Supreme Court

It's Official: Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 conservative majority.


President Donald Trump on Saturday announced the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat previously occupied by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, setting the stage for a heated confirmation battle as Republicans seek to cement a 6-3 conservative majority.

Barrett, currently a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, first achieved national attention during her 2017 confirmation hearing for that role. In reference to Barrett's Catholic faith, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) remarked to the judge that "the dogma lives loudly within you," which was heavily criticized as an example of Democratic hostility toward religious liberty.

Barrett's pro-life outlook will likely be the subject of scrutiny during her upcoming confirmation hearing. It's worth noting, however, that even Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights case, as a decision that reached too far. 

The partisan nature of Barrett's nomination is also sure to be a subject of intense debate. Senate Democrats have lamented Republicans' willingness to move forward with a Supreme Court nomination during an election year after declining to consider former President Barack Obama's 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. 

"I want you to use my words against me," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) said during a 2016 Senate hearing on the subject of the Supreme Court vacancy. "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said: Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) issued similar comments in July: "If I were chairman of the committee and this vacancy occurred, I would not have a hearing on it because that's what I promised the people in 2016," he said. In a statement following Ginsburg's death, Grassley reversed course, explaining that the Senate should in fact vote on the nominee. "The circumstances are different in 2020, where the American people elected a Republican President and Senate in 2016 and expanded the Republican Senate majority in 2018," the statement reads.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) and Susan Collins (R–Maine) are the only Republicans who announced their intention to not vote on a nominee before the presidential election, which still leaves Senate Republicans with enough votes to confirm Barrett should they decide to do so.

Some Senate Democrats have threatened to retaliate by packing the courts with additional justices in the event the Senate and White House go blue in the 2020 general election, though Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has said he would not support such a move as it would erode any veneer of judicial impartiality. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was similarly skeptical about packing the court.

Barrett's judicial portfolio at this point is somewhat scant, as her appointment to the Seventh Circuit came after a career as an academic at George Washington University Law School and Notre Dame Law School. Thus far, the judge's record is a mixed bag when it comes to criminal cases. Two of her opinions are somewhat encouraging: one in which she concluded that the Second Amendment does not allow a blanket prohibition on gun ownership for those with felony records, and another in which she gutted a qualified immunity defense used by a detective who allegedly framed someone for murder.

The Supreme Court has continuously shied away from the opportunity to reevaluate qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it considerably more difficult to hold public officials—namely police officers—accountable when they violate your rights. After the high court recently declined to hear a spate of qualified immunity cases, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone judge to push back. If Barrett is confirmed, perhaps he will have some company. 

NEXT: Brooklyn Eatery Sues New York State and Gov. Cuomo Over Looming ‘Food Curfew’

Supreme Court Donald Trump Republican Party Democratic Party Senate Courts Judges Lindsey Graham

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

463 responses to “It's Official: Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

  1. I can’t wait until she gets rammed right up all your lefty asses.

    1. I doubt she’d appreciate that.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

      2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>> Cashapp

      3. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
        COPY THIS SITE COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    2. Aborto-Freaks rejoice. Their very own handmaid with 7 crumb-crunchers is annoited. Gawd approves.

      1. Never trust anyone with 7 children.

        1. She is a religious kook.

          And I realize that endears her to conservatives. As long as it’s Jeeby the Zombie that is. He is coming back from the dead to judge your ass you know.

          1. Your distress brings me happiness bigot.

            1. #CryMore

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do…>>Cashapp

            2. Am I a bigot against bad ideas? Sure I am.

              All religion, socialism, communism, fascism, conservatism, progressivism, Creationism are all bad or false ideas.

              Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

              Lucius Annaeus Seneca

              1. No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.

                Prepare your anuses, progs. For the next four years we’re going in dry.

                1. …with a chainsaw.

                2. This is quite bizarre. Mother’s Lament claims to be a Canadian, yet he is celebrating four more years of Republican rule in a country he doesn’t even live in.

                  Something has never added up.

                  1. Something has never added up.

                    You should really keep investigating this White Knight, I’m pretty sure it’s just the tip of the iceberg.


                    1. To do that, I’d have to care a lot more. I’m content with believing Mother’s Lament sucks at hockey, and lives in his lamenting mother’s basement. Maybe has a big dusty, moose head looming over him as he sits there posting comments.

                    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…DFv after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                      Here’s what I do…>> Click here

                    3. “To do that, I’d have to care a lot more.”

                      You cared enough to squawk like a bird about it Dee.

                    4. Bill Mahr, Ann Coulter and I have smelled a smell. I think that the same people who adored RBG will make Amy Coney Barret a saint. I think she’s a nanny. I think she is an actual clone of Christine Blasey Ford, the devious, insane shrew who accused Kavanaugh.

                    5. I’d have to care a lot more

                      lolololol I don’t think you realize how often you dunk on yourself.

                    6. WK never stop commenting here, you are constant entertainment.

                    7. and the easiest target, it’s almost not even fair.

                    8. She’s a bird named Dee, Nail.

                  2. Mother’s Lament claims to be a Canadian, yet he is celebrating four more years of Republican rule in a country he doesn’t even live in.

                    I’m not the only one:

                    Canadians know that American left-wing psychosis’s manifest in Canada a decade later. Trudeau is imitation-Obama only dumber. In North America the shit flows uphill.
                    Many of us see Trump as the antidote to the establishment oligarchs and the Davos crowd who are using ideas like critical theory (race, gender) to advance their interests at the proles expense.

                    Here’s the other thing. I hate the American left with a passion. Every perverse, anti-human idea since WWII has spawned itself in American academia and then metastasized across the globe.
                    What hurts it delights me.

                    1. And I hate conservatism – which is rooted in religion (the worst idea of all time). Xtianity and Islam are the most freedom killing ideas ever and are essential to conservative orthodoxy. You are a Jihadist whether you know it or not.

                      A liberty-hating Jihadist.

                    2. I hate to be so mean about this kid, but WK is such a simpleton that he never considered that

                      a) there is literally no logical motive to lying about being from Canada.
                      b) people outside the US have a vested interest in US politics, especially people from that biiiiggg nation to the north we happen to share a border with.

                      If WK isn’t a sock for Chipper, Chemtard, Sparky or Sarcasmic then he’s probably some weirdo still in high school.

                    3. She’s a bird named Dee, Nail.

                    4. Nuttplug, you wouldn’t know liberty if it pissed on you. You’re a nutty little elitist wannabe, screaming hate about the proles and their beliefs, all while advancing fascist ideologies like critical theory for the benefit of establishment oligarchs.
                      Fuck you. I despise everything you stand for.

              2. Seneca… aka Nero’s tutor

              3. Jesus isn’t a zombie, moron. He’s a liche.

                1. Jesus isn’t undead, he regenerates into a new body when he’s mortally injured. After his first regeneration, which is now Easter, he left to travel through time and space. Often saving earth from disasters, alien invasions, Hillary Clinton’s plans to enslave the human race, etc..

              4. It’s never too late for you to give in to those “sad clown” urges, Weigel!

              5. “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2
                September.26.2020 at 9:30 pm
                Am I a bigot…? Sure I am.”

                1. PB is a pedophile too.

          2. Eat shit Kiddie Raper. Things are going to get real fucking bad for you.

    3. Where’s Rev. Kirkland to gloat over the Right inevitably being sent to concentration camps by the ever ascendant Left?


      1. Probably bitterly masturbating to his 8×10” photo of Trump.

    4. Even funnier is when her replacement gets rammed up the Lefty asses to fill her 7th circuit appellate court seat.

    5. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      +++++++++++COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    6. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online Abt from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

  2. Only in far left progtard liberaltarian world is she considered problematic. To the 95% of us she is normal.

    Check your head.

    1. The same with thinking this makes it a 6-3 conservative majority.
      If there were “conservatives” of some sort there, we wouldn’t still have Obamacare bobbing around.

      1. They also probably wouldn’t have dodged every single Second Amendment case that came up in the last several years.

      2. Looks like a solid 5-4 majority.

        Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.

        Thomas should be made Chief Justice.

      3. Yup.obamacare is an abomination and clear violation of the US constitution, even the prohibitionists knew they nee$ed a coninstitutional amendment t to ban a product or service( alcohol).

    2. Speaking of far leftards, Lanny Davis has declared that the Dems are going 1860 all over again.

      1. “Dear Blue States: don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

        1. No. They don’t get to secede. The progtards can leave America, never to return, if they want to, but they don’t get one square inch of American soil.

          Just expatriate their treasonous asses and be done with them. I’m sure Venezuela or Cuba will take them. Let the progs live off the ‘camaraderie’ of these Marxist states.

          1. I vote for deporting every last commie in the USA and eminent domaining their property minus their share of the national debt they pushed for.

            Unfortunately it will be a bloodletting since the lefties started civil war 2.0 like they started civil war 1.0

            1. If the progressives want to choke our rivers with their dead, then so be it. It will be on them.

          2. I for one would be happy to give them San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, New York City and Baltimore.
            Throw in Chicago as well.
            Let them secede and good riddance.
            The rest of us can be the free United States of America and forget about their stupid progressive ideas.

      2. What a fucking retard. I don’t think he even realizes that the only reason states like California, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington are so deep blue is because the bulk of the population is concentrated in few large urban areas.

        Any attempt by these states to secede would immediately result in the red counties telling them, “Thanks, but no thanks, go fuck yourself.” I bet the rest of Illinois outside of Cook County is practically begging for a secession call so they can march the Democratic legislators out of Springfield at gunpoint and tell them to walk their asses up to Chicago. People in the Owens Valley would probably love to blow up the LA aqueduct and fill up Owens Lake again, and the people in the Central Valley would tell the neurotics west of I-5, “Sorry, we don’t do trade deals with commies.” The Western Slope would love to tell Denver, “fuck you, prior appropriation doesn’t apply here anymore, you’re going to die of thirst.”

        I really wish these galaxy-brains would be stupid enough to actually try this.

        1. This is why individual states should have their own version of the electoral college.

      3. How is it possible that Lanny Davis doesn’t have tTwitter’s sacred blue and white check mark? That thing is their version of a cardinal’s hat.

