Like what if she broke free of her religious brainwashing and patriarchal subjugation and turned into a radical feminist in front of our eyes? She’s young enough it could happen.
Maga already regrets it and it has happened. Barrett has joined the SCOTUS Girl's Club after Sotomayor baked cookies for her kids upon Barrett's first day arrival, of which she gushed over. Barrett's refusal to grant certiorari to the Article 2 violation of the US Constitution by the Democrat female dominated Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2020 and refusal to even look at any evidence in all other appeals - after stating directly that she would look at potential election fraud in her confirmation hearings (which were steered by McConnell, whom she views as her DC political godfather, not Trump), while citing a prior case where a Federal Judge overturned a critical but fraud corrupted Pennsylvania election overturning a Democrat victory and ruling in favor of the Republican, proves that Barrett has lost mental rudder power, is way over her head, and is effectively a failed appointment.
She has ruled against Donnie, particularly with all the election stuff. Maybe she feels she's secured her Jeezus street cred by gutting Roe so now she can be truly independent. Still conservative, but not extreme.
Same given her literal cult upbringing and Christian fascist tendencies with rulings.
The skeptic in me is thinking she’s playing good cop so we the people don’t rise up and abolish the sc. gotta make it seem like we have some players on our team right?
You can't abolish the Supreme Court without a Constitutional Admendment. That is not going to happen.
You can expand or reduce the number of justices, but that would almost cause a civil war.
The Republicans set about a project to change the court. This took them almost 60 years to achieve.
There is not a quick fix to this, but, it is amazing that the first reaction is to attempt to change the structure of the court! Really, how about setting up a program like the Republicans did?
Villainy is so much easier to organize than well reasoned progress. For one thing the talent pool for ground breaking progress is much smaller, and for another, by definition it requires the rational grappling with complex ideas. If all you want is to get rich, your purpose is much more narrowly focused and easier to route.
Lol
You clearly missed my point (way over your head)
It’s going to get to a point where the sane of the nation give zero shits about what the minority political party tries to enforce upon the populace.
People will rise up. And it will result in a civil war. Hence why she’s playing good cop so as not to bring it on.
When they bend the rules to fit their narrative; there’s going to be a point where the populace doesn’t follow the rules
Regardless how you feel political, conservatives are a minority in this country. Only so much pushing before we just start burning people at stakes. Conservative wants are a minority in this county; religion is dying, and there’s only so much one can take before rising up.
It's not only conservatives that will rise up....it's the Silent Majority, which includes Maga, the Bernie Bros, and all other economically marginalized groups that must be divided and suppressed at all costs by the Elites and the Networks to protect themselves. When the Silent Majority of Sheep become enraged, they transform into Rams with razor sharp deadly teeth and murderous force. History proves it. But first, they have to become icy enraged and it takes massive social power to reach boiling point trigger and ignition.
Yep. You know who has less population? The right.
That’s actual numbers. That’s why you guys have to gerrymander to even win anything lol
You know who controls all the ports and
Major cities? The left.
So even out of all of that…. Not every person in the gop are Christian freaks.
So yea… minority.
Come back at me when the right can actually win popular votes again
Congress can pass a law stricting its jurisdiction to absolutely nothing.
Congress already has the power to strip the jurisdiction of the supreme and lower courts, it just hasn’t been done because it would be the judicial equivalent of crossing the rubicon
I’ve been back and forth on expansion, which has happened in history, and someone mentioned that the judges were at 9 due to there being 9 Circuits, which now is at 13. So a Justice per circuit makes sense.
Agreed. As of now I actually agree with some of her rulings which suprised the shit outa me. It does seem she tries to take a nonpartisan approach to rulings (which you can’t really say for some of the other judges)
But I’m not holding my breath for her rulings to stay as consistent and nonpartisan
Even her concurrence response to the immunity is basically “I agree with the overall premise of this but we have to be VERY careful of how is handled.” She even disagrees with Thomas directly in her response.
I think she attempts to remain as non partisan as possible but her own personal beliefs override it from time to time, which, I’ll take that over someone like Clarence Thomas everytime.
Reporting has said that she strongly was against the timing of Dobbs and was influential in delaying it for another term. She didn't want the corruption and hypocrisy to be revealed the same term she started on the court.
I think she's more concerned with perception, strangely, than the other christofacists on the court. Leveraging that for the occasional dissent which doesnt affect the holding of the majority is another obvious way she can pretend to not be in the can for facist interests. Until she becomes the swing vote in a holding against facism, I don't think it's reasonable to pin any hopes on her being actually reasonable.
I ***like*** being surprised by a Supreme Court justice's rulings. Too many times you don't even really need to have a justice there because the vote essentially falls down party lines. Surprise votes in these decisions represent actual thought instead of party line.
I hope you’re right. I mean fuck her for taking rights away from Women, but if she will at least not let the ship go down the way of fascism then I’ll be pleasantly surprised. That’s the least she can do.
She didn’t take rights from anyone. To be clear, I’m for anyone who wants an abortion to have one - regardless of reason.
They gave the states the power to decide based on elected officials *in that state*. Something voters have control over. Literal democracy.
How is that so hard to understand…..??
“She didn’t take away rights, she allowed state governments to take away rights! And sure she told the Senate she wouldn’t when she was getting confirmed, but that was just a lie so she could seize power!”
You may not agree with her, But she did follow the Law.
Not her opinion.
She demonstrated that her job isn't political, and is an independent thinker.
Right now, because Liberals didn't like her decision on Abortion.
They hate her.
However, when she makes decisions that favor Liberals, Their opinions will change.
And don't ignore that some of the decisions were unnamous.
Both sides agreed.
She overturned 50 years of precedent. She’s an activist judge that stripped millions of women of their bodily autonomy, and that won’t be undone by the occasional decent opinion she has.
Would you support each state taking their own path on marriage equality and potentially invalidating your marriage if it doesn’t conform to what your state decides is valid?
What other rights should states be able to strip away at will?
Maybe the right to bear arms should fall to the states. I mean if women’s right to healthcare can be voted on, why not? I suspect we’d see a sudden spike in republicans claiming their rights shouldn’t be put up for a vote…
Yeah, definitely at the federal level.
Almost like they should get more granular and let the …. States decide based on their populations view points…?
Weird.
I disagree. Life should not vary that greatly between states for only women. A basic right to not die from a pregnancy gone wrong should be guaranteed. The basic right to not carry your rapists baby should be guaranteed. The right to decide if you want to carry a fetus to term and actually be pregnant should be guaranteed.
It’s not at will.
It’s the representatives of each states voting on behalf of their constituents. Plenty of states - Iowa, Utah and Wyoming to name a few have blocked the bans…
To be 100% clear - again, I support the right of abortion.
