Watch from the beginning here, at C-SPAN.
I turned on the TV and looked at CNN for about a minute before clicking off. Amy Coney Barrett was sitting stiffy, staring forward, her lower faced covered in a big black mask. Dianne Feinstein, maskless, was grimly chewing her out. Ghoulish. Unwatchable.
I'll be paying attention from a distance, but I can't help believing I already know everything that will be said and where we'll end up. I'll comment on the proceedings as I see fit.
What percentage of the discussion will be about abortion? 85?
Posts
133 comments:
Yes, look away. Waiting for the result is the best strategy...
The only question is how low are the Dem's willing to go this time around.
It's a shame she's wearing a mask.
I would sit there, smiling.
Could you imagine their reaction?
I turned on the TV and looked at CNN for about a minute before clicking off.
Why anyone would waste a minute on CNN is beyond me.
I hate Democrats. There's no getting around it. They are small, hateful, mean people, who imagine themselves as the purveyors of good intention and pure thought. They fill the airwaves with hate, tear down our cities, demand submission, and when you don't submit, they scream out and accuse you of filling the airwaves with hate, tearing down our cities, and acting like Nazis/Fascists. No one projects like Democrats. And not a one of them should be in a position of power today. There should be no Democrat elected for 2 generations. They are a diseased party.
Time for a house cleaning.
85...86. Whatever it takes.
One theory is the Dem's will take their pound of flesh but won't "Kavanaugh" her. Why? Because the decision to pack the court has been made. Their going to do it. Therefore, the ACB confirmation is meaningless and they don't want to ruin their election chances.
Patrick Leahy? Diane Feinstein?
Term limits, anyone?
What percentage of the discussion will be about abortion? 85?
They might push past 15 percent harassing her family dynamics...
I can fully understand the need to keep abortion legal. The reality is there will be back alley abortions if not, and there are a lot of men who refuse to take care of children they sire. But the creation and implementation of Sanger’s eugenic vision, and the cottage industry it created is evil. I just never understand how “all the abortions we can possibly pay for” is the end all be all for liberal women in the United States. It helps you understand why the snake first approached Eve instead of Adam.
Here's my theory about abortion: it is dumbing down the black community. Blacks have a much higher rate than whites, Asians, or Hispanics. That seems to be true regardless of socioeconomic level. However, the pregnancy rate among poor blacks is higher than among more affluent ones. Consequently, abortion skews having children to the lower economic tiers. Given what we know about the role of early intellectual stimulation in brain development and how bad public schools are in the poorer neighborhoods of U.S. cities, it seems clear that abortion is counteracting Affirmative Action and every other attempt (well-intentioned or not) to reduce racial inequality.
How soon before the Code Pink protestors start screaming and waving their banners? The Capitol Police must be the most incompetent law enforcement agency in the world to allow that, time after time.
They have to, at the very least, appear be harsh on ACB to appease their AOC wing, at a time the DNC can least afford to, because, if they overdo it, like they did with BMK, they could alienate the women DJT needs.
Seems the ACA is getting a lot of play.
Maybe if fewer people watch the sausage making, Senators would have less reason to grandstand. Just need a critical mass watching.
Good Lord. This political theater with everyone wearing a mask is infuriating!
2021 can’t come soon enough. We have fallen down the rabbit hole.
It’s on TV where I am currently trapped. The whole thing has a sickening, Soviet-like feel to it. Our public sector is in a state of advanced decay.
Even the portion that's not about abortion, is about abortion.
Sad. It's the only right recognized by the Democratic party. I'd bet the 1st amendment couldn't attract a majority of the Democratic caucus to vote for it.
Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy working for her for over 20 years. I don't give a damn what her opinion is.
Same Democrat lying clown schiffshow as usual. You can't trust a Democrat, but you can trust them to be Democrats.
DiFi is getting up there in age. Really up there. She is 87. Not a misprint, Yes, 87. Born in 1933 right smack dab in the Great Depression.
She makes Nancy Pants (age 80) look young, by comparison.
Why are these ancient privileged SF multi-millionaire women still clinging to power?
It's amazing that both sides of the aisle have turned Supreme Court justice "advise and consent" into a single issue litmus test of pre-determined, pre-judged stance.
Biden and his campaign manager recently accused trump and republicans of acting unconstitutional for nominating a supreme court justice replacement in the midst of an election. I'd argue that this behavior could be more easily understood to be unconstitutional (though of course the senate being boorish or trying to take expansionist views of their power is not unconstitutional)
Lousy script reading. Clumsy stage blocking. Bad theater.