    3. I think you might be a little optimistic about the percentages.

  3. I’m expecting some awesome fireworks.

    1. Actually the Dems have a great opportunity to get Sleepy Joe home and take the Senate, simply by behaving in a sane and polite manner, and seeming reasonable.

      History is against them though.

      1. I have a better chance of bedding Christina Hendricks and winning the Powerball…in that order…than of the Dems acting like grownups during a SCOTUS hearing for a Rep-nominated justice.

        1. Would say you have a better chance of doing those things simultaneously than the democrats have of not losing their shit over this in a big way.

  4. “If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 conservative majority.”

    If confirmed, she would represent a conservative plurality on the right, with maybe two or three Republican nominated justices as more like swing votes. Just because they’re not radical progressives doesn’t make them conservative–no matter what the radical progressives in the news media say.

    1. P.S. Does support for Second Amendment rights make someone a radical right wing conservative, or is that just, you know, what the Constitution says. Does giving an honest reading of the First Amendment make someone a radical, too, or does that magic spell only work when the news media is casting it against something they don’t like? I’m not convinced that thinking abortion laws should be left to the states is necessarily a radical position either. Is there any other issue where leaving decisions to the states to decide makes someone a radical, or is abortion the only one?

      1. Most SCOTUS decisions of the past three decades or so based on the commerce clause would qualify.

      2. Does giving an honest reading of the First Amendment make someone a radical, too, or does that magic spell only work when the news media is casting it against something they don’t like?

        The 1A is full of all kinds of spells. Plain letter starts off with “Congress shall make no law…” and it ends with an unequivocal right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” but people are more than happy to interpret it as “fuck you, Congress says you can bitch about that.”

        1. “You can’t bitch about that.”

    2. Correct, but keep in mind lefty and the media always counted Kennedy as conservative too though his rulings were anything but consistently conservative. Likewise with Souter and O’Connor.

      Gotta keep the libs agitated and motivated since they rely so much on 5 unelected black robes to enact their policy preferences against the will of the people.

      1. The radical progressives are delusional in that they really believe themselves to be moderates–and therefore everyone who opposes them is a radical conservative. About a lot of things, they’re just lying, but I think they’re genuinely delusional about where they are on the political spectrum. They believe their own lies that they’re representative of average people–despite being elitists.

        1. The radical progressives are delusional in that they really believe themselves to be moderates–and therefore everyone who opposes them is a radical conservative.

          Hell, they think (or at least proclaim) that anyone who opposes them is a Fascist/Nazi.

        2. Just described chipper, jeff, sarcasmic….

      2. Who counted Souter as a conservative?

    3. Ditto.

      And remember, her ruling against qualified immunity makes her full on fascist to the leftards.

      Don’t expect me to explain their bizarre style guide.

      1. The lefties are already claiming that she’s racist for adopting Haitian children.
        No lie.

        Here’s Jack Dorsey’s house racebaiter to explain why:

        1. The Trump campaign couldn’t buy that kind of advertising. Please, let them denounce her for that!

        2. The ratio on that is fantastic.

          1. It’s the ratio he deserves.
            He’s now claiming “bots” are taking his tweet out of context.

            1. People like Kendi are so fucking pathetic that they couldn’t tie their own shoes unless white people bought them the shoelaces.

    4. I have yet to see any evidence that Barrett is letting her conservative policy preferences influence her decisions. As far as I can tell, she is a strict textualist and originalist, regardless of outcome.

      1. strict textualist and originalist

        A 3/5er!

        1. Huh? The originalist/textualist interpretation gives full citizenship to African Americans.

        2. “ A 3/5er!”

          Oh look, the pedophile made a funny! Why can’t you respect the ban that Reason put on you and go back to the dark web to surf for more kiddie porn? You really think that everybody forgot what you did you sick fuck? You fucking disgust me.

          1. Haven’t forgotten. Nor what Jeffy said about being ok with letting pedophiles from foreign countries wander into the US.

            1. Wasn’t Jeff the casting director for Cuties?

              1. I think it was actually Buttplug. Jeffy just sat in the corner and watched.

        3. Textualists and originalists give full weight to Constitutional amendments. You know, because that’s the only legitimate way to change the meaning. Pretty sure we dealt with this in the Civil War Amendments. But just keep being obtuse and strawmanning.

      2. “As far as I can tell, she is a strict textualist and originalist, regardless of outcome.”

        Honestly, that makes her a conservative.

        From the Progressive era around the turn of the century to the New Deal era and the Great Society era, hasn’t being a Supreme Court justice on the left meant an eagerness to ignore what the text says and interpret the Constitution in such a way that will allow Progressive, New Deal, and Great Society programs to flourish?

        1. Yes. And now progs are pissed that originalists are “ignoring stare decisis.” Pretty sure that’s actually what they had to do to get horrible decisions like NRLB v. Jones, etc. Why the hell should originalists listen to edicts that the progs themselves will ignore? Fuck em.

    5. The press usually refers to MOST Republicans as conservative, even Romney and McCain.
      The ones with the most left views (Weld, Chafee) are classified as “moderates”.
      Unless they’re running for office, then they’re all Nazis of course.

  5. Well, I watched Trump’s announcement just now, and I could have done without the praise for Ginsburg. After her votes on Kelo, Raich, and Heller, I’m not going to pretend she wasn’t evil.


    1. He’s running for office.

    2. You’d prefer he dropped any modicum of decency and reconciliation? I’m actually in favor of more of this from Trump.

      1. so feels over actions? Carlin had a good bit about those of you who want to soften the language.

        1. No.

          No action here is necessary beyond nominating a replacement, which he’s done.

          Being a dick isn’t action. It’s just being a dick.

          1. So you want platitudes for someone who passed even when you disagree with them fundamentally? Sounds like feels.

            It would be better if the nomination was missing any mention of Ginsberg. She has nothing to do with the nomination process. She has nothing to do with ACB.

            1. At least you are honest that you are so poorly socialized that you don’t get the point of civility.

              1. Ignoring evil is “civilty” now?

                1. Has been for quite some-time.

              2. How cute you are when you make insipid points. Tony is interested.

          2. No point beating up on TBG anymore. She’s dead. It doesn’t help anything and might turn some swing voters off. So why trash her?

            1. Exactly. Not being an asshole is usually the way to go. Let the dead be dead and move on.

            2. Why mention her in a nonination that doesn’t concern her?

              1. You know why. Don’t be obtuse. It is the big story of the moment.

    3. He never praised her work, just her service. Also, it never hurts to say nice things about the dead, but a lack of mention would be interpreted by some as being disrespectful. Don’t make it harder on your Sunday morning surrogates, particularly when it comes to children and the dead.

      1. Bingo.

        I don’t agree with many of her positions, but let’s not pretend that her service doesn’t mean anything because of it.

        1. I’d rather us not elevate and celebrate government figures with these large masses for them. It is elevating the positions above the citizens.

          1. Saying something nice about her at someone else’s nomination announcement is a large mass?

            1. so you missed the last week of public showings?

          2. Listen I get it but you’re wrong on this.

            1. No I’m not.

              You prefer puffery. You’re what leads to words are violence.

              1. No, it’s what leads parents to teach their kids to say “yes sir” and “no sir” to their elders.

                It’s called decorum. You might want to learn about it.

                1. Again, you are elevating politicians over the populace. I teach my kids to act independent. They follow the law, not the politicians.

                  Sorry you’re having trouble separating the two.

                  I never want me kids to venerate a politician. Politicians should not be venerated. They are generally the worst of the population.

                  When Britain has tens of thousands lined up to mourn a royal it is embarrassing for them.

                  Why are you so defensive about this?

                  No politician should ever be lionized.

                  1. Tear down those George Washington statues!!

                    Decorum, politeness, respect for a person simply because they are a person. These are conservative values, civilized values. Do you renounce them?

                2. “Why are you so defensive about this?”

                  He says in his 45th reply to many people who question his decision to shit on a dead old lady.

          3. Wait until the big “O” kicks the bucket. The funeral will last longer than James Brown’s. There wont be anything left in this country that won’t be renamed for him.
            Even pancake syrup will sport his image.

            1. Exactly. Yet those in here are defending the lionization of the “public servants” and are offended someone else isn’t.

              It is crazy self called libertarians would elevate the few over the many. I have never shed a tear when a government official dies. Yet here we have a bunch of ignorant people saying it is the right thing to do.

              1. I fully support your heel turn.

                1. Lol.

                  I’ll agree that there’s a bit too much pomp in Daddy Gov’s memorial services these days.
                  Elijah Cummings, John Lewis, RBG, George Floyd…

                  But it is what it is. Point it out and move on. Let them beclown themselves if they so wish.

                  1. It’s more about the trend of performative virtue signaling/grieving than anything.

                    But there is a silver lining: we get stuff like this

                    1. We are truly awash in salty Prog tears! What a country!

      2. Agreed. You should never speak ill of the dead without good reason. In Ginsberg’s case, it would be in poor taste to not mention her.

    4. There’s an election in five weeks.

      He’s trying to appeal to swing voters, who thing RGB was great.

      1. JesseAss would rather Trump cut off his nose to spite his face.

        1. “JesseAss”

          Jesus fucking christ you guys are bad at this.

        2. lol. The guy whk says we should be civil everyone…

          How quickly your facade crumbles.

    5. On Raich she was just agreeing with her pal Scalia about the commerce clause and Wickard.

  6. Amy Coney Barrett will be a superlative addition to SCOTUS.

    1. Justice never looked so good!

  7. So, I’m wondering what kind of shit the Democrats are going to cook up to smear her.


    1. I’m hoping they bring up Roe v Wade and she quotes RBG back at them.

      I am of the persuasion that abortion is a woman’s right, but I also think it Roe v Wade the height of judicial make-it-uppery, and its only real pleasure for me is rubbing it in Progressive faces in comparison to the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

      1. They seem to be going after her adoption of two Haitian kids.

        1. Even if she had adopted them through the Clinton Foundation, she would still have a whole pile of leftoid muck to navigate.

        2. Let them. This will only alienate more swing voters. The only people not revolted by that kind of shit are already rubber stamping democrat candidates.

          1. And I think there are quite a few rubber stampers and even BLM folk who would have a hard time saying the kids belong in a Haitian orphanage.

