Supreme Court

No, Amy Coney Barrett Isn't Part of a 'Dark Money' Plot To Overturn Gay Marriage and Abortion

Such theories are not based in fact.

|

"When you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) said during Tuesday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett. That power, Whitehouse continued, can be found in conservative "dark money" groups, which he posited are propping up Barrett so she can upend same-sex marriage, abortion, and the Affordable Care Act.

This theory may stir outrage among Whitehouse's supporters, but it is not grounded in reality.

Though the senator's detailed presentation came complete with tables and flow charts, his argument can be distilled down to this: Conservative groups have made hefty donations to conservative causes, which have then been victoriously litigated in the courts, and the money is somehow to blame. He took particular issue with what he called "the Roberts five"—a 5-4 majority that has issued a series of 80 Supreme Court rulings that Whitehouse deems right-leaning wins. There's a conspiracy there, he claims.

"Eighty cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics. One, they were decided 5-4, by a bare majority. Two, the 5-4 majority was partisan, in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five," said Whitehouse. "And the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases, and in every single case that donor interest won."

Puzzlingly, those cases did not pertain to same-sex marriage, abortion, or the Affordable Care Act, all of which have recent decisions that cut in the liberal direction. See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the 5-4 decision that legalized gay marriage, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (2020), the 5-4 decision that struck down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law, and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the 5-4 decision that upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Also worth mentioning: Democrats receive more in "dark money" contributions than Republicans these days, but one would be hard-pressed to find evidence that these Supreme Court decisions were the result of such donations.

Whitehouse's argument requires both conjecture and imagination to fill in the gaping holes left by inconvenient facts. For example, he cited President Donald Trump's animus toward the Affordable Care Act as more evidence of a judicial conspiracy. But presidents often express political views—that is, after all, in the job description. And it was 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton who said that she would establish litmus tests for justices, openly campaigning on selecting nominees that would promise to strike down Citizens United v. FEC and uphold Roe v. Wade.

Contrast that with Barrett's answer today when asked if she had made any promises to rule any one direction: "Absolutely not. I was never asked. And if I had been, that would have been a short conversation." She reiterated that multiple times over the course of the hearing.

Though Whitehouse's conspiracy theory is likely on the fringe of his colleagues' views, the central idea is not. Activists and politicians alike have characterized Barrett as a precedent-wrecker. Democrats' focus thus far has been almost exclusively on her potentially striking down the Affordable Care Act—another argument that is not grounded in reality.

"First, while the predicament of patients like those described by [Sen. Chris] Coons et al. figures prominently in the public policy debate about Obamacare, it is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional," writes Reason's Jacob Sullum. "Second, there is little reason to think that Barrett would in fact vote to overturn the law. Third, even if she did, there does not seem to be a majority on the Court in favor of that outcome."

Similar logic can be applied to abortion and same-sex marriage. Speaking at a 2013 law forum, Barrett said that the "fundamental element" of Roe—that a woman can choose to have an abortion—will likely stay intact, and that the question now is whether or not those procedures "will be publicly or privately funded." During today's hearing, she called Obergefell an "important precedent."

But even if she was part of the alleged secret plot, the Senate is not considering Barrett for a role in a monarchy, nor is she running for president. No Supreme Court justice, including Barrett, is able to snap his or her fingers and overturn precedent just because he or she might want it so.

"Judges can't just wake up one day and say, 'I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns. I like abortion, I hate abortion,' and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world," she said today. "You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process."

Advertisement

NEXT: Defending Amy Coney Barrett, Ted Cruz Highlights the Threats That Democrats Pose to Civil Liberties

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. “Speaking at a 2013 law forum, Barrett said that the “fundamental element” of Roe—that a woman can choose to have an abortion—will likely stay intact, and that the question now is whether or not those procedures “will be publicly or privately funded.””Click here

      1. If all women were as dumb as enb and shikha they shouldnt have the ability to make any decisions, let alone those regarding another life lmao

    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 Abe 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…>>Visit Here

    3. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Azx month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

  1. The democrat clown show today was hilarious. It’s usually a bag burning of dog shit from the left but this might have topped the nonsense during Kavanaugh’s confirmation. ACB deserves a medal of freedom for not laughing and rolling her eyes at the stupidity on display from the left wing insanity.

    1. I’d donate towards a medal of freedom if she had rolled her eyes and laughed out loud at those clowns.

      1. That would have made for some great GIFs.

    2. Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB “since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

      1. I hope she answered ‘Only on alternate Tuesdays’ and smiled sweetly.

        1. ‘Do you think I was born yesterday?