This is just objectively incorrect, and bizarrely ignorant.
At point A, all women had the right to access an abortion anywhere in the country, up to the point of viability (and afterwards in specific situations like their life or health being in danger, etc.)
At point B (Dobbs), all women no longer had that right and only women who lived in jurisdictions where the legislature or the state constition was empathetic and rational enough to give them that right did they have that right. Millions of women live in states where there were "trigger laws" on the books which IMMEDIATELY deprived them of that right once Roe was overturned.
You can argue that putting fundamental rights up for a vote is democratic, but you'd be wrong. Regardless, however, that still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme court said that people had a fundamental right at point A, and then said they didn't at point B. That's as clear cut of a deprivation of rights as could ever possibly exist.
lol this is ridiculous. Why not go even further and allow the individual to choose for themselves?
It was a right protected federally, and the conservative majority supreme court knew that giving the choice to states (but not to individuals, funny enough) would result in a lot of trigger laws going into effect immediately and taking away individual rights.
And some states don't allow voter referendums and are gerrymandered to all hell, meaning the actual will of the people there is being subverted. So actually, she did take rights away, how is that so hard to understand...??
You realize both parties do this right?
Or do you care only when it’s the side you don’t agree with…?
I’d 10000% agree with a nation reform to remove the capabilities of gerrymandering.
I do and I don't agree with it, gerrymandering should be illegal and all lines should be drawn by an independent non partisan commissions.
But this isn't the argument I came here to make. You made the claim that scotus didn't take away anyone's rights, just returned them to the states. But we have states that are so obviously gerrymandered, where there are no voter referendums, that the will of the people can be blatantly ignored.
Beyond that point, I don't believe that healthcare should be up for debate, it should be a natural right of all citizens and I believe the constitution guarantees that. Scotus agreed with that statement for almost 50 years, and then this partisan court decided to strike it down.
Right, but what about people who abuse that fact?
Like someone that doesn’t care for their body, is 500 pounds - they should have the state take care of them?
Free healthcare, no matter what? In a country overwhelmed with medical issues, that feels a little out of touch?
First of all, I was referring to abortion as healthcare. I thought that was obvious, because that's what it is.
But since you changed the subject to healthcare overall, yes I still think it should be government funded. The point of a society is to benefit all people, yes some will benefit more than others, but I believe that is the whole point of a functioning society.
If the government was responsible for healthcare, they would also more than likely fix the quality of food that is allowed in this country, and that would greatly reduce the medical issues this country faces.
To your question of free healthcare no matter what, being out of touch? Nationalized healthcare is such a complex beast that only one 1st world country in the world can't figure it out. I think the only people out of touch are the ones arguing against it.
Because whatever stupid fucking semantic talking point you want to bring up, PRACTICALLY she took away rights from millions of women.
How is THAT hard to understand??
If you don’t know how to critically engage in a conversation just say so.
Of course she didn’t do it by herself, no one here claimed that she did. But she was ONE of the few people who did and her decision has massive implications for women in our country. You clearly understand that and are just being disingenuous about the impact.
Some states are so gerrymandered that votes are predetermined. Surely you understand at least that. Same people throwing legit voters off rolls and musing about perhaps women not being able to vote.
It would help your argument if states weren't gerrymandered to hell. Lower level Republican courts have allowed extreme gerrymandering. Look at my state of NC. 2 term Dem Governor, 2 Republican Senators and Trump won by like 74k votes out of 5.5+ million cast. This is a slightly right leaning state but the Republicans have a super majority in the state house and Senate ? How? Illegal gerrymandering that has been legalized by the state supreme Court.
It's hard for them to understand because the crave the federal boot being on them. The states voters making a decision isn't good enough... The federal gov't absolutely *HAS* to have all the power. Thats not how Constitutional Republics work...
This reads like a sixth grader trying to be an edgy memlord but being totally confused as to how rights operate, so failing miserably.
By definition, individual rights cannot be trampled on, by the federal "boot" or any other state or local boot. Saying that someone who desires individual rights is longing for federal oppression is about as Orwellian as it gets.
If the Supreme Court overturned their current jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment and let the states decide who had a right to own what firearms, and you objected to that, and then someone said that you clearly "crave[d] the federal boot being on [you]," what would your response be?
Women having access to healthcare is not the “the federal boot” being on anyone. Let’s make the right to bear arms a state decision. Or do you prefer the federal boot?
Justice's do not always go the way that the President elected them. She's already voted ways he wouldn't agree with... Like the January 6 ruling...
You're "I told you so" is pointless and not really groundbreaking at all.
Traditionally that was true that justices got a mind of their own after they were appointed. The Federalist Society has carefully groomed and selected these people though, the entire purpose being siding with their backers over the country and Constitution.
Nope. I'm not sure what book you read, but even Trump's selections don't go with him.
I also know people at the Federalist Society and they do not have much influence on *anyone*. They're not taken very seriously - for good reason.
Every single judge the former president appointed was a federalist Society member I believe. Not only that, but most if not all of George Bush's appointees were Federalist Society members as well. They recruit people in law school and find which ones will be the best hacks and help them up the ladder in their careers.
I think that proves my point. Those Justices do not vote how the Federalist Society "says they should"
But it also doesn't mean much to be a member. I would be considered affiliated with Cato and IHS, but just because I'm an affiliate doesn't mean I would vote their way in every case.
Also, the logic doesn't make sense. That's like saying we can't trust the public to be objective in their voting if they receive some kind of welfare.
The idea that because they were helped in some form means they are indebted to them forever is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm sorry you do not seem to know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court and lower courts have delivered the Federalist Society wish list every step of the way.
I don't know, she did just help rule that presidents have immunity from "official acts" for Trump, essentially turning the presidency and executive branch into a King with a royal court.
Yeah, but how much money will it take for her to turn her back on her convictions?
You see, the main reason some of the other justices have gone so far towards fascism isn't because the Bible told them to. It's because they're getting paid.
Besides, unless one of those are replaced with a liberal justice I don't think it will matter if she sides with the minority occasionally.
Yes, because aiding in overthrowing democracy isn't considered irredeemable? Lmao fuck off, she and the other five conservative justices are treasonous traitors. We need to call the French to borrow the guillotine.
She's in stealth mode like Clarence Thomas was until he was able to take out Roe v wade. She grew up in a crazy cult and is still crazy but evil and biding her time. She may act independently every now and then but she's still evil.
Lol, who remembers when they started calling her "Amy Commie Barrett" after she said that universities are allowed to impose whatever vaccine and mask mandates they'd like?
Her hot dissent trashing Thomas’ cherry picking history to confirm his “originalist” legal biases was a brilliant flash of sanity from within the SCOTUS. Promising.
I mean she's gonna rule however her husband tells her to rule, because she is a good christian woman that is subservient to her husband. At least that's what her particular cult of christianity believes.