    2. “what kind of shit the Democrats are going to cook up to smear her”

      We’ll find out as soon as Jeff, Tony, Nuttplug and the White Knight get the narrative emailed to them.

      1. They’ve tried religion and adoption so far, but I think those are being shot down even by “journalists”.
        I imagine they have baristas and trust fund kids combing through her cases now.
        My guess for next up: kkkorporashuns!!!!

      2. Really? Actually, she seems like an OK choice to me.

        Glad to know I live inside your Canadian-with-an-odd-level-of-interest-in-American-politics head, though.

        1. “Canadian-with-an-odd-level-of-interest-in-American-politics”

          apparently he lives in your head just a bit more, since you seem to be writing a biography

          1. If he thought about it for a second he might actually understand why American politics concerns Canadians, but I don’t think he’s capable of that kind of exertion.

            I’ll give you a hand unraveling the mystery, WK.
            Google “Pierre Trudeau elephant quote”.

        2. Shut the fuck up Dee.

    3. I saw lots of tweets about “extremist catholic sect” this morning.

      1. A barrage of tweets questioning her “judgment” for accepting the nomination “under these circumstances”.

        1. What circumstances?

          Being nominated? Lol

    4. Hasn’t she already gone through this process with the Appeals court nomination?
      Let her bring the Senate record and she can quote the Senators questions and her responses.

    5. At this point, all I’ve seen is her participation in Catholic organizations being twisted into be pro-women’s oppression. Even leftists have to admit that is a stretch.

  8. A pervert, a con artist, and a fascist walk into a bar.
    Bartender says, “What’ll it be, Mr. President?”.

    1. Obviously you don’t think Clinton was all three of those, or your verb would be “walks”.

      Try again.

    2. You’re not president, Crufus.

    3. How impotent.

    4. An asshole TDS victim tries to post a ‘joke’, others ask ‘why the assholery, TDS victim?’

    5. Why do you retarded Trump cunt-lickers think your comebacks are clever?

      Your mommies should be making you finish your homework instead of posting here.

      1. Speaking of mothers, if we wanted ny comeback we’d ask yours to cough.

      2. And you should probably stop punishing the rest of society for your daddy issues, simp.

      3. You should do your mommy a favor and retroactively about yourself. No one could ever possibly love a loathsome creature such as yourself.

        Do it. Your family will secretly celebrate.

      4. “Why do you retarded Trump cunt-lickers think your comebacks are clever?


    6. That joke’s been obsolete since January 20, 2017.

    7. A pervert, a con artist, and a fascist walk into a bar.
      Bartender says, “We don’t allow pigs in here, Mr. President, Hillary will have to wait outside”.

    8. Bartender says: “Is the Dem convention out already?”

  9. She said that she loves the United States and that she loves the Constitution, so that makes her a polar opposite from Ginsburg for a start.


    1. JFC you’re naive dude.

      1. Umm…

        “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution…” Justice Ginsberg said. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”

        How is he naive?

        1. Isn’t the SA Constitution a little bit like the Brezhnev Constitution in a few areas?

          1. if you follow the rest of the speech she gave there she wants to enshrine and elevate special protections for various groups. She was highlighting the various defenses those constitutions had. She was denigrating the American one for not being “woke” enough in other words. She didn’t want a constitution of equality but of legal privileges.

            It was one of her worst traits. She was an activist prior to being elevates. She acted as one on the bench. She should have become a legislator instead.

        2. I think I wouldn’t look to our base constitution either. The entirety of the current constitution with amendments filled out several errors that were in the base document. For example, 2nd place becoming vice president, slavery, etc. I’d also fix the Supreme Court at a set number of justices.

          Just because it is a good, even a great basis for our government, doesn’t mean it cannot be improved.

          1. Maybe you don’t understand the spirit of the phrase “look to”, to say it’s a good place to start but could be improved is to “look to” something. It is not a synonym for “copy” or “recreate”.

  10. Let the hate begin.

    1. It’s been going a good 24 hours already

  11. “If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 conservative majority.”

    Except Roberts will vote with the libs if it means not overturning something politically charged and Kennedy is about as wishy-washy as you can get.

    1. You mean Kavanaugh ?

      But broadly i agree. Both Roberts and Kavanaugh will tack to the left on abortion and gun rights. But probably stay with the other conservatives on elections and voting challenges.

    2. Roberts will vote for whatever earns him plaudits from the WaPo editors, and “attaboys” from the bien pensant liberals at his club.

    3. After his literal overnight swing vote change on ACA where even Scalia was certain he was going the other way, there’s reasonable expectation that someone got a threat to him regarding the adoption of his own kids, for which there are substantial legal questions. When someone makes such a 180 overnight, there’s always a reason. And once they blackmail you, they own you on anything really important.

      1. Rumors of an Epstein connection.
        Blackmail is as plausible as any explanation.

  12. We’re calling Roberts a conservative justice?

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  13. It’s absolutely reprehensible the way Drumpf is violating the DYING WISH PRINCIPLE. Everybody knows RBG left clear instructions — her seat should be filled by the next (Democratic) President.


    1. Man you are slipping. Let me correct that for you:

      her seat should be filled by the next (Democratic) woman President.

      If you can’t do better than this, I may just have to change my review to one star.


      #ACB has been announced for the next #SCOTUS. I’m declaring CRISIS LEVEL ORANGE. @Alyssa_Milano, I need 600 Handmaid’s Tale outfits and makeup that really, really runs. @kathygriffin, I need the number of the guy that made the fake #tRump head. THIS IS NOT A F*CKING DRILL!

      1. We need Kimmel crying on TV, Debra Messing copying whatever Alyssa Milano does but slower, Maddow finding a thing Hitler did in 1941 that applies and Shaun King figuring out how this decision affects his Blackness. MOVE PEOPLE!


      2. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the parody accounts from people who are just stupid.

    3. Her seat was filled with her incontinence.

  14. just the beginning…next Breyer and an Alito retirement after Trump wins

    1. I think you mean Thomas, not Alito.

      1. i think it is more likely that Alito retires…Thomas sees his chance in the coming years to finally write a major major major opinion ..i fully expect him to be there the rest of his life

        1. gotcha. I only mentioned it because Alito hasnt been on the court that long, relatively speaking.

          1. dang, i should have seen that a mile away…lol…

            1. but we’ll see…i seen headlines that Alito may be looking to retire and not die on the bench

  15. I hate her voice pick someone else.

    1. In fairness, she is better looking than Ginsburg, so a win.

      1. The ‘Babe on the Bench’ 🙂

    2. Too bad Janice Rodgers-Brown is pretty old.

  16. Oh great another “pro life” Supreme Court candidate. Why are Republicans so obsessed with confusing clumps of cells with fully grown people?

    1. What are fully grown people if not clumps of cells?

      Also when do you become “fully grown”? 25 – 30? That’s when development ends.

      1. Life begins at birth. Only after birth do humans start to develop awareness of the world around them, start thinking and having memories of their experiences. No one has ever had memories of being in the womb.
        And the vast majority of abortions are on fetuses less than four months developed, before limbs have even developed and before there is any brain activity whatsoever.

        1. please look up the term non sequitur before posting next time…you are embarrassing yourself

          1. It’s not a non sequitur, she is a so called ” pro life” candidate. And the last thing this country needs is more anti-abortion justices, or politicians for that matter.

            1. The deranged psychopaths here view women as being equal to farm animals: groom them, feed them, pump them with semen, beat them when they get out of line and kill them when they’re no longer of use to them. God forbid women take control of their own bodies. The anti-science Drumph-sucking losers are just mad that their little party is going to end soon. Too bad, so sad! NOT.

              1. you don’t read books of substance, do you?

                1. Wingnut loser doesn’t realize that I know more about science than every commenter on this thread combined.

                  1. please stop you affectation…it is sad to watch

                  2. Haha haha!!!

                    What you know is ’science’.

              2. Buttplug doesn’t give a shit about women (once they’re over 12, anyway). He’s just keen on killing babies.

                1. Pro choice advocates are not for “killing babies”. We merely advocate for every woman having the right to make that decision for themselves. And that having restrictions on abortions or even making them illegal doesn’t actually stop a single abortion, it just creates a black market for abortions. Just like drug laws never stop a single person from obtaining drugs, so abortions could never be stopped by laws. There were hundreds of thousands of abortions every year for decades before they became legal.
                  If you right wingers don’t like abortions then require safe sex education in every grade level in schools. When people use contraceptives they can’t have unwanted pregnancies, then no abortions.

                  1. Who the fuck here said they were against contraceptives?

                    You babykillers have to invent strawmen to justify your nutty, bullshit arguments.

                    Anyhow, it’s you on the left that insists that the pill be sold behind the counter.

            2. And the last thing this country needs is more anti-abortion justices

              I think the last thing this country needs is more progressive retards. Nonetheless, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a bullshit decision, and needs to be tossed.

              I fully expect ACB to be instrumental in undoing some of the violence inflicted on the Constitution.

        2. “Life begins at birth.”

          Biological life begins at conception. Biographical life begins a couple of years after birth, which is the basis of Peter Singer’s bioethical defense of infanticide. And fetuses do actually demonstrate an awareness of their bodies and environment.

          1. A zygote might be a living organism, it is not a human. Technically every bacterium is a living organism, does that mean you’re commiting genocide when you wash your hands with anti bacterial soap? Of course not.
            The religious right needs to stop confusing a single cell zygote with a human being.

            1. There’s no use arguing with theses scientifically illiterate Wingnut assclowns. They’ll just start calling you a pedo every time they lose an argument and think somehow that they’ve won.

              1. again, please stop your affectation, it is very sad thing to watch

              2. You were a pedo far before you proved yourself scientifically illiterate.

              3. “scientifically illiterate”

                You’re literally insinuating the existence of the Birth Canal Fairy.

              4. You’re telling a guy who claims human life begins at birth that the people who disagree with him are the scientifically illiterate ones? That’s rich.

                You both would be better off using the Randian “parasite” or Rothbardian “trespasser” argument that abortion is justifiable homicide, that it simply doesn’t matter from a libertarian ethical (or at least legal) perspective that the unborn are living human beings. More provocative? Sure. Wrong? Yes, but at least it’s philosophically defensible and doesn’t entail a rejection of basic biology.