          I made all my unwanted requests for sexual favors as a minor. Duh.’

      2. She asks all nominees that question.

        1. Lucky for you you’ve never been a nominee.

        2. And I’m sure you’d vote for her.

    3. I’ve worked with close to 100 judges, and this one reminds me of Bruce Lee inviting the commie or redneck attackers to go ahead and give it their best shot. I am betting even money they find some anatomically correct male to swear she sexually abused him back in High School, simply because it’s the only cheap shot not yet tried. The upside is that the voting public gets to see the kind of superstitious, illiterate, treacherous ignoramuses their Nixon-bought votes have packed into the U.S. Senate. After this only an idiot would pass up the chance to replace them with Libertarians.

  2. Of cource Facebook Twitter and Google will not be putting a fact checking note next tk these “correct” conspiracy theories

    1. Establishment media fact checking is like a toilet bowl flush, the poo only spins in one direction.

      1. Does it spin the other way in Australia?

        1. Yes, but it’s still shit.

  3. “No, Amy Coney Barrett Isn’t Part of a ‘Dark Money’ Plot To Overturn Abortion”

    Too bad.
    I guess the kiddie abattoirs get to keep pumping out lucrative baby pieces.

    1. So tender, so juicy.

  4. “But even if she was part of the alleged secret plot, the Senate is not considering Barrett for a role in a monarchy, nor is she running for president. No Supreme Court justice, including Barrett, is able to snap his or her fingers and overturn precedent just because he or she might want it so.”

    Democrats operate under the presumption that Supreme Court justices are precisely so empowered. This is exactly what progressives want and desire in a Supreme Court justice, and precisely why their questions to Justice Barrett are structured in the manner that they are.

    1. Yes, it’s called projection. Just because they would nominate someone who would put their desired outcome before the plain meaning of the law, they assume everyone else would do the same.

      To be fair, Trump has reportedly stated that he would nominate people who would vote a certain way on particular cases, such as Roe and ACA. Trumps statements, however, are not binding on ACB. My guess is she would take up Scalia’s mantle and judge the the law as it is written, regardless of her personal politics.

    2. That’s exactly why gay marriage and abortion are legal.

      DNA fingerprinting science proves that a fetus is not “ the woman’s body”.

      Any sexuality other than heterosexuality is a disorder.

      1. Fuck off, Nazi. Please, just fuck off. You are an embarrassment to humanity; you stink up the place,
        Fuck off and die.

        1. Why are you calling him a Nazi? Abortion is not a clear cut subject even in libertarian circles, and he has a point that homosexuality is a deviation from “normal” urges, at least in a biological sense focused on reproduction.

          1. Misek’s posting history makes it clear that he is a racist.

            Lots of holocaust denial in his posts.

            Nazi seems accurate.

          2. Because it is a troll and a bigot. It projects its trigger word on those it can’t refute. I have never self identified with “Nazi”.

            Regarding gay marriage and abortion, the topic, unless the logic and science are wrong, the courts and bigots who contradict it, are.

  5. Please wake me when the outrage about her overturning Kelo or Gonzales v Raich starts

  6. If Binion would have his druthers all of you female libertarians commenting here would be renamed Ofbilly, ensconced in red and be tasked as his brood stock.

  7. It is not at all a secret that ACB is nominated to advance conservative causes on SCOTUS, including outlawing abortion, and overturning gay marriage. And yes, if the tables were turned the Ds would be putting up a nominee that would advance their goals. SCOTUS is political and it is nuts that we are pretending otherwise.

    1. The 4 Ds on the bench cross over a lot less than the 4 Rs. Originalism is actually an ethos that portends to be impartial. Liberals don’t even pretend to care about ruling impartial. Sotomayor even said she preferred emotive deference to legal when she discussed being empathetic to defendents regardless of the law.

      1. Originalism is a philosophy that justices are more then willing to abandon when it suits them. The entire concept of “impartial” is antiquated and it is stupid that we are pretending that it exists anymore. Let’s just be hones and openly admit our biases.

        1. “…The entire concept of “impartial” is antiquated and it is stupid that we are pretending that it exists anymore…”

          So MG admits s/he has no principles and projects that others share that slimy ethical stance.
          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Here is an example: If you are an Originalist, you can not read an individual right to have a gun into the 2A. The history and text goes not support it, but all the R judges vote for that anyhow.