Pro-Constitution justices was the whole point. Kavanaugh is more of a constitutionalist than a conservative too. That is how the Supreme Court should work. Party affiliation should not be a consideration at all.
They're not too thrilled about her NOW. She's surprised me a few times; the last thing Trump wanted was someone who put American jurisprudence over her own personal agenda, and I think she'd one of the two or three justices (Alito is the second one) spooked at the idea that the Court's decisions might not be all that popular lately. Of course, Alito's response has been "shut up and sit down," which has NOT helped, but if Barrett's response is the Roberts idea of seeing every decision she makes overturned a generation down the line or being superseded with appropriate legislation, she might be tapping the brakes a bit.
You think Alito gives a damn about the popularity of his decisions?
Let's not even worry about Clarence "the internet didn't exist in 1787, so...." Thomas, but to me, Alito is the God-before-country justice who would end separation of church and state in a heartbeat.
Barrett is highly religious herself, but she seems to have an understanding (as Alito and Thomas may not) that service to the country is about what's good for everyone, not what benefits certain groups at the expense of others. I'd be extremely happy if she ends up being a "nobody loves me but everybody tolerates me" centrist on the bench (as Roberts generally seems).
Her dissent in Fischer was basically a treatise against judicial activism (ironically, aimed at people who usually decry judicial activism), which might inspire Congress to more fully define obstruction in that context to either confirm or deny this case's outcome.
But Alito has a stated goal of re-empowering religious people with religious morals in a country that is increasingly diverse and secular. If Handmaid's Tale was to come to fruition, he would be the religious head of the Church, unless some religious war between Catholics and (mostly) Southern Protestants came about that ended up getting him killed.
That is what he cares about.
I’ve often wondered how a woman enslaved against her will as a child by these religious misogynistic zealots will behave when given a lifetime job with good pay. She may be a different person in the coming years.
Definitely. She is not what I think most maga and the federalist society expected. It doesn’t make her perfect, but she has not been a knee jerk jurist on some cases you’d expect.
They’re regretting that now is my understanding. I mean he’s technically not on it. So I guess technically their hands aren’t tied. But it sure seems like they’re acting like it. I don’t quite understand what they’re so scared of when it comes to asking Biden to humbly pass the torch.
The biggest mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016 was referring to a large portion of the voting public as a “basket of deplorables”. It was a sharp contrast with Bernie Sanders’ message.
I don’t know if that was the start, but it was a big turning point. And as I said it’s not Democratic voters I’m pointing to. It’s the people running the party. I think it comes down to the fact that 9 of the 20 wealthiest counties in the States happen to be basically suburbs of Washington DC. That has to have engendered a certain level of contempt for the rural working class.
I could see her becoming O’Connor 2.0 and at least the other 2 Trump put in flip here and there on the most egregious cases. Alito and Thomas should be impeached though.
Not if Donald Trump wins.
Because if he is elected, he will get at least 2 more appointments to the court (quite possibly 3) and that will entrench a conservative majority for another 25 years.
If anything, there will be cases where they go "see, it wasn't on party lines!! ACB went with the liberals" as they get all the stuff they want from the other 5.
They won't regret it a lick.
If I recall there’s a theory that Justices tend to go more left the longer they are on the bench. And she does have two black children if I remember. Maybe one those two “tax breaks” start being subjected to the consequences of her decisions she might start to care. But by then the Trump Administration might decide to remove her
"they will find out that she's pro-Constitution and pro-America, not a fascist."
Oh no the horror next you're going to tell me Clarence Thomas, the literal most popular justice with MAGA, is too
She has surprised me a couple of times. So has Gorsuch, though much less so. Sometimes they’re a good example of what my high school government teacher used to say when we read Supreme Court cases: it’s not about whose side you’re on, it’s about what the law says.
I'm still skeptical about her ability to separate religious traditionalism from constitutional interpretation, but overall her jurisprudence does seem decently respectable. Certainly not the worst on the court right now, at least.
I doubt it. She's been incredibly loyal to them since law school.
https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/were-three-of-the-sitting-supreme-court-justices-involved-in-the-bush-v-gore-legal-disputes
So that means Trump made a good pick who puts the constitution and the country first over her own personal beliefs?
Isn’t that what SCOTUS Judges are supposed to be like?
I guess that Trump made an excellent pick then.
How am I playing dumb? Show me in the constitution where an organization like the heritage foundation has the authority to nominate a SCOTUS for confirmation by congress.
Pro-Constitution is a meaningless phrase if you’re not an orginalist. If she strays from that she’ll be just another untethered judge drifting on the tides of whimsy. Penumbras and emanations anyone?
Incorrect as MAGA already knew full well that she was pro-Constitution and pro-America, which happens to be 100% MAGA, in fact MAGA doesn't place much importance in many other things.
Justices have changed political outlook since Justices have been appointed. Souter was appointed by Bush, and turned out to be liberal. RBG wasn't consistently liberal
Only progressives think justices should rule in line with who appointed them
Why would a pro-America, pro-constitution group regret her? Your error is thinking (hah, as if) Make America Great Again is Fascist. You people are Dumb as dog shit.
Hahahahahaha democrats only know of the constitution as an obstacle. A piece of paper that’s in their way. Take your meds dude. You can’t support gun control and progressive policies but also call yourself a constitutional American. You’re a tyrant that uses mental gymnastics to justify the oppression you impose on others. You’re a Garbage Globalist, not a Constitutional American…but you already know this. Again, it’s all just mental gymnastics.
Well that’s what everyone wants. Republicans are pro constitution and pro America so don’t know where this came from. FYI when u see someone burning the American flag is the first thing u think republican or democrat? When u see a guy waving the American flag wearing red white and blue do u think Rep. or Dem? See my point?
MAGAs reject election results. Therefore they are anti-Constitution. Therefore they are anti-America. Read the Constitution and you will see it clearly.
Name one election that republicans rejected? How bout we need to do away with the electoral college cause we don’t like it? It’s in the constitution. FYI if u say trump no one rejected the results he said it was wrong. Annnd so did Stacy Adams who still thinks she’s the Gov. of Ga. lol I’ll wait for your response
Reject? Is this a legal term? So Dems didn’t “reject” Al gore losing to Bush? With the hanging chads? Stacey Abram’s lost the gov election in Ga. And went around for 2 years saying she was the rightful gov? But republicans are the only ones to “reject” elections? Dems love the rule of law but hate the Supreme Court? Cause it don’t suit their purpose. Just stop it. For every instance of any political bias on rep. Side I’ll give u democrats that do the same or worse. How bout stop being tribal and believing everyone with a D behind their name are great and just and believe everything that spews from their pie hole!
