Comments by "dbergerac" (@dbergerac9632) on "Watch the top moments from Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings" video.

  1. She spends a normal workday listening to BS arguments and nonsense from one side or the other. It was just another week to her.
    79
  2. They did not ask any.
    12
  3. They did that on their own. She just made no effort to protect them from themselves.
    9
  4. I posted something about that on FB but it was taken down. Much of October will involve one sided news blackouts.
    3
  5. "I'm sorry for speaking in response to your question. I foolishly thought that you desired an answer."
    2
  6.  @pault4004  I think that manners apply to everyone.
    2
  7. She cannot anticipate how she will rule on cases not before the court. The people are entitled to have both sides of every case argued first.
    2
  8. Those were more civil times before TDS. Scalia got 98 votes out of 98. Remember, this same Senate already confirmed her for The Federal Court of Appeals. I am SURE that our Senators did their due diligence, as always, before voting for her.
    2
  9. She made a career of listening to idiotic arguments every day. I'm surprised she could stay awake. Falling asleep would have made her a near perfect replacement for RBG.
    2
  10. It's not her first time.
    1
  11. It was edited by CNBC, they actually thought that this video makes the Democrats look good.
    1
  12. The Democrats and Republicans MOSTLY agree on most problems and many solutions. It's just a shame that the Democrats stopped speaking to the Republicans. I do not blame the origins of that solely on the Democrats, just it's persistence.
    1
  13.  @MLinaresSR47  "Do you accept that Covid-19 is infectious?" That sort of insightful , thought provoking, astute question.? Yeah, the audio was fine, and yet, somehow painful.
    1
  14. That room full of lawyers, both disbarred and licensed, all know that she cannot speak on any potential case. She would be in violation of ethics and could become ineligible to be a judge, possibly even disbarred. That was their intent, but no one nominated for the Supreme Court ever responds to those questions. Judges can only express legal opinions on specific cases before the court after hearing testimony, reading briefs and examining precedents.
    1
  15.  @andrewnicholson6634  Yes. As she should. Every case is different.
    1
  16. I'm sure that the full Senate will consider it all before voting to accept her.
    1
  17.  @danielmanahan692  That'd be a deal breaker.
    1
  18. I am a conservative. I have opinions and desires. Those desires may not always line up with The Constitution and I would expect my Supreme Court to ALWAYS follow The Constitution. Like I say to my liberal contemporaries: "There is an amendment process, use it". What I cannot endure is a court that makes up the law as it goes. That is the job of our accountable elected officials.
    1
  19. Vote like your life depends on it.
    1
  20. Within that context, she had used the term in a paper to differentiate between precedents so beyond debate that no case could ever be expected before the court. No one brings cases to the court expecting to restore Jim Crow laws, for instance. That's DONE. The Senator then brought up another case asking if it were a super-precedent. The mere fact that she thought it worth discussing rendered it NOT a super-precedent, as defined in the paper and earlier question.
    1
  21.  @agresseur7184  Harry Reid was warned that eliminating the super-majority would come back to bite them. He chose poorly.
    1
  22. It is OUR intelligence that they are insulting. They think that we are buying what they are selling.
    1
  23. Since nobody beat any answers out of her, I guess she answered all that were necessary. She did clearly state that she had never settled a complaint of sexual harassment against her. A question that would have burned several Senators.
    1
  24.  @pault4004  I bet she resigns while she still has a pulse.
    1
  25.  Bunnychik  If that was her best work, it's no wonder that California has crime problems.
    1
  26.  @bryangonzaleztorres9188  "So is climate change real or fake" ( which is not even really the debate.) "If I hear a case on it, where two sides present evidence and oral arguments, I could then rule on the Constitutional merits of that case within the specific issue before the court." SCOTUS does not exist to settle political arguments, but legal ones.
    1
  27.  @bryangonzaleztorres9188  I agree completely. They knew that derailing her nomination is a lost cause, so they are looking for sound bytes for down-ballot elections.
    1
  28. Her side is the straight-up constitution, no politics.
    1