            1. This post makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

              1. First time reading her posts then?

                1. Mine too. But I appreciate her showing what an idiot she is right up front. Very efficient.

            2. If you are an Originalist, you can not read an individual right to have a gun into the 2A

              That’s debatable at best, though this argument always seems to ignore the keep portion of RKBA. But the slightest degree of knowledge about 18th century military organization (the most crucial bit of context here), especially in a decentralized and agrarian society, makes it obvious that the commas in question are superfluous. It’s impractical otherwise.

              The amendments are written in such a manner to make it understandable when read to the illiterate and semi-literate yahoos that would vote on them. This is clear in the other amendments as well as the main Constitution itself. Think of a man in a powdered wig reading the amendment from a lectern to a crowd: “A well regulated Militia [pause] being necessary to the security of a free State [pause] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [pause] shall not be infringed.” If you read it aloud and interpret it in the collectivist way then you must have an auditory processing disorder.

              1. I really need to do a better job proofreading my tags. This is what happens when you haven’t had to code in years.

            3. Got it. Your idiot status is confirmed.

            4. “Here is an example: If you are an Originalist, you can not read an individual right to have a gun into the 2A. The history and text goes not support it, but all the R judges vote for that anyhow.”

              “The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the individual[1] right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.[2][3][4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home…”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

              Yeah, it’s Wiki, but start from there, chase the cites, read it and weep, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

              1. No no, there are nine amendments that protect individual rights, and one that definitely doesn’t that they threw in with them cuz they didn’t know where else to put it. That’s why it’s called “The Bill of Rights and How Militias Work”.

            5. To all who commented. Without getting into a whole historical essay: The 2A was meant to protect militias, that is to mean the ability of the states to have their own (what we call now) National Guards. The idea was that the federal government does not have a monopoly on having an army. It is a states rights amendment. Back then the term “bearing arms” was a group activity, not an individual action. The notion that 2A was for individuals was a relatively late concept and does not have historical backing. Also, conservatives love to ignore the first phase of 2A: “A well regulated…”. I am a supporter of gun rights, but I also acknowledge that Heller was wrong.

              1. So they didn’t teach you how to cite your work in third grade when you learned there are three branches of government?

              2. “…The 2A was meant to protect militias, that is to mean the ability of the states to have their own (what we call now) National Guards…”

                Lefty assertions =/= evidence or argument. Suffice to say you are full of shit.

              3. The 2A was meant to protect militias, that is to mean the ability of the states to have their own (what we call now) National Guards.

                This is of course, total nonsense. Left wingers recite this because they understand among themselves they don’t have to be right since none of them care what the constitution says. They only have to have an argument. But the 2nd Amendment never “meant” this and was never understood this way.

                The left invented this assertion in the same way the 1619 Project claimed the American Revolution was undertaken to protect slavery. When their argument loses they determine why. It’s generally because their desires conflict with reality. Then they try to change the piece of reality which impedes their preference. Whether the assertion is true is simply not a consideration.

              4. So you have a processing disorder. Got it. And still ignoring how “keep” factors into all of this, and that your interpretation would make the 2nd the only amendment which protects a group rather than an individual.

                “Regulated” means “organized” or “effective.” The plain meaning of the amendment is that persons need to be able to keep and maintain their own arms in order to be able to form the effective militias which safeguard the people from threats.

            6. “The history and text goes not support it,”

              Really?

        2. RBG’s respect for Scalia, and vice versa, would indicate otherwise.

          Humans are imperfect, biased, and occasionally hypocritical, but there’s a big difference between recognizing that there is no perfect human judge, and giving up and accepting the SCOTUS as a third political branch.

          1. Not a stretch for a lefty shit like MG; like the lefty j-school scum proposing “moral clarity” as opposed to any attempt at impartiality.

          2. It is clear that SCOTUS is a third branch. The Rs campaign on that (and the Ds less so), and it SCOTUS was impartial the Rs would not be pushing so hard to get ACB on the court.

            1. Of course it’s a third branch. It always has been. I said I’m not willing to concede that it’s a political branch. As for assuming that all nominees are political operative who will vote for a predetermined outcome, regardless of the controlling law, see my post above on projection.

            2. “It is clear that SCOTUS is a third branch.”
              Yes, if you read any history, you’d know it was designed and instituted as such by the founders. We’ll assume you are a product of government schools and are thereby a fucking lefty ignoramus.