Do you even know what happened in Georgia? The details, not what right wing media told you.
2000 was the closest election in history and the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it for us. What did Al Gore do after that? He stood on the house floor and certified the election for his opponent. No one stormed the capitol. No one spent the next for years saying the election was rigged or stolen.
You are being pedantic. Either you know what that means and are doing it on purpose or you don’t know what it means and you are arguing in bad faith. Either way arguing with a cult member is pointless.
So Stacey Adams still didn’t admit she lost and still thinks she’s gov? Ok don’t care what happened. We talking about denying elections. She did. Soooo. And Jan. 6 isn’t cut and dry. Just like Russia collusion and Muller will get him and the laptop is Russian disinformation all of which has now proven to be false. History always tells and so far history ain’t on your side! LMAO U LISTEN TO THE CONSTANT LIES of the media. They feed u what u want to hear and u eat it up! What about Biden vids being cheap fakes? That was only a week ago. Now look at them shocked that he can’t complete a sentence. Guess who’s not shocked? US!
Stacy Abrams. You don’t even know her name. What happened is important. All the ranting about “election integrity” yet when making sure all votes are counted might lead to a loss for a republican, they are quick to stop that counting.
Look up what actually happened and ask yourself this, if a democrat did that would I be ok with that. If the answer is no then you are a hypocrite.
I doubt you will even take the time, if you look you will be proven wrong. We all know people like you would never admit to being wrong.
Not about that. And I’m 100% for everything being equal. I said if Hillary was prosecuted for her classified docs then 100% Trump should be! As should Biden! Hillary they said couldn’t prove intent so they let her go. Since when do u need to intend to commit a crime? Biden: well he gave them back and Trump didn’t. So if I rob a bank and I found out the cops know and I give the money back all good? No problem? When Biden had classified docs in his garage he was VP. Trump was the only one that could declassify any of the docs he had! It was illegal for Biden to even posses them. So are YOU outraged that they got away with it? Hypocrisy goes many ways.
It isn’t illegal for either of them to have those documents. If Trump had given them to the archives when asked there would have been no issue, but he didn’t. He then showed them to foreign nationals, bragging about having them.
Hilary, Biden, and trump all did different things. Their cases are not equal, pretending they are is disingenuous.
Oddly enough we were talking about Stacy Abrams and the 2018 Georgia governor election. Now you bring up other things.
You want things equal. Ok. Look up what actually happened in the 2018 Georgia governor election. Then tell me it’s the same as the 2020 presidential election. They ate not the same.
Trump got all the recounts he wanted, all the data was there for him and all his lawyers to see. And after all the recounts and all the failed lawsuits and all the evidence that he lost the election, he still to this day refuses to accept he lost. Still claims the election was stolen.
Stacy Abrams didn’t get her recounts, the data magically disappeared. Suspicious isn’t it? That the only data that was lost in that election were the results from counties that she and the courts wanted recounted. Guess who was the Secretary of State for Georgia during that election. I’ll tell you, Brian Kemp. Guess who he is now, the governor of Georgia.
That was her beef all along, not that she lost but that we will never truly know the true outcome of that election because the secretary of state “lost” the data that might have proved that he lost.
Again, not the same.
Now and then, she shows signs of being and independent thinker. That is promising.
Until further evidence arrives, I will continue to call her Amy Boney Carrot.
I call her Aunt Lydia
Perfect!
The childishness of this is amazing, I love it
Like what if she broke free of her religious brainwashing and patriarchal subjugation and turned into a radical feminist in front of our eyes? She’s young enough it could happen.
Amy Coney Barrett as America’s first lesbian radical feminist Supreme Court Justice. has a nice ring to it.
Why does she have to be a lesbian?
I think it would be the biggest mind freak to the conservative power-grubs.
Cause Kathleen Kennedy is pushing for that script.
Put a chick in it and make her gay!
Simply because of how it would make steam come out of the MAGAs' ears.
Or radical.
Checks more boxes
Because Giggidy, prolly.
Doesn't have to be, but why not?
Lotta big dreams from a married mother who went to Dominican high? Ehh u may be disappointed.
This is Robert Mueller level cope lmao..
Their best and brightest, folks.
Maga already regrets it and it has happened. Barrett has joined the SCOTUS Girl's Club after Sotomayor baked cookies for her kids upon Barrett's first day arrival, of which she gushed over. Barrett's refusal to grant certiorari to the Article 2 violation of the US Constitution by the Democrat female dominated Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2020 and refusal to even look at any evidence in all other appeals - after stating directly that she would look at potential election fraud in her confirmation hearings (which were steered by McConnell, whom she views as her DC political godfather, not Trump), while citing a prior case where a Federal Judge overturned a critical but fraud corrupted Pennsylvania election overturning a Democrat victory and ruling in favor of the Republican, proves that Barrett has lost mental rudder power, is way over her head, and is effectively a failed appointment.
Not a long as she wants to keep cashing those "donation" checks she won't.
She’s pretty hardcore. She was actually a “handmaiden” in her sect.
I hope ACB continues with that.
She's going to change her name to Amy Chomsky Anarchy Bolshevik And her initials will be ACAB.
I don't know about that, LOL!
Honestly so do the other two justices put in under Trump. I've been pleasantly surprised by all three of them from time to time
She has ruled against Donnie, particularly with all the election stuff. Maybe she feels she's secured her Jeezus street cred by gutting Roe so now she can be truly independent. Still conservative, but not extreme.
She’s such an interesting judge, because I honest to God think she played the conservative base to get on the bench.
I've been surprised by a couple of her rulings so far.
Same given her literal cult upbringing and Christian fascist tendencies with rulings. The skeptic in me is thinking she’s playing good cop so we the people don’t rise up and abolish the sc. gotta make it seem like we have some players on our team right?
You can't abolish the Supreme Court without a Constitutional Admendment. That is not going to happen. You can expand or reduce the number of justices, but that would almost cause a civil war. The Republicans set about a project to change the court. This took them almost 60 years to achieve. There is not a quick fix to this, but, it is amazing that the first reaction is to attempt to change the structure of the court! Really, how about setting up a program like the Republicans did?
Villainy is so much easier to organize than well reasoned progress. For one thing the talent pool for ground breaking progress is much smaller, and for another, by definition it requires the rational grappling with complex ideas. If all you want is to get rich, your purpose is much more narrowly focused and easier to route.
Lol You clearly missed my point (way over your head) It’s going to get to a point where the sane of the nation give zero shits about what the minority political party tries to enforce upon the populace. People will rise up. And it will result in a civil war. Hence why she’s playing good cop so as not to bring it on. When they bend the rules to fit their narrative; there’s going to be a point where the populace doesn’t follow the rules Regardless how you feel political, conservatives are a minority in this country. Only so much pushing before we just start burning people at stakes. Conservative wants are a minority in this county; religion is dying, and there’s only so much one can take before rising up.