Good night Gracie.
Durbin really, really hates.
Oh no! Not Smokey the Bear? Coney-Barrett is a monster.
So far it’s been Dem old Memes about Trump and McConnell being bad men Barrett is not being discussed at all. Go figure.
"Dianne Feinstein, maskless, was grimly chewing her out. Ghoulish. Unwatchable."
Concise, accurate and complete. Thank you, Ann.
The Democrat shtick is badly worn.
I'm always amazed at the dishonesty of Democrats. Not too many Americans (and that goes double for Democrats) understand that overruling Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion--it would simply return it to the political arena where it belongs.
If the Democrats put 1% of the effort into passing statutes in the 29 states (according to US News) that don't provide for abortions that they do into slandering Supreme Court nominees, abortion would be legal for 90+% of Americans and the other 10% could simply travel to a place where abortion is legal to do what they want to do.
I suspect that even red states would permit abortion (probably subject to some limitations that the Democrats wouldn't like--parental notification for minors, a short cooling off period before the procedure, and some limits on late term abortions), but it would be open season on fetuses in the blue states right up until birth.
The political process would provide a solution to the problem, but I guess it would be hard to excite your base without the abortion bogeyman. And--happy coincidence--the same activist justices that favor abortion "rights" also (and ironically) favor all manner of government intrusion into our lives and will be happy to regulate every aspect of our lives except for reproduction.
If I were ACB, I would have shown up in "Handmaid's Tale" clothes, just to bring out the crazy in my opponents. But... I lack judicial temperament.
Will China Diane overplay her hand again? What a doddering old fool
The GOP senators are lecturing us about how smart they are. She is irrelevant. TV FaceTime for Senators is all they have.
Ann,
You will lose a point of IQ for every minute you watch CNN
A couple of points:
1) While Roe v Wade will be a significant part of the discussion, I doubt it will be 85%. Over the last few days there has been a lot of Dem clucking over the possible repeal of ObamaCare - effectively killing millions of Americans with pre-existing health conditions.
2) The optics of an non-masked Feinstein (and others) looking down upon and scolding a masked (muzzled) ACB is not a good look for the Dems. ACB should have worn "Handmaidens red" to go with her mask/muzzle.
I listened through Most of the opening through this the end of Durbin on my way to the Doctor. I would truly enjoy digging down real deep and willing my body to 6 years ago and beat the crap out of Durbin and Leahy. What despicable, odious small males. I won’t give them the dignity of calling them men. They’ve done nothing in their evil small lives to deserve it.
I just learned this is the Ginsburg seat on the Supreme Court.
facts not in evidence,
no it just means they will pay more, now obamacare made the testing regime worse, when it came to this epidemic,
Abortion becoming illegal is just another Democrat lie pushed for political purpose. Everybody knows it will never be illegal or even difficult to get.
Can anyone tell me what political position the Democrats take that is honest and in the interests of the country and not primarily used to attack Republicans?
it was the whizzer white seat for about as long,
From No Country for Old Men:
“Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference...I got set next to this woman...she kept talkin about the right wing this and the right wing that. I aint even sure what she meant by it...She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.”
IIUC, it's going to be more "you'll steal ObamaCare" than "you'll overturn Roe v Wade."
But I could be wrong
Hell, let's make abortion mandatory for registered Democrats. Give 'em what they want!
"Coney Barrett was sitting stiffy, staring forward, her lower faced covered in a big black mask. Dianne Feinstein, maskless, was grimly chewing her out"
And all members of the entire Barrett family were sticking their tongues out at the corrupt DiFi.
Klobuchar is going on and on about Covid and ticking off all of the talking points...white supremacy, illegals, ect....
Hardly even trying to tie any of it into being a qualified to be justice.
And now deifying RBG...JFC.
What the hell don't US senators understand about a president having a job that lasts 4 fucking years? What don't they understand about senators having a job for 6 fucking years?
They are insufferable, low IQ morons.
We are a nation of fools to vote for people of such low quality and intellect.
Republicans are toast. Democrats know that absent court packing, Judge Amy is the last, best hope of the Republic.
Democrats may have been right all along. The 2020 election is a referendum on whether we are too stupid to govern ourselves and it’s looking good for stupid. Just look at Mark.
Republicans are toast. Democrats know that absent court packing, Judge Amy is the last, best hope of the Republic.