              “The Rs campaign on that (and the Ds less so), and it SCOTUS was impartial the Rs would not be pushing so hard to get ACB on the court.”
              Were you hoping that first-grade level whining would suggest something other than that you *are* a fucking lefty ignoramus?
              If so, it didn’t work: You are a fucking lefty ignoramus to whom it seems English is not your first language. Fuck off and die.

            3. “It is clear that SCOTUS is a third branch.”

              No shit? Congratulations on graduating third grade civics! Are you back in school in person or still remote learning?

              1. 5th grade were the best years of MollyGodiva’s life! All three of them!

            4. I meant “third political branch” in response to the comment that I was replying to.

              1. Which, of course, means nothing to anyone familiar with the constitution.
                We will assume henceforth, that your comments are bereft of any knowledge of the structure of the federal government.
                And given your steaming pile of lefty shit so far, that your are bereft of any sort of intelligence at all.
                Please, make your family proud: Fuck off and die. Make the rest of us happy; die slowly and painfully; a pile of lefty shit like you deserves it.

              2. Should have stuck with the first one. While it exposes you as a simpleton, it was at least factually correct.

            5. The D’s LESS SO?!? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

  8. “Speaking at a 2013 law forum, Barrett said that the “fundamental element” of Roe—that a woman can choose to have an abortion—will likely stay intact, and that the question now is whether or not those procedures “will be publicly or privately funded.””

    This is disappointing, why expend all this political energy to put some Vichyite on the Court?

    Hopefully she grows some balls.

    1. Oh she will. She will make the conservatives very happy.

      1. Can we hope she will make lefty shits like you fuck off and die?

  9. She’s clearly got some skeletons in her closet. It’s funny how Republicans are shrieking about court packing when it’s like… hello, what do you call this?
    It’s a tragedy of justice. Also I’m sorry, not to be a troll, but that dress she was wearing? Like is this real life? Ummmmmm yeahnooooo, honey.
    Hopefully they dig deeper into her past and indict her on something.

    1. “She’s clearly got some skeletons in her closet.”
      Your “stupid” ate your cite for your bullshit.

      “It’s funny how Republicans are shrieking about court packing when it’s like… hello, what do you call this?”
      A nomination.

      “It’s a tragedy of justice.”
      You’re full of shit.

      “Also I’m sorry, not to be a troll, but that dress she was wearing? Like is this real life? Ummmmmm yeahnooooo, honey.”
      Diversionary bullshit noted; now do Pelosi’s failed plastic surgery.

      “Hopefully they dig deeper into her past and indict her on something.”
      We can hope you fuck off and die.

      1. Ya know, that may be another OBL; the idiocy is far too broad.
        Perhaps I been trolled…

          1. Worth watching; OBL took several days to get outed.
            LAPT may well prove to be the same.

            1. I’m going with parody on this one too; just a bit too over the edge to be taken at face value, and at least there is some humor in it.

              In other words it has the qualities the the Rev and Molly so clearly lack.

    2. Court packing is increasing the number of judges. See 1937.

      1. Literally nobody here but you has seen 1937

      2. FYI Hank, while you’ve been in your drug induced comma, progressives have started changing the meanings of words and phrases to fit their needs 1984 style at an increasing rate.

        1. This is true.

          See sexual preference/sexual orientation.

          The definition was literally changed by the fucking dictionary in 1 day, all in a political attempt to make ACB look bad.

          They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.

  10. Let me get this straight (see what I did there?):

    You cannot choose your sexual preference, but you can choose your sex.

    So if you’re a guy attracted to other guys, you can’t stop preferring guys, but you can wish yourself to be a woman, then you’re a woman who likes guys.

    1. Almost. One can not choose their sexual preferences. From the transgendered perspective they do not choose their sex either, they just know in their gut that they were born into the wrong sex and need to change to make it right.

      1. Your belief system holds no benefit for you or anyone. It is a religion designed to make everyone more miserable.

        1. Are you suggesting that trans people need to worry about whether you are uncomfortable before they get to live the life they want?

          1. I didn’t see anything of the sort there.
            Are you suggesting you’re a fucking piece of lefty shit?

            1. Not sure if he’s suggesting it, but yes, he is.

          2. Try researching some of the stories of regret and suicide among post-op trans then get back to me. Although you probably can’t because your side tries its hardest to suppress that information. They are really into the truth that way.

            1. Do you think this is actually a thing that matters to you, or is it maybe just another in a neverending series of culture war scare stories meant to pacify you into voting Republican?

              1. It doesn’t matter to me that much if grown adults want to ruin their lives. But it definitely matters to me that the SJW perverts have moved on to permanently disfiguring children.