            2. ergo, you must then prove the organism is not human…..waiting….(popcorn)

              1. It is not yet human, it only has the potential to develop into a human. Until it does it is not a human. Every sperm has human DNA and the potential to develop into a human. Every time you masturbate are you killing two million future human beings? Of course not. A sperm is not a human, an ovum is not a human, a zygote is not a human.

                1. how is it not “yet” human? the rest of your response is a non sequitur, idiot

                2. No sperm has the potential to develop into a human, thank God.

                  And you think we’re the ones out of touch with science?

                3. A zygote is most certainly human, genetically. Nice try.

                4. I’m extremely surprised you hooked as many as you did.

            3. “A zygote might be a living organism, it is not a human.”

              What non-human species is a human zygote then?

            4. A zygote might be a living organism, it is not a human.

              You do realize there’s quite a bit of space there between a zygote and the Magic Birth Canal Trip, right?

              1. C-section denier!!

        3. Life begins at birth.

          You’re one of those morons who thinks Bill Nye is a scientist, aren’t you?

          1. lol..Bill Nye “the one who only has a bachelor’s degree guy”

        4. “Life begins at birth”? Sorry, but basic science is against you and you can’t just make up your own definitions to fit your predilections. Life is a term that is used in both plant and animal kingdoms, and doesn’t apply to humans other than to distinguish those who aren’t dead. Life isn’t even the argument of adults who would argue for the same outcome as you do. They argue personhood. Try to catch up.

          Let’s just also accept the reality that what you term “awareness” is a relative and an arbitrary condition that someone else came up with to distinguish those they wish to kill. All you have is essentially done a copy-paste of what they think, which BTW is pretty low on the awareness scale. As such, you should be careful about using arbitrary and relative conditions in assigning value to the life of others, as YOUR superiors [power, intelligence, or… ability to think and express your own thoughts] can do the same thing and apply it to your life. Skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, and productive capacity come to mind.

          It’s always a bitch when someone uses your own argument but has a higher or different standard that doesn’t include you. All you have left is to argue characteristics, not principle.

        5. “Life begins at birth”
          That’s when the Birth Canal Fairy touches them with her magic wand and says “Now you’re a real boy”.

          “Only after birth do humans start to develop awareness of the world around them, start thinking and having memories of their experiences”
          So it’s okay to kill you when you’re asleep or unconscious then? Good to know.

          “less than four months developed, before limbs have even developed and before there is any brain activity whatsoever”
          That happens by the seventh week, not the sixteenth. Did you flunk middle school science?

          Congratulations. I’ve read a lot of idiot pro-abortion rants, but yours is one of the dumbest.

        6. Life is continuous. If anything is ever not alive, it cannot become alive again. There is an unbroken continuous chain of life from you all the way back to the first self-replicating proto-protein.

          Trying to say “life begins at birth” is counter-scientific nonsense designed to ignore the difficult questions. A fetus is alive. An abortion kills it.

          Do you think that the chance of the fetus’s life is worth the potential problems that it will cause for the family or society? If that’s the case make the argument.

          Is it the least of a choice of evils? Then make the argument.

          Is it going to happen no matter what and we should legalize and control it rather than let it happen? Make the argument.

          Stop trying to cheat and skip the hard questions.

    2. Barrett is simply an originalist and textualist. That doesn’t make her decisions pro-life. If she overturns Roe, it will be because there is no basis in the Constitution for a “right to an abortion” (and there isn’t). That simply kicks things back to Congress and state lawmakers, it doesn’t impose pro-life policies on the country.

      The real question is why Democrats want to corrupt SCOTUS by having it impose policies that should be decided by lawmakers? If abortion should be guaranteed to be legal across all states, that should require either an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment. If Democrats can’t achieve that, then it needs to be left to the states.

      1. This 100%. I don’t care about any justices politics. Rather, can they put aside thier own politics and be principled.

      2. The real question is why Democrats want to corrupt SCOTUS by having it impose policies that should be decided by lawmakers?

        Now do Republicans

        1. Do you ever do your own work?

        2. I don’t know what you mean. I can’t think of a way in which a textualist and originalist would impose policies on the country.

          1. I said “Republicans”, not “textualist and originalist”.

            Well, let’s take a look at how Republicans have treated ObamaCare. They are content with letting the courts take the blame for repealing it because they were too gutless to do it themselves.

            Or let’s take a look at the Patriot Act. Both Republicans and Democrats were content with passing sweeping pro-surveillance-state legislation and leave it up to the courts to figure out which parts were consistent with the Fourth Amendment or not. They were content with “looking brave in the face of a tragedy” and blaming the courts for undoing parts of what they did.

            1. Yes, in both of those examples, Republicans wanted SCOTUS to limit overreach by Congress, in particular when they were unable (or “too gutless”) to stop such overreach legislatively, i.e., the opposite of Democrats. My point exactly.

            2. This should be kinda obvious, but just destroying Obamacare without any plan to replace it with a new healthcare framework would be a disaster.

              Yet, Trump and the Republicans have done nothing to work up a replacement. Now that the election is looming we are getting vague tweets that Trump has some people working in it, and it’s gonna be great, greatest health plan ever. But they cannot share details other than its gonna be great.

              Total incompetence and transparent bluffing.

              1. When courts void a law, they generally define some transitional solution. Congress would get enough time to pass new legislation.

                This is how it has to work, since future legislation needs to take the court decision into account.

                None of this is Trump’s job to begin with; Congress has to replace the ACA. And Democrats are the main obstacle.

              2. Presidents have traditionally worked with Congress to get new laws passed.

                Isn’t Trump a master deal maker? A master of the art of the deal should be able to work with the Democrats.

                1. Yes, presidents can work with Congress to get new laws passed. Trump tried, and they voted on something, but McCain gave the country the finger on his way out.

                  There may be an opportunity during the second term, in particular if Democrats are handed a strong message by voters. Right now, nobody can work with Democrats. I mean, this is the party that wasted years on a bogus impeachment.

                  1. Trump the victim.

                    1. No, Trump isn’t a victim; he just did what he promised and was elected to do.

                      The victims of the Democrats and McCain are the American people.

                    2. John McCain has been dead for two years now.

                    3. And good riddance to the evil prick; he can exchange notes with RBG now that they are in the same circle again.

                      Trump did what he promised on the ACA; he’s been busy with other things, like getting falsely impeached, renegotiating trade deals, negotiating mideast peace, etc.

                      He’ll try again in his second term.

                    4. McCain, as Marc Antony said: “ The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with the bones”

              3. “Yet, Trump and the Republicans have done nothing to work up a replacement”

                “Pay your own way” is a perfectly valid replacement.

                1. “Pay your own way” cannot work in the current legal framework. To support a free market/”pay your own way” approach to healthcare, there must be changes to how healthcare works in this country.

                  1. Yes, changes that McCain and Democrats sabotaged.

                  2. “Pay your own way” cannot work”


                    1. I didn’t say “pay your own way cannot work”. I said it needs a framework to support it. I’m a big believer in “pay your own way” or free market healthcare.

                    2. You know, twisting someone’s words is not a real win in a debate. It’s especially pathetic to try to twist someone’s words when the entirety of the quote you took out of context is visible to everyone just a few comments above.

        3. You do realize that’s like asking a retarded goat to solve a rubik’s cube, right?

          1. A talking sex toy like you should perhaps refrain from giving opinions on the intelligence of humans.

          2. You’re not a goat, Nuttplug. Merely a goatfucker.

            1. Is it better to be a goatfucker or a pedophile? Because we know for a fact SPB’s the latter, but not the former.

              Honestly, I think goatfuckers aren’t as bad, but this may be a minority opinion.

              1. Goatfuckers are literally into “kids”.
                No dichotomy necessary here.

    3. confusing clumps of cells with fully grown people?

      With non-sentient clumps of cells like you walking around the confusion is quite understandable.

    4. “Why are Republicans so obsessed with confusing clumps of cells with fully grown people?”

      You’re right, conservatives should stop confusing leftist trolls with fully grown people but it’s a weakness of theirs

    5. I’m a pro-choice Republican myself, but I also recognize that this issue is what’s keeping the current GOP competitive. Abortion motivates that minority of voters on the Right more so than it does those on the Left. White evangelical Christians (virtually all of whom are pro-life) make up 16% of the population, 19% of the electorate, and nearly a quarter of actual voters (given their consistently higher turnout).

      Now, most of them also agree with the GOP on immigration, Israel, and welfare as well, and so would keep voting right-wing anyway. But for those of them who are wishy-washy about non-abortion issues, giving up on this would likely mean less motivation on their part to show up, lower evangelical turnout, and thus a much-harder time for Republicans to remain competitive in purple states.

      1. I think most people would be reasonably happy with a national compromise in which women can choose during the first trimester, and afterwards require a strong medical justification for an abortion. And abortion should never be paid for by tax dollars, nor should there be mandates for health plans. That’s the way it works in “many civilized nations”.

        But this is really something that ought to be left to the states anyway.

        1. I don’t know about that. Truth is, I don’t want this (or any other social) issue to be national at all. These are state matters, and they should be respectively decided by Alabamians, Californians, Floridians, and so on.

          The only compromise I see is within parties. Because, in order for any party to have a shot at winning, it has to cobble up roughly a majority of people who might vote for it. Now, my issues are no new spending/programs and less market regulation. At the same time, I realize these may not motivate half the electorate to vote on them alone. And so, even though I’m pro-choice and am fine with immigration, I’ll give them what they want (abortion, immigration, etc.) so they vote with me on what I want (restrain spending and regulation).

          Same thing happens on the Democratic side, by the way. Polls show that about a fifth of Democrats aren’t that fond of labor unions, and many are pro-life and don’t care much about the LGBT and whatnot. And yet, they go along with these issues in order for fellow Democrats to vote with them on what they want.

        2. I just realized you said that about leaving it to the states in your last line. My bad. And yeah, I agree about public funding.

      2. I think you’re leaving a lot of people out. Most Catholics still follow the Church to the letter on this, and this is not a small number.

        I do believe there is also a pretty strong constituency who may be pro-choice, but only to a point. Since the left has gone full tilt to include up-till-birth abortion and some are even pushing hard to add early infanticide, many have very strong feelings about pro-choice going too far. It may not be enough for them to switch sides because of other issues, but maybe it cuts deep into their enthusiasm.