Democrats may have been right all along. The 2020 election is a referendum on whether we are too stupid to govern ourselves and it’s looking good for stupid. Just look at Mark.
I turned it on when Amy Klobuchar just started talking. I like how she's complaining about the president taking off his mask when he was alone on the balcony as she doesn't wear a mask while she's in a room with a bunch of people. It just highlights that this is all BS.
The photos as props are a bit much.
They should change the description of this event to "the nominee gets lectured to by tedious people".
Diane Feinstein is a traitor. She has been a Chinese Agent serving Chinese interests for decades.
Only democrat voters would be stupid enough to support her.
Good point, Unknown.
I guesstimate only 4 states would possibly outlaw abortion: Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Even these 4 would have some exceptions.
Abortion is not a big issue for me. I am more concerned with declining birth rates, who has/does not have children, and immigration.
There's a scam of some sort taking place before our eyes.
Coons is talking about all of the people who have had Covid that now have a 'pre-existing condition.'
He's not the first I've heard say that, but it sounds like a plan from the left now, and that usually means either stealing votes or stealing money.
Feinstein used to seem sort of ... normal. Then, among her early acts as a Senator, she shut down the fairly effective Base Closing Commission to protect a single unecessary military installation in California.
Then her husband made several more fortunes in China. Now he's on the Board of Regents for UC, where he protects Jewish interests -- but equal rights for all students, which are under constant threat from the new EDI apparatchiks, not so much.
Now she's all shrill about the ACA, which has good points and bad points. (Personally, I don't care for the new $3,000 deuctibles. Our family can afford them, but the barriers are high indeed for the normal people DiFI seeems to believe she protects.) If the USSC takes up the ACA matter, it won't decide who gets what coverage, which is a legislative matter. The issue will be the legality of the law itself. Pre-emptively blaming a prospective Supreme Court judge of heartless indifference to sick people is a stretch even for Feinstein.
trial by ordeal
Actually if you are a pot bellied right wing fascist knuckle dragging rethuglican racist you should cheer the aboritionists on. If you know the demographics of who is getting the abortions.
Grimly chewing out indeed. At 87 Di Fi hasn't quite reached the full keyboard age of 88--and she's not playing with a full keyboard either. She's also hampered because I don't think she dares play the "hide the document until the end of hearing" game again. That shtick worked okay for Kavanaugh, but it can only be used once.
As our host said the outcome is predictable, but the Kabuki theatre must go on, and so Di Fi hitches up her skirt and wades into the fray to "grimly chew". The Democrat rubes expect and demand that.
What little I heard this morning wasn't about abortion but was ranting about Trump. Listening to a bunch of bloviating Senators isn't the healthiest way to spend my day.
Bob Smith @10:08 shows that he misunderstands being Pro Life. We're not for genocide even of our enemies. But thanks for the grim suggestion. :-(
Amy needs to show proper judicial demeanor by charging the bench with a punch right in the face of Sen. Feinstein. As she watches out of the corner of her eye a few teeth fall to floor, she needs to spin around with an crescent kick to right ear of Sen. Leahy, feeling the pop of his eardrum. After a summersault, an atomic elbow-drop cracking the skull of Sen. Durbin followed by gut punch and knee to the noise of Sen. Harris and then returning to her seat.
If does this, I think the American people will marvel at her restraint in dealing with these scoundrels.
Everybody knows it will never be illegal or even difficult to get.
You do know that several states (definitely in Louisiana, where I live) have laws in place that are triggered when Roe v. Wade is overturned that ban all abortions. So to say that it will "never be illegal or even difficult to get" is simply incorrect. In fact in certain states it is currently difficult to get an abortion even under Roe v. Wade.
I was so hoping that Schumer and the Dems were going to go with "No quorum to have a hearing" play and then have it cruise over to the floor for a quick approval. Instead we have to watch these nut sacks waste our time as they make their tedious, canned, remarks. Feh.
The show on CNN is the same as the show on Fox or C-SPAN. I watched CNN because it was the first channel on the list as I scrolled through. There's zero meaning to the fact that I watched a minute of the hearing on CNN. You CNN phobes seem nutty. It's just the feed from the Senate.
Da Nang Dick Blumenthal can't be loving the high camera angle.
He's got a bald spot the size of a Hanoi rice paddy.
When will the Fly appear on Amy’s head? That is the only thing keeping anyone watching this.