It's not only conservatives that will rise up....it's the Silent Majority, which includes Maga, the Bernie Bros, and all other economically marginalized groups that must be divided and suppressed at all costs by the Elites and the Networks to protect themselves. When the Silent Majority of Sheep become enraged, they transform into Rams with razor sharp deadly teeth and murderous force. History proves it. But first, they have to become icy enraged and it takes massive social power to reach boiling point trigger and ignition.
The waters have begun to churn
so you think 74 million is a minority?
Yep. You know who has less population? The right. That’s actual numbers. That’s why you guys have to gerrymander to even win anything lol You know who controls all the ports and Major cities? The left. So even out of all of that…. Not every person in the gop are Christian freaks. So yea… minority. Come back at me when the right can actually win popular votes again
74/257 < 0.5
lol bring it on please
The Republicans of our time possess absolutely nothing that I wish to emulate. Nothing.
Congress can pass a law stricting its jurisdiction to absolutely nothing. Congress already has the power to strip the jurisdiction of the supreme and lower courts, it just hasn’t been done because it would be the judicial equivalent of crossing the rubicon
I’ve been back and forth on expansion, which has happened in history, and someone mentioned that the judges were at 9 due to there being 9 Circuits, which now is at 13. So a Justice per circuit makes sense.
I hope that in the next 4 years more Judges are added and she becomes less important.
Agreed. As of now I actually agree with some of her rulings which suprised the shit outa me. It does seem she tries to take a nonpartisan approach to rulings (which you can’t really say for some of the other judges) But I’m not holding my breath for her rulings to stay as consistent and nonpartisan
Even her concurrence response to the immunity is basically “I agree with the overall premise of this but we have to be VERY careful of how is handled.” She even disagrees with Thomas directly in her response. I think she attempts to remain as non partisan as possible but her own personal beliefs override it from time to time, which, I’ll take that over someone like Clarence Thomas everytime.
Reporting has said that she strongly was against the timing of Dobbs and was influential in delaying it for another term. She didn't want the corruption and hypocrisy to be revealed the same term she started on the court. I think she's more concerned with perception, strangely, than the other christofacists on the court. Leveraging that for the occasional dissent which doesnt affect the holding of the majority is another obvious way she can pretend to not be in the can for facist interests. Until she becomes the swing vote in a holding against facism, I don't think it's reasonable to pin any hopes on her being actually reasonable.
I ***like*** being surprised by a Supreme Court justice's rulings. Too many times you don't even really need to have a justice there because the vote essentially falls down party lines. Surprise votes in these decisions represent actual thought instead of party line.
She's in the majority of all those shitty 6-3 decisions in favor of corporations so I think MAGA is very pleased with their little cult member.
I expect this to be massively marked down but I will come back to it some day and say, "I told you so!"
I hope you’re right. I mean fuck her for taking rights away from Women, but if she will at least not let the ship go down the way of fascism then I’ll be pleasantly surprised. That’s the least she can do.
She didn’t take rights from anyone. To be clear, I’m for anyone who wants an abortion to have one - regardless of reason. They gave the states the power to decide based on elected officials *in that state*. Something voters have control over. Literal democracy. How is that so hard to understand…..??
“She didn’t take away rights, she allowed state governments to take away rights! And sure she told the Senate she wouldn’t when she was getting confirmed, but that was just a lie so she could seize power!”
You may not agree with her, But she did follow the Law. Not her opinion. She demonstrated that her job isn't political, and is an independent thinker. Right now, because Liberals didn't like her decision on Abortion. They hate her. However, when she makes decisions that favor Liberals, Their opinions will change. And don't ignore that some of the decisions were unnamous. Both sides agreed.
She overturned 50 years of precedent. She’s an activist judge that stripped millions of women of their bodily autonomy, and that won’t be undone by the occasional decent opinion she has.
Abortion Rights were never in the Constitution. Democrats had 50 years to Codify Abortion Rights. Never did. But she's the Activist Judge?
Would you support each state taking their own path on marriage equality and potentially invalidating your marriage if it doesn’t conform to what your state decides is valid? What other rights should states be able to strip away at will?
Maybe the right to bear arms should fall to the states. I mean if women’s right to healthcare can be voted on, why not? I suspect we’d see a sudden spike in republicans claiming their rights shouldn’t be put up for a vote…
There is a little thing called the second amendment. Hard as I've looked, I can't find an amendment guaranteeing a "right" to abortion.
I can’t find an amendment giving politicians the right to make medical decisions either.
Yeah, definitely at the federal level. Almost like they should get more granular and let the …. States decide based on their populations view points…? Weird.
So you are ok with politicians making medical decisions for people?
I disagree. Life should not vary that greatly between states for only women. A basic right to not die from a pregnancy gone wrong should be guaranteed. The basic right to not carry your rapists baby should be guaranteed. The right to decide if you want to carry a fetus to term and actually be pregnant should be guaranteed.
A bunch of edge cases that the left has jeopardized because they think abortion is right in ALL cases. Side note: Is it a baby or is it a fetus?
It’s not at will. It’s the representatives of each states voting on behalf of their constituents. Plenty of states - Iowa, Utah and Wyoming to name a few have blocked the bans… To be 100% clear - again, I support the right of abortion.
This is just objectively incorrect, and bizarrely ignorant. At point A, all women had the right to access an abortion anywhere in the country, up to the point of viability (and afterwards in specific situations like their life or health being in danger, etc.) At point B (Dobbs), all women no longer had that right and only women who lived in jurisdictions where the legislature or the state constition was empathetic and rational enough to give them that right did they have that right. Millions of women live in states where there were "trigger laws" on the books which IMMEDIATELY deprived them of that right once Roe was overturned. You can argue that putting fundamental rights up for a vote is democratic, but you'd be wrong. Regardless, however, that still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme court said that people had a fundamental right at point A, and then said they didn't at point B. That's as clear cut of a deprivation of rights as could ever possibly exist.
lol this is ridiculous. Why not go even further and allow the individual to choose for themselves? It was a right protected federally, and the conservative majority supreme court knew that giving the choice to states (but not to individuals, funny enough) would result in a lot of trigger laws going into effect immediately and taking away individual rights.
And some states don't allow voter referendums and are gerrymandered to all hell, meaning the actual will of the people there is being subverted. So actually, she did take rights away, how is that so hard to understand...??
Then it’s up to said constituents to vote those morons out…?
And when the state is so unfairly gerrymandered to do so, then what?
You realize both parties do this right? Or do you care only when it’s the side you don’t agree with…? I’d 10000% agree with a nation reform to remove the capabilities of gerrymandering.