        1. Actually, most American Catholics are pro-choice. Same for black Protestants, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated. Only religious groups with a pro-life majority are white evangelicals and Mormons.

          PS: Tried to post it with the references, but it went up to moderation. You can check the stats on Pew.

          1. “Actually, most American Catholics are pro-choice. ”

            You’ve been caught lying like this before.

        2. I posted this once but it’s not showing for some reason. I’ll try again.

          Actually, most American Catholics are pro-choice. Same for black Protestants, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated. Only religious groups with a pro-life majority are white evangelicals and Mormons.

          Check “views on abortion” on Pew.

        3. Don’t know why my answer to this isn’t showing.

          1. If you try to post more than 1 link in a single comment, the system automatically flags your post for moderation. And, as far as we can tell, there are no moderators.

          2. Because even the squirrels knew you were lying.

      3. Are you sure about that? I know a lot of women who are faithful Democratic voters with no bigger issue they care about than their abortion rights.

        1. “I know a lot”


          “I know a lot of women”


    6. FFS you’re ignorant. Go learn some science you goddamn progtard.

    7. I’m thoroughly in favor of legal abortion, but that’s a terrible way to describe the pro-life position. It’s a good thing to actually try to understand the positions of those you disagree with.

  17. This candidate for the Supreme Court is a Catholic, not too surprising because all of the Justices claim to have religious beliefs. What I’d really like to see is an open atheist on the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a candidate go before congress and say that they don’t believe in an invisible man in the sky who grants you magic wishes if you pray to him.

    1. no, doesn’t really matter….however, it would be really really really nice to see a candidate from the Left go before Congress and say they don’t believe in the collectivist society-State as a substitute for the invisible man in the sky who grants you magic gifts of other people’s property rights and free healthcare

      1. Countries like Denmark and Sweden aren’t collectivist society-states. They are capitalist countries that have higher income taxes and VAT’s. And they spend most of their budgets on healthcare and social programs instead of massive militaries and spy agencies, the DEA and ATF and other bullshit that we spend money on.

        1. do you get a your information from Vox? Sweden has been going more capitalist due to lowered growth rates under their more socialist economies. As they’ve increased immigration support for social programs there has also decreased. Weird that.

          1. Not really. Sweden has been very capitalist, but with a large welfare state. The means of production have very much been in the private sector. Now they are backing off on the size of the welfare state because they see the writing on the wall as far running out of other people’s money. Denmark is not far behind.

        2. again, non sequitur dear…your response has no relation to what i posted….but on your views of Europe…you do understand that their single payer systems cause massive world market distorions like higher drug and treatment prices in the US because companies can’t properly recover expenses in Western Europe…hence they have to crank up prices in the relatively freer market of the US….and actually European intelligence agencies are quite well developed….sorry dilettante, try again

          1. You equate spending on social programs with collectivist society-states. But countries like Scandinavian countries and others prove that you can be capitalist and spend heavily on social programs at the same time.

            1. You should probably move there then.

            2. I’m all for adopting the Scandinavian model in the US. That would mean doubling taxes on the middle class, cutting social welfare spending, eliminating many of the social programs we have, balancing our budget, reducing financial regulations, cutting back Medicare/Medicaid, abolishing jus solis, and not taxing wealthy folks and high earners that move out of the country.

              I’m all in. Do we have your support, Sally?

            3. to the dilettante…..i did not equate the two…i used that later as an example of an action the former does…..try again, lightweight


              Sweden is reducing their social programs… but go ahead and keep repeating Bernie as fact.

              1. The Federalist is simply wrong in calling a nation with a large welfare state “socialist.” Sweden’s experiment as a large welfare state is falling apart. They were never close to socialist.

              2. And a lot of those European countries tried some actual socialism of the government owning major industries variety and it went terribly in every case. American socialists seem rather ignorant about all of this.

        3. and lets no forget the slowly declining comparative advantage of those countries….many industries like Nokia or Saab used to be boutique industries of those countries ..but world leaders…the last 20-30 years of performance shows their slow decline…the West needs fundamental reform and not along Leftist lines

        4. Dishing out half your stuff in taxes to the state is pretty collectivist.

        5. Countries like Denmark and Sweden aren’t collectivist society-states. They are capitalist countries that have higher income taxes and VAT’s.

          Yes, they do. Tax burden on the middle class is about twice of what it is in the US, has much less redistribution, and expats are not taxed at all. It’s a sensible system. It’s the kind of system Democrats and progressives in the US are dead set against.

      2. Haha. Nice. Strap on is out of her league.

    2. Sure, I’d like to see a Buddhist or a Taoist on the Supreme Court some day.

      What I don’t want to see is the kind of atheist you appear to be: someone who rejects not just Christianity, but any kind of moral framework or values that transcend materialism.

      1. As a Zen Buddhist who grew up Taoist, I second this.

      2. I don’t want anyone there who doesn’t perceive any higher moral authority than their own, such that it may be on any given day. Obviously, people without any external moral source can and do hold fast to moral principles, but the natural tendencies of narcissism and egoism that develop from this kind of absolute authority and the desire for personal legacy must be held in check.

        This is best done through accountability to individuals in one realm or another. History is replete with good men who were corrupted by power that they believed was unaccountable.

        1. Wait, how do you know the “higher moral authority” has its morality straight?

          Seems like the best shot one has at being moral is to use one’s own judgement what is right and wrong, with deference to time-tester moral norms.

          Of course, the biggest thing is that you have to actually care about trying to be moral.

        2. I thought their job was to interpret the laws and constitution, not to provide moral authority.

      3. “someone who rejects not just Christianity, but any kind of moral framework or values that transcend materialism”

        How are you getting all that from his saying that he’d like to see an atheist on the Supreme Court?

        1. I get it from their false dichotomy between reason/science/atheism vs religion/superstition

          1. The dichotomy between reason/science and superstition is a false dichotomy?

            1. Reason, science, atheism, religion, and superstition are all distinct concepts; there are no clear dichotomies there at all.

      4. Well, too bad. Only Catholics and Jews are allowed on the Supreme Court.

    3. If Penn hadn’t pissed off Piss Haired Cheeto Man straight off, you might have had one.

      1. Funny thing is Trump isn’t even pissed off at Penn over anything political. He’s pissed off because Penn didn’t suck up to him on The Apprentice. Shows how petty and fragile and buffoonish Trump is that he took time out from running for President to diss Penn and Teller’s Broadway show.

        1. Your desperate need to whine about Trump really highlights your intellectual and emotional inferiority, white knight.
          Fun to watch.
          You’ll never be what you imagine yourself to be.
          Know that. Think about it.
          You are transparent, and a coward for avoiding the solution to all your bile.

          1. Yeah, you have a good night, too, Nardz.

            1. Spare your family further torment.
              Obviously you won’t, as you’re incredibly selfish and resentful, at least not consciously.
              Maybe your unconscious will do the right thing.
              The sooner the better for everyone.

    4. “I’d really like to see is an open atheist… don’t believe in an invisible man in the sky… magic wishes…

      *Tips fedora, strokes neckbeard*

  18. So she gets confirmed, trump gets re-elected, Trump says the dems were right all along, we need 11 Supremes, and nominates two
    more while advocating for a constitutional amendment to lock in the number at 11.

    1. Funny to think about and you could likely get a few leftists to melt into a puddle of tears by even suggesting that. However, the GOP would have to have both houses and get a majority. Fundamentally, I think there are enough honest individuals who would see this for the political folly that it is and likely never get through.

  19. Now let the anti-Catholic bigots crawl out into the open.

    1. You raaaaannnnnng? Killallrednecks should be here to bitch too, I know he really would rather have a mormon nominated to the Supreme Court. But I digress…

      Typical radical right wing trump electing a religious clinger. It doesn’t matter how backwards her views are we will still win the culture wars by ramming out beliefs down your necks!

      1. Devolving issues back to the states is the opposite of ramming beliefs down people’s necks.

    2. Being anti-catholic makes you a bigot? The Catholic Church like all other churches and organized religions, are out dated relics of superstitious, unscientific, pre industrial times. The world would be a lot better without any of the sexist and homophobic bigotry of organised religions like the Catholic Church.

      1. Agreed we should round up those clingers that are catholic and Jewish! We should round them up and stick them in their own camps where they won’t cause trouble for us right thing people in the culture war

        1. No no no, they just need to be taught science and that there is no such thing as an invisible man who lives in the sky. Eventually they will learn there is no God and leave religion.

          1. Your statement “there is no such thing as an invisible man who lives in the sky” is as fundamentally reliant on faith as its opposite.

            1. No, I don’t have “faith” in there being no God. I don’t “believe” there is no God. I accept that a God can’t exist, because God by definition is a paranormal being. And I accept the scientific consensus that paranormal beings do not exist.

              1. Preach.

              2. You’re claiming omniscience then, which is incredibly stupid.
                That you don’t understand you’re claiming omniscience is extremely ignorant.
                It follows that you have no logical foundation whatsoever.

                1. To say “it is possible to know that God is” is almost, but not quite, equivalent to saying “it is possible to know God isn’t”.
                  Both are claims on knowledge you are incapable of.
                  They’re almost equivalent but not, because the former is actually more logically sound than the former.

              3. Do you actually believe science has proven everything? That is your faith. There is still much we don’t understand.

                1. Yes there is much that we still don’t understand and that science can’t explain yet. But science has never found any evidence whatsoever of ghosts, the soul, magic powers, leprechauns, gremlins or any other paranormal crap.
                  God by definition is a paranormal being, an immaterial, invisible thing with magical powers who knows what everyone is doing and thinking at all times. Obviously such a creature cannot exist within the known rules of physics.

                  1. Seeing as you’ve apparently failed middle school science as evidenced by your claim that the brain and limbs don’t develop on a fetus until the middle of the second trimester; I’m guessing you wouldn’t know the “known rules of physics” (lol, did you mean laws?) if Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s laws and Bernoulli’s Principle slapped you in the face with their dicks.

                  2. Science, before April 2020, also never found any evidence that mask wearing stops disease, but here we are proclaiming it like it were a universal truth.