You CNN phobes seem nutty. It's just the feed from the Senate.
CNN is an absurd DNC propaganda outlet and I do not want them to make a dime off of even one minute of watching.
How is that nutty?
They call all this Kabuki, but that seems wrong to me.
Actual Kabuki is way more interesting than this. Its very stylized (not as much as Noh), and very hard to get into - cannot be translated really, for all the cultural references and symbolism. But it is ABOUT something, and that is usually fascinating.
You CNN phobes seem nutty
Feelings mutual.
A general comment about what terrible human beings politicians are. They bully and berate people who are not able to respond in kind and they engage in such behavior knowing that the victim has to take the abuse. This behavior shows a lack of basic human decency.
"Amy needs to show proper judicial demeanor by charging the bench with a punch right in the face of Sen. Feinstein. "
MMA styles of decorum would improve a lot of this, yes, and be more honest to boot. It would improve the character of the people in office, if they had to physically fight for it. Tulsi Gabbard would definitely have been the candidate in 2020.
Imagine Joe Rogan as America's star political commentator.
If voters don't deserve to know Biden's position on things, why not can Barret attempt similar riposte?
Ann, the thing about CNN is they are preposterously one sided and will show democrats bloviate and then as Amy goes to respond will suddenly cut away to a CNN talking head to explain what the senator just said. They are a joke at this point. You don't even have to be a "CNN phobe" just to spot the obvious.
ACA is part of the act since it's one of the only places left that seemingly polls well for Democrats. Many voters have said 'healthcare' is a major concern.
I watched Ted Cruz calling for the Legislature to stop filibustering and start legislating. And I watched ACB mask up while Klobuchare unmasked. I think the national issue of 2020 is trending toward economics v. health. Which of these you think is central or perhaps I should say how you explain covid to yourself determines what party you support. If you think the science now shows that covid is like the flu for most people and that lockdowns, school closings and business shutdowns are more deadly than the flu for most people, you vote Republican. If you think that covid is deadly and must be opposed by all means deemed necessary by public health officials including school closings, lockdowns and erratic shutdowns of businesses until we have a vaccine that is effective for all then you vote Democratic. If you think Trump was right to take for himself the risk implied by ending the covid-fear-based social order and returning to a working society which he is asking other to do, you vote Republican. If you think everyone who Can should hide and leave the exposed work to the Can'ts - the Hunger Games strategy - then you vote for Biden. If you think Trump showed there are effective treatments for older persons facing SARS as a result of covid and that medical science has developed treatments so that one can recover fairly quickly even from SARS-Covid, even if an older person, you vote Republican. If you are deeply frightened, convinced that frozen hiding like a rabbit near a wolf is your only chance for safety and unreachable by any new information, you vote Biden. Consequently, this hearing is tending toward framing all ACB issues as heath issues - as an attempt by Dems to show that the Repubs are unsound on health, to show that that ACB (and Trump) will take away health insurance and stop current protections for pre-existing condition as well as assault reproductive health (by which is meant abortion.)
In a debate you can't let your opponent frame the issues but at the same time sometimes you have to just say no. For example, Joe Biden is starting all his answers with a simple yes or no. "No", before proceeding to deny that Hunter got money from Russia (It is an established fact that Hunter did get money, the only question is why; and that is only a real question in those under ten-years-old. In everyone else the question is hypocrisy.) No, Biden won't raise taxes on the middle class (though he will remove middle-class tax exemptions and reinstate tax exemptions for the wealthy which will shield them from his tax increases. So in sneaky way Biden will lower taxes for the wealthy and raise them for the middle class.) Still, this yes/ no has to countered as well as explaining the issue. For instance, on this health debate one might say - "No, I will not take away protections for preexisting conditions" before explaining why the media keeps saying that will happen. "No, I do not support white supremacy" before explaining how the media is lying about Charlottesville.
"Dianne Feinstein, maskless, was grimly chewing her out."
In the comforting knowledge that her fellow progs and the nice women of America cheer her on.
If you think DiFi is grim now, wait until the prog regime is being imposed in full force. Then the wailing of the nice women will commence: we didn't know they would be so mean! why don't they show wisdom! it's terrible!
Why do they even have hearings anymore? We all know the Democrats will vote in lockstep against Barrett, and will do nothing but slander her and try to make her look bad. These farces have been shameful since the Bork hearings did away with all pretense of decency and fair play on the part of the Democrat Marxist Party, and the Kavanaugh hearings were an outrage. Do away with these farces altogether until the Democrat Party starts operating in good faith.