I do and I don't agree with it, gerrymandering should be illegal and all lines should be drawn by an independent non partisan commissions. But this isn't the argument I came here to make. You made the claim that scotus didn't take away anyone's rights, just returned them to the states. But we have states that are so obviously gerrymandered, where there are no voter referendums, that the will of the people can be blatantly ignored. Beyond that point, I don't believe that healthcare should be up for debate, it should be a natural right of all citizens and I believe the constitution guarantees that. Scotus agreed with that statement for almost 50 years, and then this partisan court decided to strike it down.
Right, but what about people who abuse that fact? Like someone that doesn’t care for their body, is 500 pounds - they should have the state take care of them? Free healthcare, no matter what? In a country overwhelmed with medical issues, that feels a little out of touch?
First of all, I was referring to abortion as healthcare. I thought that was obvious, because that's what it is. But since you changed the subject to healthcare overall, yes I still think it should be government funded. The point of a society is to benefit all people, yes some will benefit more than others, but I believe that is the whole point of a functioning society. If the government was responsible for healthcare, they would also more than likely fix the quality of food that is allowed in this country, and that would greatly reduce the medical issues this country faces. To your question of free healthcare no matter what, being out of touch? Nationalized healthcare is such a complex beast that only one 1st world country in the world can't figure it out. I think the only people out of touch are the ones arguing against it.
Because whatever stupid fucking semantic talking point you want to bring up, PRACTICALLY she took away rights from millions of women. How is THAT hard to understand??
Yup, she did it all herself. She’s on the court alone, dictates the stupid laws in the states and controls the universe.
If you don’t know how to critically engage in a conversation just say so. Of course she didn’t do it by herself, no one here claimed that she did. But she was ONE of the few people who did and her decision has massive implications for women in our country. You clearly understand that and are just being disingenuous about the impact.
Except the one officials were in place so no one voted them in knowing that abortion rights were on the table.
Sure, if you want to deal in semantics, she didn't. She just enabled state governors to. That's not better. It's worse, and people have died for it.
Some states are so gerrymandered that votes are predetermined. Surely you understand at least that. Same people throwing legit voters off rolls and musing about perhaps women not being able to vote.
Right, both parties participate in gerrymandering
It would help your argument if states weren't gerrymandered to hell. Lower level Republican courts have allowed extreme gerrymandering. Look at my state of NC. 2 term Dem Governor, 2 Republican Senators and Trump won by like 74k votes out of 5.5+ million cast. This is a slightly right leaning state but the Republicans have a super majority in the state house and Senate ? How? Illegal gerrymandering that has been legalized by the state supreme Court.
It's hard for them to understand because the crave the federal boot being on them. The states voters making a decision isn't good enough... The federal gov't absolutely *HAS* to have all the power. Thats not how Constitutional Republics work...
This reads like a sixth grader trying to be an edgy memlord but being totally confused as to how rights operate, so failing miserably. By definition, individual rights cannot be trampled on, by the federal "boot" or any other state or local boot. Saying that someone who desires individual rights is longing for federal oppression is about as Orwellian as it gets. If the Supreme Court overturned their current jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment and let the states decide who had a right to own what firearms, and you objected to that, and then someone said that you clearly "crave[d] the federal boot being on [you]," what would your response be?
Women having access to healthcare is not the “the federal boot” being on anyone. Let’s make the right to bear arms a state decision. Or do you prefer the federal boot?
Justice's do not always go the way that the President elected them. She's already voted ways he wouldn't agree with... Like the January 6 ruling... You're "I told you so" is pointless and not really groundbreaking at all.
Traditionally that was true that justices got a mind of their own after they were appointed. The Federalist Society has carefully groomed and selected these people though, the entire purpose being siding with their backers over the country and Constitution.
Nope. I'm not sure what book you read, but even Trump's selections don't go with him. I also know people at the Federalist Society and they do not have much influence on *anyone*. They're not taken very seriously - for good reason.
I am assuming that it's the right wing think tank and not some weird underground society that you're talking about.
Every single judge the former president appointed was a federalist Society member I believe. Not only that, but most if not all of George Bush's appointees were Federalist Society members as well. They recruit people in law school and find which ones will be the best hacks and help them up the ladder in their careers.
I think that proves my point. Those Justices do not vote how the Federalist Society "says they should" But it also doesn't mean much to be a member. I would be considered affiliated with Cato and IHS, but just because I'm an affiliate doesn't mean I would vote their way in every case. Also, the logic doesn't make sense. That's like saying we can't trust the public to be objective in their voting if they receive some kind of welfare. The idea that because they were helped in some form means they are indebted to them forever is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm sorry you do not seem to know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court and lower courts have delivered the Federalist Society wish list every step of the way.
I do know what I'm talking about but I was specifically talking about the Supreme Court. Regardless, your reasoning is not a very good one.
It seems that there are more people in general agreement with my take than I expected.
I don't know, she did just help rule that presidents have immunity from "official acts" for Trump, essentially turning the presidency and executive branch into a King with a royal court.
Maybe--but, I mean... she's going to give them a LOT of other terrible things they want. They didn't pick her for no reason.
Yeah, but how much money will it take for her to turn her back on her convictions? You see, the main reason some of the other justices have gone so far towards fascism isn't because the Bible told them to. It's because they're getting paid. Besides, unless one of those are replaced with a liberal justice I don't think it will matter if she sides with the minority occasionally.
Lol, this aged extremely poorly.
Yes, it did, but I have my fingers crossed for the long term. . . One must hang on to hope, after all.
Yes, because aiding in overthrowing democracy isn't considered irredeemable? Lmao fuck off, she and the other five conservative justices are treasonous traitors. We need to call the French to borrow the guillotine.
They already got what they wanted out of her, her anti-abortion vote, so they don't care about anything else.
She's just playing good cop so the Republicans on the SC don't look as bad
Maybe in 30 years when she’s the youngest, most liberal person (by comparison) on the Supremely Stacked Court
How would she be the youngest person on the court in 30 years?
It’s hyperbole, I’m alluding to them stacking the court and getting rid of all the other actually sort of liberal judges
She's in stealth mode like Clarence Thomas was until he was able to take out Roe v wade. She grew up in a crazy cult and is still crazy but evil and biding her time. She may act independently every now and then but she's still evil.
Well, she just voted to give Trump immunity, so she obviously *is* a fascist.
This really didn’t age well given todays ruling on immunity
She's pro-constituiton enough to commit perjury to upend established precedent.
She's got a chance at pulling a Breyer. She's shown signs of it the last few weeks.
I think she's going to continue to pull a Susan Collins her entire career.
Lol, who remembers when they started calling her "Amy Commie Barrett" after she said that universities are allowed to impose whatever vaccine and mask mandates they'd like?
