, I have a strong bias against religious nuts. Her faith does shape views, they do in all of us. No one is bias free. 

 

Do you believe Barret is a religious nut and if so, prove it...Or, as most prudent and DECENT people would suggest, is that she believes in her faith ....Her views on the law are based on present law and its presidents from the Constitution as she has stated..What decisions of hers have you read and why is she and Kavanaugh considered "religious"....Those on left with your views only strengthen others resolve...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, noonereal said:

admitting a bias does not make one without merit 

Am I lazy in this debate? Yes. I have no energy to enter needless combat for what is a matter of a formality to unfurl. 

Be happy with this cross-eyed zealot. It is a done deed. 

 

But, calling her a religious nut is without merit unless you can prove it and you can't... You've sunk to the levels of RZ and that is pathetic...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mag44 said:

Do you believe Barret is a religious nut and if so, prove it...Or, as most prudent and DECENT people would suggest, is that she believes in her faith ....Her views on the law are based on present law and its presidents from the Constitution as she has stated..What decisions of hers have you read and why is she and Kavanaugh considered "religious"....Those on left with your views only strengthen others resolve...

Its precedent 

But great point 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, noonereal said:

no it is not... he would be posting more insane

can't confirm he is not an imposter, but when he started posting, that's what he was trying to indicate...

image.thumb.png.4499aec92f0820c5089744190d60ab94.png

But he's your friend, so if he is just a poser, feel free to flesh him out   👍

 

PS: if it's not him then LOLOL, because he's trying too hard

On 10/3/2020 at 9:38 AM, Mag44 said:

No, you bloviate enough BULLSHIT for all of us......Your benign rhetoric far exceeds that of Professor Irwin Cory........🙀

🤣

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, noonereal said:

Am I lazy in this debate? Yes. I have no energy to enter needless combat for what is a matter of a formality to unfurl. 

Be happy with this cross-eyed zealot.

 

BTW: what is it in your book...you know...that makes someone a 'religious zealot' ?

🤔

is it one who simply refuses to apologize for believing in their religion, and nothing more?

maybe someone who agrees with 'all' the teachings of some religion, and not just the ones they like or choose?

or maybe it is those who try to impose their religious beliefs on others...

or do you prefer reserving it for those who would stone non-believers of their faith?

 

I only ask as Your bar appears quite low....unless you know something we don't...    

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Troll said:

BTW: what is it in your book...you know...that makes someone a 'religious zealot' ?

🤔

is it one who simply refuses to apologize for believing in their religion, and nothing more?

maybe someone who agrees with 'all' the teachings of some religion, and not just the ones they like or choose?

or maybe it is those who try to impose their religious beliefs on others...

or do you prefer reserving it for those who would stone non-believers of their faith?

 

I only ask as Your bar appears quite low....unless you know something we don't...    

 

 

 

 

I dig churches, organs, choirs, the architecture and art. I even see the social good they generally provide. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle Obama would have been a better choice for SCOTUS.

At least she would look to the greater good of society and would not just placate White Fragility and privilege.

If you're looking for woman with smarts, Barret has the book smarts. Michelle has that and community awareness which is lacking at this level. However, I see this nomination going fairly smooth.

Kavanaugh the rapist had a turbulent time, but raping women doesn't fall under any evil with the "evils" outlined by the Chief Propaganda Officer of the Klavern.

bgw

  • Haha 1
  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...