                  3. First no, there is no “consensus”. Real science makes no such claim, and neither do scientists attempt to make such a claim based on science. It’s not a question that science either asks or has the ability to answer, any more than it can answer a philosophical question. Or do you also deny the existence of philosophical concepts as well?

                    Second, by what tests do you suggest there COULD be “evidence” found? If you can’t develop a test for it, how do you claim there is no evidence? And what evidence would you be willing to accept? You have to be willing to accept some level of evidence to be able to suggest there is none.

                    Third, what you call “magic powers” has always turned out to have a scientific explanation, so why is it that you presume that if there is a god, he doesn’t have access to information that simply befuddles you? Essentially you are arguing the inverse of “the argument from ignorance”, which is equally fallacious. The “something must be false unless it can be proven to be true, and true to your liking” argument.

                    Fourth, your position has existed through history and is even quite common today and in other areas, even to the ludicrous level of passing off scientific fact because the individual himself cannot comprehend it with his limited experience and/or intelligence. Everything is “paranormal” to you until you develop an explanation that YOU accept, and then it becomes “normal”, even though it existed long before you were aware of it or could explain it. Therefore by exclusion of your definition, paranormal could not exist, but only because you can’t explain it, which would then make it normal. You’ve got some messed up circular reasoning going on there called the “no true Scotsman fallacy”.

                    Fifth [and I won’t go farther than this], “known rules of physics” are only that which we know, and you haven’t suggested that you actually know any of them. That said, there are many competing theories in physics and most leading edge physicists will tell you that there are things that seemingly violate what we understand about physics and that the field constantly changes, so to argue that it isn’t possible under laws of physics is simply an argument from ignorance. Hell, dark matter and dark energy [the latter only postulated 22 years ago] are the ‘terra incognito’ of our time as a theory to cover the gaps in what we know. So please don’t talk about “known rules”.

                    1. There’s not even a unified framework that accounts for both the most massive and most miniscule scales.
                      But there are theories

              4. the scientific consensus

                Oh? Can you cite any papers?
                Pretty sure your “consensus” is as imaginary as you claim the “sky fairy” to be.

              5. God in Christianity isn’t a “paranormal being”. Most of the attributes of God in mainstream Christianity are metaphorical, not literal.

                But why does this matter anyway? Science and reason are neutral when it comes to values and goals, so you need to get them from somewhere else. You can regard Christianity as fiction and still choose to adopt its values.

                If you reject Christian values, what else do you personally actually base your values on?

                1. “If you reject Christian values, what else do you personally actually base your values on?”

                  This is the question intellectual eunuchs like white knight and chemjeff can’t answer.

                  1. I wasn’t aware that I had rejected Christian values.

              6. “I don’t ‘believe’ there is no God. I accept that a God can’t exist, because God by definition is a paranormal being. And I accept the scientific consensus that paranormal beings do not exist.”

                It’s painfully obvious that you’ve never taken even an introductory philosophy course.

              7. Read this, and think about it Sally.

                Psalm 1
                1 Blessed is the one
                who does not walk in step with the wicked
                or stand in the way that sinners take
                or sit in the company of mockers,
                2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
                and who meditates on his law day and night.
                3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
                which yields its fruit in season
                and whose leaf does not wither—
                whatever they do prospers.

                4 Not so the wicked!
                They are like chaff
                that the wind blows away.
                5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
                nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

                6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
                but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

                1. Self referencing citations are quite compelling. Now do the Quran.

          2. so then your vast scientific knowledge tells you that solar energy as a major alternative is just not possible right now or possibly ever due to the laws of thermodynamics

          3. So not a big 1st Amendment supporter, eh, Sally.

            1. I’m a firm believer that people should be allowed to practice whatever faith they want, in private or in a place of worship. The first amendment does not guarantee people the right to do anything they want under “religious freedom”. Religious people can’t for instance demand that public schools teach creationism or other nonsense. And if their children actually learn real science in schools some of them will realize there is no God. Generation after generation is becoming less religious thanks to science and reason. It’s very gradual, but eventually religion and superstition will be eradicated from the planet. And not by forcing people to give up religion, but just by teaching science and reason and letting people gradually accept the inevitable conclusion that there is no God.

              1. my god, you are a dullard….you are conflating the bill of rights freedom of religion with the Establishment Clause…..ergo your second sentence is completely false…as a negative right, and as intended, it does give religious people the right to do anything they want ….the Establishment Clause stops the teaching of creationism in schools ……really, have you read a book in your life?

              2. Three centuries of post-enlightenment history have shown that societies built on science and reason alone don’t work.

                Contrary to what you naively believe, Christianity is neither superstitious nor in conflict with science.

                Of course, the biblical creation story and the rest of the Bible should be taught in school; they are an essential part of our history, our culture, and our moral and legal foundations as a country. What you believe to be rational humanism is really just Christian morality unmoored from its history.

                1. God is an evolutionary adaptation.
                  It can be conceived of in a variety of ways, but not eliminated – no matter how much denial one exerts.

                  1. There are alternative belief systems to Christian theism that work reasonably well as well. But pure atheism doesn’t work.

                    1. Pure antitheism (belief that God is not) is impossible.
                      There is always “god” present, it’s biological, no matter what it’s called or how it’s described.

                    2. The Christian God is unique, infinite, self aware, moral, personal, immanent, transcendent, possessing agency and free will. Theism requires you to accept all those properties. Any concept of a creator that doesn’t have all those aspects is not God and is not theistic. There are plenty of belief systems that reject many of those aspects of God and are anti theistic.

                      Many people also simply don’t give a damn. We’re perfectly happy to live according to Christian values, tell religious zealots to go eff themselves, and wait a few more decades for the actual answers.

                    3. You seem not to understand the point, which is why you want to restrict the conversation to a narrowly defined “Christian God” with very specific attributes.
                      You can describe your belief system however you want, but there’s a God organ there nonetheless.

                    4. You seem not to understand the point, which is why you want to restrict the conversation to a narrowly defined “Christian God” with very specific attributes.

                      I don’t “want to restrict the conversation” at all. In the English language, the word “God” (capitalized) refers specifically to the Christian deity. If that’s not what you mean, don’t use that word.

                      You can describe your belief system however you want, but there’s a God organ there nonetheless.

                      There is no human “God organ”. We know that because most humans on this planet do not believe in God or even a single god of any kind.

                      Humans are prewired to describe natural phenomena in terms of agents that are often called “gods”. That really has little to do with what religion is about at its core.

                    5. So it’s the autocorrect that tripped you up?

                      Ok, there is a metaphysical/ruling “organ” that is an evolutionary adaption/development.
                      Religion in the form of ritual and myth is Man’s attempt to refine this sense.

                    6. You said:

                      Pure antitheism (belief that God is not) is impossible.

                      Then you said:

                      Ok, there is a metaphysical/ruling “organ” that is an evolutionary adaption/development.

                      Even if the second is true, so what? Having an evolutionary adaptation doesn’t make it “impossible” not to use it.

                      Fact is: there are plenty of materialists and “antitheists” in the world; they function just fine, and they don’t have any logical problems with their worldview either.

          4. Taught science? Like human biology? Or is human biology a construct of society?

          5. No religion says that God is an invisible man who lives in the sky. You have such a tiny stunted mind.

            Which is why you are a progressive.

      2. I know it’s a shame that you have to share your world with other people sos, but you can mitigate your hatred by living like a free individual and allowing others to do the same.

        1. But religious people don’t want to let other people live freely. They’ve spent centuries making things like homosexuality, abortions, divorce, pornography and prostitution illegal. We’ve spent decades trying to gradually claw back these insane laws passed by religious assholes. And still the religious right fights for outdated laws that won’t let people freely buy sexual services or drugs.
          Why are religious types so obsessed with denying others of individual freedoms?

          1. “But religious people don’t want to let other people live freely.”

            Neither do Democrats. So what’s your point?

          2. They’ve spent centuries making things like homosexuality, abortions, divorce, pornography and prostitution illegal.

            Christians merely believe that those acts are sinful and harmful and deal with them through confession, penance, or excommunication.

            It’s governments that make things illegal and persecute people, not churches.

            1. But it’s churches and religious groups that have had the most influence on governments for centuries. Only in recent decades have they lost most of their influence.

              1. Not just recent decades: we have had experience with atheist government for a couple of centuries. France tried it after the revolution, so did numerous countries under progressivism, socialism and fascism. They were worse than even the worst Calvinist and puritan theocracies, in particular for homosexuals and minorities. Those Scandinavian countries you like so much… they have state religions and Christian parties. Countries with moderate Christian governments are the most tolerant and successful in the world.

                I can’t think of any atheist state I’d want to live in; can you give examples of any?

                1. Actually, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany and Japan are all majority atheist countries. And they’re all seem like pretty nice countries to live in, except for Germany maybe.

                  1. 58 per cent of the Swedish population are members of the Church of Sweden, Denmark and Germany actually have state churches, and Japan is probably one of the most superstitious countries on the planet, you illiterate idiot.

                    Fuck, companies like Sony, Toyota and Honda have Shinto ceremonies placating local gods everytime they build a new factory.

                  2. France is 10% atheist, Denmark is 12% atheist, Sweden is 18% atheist, Germany is 17% atheist.

                    The majority of Germans are tithing members of the Catholic or protestant churches; ministers and priests are government employees; and the country is run by a Christian conservative party whose program starts with “The basis of our party is the Christian view of man and his responsibility before God.” The Nordic countries are similar. In fact, all conservative parties in Europe are explicitly Christian conservatives.

                    East Germany was an atheistic state, and these days is a hotbed for neo-Nazis and hate crimes, the consequence of trying to eliminate religion for half a century.

                    Japan is a deeply religious and spiritual country; the culture is permeated with it.

                    So, try again.

                    1. Why can’t you be honest and admit that religion != faith.

                    2. @Eric, where have I been “dishonest” about that? What I stated are facts: the majority of people identify as Christians, pay for church membership, vote for Christian parties, receive religious instruction as children, and live according to Christian values. They live in a culture steeped in Christian traditions and institutions. That’s why those countries are fairly peaceful, free, and prosperous, as opposed to, say, socialist or communist countries that are purely materialistic. Whether they meet your criteria of “faith” or “Christianity” is simply not relevant.