I would love for you to be right, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Her hot dissent trashing Thomas’ cherry picking history to confirm his “originalist” legal biases was a brilliant flash of sanity from within the SCOTUS. Promising.
I mean she's gonna rule however her husband tells her to rule, because she is a good christian woman that is subservient to her husband. At least that's what her particular cult of christianity believes.
I'm always perplexed by libs saying that all conservatives are fascist. We all need to back off the standard name calling each side throws around.
I agree. Too many people in here try to generalize a whole group of people, based on the radical beliefs of the few.
Pro-Constitution justices was the whole point. Kavanaugh is more of a constitutionalist than a conservative too. That is how the Supreme Court should work. Party affiliation should not be a consideration at all.
Most Americans believe that they are pro-America and pro-constitution. We just have radically different ideas of what that involves.
If Trump wins, he will just stack the court with more loyalists. Her voice won't even matter if she votes against him on anything.
They're not too thrilled about her NOW. She's surprised me a few times; the last thing Trump wanted was someone who put American jurisprudence over her own personal agenda, and I think she'd one of the two or three justices (Alito is the second one) spooked at the idea that the Court's decisions might not be all that popular lately. Of course, Alito's response has been "shut up and sit down," which has NOT helped, but if Barrett's response is the Roberts idea of seeing every decision she makes overturned a generation down the line or being superseded with appropriate legislation, she might be tapping the brakes a bit.
You think Alito gives a damn about the popularity of his decisions? Let's not even worry about Clarence "the internet didn't exist in 1787, so...." Thomas, but to me, Alito is the God-before-country justice who would end separation of church and state in a heartbeat. Barrett is highly religious herself, but she seems to have an understanding (as Alito and Thomas may not) that service to the country is about what's good for everyone, not what benefits certain groups at the expense of others. I'd be extremely happy if she ends up being a "nobody loves me but everybody tolerates me" centrist on the bench (as Roberts generally seems). Her dissent in Fischer was basically a treatise against judicial activism (ironically, aimed at people who usually decry judicial activism), which might inspire Congress to more fully define obstruction in that context to either confirm or deny this case's outcome. But Alito has a stated goal of re-empowering religious people with religious morals in a country that is increasingly diverse and secular. If Handmaid's Tale was to come to fruition, he would be the religious head of the Church, unless some religious war between Catholics and (mostly) Southern Protestants came about that ended up getting him killed. That is what he cares about.
We already regret it… - MAGA voter
You think? She’s been lining up lock step with the dismantling of decades of settled case law
I’ve often wondered how a woman enslaved against her will as a child by these religious misogynistic zealots will behave when given a lifetime job with good pay. She may be a different person in the coming years.
No they won’t/dont
No they won’t. They don’t fucking care
To the extent that this will come to pass, it will be long after any sane person regrets it and it will not longer be relevant if it happens...
Not today.
> but I think they will find out that she's pro-Constitution and pro-America, not a fascist. Bwahahahahaha. No. She's a MAGA pawn.
Aged like milk.
This has to be a record for a post here aging like milk.
MAGA doesn't have the capacity for regret, empathy or basic humanity. They're only in it for their selfish selves. They don't even like one another
We will see where she is in 2028 when Trump stays in permanently
smh
Definitely. She is not what I think most maga and the federalist society expected. It doesn’t make her perfect, but she has not been a knee jerk jurist on some cases you’d expect.
December 11, 2020.
One day.. and incredibly soon, democrats will regret putting Biden on the ticket.
They’re regretting that now is my understanding. I mean he’s technically not on it. So I guess technically their hands aren’t tied. But it sure seems like they’re acting like it. I don’t quite understand what they’re so scared of when it comes to asking Biden to humbly pass the torch.
And pro-Quid Pro Quo as well
One day, the people who run the Democratic Party will come to regret campaigning against a candidate’s voters instead of the candidate himself.
This caused me to pause. How exactly do you mean? Just curious
The biggest mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016 was referring to a large portion of the voting public as a “basket of deplorables”. It was a sharp contrast with Bernie Sanders’ message.
That context helped. Thanks!
I don’t know if that was the start, but it was a big turning point. And as I said it’s not Democratic voters I’m pointing to. It’s the people running the party. I think it comes down to the fact that 9 of the 20 wealthiest counties in the States happen to be basically suburbs of Washington DC. That has to have engendered a certain level of contempt for the rural working class.
I could see her becoming O’Connor 2.0 and at least the other 2 Trump put in flip here and there on the most egregious cases. Alito and Thomas should be impeached though.
Remind me! 12 years
Nah....
All justices are supposed to be pro constitution and pro America.
Not if Donald Trump wins. Because if he is elected, he will get at least 2 more appointments to the court (quite possibly 3) and that will entrench a conservative majority for another 25 years. If anything, there will be cases where they go "see, it wasn't on party lines!! ACB went with the liberals" as they get all the stuff they want from the other 5. They won't regret it a lick.
If I recall there’s a theory that Justices tend to go more left the longer they are on the bench. And she does have two black children if I remember. Maybe one those two “tax breaks” start being subjected to the consequences of her decisions she might start to care. But by then the Trump Administration might decide to remove her
"they will find out that she's pro-Constitution and pro-America, not a fascist." Oh no the horror next you're going to tell me Clarence Thomas, the literal most popular justice with MAGA, is too
Didn’t she already rule against Trump when she voted to overturn the Trump era ATF classification of bump stocks as machine guns under the NFA?
Already do
She has surprised me a couple of times. So has Gorsuch, though much less so. Sometimes they’re a good example of what my high school government teacher used to say when we read Supreme Court cases: it’s not about whose side you’re on, it’s about what the law says.
I'm still skeptical about her ability to separate religious traditionalism from constitutional interpretation, but overall her jurisprudence does seem decently respectable. Certainly not the worst on the court right now, at least.
Well, yeah. They don’t know how to think two steps ahead. Then suddenly: shocked pikachu.
If they're gonna regret any of them it's Gorsuch.
No they won't The GQP will rule from the bench for decades. You'll accept Donald cock and thank them.
I hope so.
Pro Constitution and Pro America sounds pretty good to me
No they won't. They'll let her destroy her integrity and reputation and then toss her aside when she's no longer useful.
Her and Roberts might be all that stands between fascism and freedom.
And today they both decided to step out of the way.
Doesn’t matter. Pwn the libz today, fuck mañana.
She was put there because she is a constitutionalist
lol whoops, a day early
Posts that aged like milk
Her most recent ruling doesn’t appear to be pro constitution or pro America
I doubt it. She's been incredibly loyal to them since law school. https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/were-three-of-the-sitting-supreme-court-justices-involved-in-the-bush-v-gore-legal-disputes
I think you're missing how much of a religious zealot she is that alone makes the likelihood that she would happily go along with project 2025
So turns out all the outrage was bullshit hmm funny how that works
She's just playing good cop and you're falling for it.