About covid and pre-ex:
In the days of individual underwriting for health insurance (i.e., not group coverage like you get from an employer, which does not have individual underwriting), the company asked a series of questions about past health history. "Have you had cancer in the last 10 years?" If so, you had to disclose details. That was to protect the people already in the risk pool (the applicant's fellow insureds) from people who only sought coverage after they felt symptoms of some disease or illness. That is the game right now with guaranteed-issued policies on the exchanges, and one reason why they cost so much. The system sucked for people with a significant pre-ex (one that is either chronic or is likely to recur and is very costly when it does) and who did not have or could not get group coverage. These folks were unlikely to find a company who would take the risk of insuring them.
With covid, the pre-ex angle does not really make sense for the vast majority of those who have had it. These recovered people have antibodies and are likely now immune. I suppose for those who have not recovered (still have covid fog, whatever that is), they are still considered actively sick, and underwriters of any kind of insurance would never accept a known loss or a loss in progress. So if Obamacare is repealed or loses in court and we go back to underwriting for individually-issued policies, people who have recovered from covid likely will not be denied coverage.
That said, Richard Blumenthal is a walking, talking preexisting condition called Human Asshole. No cure for that either.
"In fact in certain states it is currently difficult to get an abortion even under Roe v. Wade."
That's right, Freder. We're coming to take away your right to kill your own children. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
“ The show on CNN is the same as the show on Fox or C-SPAN.”
Maybe it was, but that doesn’t mean it will be. Chryons, cut aways.
Ah, yes, abortion, the wicked solution to relieve "burdens". It's bad enough when it's Her Choice and unwatchable, but when it's her Choice, then it's ghoulish and unwatchable.
but it would be open season on fetuses in the blue states right up until birth.
@Unknown (9:11), only “right up until birth”? Check out Governor Ralph Northam and the Democrats of Virginia. They want the right to “abort” a baby after it’s been born.
Well, Barrett knew this day would come. When she must stand on principles of Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, disrupt their echo chambers, and tear down their walls. That said, she's smart, and principled, and recognizes that, unlike the Communists' one-child, the Progressives' selective-child and cannibalized-child, have been normalized in a significant minority of the population. Baby steps.
1. Abortion (like most things) should be a State's rights issue, not decided by the federal government. Our nation was never meant to be a top-down, one-size-fits-all system dictated by Washington DC.
2. In states where abortion would be illegal (with very limited exceptions for life-threatening emergencies to the mother, and/or possibly rape), adoption and comprehensive prenatal healthcare services should be provided by the state instead.
3. In states where abortion would remain legal, it should carry the mandatory condition that if you get an abortion, you must get a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) implanted (paid for by the state) which if you want to have removed, you would have to pay for it yourself, and then lose any future ability to have another abortion (with the above limited exceptions).
Are any of those several states not Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi or Tennessee?
"In fact in certain states it is currently difficult to get an abortion even under Roe v. Wade."
The year is 2020, not 1920. Everywhere, with the exception of Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, you can drive to or get on a bus to an abortion-on-impulse state within a few hours.
This is not a barrier to anyone that has made the decision to have an abortion.
1. Abortion (like most things) should be a State's rights issue, not decided by the federal government. Our nation was never meant to be a top-down, one-size-fits-all system dictated by Washington DC.
2. In states where abortion would be illegal (with very limited exceptions for life-threatening emergencies to the mother, and/or possibly rape), adoption and comprehensive prenatal healthcare services should be provided by the state instead.
3. In states where abortion would remain legal, it should carry the mandatory condition that if you get an abortion, you must get a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) implant (paid for by the state). And if you want to have it removed, you will have to pay for that yourself, but lose any future ability to have another abortion (with the same above limited exceptions).
If we had real newspapers, I know, I know, they’d be reporting on DiFi’s husbands letters of “help” for his “friends” and how many of the friends made contributions to Diane’s various campaigns for office. If.
Hirono...the dumbest senator to ever draw breath.
I actually think she has special needs.
It is 85% about the ACA. The Dems have moved on from Abortion to Healthcare.
You CNN phobes seem nutty. It's just the feed from the Senate.
The problem is when the Dem senators stop talking, the CNN pundits say the exact same things.
The GOP senators are trying to make this about "religious freedom" (it isn't) and the Dems are trying to make this about health care (it's not). I wish somebody would be honest enough to say, "We (want/don't want) this woman on the court cuz it would be (good/bad) for our side! Hooray for our side...!"
