She taught constitutional law for years dude. Get off your high horse. You're just mad because president Trump picked another stellar judge who will rule based on the constitution and the law
Printable View
Keep drinking your kool aid.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's really only 3 points, all separated by semicolons;
1. freedom from a state-established religion, and freedom to practice religion
2. freedom of speech, and the press
3. freedom of peaceful assembly, and petition the Gov for redress of grievances (protest)
If someone had never thought of it as 5 different items, I could see how one would be confused by such a question. As stated before, she answered the question fairly quickly, but didn't understand where he was going with it
Of course, such an unbiased news source such as PBS would make the title "Amy Coney Barrett can't name five freedoms in the First Amendment" :facepalm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6YN...annel=RawStory
^^ yep. She knows the constitution back and forth and everyone knows it.
ca90ss is dare I say, worse than sam spade
I know everybody is at each other's throats, but we need to chill the fuck out
The other option is to wait for the next POTUS (if there is one). When Obama was going to be at the end of his term, he made a selection. It never went to a vote (which I didn't agree with) and I viewed it as a huge gamble. By the Senate waiting to see who the next POTUS would be, they could have been faced with appointing an even more liberal judge (a Hillary selection) than the one that was before them (the Obama selection). Even now, there's no guarantee who wins the Presidency. So, do we take a chance with the person that's going through the motions or do we take a chance with whoever the next selection could be? There's no guarantee the next choice is any better. Since it's a lifetime appointment, you just never know what you'll really get (term limits are needed in my opinion). For example, when H.W. nominated Souter, he was expected to be Conservative and that wasn't necessarily the case.
You were right about Ginsburg. She did a horrible disservice to the supreme court. It really looks like Kagan and Sotomayor are following along in the same path. Roberts certainly has voted against conservative doctrine a few times and Kavanaugh already has as well. I remember someone asking Kavanaugh who is pro-life if he would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. He said he considers it settled law. He acted like he had no desire to re-hear that case. Of course every case brought before the supreme court has to be decided on the merits of that particular case so we'll see how that goes. People that know and have studied Barrett's history say she is a strict constitutionalist. I hope she is.
It seems pushing her through is taking a bigger chance than waiting. If we wait until after the election and Trump wins then the outcome is the same as pushing for a vote now. If Biden wins and nominates someone liberal the conservatives still have a 5-4 majority. If she is forced through now and Biden wins there’s a chance he’ll pack the court and the conservatives will lose the majority.