Posted on 10/15/2020 7:01:15 AM PDT by rktman
Before MSNBC’s The ReidOut decided on Wednesday to only mention the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings once, Tuesday’s show was filled with rank sexism against Barrett as panelists ruled that “this woman” and “this lady” was akin to the Proud Boys, guilty of collusion with the Trump administration to get rid of ObamaCare, a real-life SNL skit, and too dumb to understand the law.
The Beat host Ari Melber went down the collusion route after Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) finished wrapping her questioning of Barrett, praising her for pressing Barrett about when she had written a law review article disagreeing with the first ObamaCare case and received “this plum promotion from the President” as if to insinuate some quid pro quo. As usual with the liberal media, Barrett didn't actually condemn the Affordable Care Act itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Hey Joy, sticking to besmirching gays. You do that better. Leave the law and politics to the adults.
I watched almost every minute of the hearings. Mrs. Barrett was easily the smartest, brightest, and most knowledgeable person in the room (including those attending remotely by zoom). It was laughable as the opposition tried to lecture her on the law and the Constitution, when she so clearly can run rings around them intellectually and morally.
The democrats proved they are lower than the scum that results from the decay of dung beetles when they trashed Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They are capable of anything, as they have no principles.
They have fine tuned the politics of personal destruction to the finest edge ever.
They must be beaten!
Just to be snerky..
The peepul in a Representative Republic do vote for Justices through their proxies.
But, here in Amerikkuh, YMMV.
A quick doodle of Hunter with a crack-pipe?
Woopee made a reference to Jill’s “doctorship”. Got corrected.
ABC is intellegent and beautiful and yes, wholesome.
Senator from California paraphrase:
Hate is their dogma and envy cries out loudly in their ugly souls.
There is no good thing that they will not seek to ruin.
She was hacked. Oh wait she wasn’t hacked. I didn’t do it. Oh wait I just don’t remember doing it. I’m not the same person today that I was back then.
Her responses and the lying left media’s response to it are so ridiculous. But of course she gets a pass. A conservative never would.
LOL! The pundits are speaking directly to their base who in the main, ARE too stupid to know anything about jurisprudence in any form other than “I didn’t do nuffink, officer, nuffink.”
Liberal War on Women!
...if I am not mistaken, Mrs. Biden’s doctorate degree is in education, not medicine...She has an Ed.D or a Ph.D if I recall...even if she did have an M.D. or D.O. degree, I would not let her operate on me or any member of my family...!!
No-”That reminds me-get ham”
Here is the money shot of the entire hearing so far:
KLOBUCHAR: Is Roe a super-precedent?
BARRETT: How would you define “super-precedent”?
KLOBUCHAR: I actually might have thought someday I’d be sitting in that chair. I’m not. I’m up here. So I’m asking you.
BARRETT: Okay, well, people use super-precedent differently.
KLOBUCHAR: Okay.
BARRETT: The way that it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling. I don’t —
KLOBUCHAR: So here’s what’s interesting to me: You said that Brown [v. Board of Education] is ... is a super-precedent. That’s something the Supreme Court has not even said, but you have said that. So if you say that, why won’t you say that about Roe v. Wade — a case that the court’s controlling opinion, in that Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, has described as a super-precedent? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
BARRETT: Well, senator, I can just give you the same answer that I just did. I’m using a term in that article that is from the scholarly literature. It’s actually one that was developed by scholars who are, you know, certainly not conservative scholars — who take a more progressive approach to the Constitution. And again, you know, as Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled; it just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. the Board that no one questions anymore.
As Bongino described it, it was brilliant. Indicates Barrett holds a 40 IQ points or greater advantage over her questioners in general, and Klobuchar in particular.
Klobuchar was trying to bait her into saying something about abortion, and she used the term "super precedent", and...Barrett asked her to define her terms, something Conservatives too often fail to do with Leftists.
Once Barrett made Klobuchar agree to the definition of "Super Precedent" by defining it and getting the dimwit Klobuchar to commit to accept the same definition, it was like baiting a trap and just waiting for Klobuchar to innocently walk right into it.
Klobuchar did just that.
Klobuchar tried to take that definition and force Barrett to admit that, like Brown [v. Board of Education], Roe v. Wade was a "Super Precedent" and couldn't be touched.
Barrett then grabbed the logical club out of Klobuchar's hands (that she had intended to bludgeon Barrett with) and clocked Klobuchar over the head with it by stating that, if it were actually a "Super Precedent" they wouldn't be talking about it.
Heh, the simple fact that they were talking about it proved beyond all question that...it was NOT a "Super Precedent" case and could be reviewed.
She just proved that it was eligible to be overturned. And she never even had to come out and say it. Hahaha...no video for Leftist commercials with her saying "I will consider overturning Roe v. Wade."
She just took that wet, stinking leftist fish, and dropped it on the table in front of her. A "Fish Drop" moment if there ever was one.
Now...I'll be the first to say, I don't know if she baited that trap, or if she simply let the flow of the discussion take it to that point, but...either way...
THAT was impressive.
And here are the doodlings on her notepad...because she sure didn't have a need to write notes:
Thank goodness it wasn’t the INTELLIGENCE committee...oh, wait...
Propping up the party of love, tolerance, acceptance, with vile, prepubescent, hatred.
How does scum like this get on the air.
Should be its own blog post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