I thought the focus was to be ACA.
There should be no Democrat elected for 2 generations. They are a diseased party.
My sister's quirky personality, and idiosyncrasies has recently blossomed into full blown schizophrenia.
I'm trying to convince myself that the stuff I read in the newspaper is different than her fabrications. I'm having trouble making such distinctions.
A woman engineer friend is rabidly anti-Trump. She posts strange stuff on Facebook. They grab that fake news because it re-enforces the turmoil in their minds.
Like macro-economics, I think we can propose macro-schizophrenia.
The huge background photos are puerile and annoying.
Will just one senator put up huge photos of aborted babies?
How about photos of the victims of rape and murder whose perpetrators get to live the rest of their lives in prison instead of being executed?
Republicans are stupid. They wouldn't know a hard ball if it hit them in their empty noggins...
In fact in certain states it is currently difficult to get an abortion even under Roe v. Wade.
The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were 862,320 abortions in the US in 2017, or about 2,362 per day, or one every 36 seconds, all day, every day.
It can't be that difficult.
CNN is despicable. My absolute pride that this network was birthed right by Ted Turner at Techwood and Marietta was kicked back at me by the people who runs that dump today.
OK, law professor and lawyers. If the Dems win all and resize the court, who sues where to stop/delay the process, and can ultimately the Supremes claim a penumbra or precedent to stop their own resizing? Is that when the armed revolution begins?
"Hirono...the dumbest senator to ever draw breath."
Quoting myself, but fiercely heterosexual Booker gives her a run for her money...
CNN isn't even showing it anymore. They don't want their lemmings to see how bigoted the left is. They may even end up voting for Trump because they are sick of getting lied to constantly.....They sure do run a lot of commercials....got to fill up the air with something.
In the early 1900s, Margaret Sanger was a nurse on the Lower East side of NYC, She saw a lotta young blacks and Puerto Ricans having babies. A lot. It bugged her.
She was part of the Eugenics fad at the time. She thought it bad for society for poor minorities to have a lotta babies. Would lead to generational poverty.
So, she supported birth control, early, for these folks. Not a bad idea!
But, over time, birth control morphed into abortion, and seems kinda mean to advocate to groups you don't like (poor minorities) to abort their babies.
This morphed again in the "free love" era of the 60s', when white privileged, hot college gals started on the pill -- and started to drop their panties.
It then became a feminist power movement -- we want abortion! We think it's in the Constitution! Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Roe v. Wade was a bad decisions. States like NY and California had already legalized abortion. A lotta folks have valid qualms about abortion, but don't want to send pregnant women or their doctors to jail.
Rove artificially knee-capped the issue, that should have remained in the political arena, to be fought out, like most battles of ideas.
Now, of course, Democrats have to be Pro-Choice, or they get excommunicated.
Oh well.
Ann Althouse said...
You CNN phobes seem nutty. It's just the feed from the Senate.
No Chyrons running across the screen/. No talking heads to butt in and tell you what you shoudl think about what's on the screen? Just letting the people on the screen control the show?
Nice, if true
I recall distinctly from my college days ('71-76) the thrill that many coeds in polisci and history had over the availability of abortion in Sovietia (1917-1991).
It got to the point that even I had to ask if the whole point and justification of the system was that large percentages of pregnancies end in abortion, and that most women should have multiple abortions over their productive years?
Turns out, that was pretty much the case, and the ideology lives strongly within many.
Narr
To coin a phrase
We have about 250 years of our government functioning as per the constitution. Staring in 2000, the democrats (Party of evil), started crapping on it And have proceeded hell bent to destroy everything since. The very idea that these hacks can’t go do their constitutional duties because if a virus is beyond shameful. Why would anybody support this?
"Why do they even have hearings anymore? "
Because right now, just before the election, it gives the Democrats the opportunity to embarrass themselves again, just like they did during the Kavanaugh hearings.
When RBG died, I thought this would be a winning issue for the Dems, but they’ve badly mishandled it at every turn and now will not just lose, but lose ugly. Instead of putting up Merrick Garland, they threatened court packing and now are ludicrously claiming the Republicans are court packing. They are viciously attacking a kind and decent woman for daring to believe in something greater than herself.
Instead of this being the issue that sinks the Republicans, it is setting up to be the issue that sinks the Democrats. Take that “Notorious RBG” cultists. By refusing to leave the stage when any sensible person would have, their hero is getting Trump reelected.