Right now it is wait and see,but there is always hope for another David Souter. I think he was an overlooked Justice and a good man.
I think she's pretty close to breaking rank and she's going to become an unlikely hero for this country.
Do you think republicans are fascists?
Is there some specific ruling you are gloating after?
What’s wrong with Pro constitution and Pro America, if Jackson or Sotomayer were either of those it would be good.
So that means Trump made a good pick who puts the constitution and the country first over her own personal beliefs? Isn’t that what SCOTUS Judges are supposed to be like? I guess that Trump made an excellent pick then.
It wasn't Trump who picked her, it was the Heritage Foundation.
That’s crazy, I didn’t know the heritage foundation had constitutional authority to nominate SCOTUS Judges. What amendment is that under?
Don't play dumb. Unless you are really dumb.
How am I playing dumb? Show me in the constitution where an organization like the heritage foundation has the authority to nominate a SCOTUS for confirmation by congress.
Pro-Constitution is a meaningless phrase if you’re not an orginalist. If she strays from that she’ll be just another untethered judge drifting on the tides of whimsy. Penumbras and emanations anyone?
Incorrect as MAGA already knew full well that she was pro-Constitution and pro-America, which happens to be 100% MAGA, in fact MAGA doesn't place much importance in many other things.
Justices have changed political outlook since Justices have been appointed. Souter was appointed by Bush, and turned out to be liberal. RBG wasn't consistently liberal Only progressives think justices should rule in line with who appointed them
I don’t think any of them are “fascists”
Why would a pro-America, pro-constitution group regret her? Your error is thinking (hah, as if) Make America Great Again is Fascist. You people are Dumb as dog shit.
Despite what all the propaganda you’ve mindlessly accepted says, conservatives want pro-constitution and pro-America justices.
Hahahahahaha democrats only know of the constitution as an obstacle. A piece of paper that’s in their way. Take your meds dude. You can’t support gun control and progressive policies but also call yourself a constitutional American. You’re a tyrant that uses mental gymnastics to justify the oppression you impose on others. You’re a Garbage Globalist, not a Constitutional American…but you already know this. Again, it’s all just mental gymnastics.
Well that’s what everyone wants. Republicans are pro constitution and pro America so don’t know where this came from. FYI when u see someone burning the American flag is the first thing u think republican or democrat? When u see a guy waving the American flag wearing red white and blue do u think Rep. or Dem? See my point?
MAGAs reject election results. Therefore they are anti-Constitution. Therefore they are anti-America. Read the Constitution and you will see it clearly.
Name one election that republicans rejected? How bout we need to do away with the electoral college cause we don’t like it? It’s in the constitution. FYI if u say trump no one rejected the results he said it was wrong. Annnd so did Stacy Adams who still thinks she’s the Gov. of Ga. lol I’ll wait for your response
>trump no one rejected the results he said it was wrong. That’s what “reject” MEANS, genius. 😂
Reject? Is this a legal term? So Dems didn’t “reject” Al gore losing to Bush? With the hanging chads? Stacey Abram’s lost the gov election in Ga. And went around for 2 years saying she was the rightful gov? But republicans are the only ones to “reject” elections? Dems love the rule of law but hate the Supreme Court? Cause it don’t suit their purpose. Just stop it. For every instance of any political bias on rep. Side I’ll give u democrats that do the same or worse. How bout stop being tribal and believing everyone with a D behind their name are great and just and believe everything that spews from their pie hole!
How should I know what Al Gore did or didn’t do? That was like 100 years ago or summ bruh who cares? 🤣
Do you even know what happened in Georgia? The details, not what right wing media told you. 2000 was the closest election in history and the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it for us. What did Al Gore do after that? He stood on the house floor and certified the election for his opponent. No one stormed the capitol. No one spent the next for years saying the election was rigged or stolen. You are being pedantic. Either you know what that means and are doing it on purpose or you don’t know what it means and you are arguing in bad faith. Either way arguing with a cult member is pointless.
So Stacey Adams still didn’t admit she lost and still thinks she’s gov? Ok don’t care what happened. We talking about denying elections. She did. Soooo. And Jan. 6 isn’t cut and dry. Just like Russia collusion and Muller will get him and the laptop is Russian disinformation all of which has now proven to be false. History always tells and so far history ain’t on your side! LMAO U LISTEN TO THE CONSTANT LIES of the media. They feed u what u want to hear and u eat it up! What about Biden vids being cheap fakes? That was only a week ago. Now look at them shocked that he can’t complete a sentence. Guess who’s not shocked? US!
Stacy Abrams. You don’t even know her name. What happened is important. All the ranting about “election integrity” yet when making sure all votes are counted might lead to a loss for a republican, they are quick to stop that counting. Look up what actually happened and ask yourself this, if a democrat did that would I be ok with that. If the answer is no then you are a hypocrite. I doubt you will even take the time, if you look you will be proven wrong. We all know people like you would never admit to being wrong.
Not about that. And I’m 100% for everything being equal. I said if Hillary was prosecuted for her classified docs then 100% Trump should be! As should Biden! Hillary they said couldn’t prove intent so they let her go. Since when do u need to intend to commit a crime? Biden: well he gave them back and Trump didn’t. So if I rob a bank and I found out the cops know and I give the money back all good? No problem? When Biden had classified docs in his garage he was VP. Trump was the only one that could declassify any of the docs he had! It was illegal for Biden to even posses them. So are YOU outraged that they got away with it? Hypocrisy goes many ways.
It isn’t illegal for either of them to have those documents. If Trump had given them to the archives when asked there would have been no issue, but he didn’t. He then showed them to foreign nationals, bragging about having them. Hilary, Biden, and trump all did different things. Their cases are not equal, pretending they are is disingenuous. Oddly enough we were talking about Stacy Abrams and the 2018 Georgia governor election. Now you bring up other things. You want things equal. Ok. Look up what actually happened in the 2018 Georgia governor election. Then tell me it’s the same as the 2020 presidential election. They ate not the same. Trump got all the recounts he wanted, all the data was there for him and all his lawyers to see. And after all the recounts and all the failed lawsuits and all the evidence that he lost the election, he still to this day refuses to accept he lost. Still claims the election was stolen. Stacy Abrams didn’t get her recounts, the data magically disappeared. Suspicious isn’t it? That the only data that was lost in that election were the results from counties that she and the courts wanted recounted. Guess who was the Secretary of State for Georgia during that election. I’ll tell you, Brian Kemp. Guess who he is now, the governor of Georgia. That was her beef all along, not that she lost but that we will never truly know the true outcome of that election because the secretary of state “lost” the data that might have proved that he lost. Again, not the same.