Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Recommended Posts

How come any time a Dem asks her about past cases ACB says she can't comment and refuses to say anything, when the GOP asks about past cases, even when it has implications in modern issues, such as what Hawley is asking about, she has no problem going into detailed opinions and explanations of cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

How come any time a Dem asks her about past cases ACB says she can't comment and refuses to say anything, when the GOP asks about past cases, even when it has implications in modern issues, such as what Hawley is asking about, she has no problem going into detailed opinions and explanations of cases?

 

Because she is a lying partisan hack.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

How come any time a Dem asks her about past cases ACB says she can't comment and refuses to say anything, when the GOP asks about past cases, even when it has implications in modern issues, such as what Hawley is asking about, she has no problem going into detailed opinions and explanations of cases?

 

Because there aren't any rules for a Supreme Court Justice. She can say whatever she wants as a Supreme Court nominee and answer any question in any way. 

 

As a Judge or Lawyer she can't. So if she refuses to answer its because she is an acting Judge. But on the other hand, she can say whatever she wants as a SCOTUS nominee. 

 

The separation of powers in this country is a joke. Its like the first thing you learn about in grade school too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcl05 said:

 

Because she is a lying partisan hack.  

 

Yeah what I don't get is she took it upon herself to write opinions that are there for the public to see, but when asked about them during the hearings she won't talk about her own writings? Huh?   Not answering if she feels the President can move back the election? What?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

How come any time a Dem asks her about past cases ACB says she can't comment and refuses to say anything, when the GOP asks about past cases, even when it has implications in modern issues, such as what Hawley is asking about, she has no problem going into detailed opinions and explanations of cases?

It’s just a show. She knows she will be confirmed. She won’t answer Dems but will GOP, to excite the base.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a core feature of the modern Republican to have the ability to lie and deny obvious provable facts without shame. In fact, they often do it with indignant righteousness.  She fits right in.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's questions have ACB dancing and skirting around answers a lot more effectively.  The fact that she will say certain court cases were decided correctly, but punts on other ones, gives you a pretty good idea what her actual thoughts are.

 

The most striking is the fact that she wouldn't say the case involving right to privacy was ruled correctly because that was one that set groundwork for the Roe v. Wade decision.  

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

obviously she is a saint and a demon simultaneously depending on who observes her

 

sort of a schrodinger's cat, except it's who instead of when 

 

i say we keep her in the box and not let anyone look at her

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

And that question came from Ben Sasse meaning it was meant to be a layup. WHOOPS.

Amazing a nominee for the Supreme Court can't answer that.  Especially one with her strict interpretation stance.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So ACB wouldn't comment on whether she believes Climate change is real and cause partially by man-made greenhouse gases because it's..........controversial topic?  Oh really? To who?  No one asked her how she would rule on actual cases related to to climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Marsha Blackburn is almost as dumb as Louie Gohmert.

 

- Her degree is in Home Economics

- Birther

- Smeared Alex Vindman

- Denier of climate change

- Rejects evolution

 

Edit... forgot one:

 

- Supports Donald Trump

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...