I, for one, look forward to the next three Trump Supreme Court nominations.
Also, Obamacares, but the available evidence indicates the cause is progressive prices, not progressive costs. The issue is affordable and available medical care, not insurance, which may be part of the treatment, but leaves progressive corruption and decay in darkness, and the promissory notes have been called in.
Will just one senator put up huge photos of aborted babies?
That's one way to process an empathetic appeal. Another is to show babies... uh, Fetal-Americans, as we, they evolve from conception, with development of our nervous system, our sentience from around one month. A colorful clump of cells, indeed. Embrace diversity, a minority of one.
papper said...
A general comment about what terrible human beings politicians are. They bully and berate people who are not able to respond in kind and they engage in such behavior knowing that the victim has to take the abuse. This behavior shows a lack of basic human decency.
Indeed.
I'm struck by the sudden shift by the left that insists these politicians are the only ones that can improve our lives, make us whole, and do so with religious fervor.
Both Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Grassley were definitely showing their age. Both are the same age as the late Justice Ginsburg was. 87 isn't old if you are a redwood tree, but neither of them is.
Durbin really, really hates.
He's a democrat.
Now, of course, Democrats have to be Pro-Choice, or they get excommunicated.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that contributing in any way to procuring an abortion is a grievous wrong. Canon law still imposes automatic excommunication for the offense.
I guess Biden (and others) chose The Party over salvation?
I am folding laundry so I thought I'd put the hearings on. Yuck. The Boomers don't know how to use zoom. Lindsay is trying to help someone unmute their mic. Back to the Althouse podcast for me.
Kamala conducting the hearing from her office down the hall so she can use a teleprompter so she doesn't sound quite as stupid.
We're in store for a Chinese style virtual government if Biden wins.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee begins its work on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett."
Work?
Not the word I would have chosen.
After listening to both Judge Barrett and the Law Professor Emerita Patricia O'Hara from Notre Dame, I'm even more impressed. I think that she will be a superb addition to the Court.
A very impressive opening statement from Judge Barrett. Godspeed!
Also a very impressive endorsement from Dean O'Hara.
Professor Althouse, did you ever cross paths with Judge Barrett in the Midwestern academic world of constitutional law professors? If so, are you willing to give us your impressions?
That said, Richard Blumenthal is a walking, talking preexisting condition called Human Asshole. No cure for that either.
C’mon, man... dinky dick dau was in Teh Shit over in ‘Nam... he’s still dealing with some issues.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee begins its work on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett."
Work?
Not the word I would have chosen.
I expect "a piece of work" to be a totally accurate description.
The Trumpster should do 3-4 hours with Joe Rogan the day before the last debate. Does Joe haVe the balls to do that? Cause I’m guessing Orangeman has no problem with it.
The Trumpster should do 3-4 hours with Joe Rogan the day before the last debate. Does Joe haVe the balls to do that? Cause I’m guessing Orangeman has no problem with it.
What percentage of the discussion will be about abortion? 85?
Abortion is zero-sum politics. Health care, on the other hand . . .
Dean O'Hara seemed to do that off the cuff. Now that is public speaking. The Irish gift of story-telling, so confident because she meant every word of it. Or else she's among the very best BS'ers.
So this show is supposed to be about ACB's qualifications and fitness for the court? Good luck D's. Maybe they can come up with someone to say that they stole those Haitian children for purposes of unpaid domestic labor.
This seems apt:
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-hiss-in-terror-as-acb-pulls-out-crucifix
Regarding healthcare and the ACA, the individual mandate would have already been declared unconstitutional absent Robert's saving it via the tax argument. Five justices, including Roberts, held the individual mandate was not authorized under Congress' ability to legislate under the commerce clause. Instead, it was Congress' tax power that made it a constitutional act. That tax scheme is now repealed by the same body that created it - Congress. It does not take an ideological justice to conclude that removing the only constitutional basis, taxation, dooms the rest of the law. So unless Roberts switches sides, or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh are persuaded that the law was justified under the commerce clause, the current makeup of the court would be 5-3 against. ACB is not likely to be the difference on the ACA.
FWBuff said...
A very impressive opening statement from Judge Barrett. Also a very impressive endorsement from Dean O'Hara.
I missed that in scrolling through today's bloviations. The Dems annoy me the most, but no one really looked like they should be a national figure.