                      There isn’t a 1-1 correspondence. Not all Christian countries are good countries, and not all good countries are Christian countries. Christianity, in fact, has managed to produce good societies only once in history, namely after the confluence of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and even that seems to be sadly short-lived.

                      The only universal, so far, is that all countries built on purely materialistic ideologies fail.

          3. “But religious people don’t want to let other people live freely.”

            Have any more bigoted gross generalizations you wanna make?

            1. Any group that believes in something religiously tends to want to impose its values upon society at large. Whether they be leftists, Christians, or Muslims.

              1. Traditionally, religious people just want to live in their own communities with people who share their values and otherwise be left alone.

                “Society at large” is a nation-state concept, and religious conquest and conversion is about an expansion of political power; those concepts and objectives have no grounding in most religions (Islam being a notable exception).

                1. “Traditionally, religious people just want to live in their own communities with people who share their values and otherwise be left alone.”

                  Only if they are a marginalized minority being oppressed by an established and more powerful religion.
                  Twist it however you’d like, religion is simply another mechanism used to control people. Don’t conflate spirituality/faith and religion.

                  1. Only if they are a marginalized minority being oppressed by an established and more powerful religion.

                    Established by what? More powerful how? Power is exercised by the state, not by religions.

                    Twist it however you’d like, religion is simply another mechanism used to control people.

                    Religion can be used to control people. But that doesn’t mean that religion is always used that way. Many religions are entirely voluntary, don’t actively recruit, and/or have no formal membership or hierarchy.

                    Don’t conflate spirituality/faith and religion.

                    Where am I “conflating” them? They are obviously distinct concepts. It looks to me like you are conflating the concept of “religion” with “organized, hierarchical religious organization with political power”.

                    1. Eric appears to have a high school freshman level understanding of the subject.

              2. Religion has nothing to do with it. All groups want to impose their values on others at a government level. So if all do it, then what you have is a difference without a distinction.

          4. Strike “religious” out there and it works better. People like control and to feel like they are righteous and good. It’s not a special thing about the religious.

    3. Now let the anti-Catholic bigots crawl out into the open.

      JFK’s ghost would like to know when they were hiding.

    4. Too late. Read, for example, the comments on any story about Barrett in the Washington Post.

  20. IMHO, there’s no way this happens. It would be the fastest confirmation hearing in the history of the Senate. There are something like 6 days left on their legislative calendar, and this is going to be quite a fight from the leftist chicken little brigade.

    I believe the Honorable Ms. Coney Barrett is a sacrificial lamb sent to slaughter.

    1. What we need is a Supreme Court with booze, and hookers, and blackjack! You know what forget the Supreme court

      1. You make a good argument for nominating hunter biden

    2. Nobody getting reelected without confirmation.
      Even Murkowski has buckled.

      1. There’s one absolute in all politics… whatever else may happen, you don’t get elected without your base, particularly if they are strongly committed. Even if position X endears you to the uncommitted, if you lose your committed base, you lose. The trick is ALWAYS how to keep your base and still pick up enough of everyone else. If either Murkowski or Collins alienate even a portion of the Trump base, the result is called retirement.

        1. Miss Lindsey chairs the judiciary committee in the senate.
          He announced hearings on ACB to begin October 12th.
          His base is not happy about that.
          He’s already in trouble because he’s a squish and the Ds are pumping obscene amounts of money into the campaign against him.
          If he doesn’t move that date up it may very well be the nail in his coffin.

  21. Did Biden really say that he was against court packing? I thought most recently he just completely evaded the question.

    1. Lately he is unaware when he is asked a question, so I doubt he is evading, he just doesn’t know anymore.

      I remember ol’ Lonesome George had a tag line “Don’t mock the afflicted”.

      1. Cut the poor old guy some slack. You’d be tired and confused too if you’d been in the Senate for 180 years.

        1. If Biden does win, we should have a betting pool on when the 25th Amendment is invoked.

        2. Their spin on that is that he was joking. Of course if the big problem is questions about your mental capacity, the most incoherent thing you could do is feign incapacity.

    2. How can he pack the court? He has declared at least 350 million Americans dead within the span of a few short months.
      If this keeps up, there won’t be anybody left!

    3. If the lefturds try packing the court the next time they get the big chair, we’ll have the second Constitutional Convention, and the Big City folks won’t like the new rules at all.


  22. Anti-White liberals and respectable conservatives that support massive 3rd world immigration and forced assimilation for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries say that they are anti-racist, but their actions will lead to a world with no White children i.e White Genocide. Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    1. Fuck off and go back to Stormfront.

      1. What does that have to do with a Jim butcher novel?

        1. It’s a crazy world out there.

          1. Hey there Pedo Jeffy. You taking time off from moderating your NAMBLA chat board?

      2. Larkenson sounds exactly like chemjeff’s fantasy of his opponents.

    2. That’s not what genocide means. Stop playing identity politics. It’s always poison.

    3. Oh, you Nazi larpers! I remember when people thought idiots like you were dangerous.


      1. It’s not a larger, it’s a leftist posing.

  23. Well I fully expect Democrats to try to smear her in the next few days. Be ready for the whines of “innocent until proven guilty!”, right up until Biden’s name is mentioned again, then it will be “he is obviously guilty of corruption, we don’t need a trial to figure that out!”

    I fully expect SCOTUS to overturn Roe in the next year or two. When that happens, be ready for the bill in Congress that would make it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion.

    I also think that this nomination and impeding approval could actually lead to court-packing despite Biden’s objections. So, we’ll see what happens.

    1. It’s weird how you feel you have to defend biden all the time.

      1. It’s weird how you cannot tell the difference between “calling out right-wing hypocrisy” and “defending Biden”.

        1. But you defended biden twice in your statement. Weird.

        2. Weird how you think defending that crook is some sort of principle.

          1. It’s Pedo Jeffy, so what did you expect?

        3. By the way. Since I don’t think k you will understand…

          In order for you to be calling out hypocrisy you have to believe bidens family did not enrich themselves off his name or position. Because if they did it is not hypocrisy.

          So do you believe hunter was worth the millions he was given for employment despite no history in the fields he got paid for?
          But baby Jeffrey never understands his own logic.

          1. Since you are too dumb to figure it out for yourself, let me spell it out for you:

            The hypocrisy is with the different standards that right-wingers like John and yourself use when it comes to those on the right who are accused of something bad (like Kavanaugh and sexual assault) vs. those on the left who are accused of something bad (like Biden and corruption). In the former case, we heard nothing but INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. In the latter case, we hear nothing but HE’S OBVIOUSLY GUILTY CASE CLOSED. The hypocrisy isn’t actually about whether the two individuals involved are actually guilty of what they are accused of. It is about the standards (or lack thereof) that you all have chosen to use to adjudge their guilt.

            1. Wow.
              You are incredibly stupid.
              Thus it becomes obvious how you’d make such a mistake.
              The standard being applied to Kavanaugh and Biden is the same – evidence.
              You apparently are such an imbecile that you see no difference in the publicly available evidence of Biden’s alleged corruption and Kavanaugh’s alleged gang rape.
              You should really save yourself the embarrassment of repeatedly confirming your foolishness.

              Also, chemjeff: RGB is out, ACB is in.
              Please video and post on social media your tantrum.

            2. We have a response from someone who claims to be a radical individualist who is nothing of he sort; s/he is a run-of-the-mill lefty shit bag.
              Fuck off and die,

        4. He can tell the difference, he just chooses not to because he doesn’t debate in good faith.

          1. Tell us where Trump touched you, shitbag.

            1. Well, to start, as I’ve said before, I started disliking him way back when I read about his trying to use eminent domain to take widow, Vera Coking’s house to tear down and use as a limo parking lot for his casino. Read about that in Reason way back in the 1990s.

              1. He proves all your self conceit hollow, and it completely shatters your sense of self worth.
                This is obvious.
                Everything else you say is a lie to thinly veil what is an existential rebuke of your very existence.
                You are but a marionette, with no inherent value.
                Trump’s success exposes your external dependence.

                You can deny it all you want. But if you’ve gotten this far, that means you’ve already read the words I’ve written. They’ve entered your nervous system, where the message will stick because it’s true.
                And every day for the rest of your hopefully short life, you’ll be a bit more troubled because the horrible truth has appeared directly in your consciousness.
                You’ll become more passive aggressive, but you’ll know you’re still wrong and it won’t help.

              2. Yes, that’s one strike against him, and I’ll add his anti-free-trade efforts to that list.
                But your obsession says much more about you than it does about him; keep dancing.

    2. I fully expect SCOTUS to overturn Roe in the next year or two.

      Then you’re even dumber than we thought.

      1. It’s a reasonable prediction. Maybe it doesn’t happen, who knows. But all of those states who, in the past few years, were rushing to pass abortion bans in order to see them tested in SCOTUS? They’re gonna do it again, I have no doubt.

        1. The Peanuts around here can’t handle someone arguing in good faith for once.

          1. “The Peanuts around here can’t handle someone arguing in good faith for once.”

            A lefty shit like you would have n0 idea what that might mean.
            Don’t you have a kiddie to diddle, turd?

            1. Stfu Sevo, I’m watching the Lincoln Lawyer with my girlfriend right now, and guess what? I’m getting my dick sucked as we speak and I’m probably goin balls deep into some sweet pussy in a few minutes. Something your virgin ass has clearly yet to experience. It’s okay though, I’m sure your sock makes for a nice companion!

              1. Your Buttplug impression is getting too accurate.

              2. She can’t be that good if you’re on here talking to us.

                1. I’ve often wondered why Reason has never bothered updating their code with a delete/edit function. However, I just came to appreciate what I hope is their logic… that DERPs like him can’t later edit out what turned out to be so regrettable. Once committed to stupidity, it lives forever.

                  1. This is why I hope they never add it

              3. with my girlfriend

                Are your lips recovered yet from having to blow her up, or did you spring for the hand pump?

              4. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                September.26.2020 at 9:02 pm
                “Stfu Sevo, I’m watching the Lincoln Lawyer with my girlfriend right now, and guess what? I’m getting my dick sucked…”

                By a 12 Y-O?