The real question is whether we will get any anti-Catholic bigotry and, if so, how subtle will it be?
won't listen to a second. I'll watch the highlights - till then I'll rearrange my sock drawer.
OK. Sen Lee pointed out that most SCOTUS decisions aren't close; they're 7-2, 8-1, 9-0. And that the ones that are close aren't usually the "five conservatives, four liberals" that we've been led to expect; some of them are incredibly weird mixes (well, incredibly weird if you don't follow the Court). And that most of them aren't about Roe or Obergefell or the PPACA, but about things like the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Sen. Cruz follows on with that Michael Barone article I read last week. Cases where the Senate and the President were from the same party, election year: 19 total, 17 confirmed. Cases when they were from different parties, election year: Ten total, two confirmed. Apparently the "same party/different party" business was not, after all, just blown out of Sen. McConnell's capacious ass.
Christopher Scalia piles on in the WSJ by explaining to those who didn't know that Antonin Scalia's "originalism" is not what everyone from Linda Greenhouse to your local newspaper editor has been telling you -- reading the text "to find out what the Framers intended" -- but is instead the entirely different project of asking what the words of the text might have meant to ordinary readers at the time they were written and ratified, or passed (for legislation). This is so incredibly stupid a mistake that I cannot believe that Greenhouse, for one, has made it innocently.
All in all, a good day for Barrett -- but only if everyone actually reads/watches/listens to all the above. As it is, they will likely all be distracted by gigantic photos of little Laura with the kidney problem, and so forth. That the photos (I have seen them now; they line the gallery) are exactly like the giant photos of dismembered fetuses used outside abortion clinics will be remembered by precisely no one.
So what did The Hostess do when CNN left the hearings?
THEOLDMAN
It's just the feed, right? Yeah...I don't ever watch CNN so someone who did tell me if the chyrons were there or not? If so, then it's NOT just the feed
“ So what did The Hostess do when CNN left the hearings?”
As I told you, I switched off after one minute. Never went back. Certainly would not watch their talking heads. But I didn’t watch any commentators.
If this is what we call "the world's greatest deliberative body" then the US in its present form isn't worth saving.
Fortunately we're going to get "states rights" and "federalism" soon.
But it will be the left side of the political divide that provides it, through anarchy and secession. The USSR didn't last forever. There's no reason to think what the founders gave us will either.
rcocean, you say, "won't listen to a second. I'll watch the highlights - till then I'll rearrange my sock drawer.” Need some advice from you. I did the sock drawer during the Trump/Ukraine phone call nonsense, and it’s still pretty well organized. Now what? Go through what’s left of the Christmas decorations? But, since my wife passed away, who will make those borderline “keep/toss” decisions? So that’s mission impossible. I guess it will be long walks with the dogs. They’re gonna wonder “what the heck’s gotten into him? We pooped and pee’d and we’re ready for the treats, and this old fart wants us to keep mushing on down the street."
Bob Smith @ 10:08 goes with this suggestion for pro-lifers: "Actually if you are a pot bellied right wing fascist knuckle dragging rethuglican racist you should cheer the aboritionists on. If you know the demographics of who is getting the abortions.”
But, Bob … it’s clear you don’t understand the underlying dynamics here. If abortionists are encouraged and cheered, where will we get our slaves in the future? The cost of shipping from the third world sources has become prohibitive considering the pesky regulations that require providing beds, food, showers, medicine, and other luxuries for the passengers.
Nevertheless, it’s reassuring that your heart is in the right place. It’s just on the economics that your concept is kind of shaky.
Bob Smith @ 10:08 goes with this suggestion for pro-lifers: "Actually if you are a pot bellied right wing fascist knuckle dragging rethuglican racist you should cheer the aboritionists on. If you know the demographics of who is getting the abortions.”
But, Bob … it’s clear you don’t understand the underlying dynamics here. If abortionists are encouraged and cheered, where will we get our slaves in the future? The cost of shipping from the third world sources has become prohibitive considering the pesky regulations that require providing beds, food, showers, medicine, and other luxuries for the passengers.
Nevertheless, it’s reassuring that your heart is in the right place. It’s just on the economics that your concept is kind of shaky.
Why is ACB wearing a mask? She's already had COVID.
donald @ 12:10pm,
I get what you're saying, but you're badly off on the start date. I would place it, rather, with Woodrow Wilson at the very latest.
Am I the only one here that thought Bob was being facetious?
Post a Comment