              5. A hogtied and drugged nine year old boy isn’t a ‘girlfriend’ Kiddie Raper.

              6. Xir mind must be on a shirtless Matthew McConaughey.

        2. Nothing mentioned in your leftist doom porn is anywhere close to reasonable prediction.

        3. chem, you say overturning Roe will happen. My response is: so what.

          What happens the day after? Do abortions magically end? No, they do not. What happens is the application of this neat idea we call federalism. The States themselves, acting through their elected Legislatures, will decide this social question. There will be different legislative solutions to abortion. And that is exactly as it should be under our Constitution.

    3. How about like the organ transplantation bill, which outlaws payment in cases where it would affect interstate commerce?

  24. But in terms of the liberty movement, the long term goal here ought to be to make SCOTUS more or less irrelevant, so it barely matters who is on the court. We need far fewer laws, far less spending, far less state meddling in everyone’s lives, so far less opportunity for the courts to get involved in the first place.

    1. Yet you keep defending biden.

      1. See above.

        1. Where you defended biden? Yeah. I saw.

        2. “See above.”
          We have.
          Fuck off; you been busted, lefty shit

        3. BTW, why do lefty shits claim screen names like shitbag here?
          Why not claim, oh, “White Knight”? Oops already taken by another bullshit-slinger.
          Do such shitbags hope that a claim of ‘I’m a really neat guy’ will somehow make the rest of us ignore the reality?
          Hint, lefty shit:
          You are not ‘radical’; you’re a run of the mill lefty shit.
          Further, you are not an ‘individualist’ whatsoever; you are a run of the mill lefty shit.
          Do you understand why your bullshit is recognized as such? Or are you too stupid to understand?
          Please fuck off and die; lefty shit like you make the world a worse place by your existence.

          1. That really added something valuable to discourse here.

            1. Almost as much as your total opus, bullshit-slinger.

    2. The job of SCOTUS should be to limit the power of the executive and legislative branches. People like Barrett can hopefully return it to that.

      1. Agreed, but it should also be their job to limit their own power as well. Unfortunately we have “justice system” that doesn’t really understand the concept of domain/scope of authority very well. Judges from small claims up to SCOTUS have yet to substantially affect the concept of “not the business of the court”. Just because someone claims there is a Constitutional question doesn’t mean there is one. Judges like to leave their mark on the world, when in fact the best mark is often just no mark at all.

    3. SCOTUS has too much power to pass immortal legislation from the bench, but a textualist — a true textualist, not a conservative “original intent” theorist — is the best kind of nominee you could hope for if you care to reduce judicial overreach.

  25. Call the question on the vote tonight.

  26. they should just do a floor vote tonight, lol

  27. Watching and reading in social media the left losing their mind…and funny but I noticed the folks screaming the most about “catholic values” being a threat are jewish liberals. There really is a dislike by jewish liberals for catholic conservatives….it really should be discussed the widespread bigotry aimed catholics by the NYT, WAPO, Google and so on…all very underrepresented in terms of Catholics…
    Schumer’s rantings are so bolshevik today…very scary the left.

    1. To be fair, the popes give Catholicism a bad name: being a crook, fornicator, fascist, or socialist seems to be a prerequisite for being Pope. Catholics themselves seem to be much better than their leaders.

      1. You aren’t wrong. I’m no defender of the Catholic Church. However, I’d stop at suggesting that John Paul was anything near a fascist. He eschewed it on a government level, having been a victim of it himself. The biggest problem of the current one isn’t so much fascism as it is being confident about so many things he knows nothing about [modification of a quote by Reagan about liberals]. In other words, he’s a fool and like a fool, he doesn’t listen to his handlers who tell him to shut up.

  28. It’s time to vote, there’s no reason for the show in which CamelToe Harris gets to showcase her Howard BS and third rate law school degree.

  29. I can hear the Bidenistas now: “When I was barely 40 and she was 18 she touched me inappropriately!”

  30. Reason is really bad at headlines.

    If confirmed, she would make for a 5-3 conservative majority at best… with Roberts in his own category.

    1. Roberts is the worst in my book. At least the progressive activist judges vote based on ideological conviction. The chief justice admittedly allows political winds to influence his votes because he fears the public perception that he and his court are partisan.

      1. I’m sorry, but I am compelled to say something here. I think you and Cyto completely misread Chief Justice Roberts. He is as conservative as they come. You need to look at the entirety of his record, and frankly, think a little more about what he writes. Why?

        First, CJ Roberts narrows the constitutional questions to be answered, by design. That is his job. And that is conservative as you get. Second, CJ Roberts gets a high degree of consensus on SCOTUS. The objective data are clear. The overall proportion of decisions 7-2, 8-1, 9-0 (grouping all 3) is much higher than his predecessors. No, the bulk of decisions made in the Roberts Court will be binding for decades by virtue of their votes. Third, CJ Roberts left a lot open in that PPACA decision. Meaning, there are multiple pathways in a legal sense to do away with it. And that decision forced the Congress to act (they failed).

        No, we want a CJ Roberts precisely for this moment. Now that there is a cadre of four reliable Originalists, watch what happens.

        Assuming POTUS Trump wins re-election (not a certainty), and Team R retains the senate (also not a certainty), they’ll get a possible shot at replacing Breyer (age 82). Thomas at 72 and Alito at 70 might want to think retirement in 2023 (assuming POTUS Trump and a Team R senate are in place). Then you’d have a conservative cadre of 6 in place for ~30 years. Although, I really want to see Thomas continue until death. He is the most originalist in thought on the bench right now.

        1. “First, CJ Roberts narrows the constitutional questions to be answered, by design”

          Roberts “what does the actual legislation, as written, say? Ok well it’s wrong PENALTAX!”

          Fuck you.

          1. ^Agree; I haven’t seen much if any ‘Constitution’ respect from Roberts.

          2. His conservative status will have been lost for eternity on that one alone. He completely buggered it and literally did a midnight flip if you believe the other Justices who did not see his flip coming, particularly Scalia who had talked to him earlier the previous evening. Nobody changes their opinion and seeks out such a small deflection without substantial reason.

            There was speculation at the time that someone got to him with a threat to go after him and his kids because of genuinely spurious adoption proceedings, and a threat to go scorched earth kamikaze if he exposed the blackmail attempt. And of course… once they have you acting for them, they own you.

        2. Perhaps some people are failing to distinguish between ideologically conservative outcomes and a conservative approach to jurisprudence. I’d say the latter is what is appropriate for a judge/justice. I can’t comment on Roberts as I don’t know enough about his record, but your analysis seems plausible.

    2. its now 5.5 to 4.5

  31. Strong majority? Thomas, Alito, and her is just 3. Maybe Gorsuch. Then you have Roberts and Kavanaugh who aren’t particularly conservative

    Trump really should have nominated Barret instead of Kavanaugh, and then now Lagoa

  32. हमारे ब्लॉग pmyojanalist पर आपका स्वागत है| यह ब्लॉग आपको Pradhan Mantri Yojana के बारे में जानकारी प्रदान करता है| इस ब्लॉग से आपको pradhan mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana और कई योजनाओ की जानकारी प्राप्त होगी|

  33. …Republicans seek to cement a 6-3 conservative majority.


  34. Biden will probably vote to confirm. She has good hair.

    1. His vote will be even more remarkable as he has not been a sitting senator in almost 12 years. Although I doubt he’s aware of that.

    2. Apparently, Biden is the President, according to Trump, who criticized Biden for not implementing a national mask mandate:

      “Well, no, but he didn’t do it. I mean, he never did it,” Trump said.

  35. Barrett, as a lifelong and oath-ed member of the People of Praise (cult) covenant community, is a threat to American’s foundation of individual rights and liberty and America’s characteristic culture of individualism.

    “People of Praise often live close together and unmarried people sometimes live with a married couple. There are specific courtship rituals—dating isn’t allowed until a member has been thoroughly counseled by a head. It’s positively socialist in many ways, as members are required to tithe at least 5 percent of their earnings, share property, and submit their family budgets to their head.”
    er is the

    Individuals are being gripped to have their individualism and liberty crushed out of them by the pincers of two inherently and dangerously collectivist movements. One pincer is the left’s long known collectivism of socialism and identity politics. The other is the the Trumpist right’s collectivism of Catholic Integralism, populism, and nationalism.

    Beware these ants’ pincers fore the ant heap awaits!

    “You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” ~ Ronald Reagan

    1. You erred when you cited Mother Jones. Though it’s fascinating to see MJ apply “socialist” in the pejorative.

    2. There are Muslims working in hospitals that provide abortions. There are Christians working in casinos. There are Jews working in restaurants that serve pork. There are Mormons who work in bars.

      Plenty of people hold religious beliefs in their private lives that are in conflict with their work. Somehow they avoid mixing the two.

      Give this woman the benefit of the doubt. She’s never ruled as a judge or taught in classes based on her religious affiliation. There’s no reason to assume she would change.

  36. Don’t forget it was the “conservatives” on Scotus that gave states an interstate sales tax. Some originalists and textualists there,hey?

    1. Actually that problem lies in state legislatures who can’t seem to figure out if “sales tax” applies to retailers or consumers. Seems the general consensus was it was retailers being forced to be collection agencies for their consumers – of which the SCOTUS upheld but I’ll agree with you – it really wasn’t the federals job to deal with crappy state legislature.

      With online shopping state taxes should’ve been asserted directly on state consumers OR retailers – not fumbled around like a jumping football on who’s got the ball.

      1. Point being; “Sales Tax” is flawed from it’s origin because it made retailers the tax collection officials of personal consumers.

  37. If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 conservative majority.

    Correction: If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 Catholic majority.

    1. …and religion, sex and color is all that matters to the fascist, sexist and racist among-st us.

  38. Don’t forget it was the “conservatives” on Scotus that gave states an interstate sales tax. Some originalists and textualists there,hey?

  39. OI would be fine with a Court that treats gun rights like abortion.

  40. Once in my life before I day, I want to see a sliver of a libertarian minority on the Supreme Court.

  41. I hope she is asked if she will accept the position (if offered) at a lower salary than the male justices.

    1. I’ll place bets on any sex question being pitched by a Democrat – they compulsively and ignorantly demand to know the sex and color of ANY new member of a group of people and if it’s not female or black they’ll throw a pathetic tantrum like the sex and color means EVERYTHING.

Comments are closed.