                1. But Trump tears suckling infants from their mothers’ breasts and tosses them both into a kafkaesque nightmare in order to frighten others from fleeing the hellish murderscapes they live in. Since when do you care about children?

                  1. So if Trump had described their various countries of origin as ‘hellish murderscapes’ rather than just ‘shitholes’, you would’ve been OK with it?

                    It’s really astounding how well your short-sightedness and flippant hyperbole reflect Trump’s. It’s like you two were cut from the same cloth or separated at birth or something.

                    1. I just wondered why the selective concern for the well-being of children. As a fan of “shithole countries” myself, I’m not here to police anyone’s use of words.

              2. I’m always amused when the people who think transsexuals are the biggest issue facing the country turn around and pretend other people are using it politically.

              3. Ouch. That hurt. Why are you beating on me all of a sudden?

            2. Those are typically very disturbed people; regardless, they get to deal with their problems, not me.
              The shitstain known as Tony still proposes that it it my responsibility to look after his health.
              Shitstain is full of shit.

              1. “Shitstain” has no concerns or values beyond it’s own immediate wants, needs, and survival. That is what makes it a coward. That and expecting others to provide for it. Not even worth responding to other than to call it a shitstain.

                [I really don’t mind, in fact enjoy, it well reasoned opinion that is not my own; but this ENDLESSWHINING I simply cannot abide.]

            3. Try researching some of the stories of regret and suicide among post-op trans then get back to me.

              About a month ago, the American Journal of Psychiatry printed a correction to one of the largest and most-cited transgender studies performed in Sweden. The researchers themselves, after working through the data, reversed their previous conclusion and are now indicating that surgery and/or hormone treatment offers no distinguishable reduction in psychological intervention.

              Of note: despite Swedens vast state-run medical system and all the data it amasses, the researchers looked at a very narrow range of outcomes and made some rather elementary faux pas like presuming patients who didn’t show up for follow up visits were successfully treated when, in at least some cases, they had successfully completed suicide.

              Turns out that, just like with other dysmorphic disorders, a significant if not majority of the time the actual problem lies in the brain and not in the biology.

              I’m fine with adults knowingly messing up their own futures. Children *and* adults doing so unwittingly or being deceived as such? Not so much.

              1. So if one of the children Trump is keeping in concentration camps decides to come out as trans, you will be a champion of their well-being. Inching toward liberalism!

  11. Bunion’s whistling in the dark notwithstanding, Republican National Socialists gave us the same assurances when Long Dong Thomas was on deck. He promptly sided with Nixon Puppet Rehnquist to strike down Roe v Wade–the only LP plank copied by the Suprema Corte–to accommodate Amish Comstock Law fanatics coercively opposed to libertarian ideals of individuals having rights–this in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY on Jun 29, 1992. At that time, Republican National Socialists and the Prohibition Party were coming out with (failing) Constitutional Amendments to bully women at the rate of about one per year. Yet Canada had in 1976 struck down ALL girl-bullying mystical pederast laws. That decision emanated from Catholic Quebec. Catholic Ireland has recently bolted from Republican Comstockist coercion as well.

  12. You’ve conflated culture war stuff with the actual intent of the spending and influence, which Senator Whitehouse spelled out. The Koch brother and oil companies don’t care about abortion or gay marriage. Although I’m sure they don’t mind such wedge issues being employed to smuggle in their actual policy aims that get much less press. This take is so shallow it’s hard not to point out that this very magazine is part of the influence network. Libertarians think being cosmopolitan on gay rights gets them a seat at the cool kids’ table. But oligarchy isn’t cool. And society’s underserved would thank you not to keep using them as a hot potato to distract from the real goal of the Republican/libertarian movement, which is largely to bestow upon the people the privilege of paying for both energy and the pollution that comes with it, while the CEOs buy a fifteenth vacation home.

    1. Senator Whitehouse is an unhinged conspiracy-theory loon. If he was born to a coal farmer in Pennsyltucky instead of old money New England then he’d be screaming on the street about QAnon and lizard people. If the people of Rhode Island were capable of shame they’d recall him.

      1. A quarter billion dollars in donations, obviously just for shits and giggles.

        1. And, once again, your fucking idiocy ate your cite, shitstain.
          Why don’t you stay in the bar where you got drunk rather than show up here and make an ass of yourself one more time/
          Fuck off and die.

          1. Don’t you have a governor to kidnap or something?

            1. So you have no answer at all? Not surprising.

              1. Falling down drunk, now shitstain?

                1. It’s a dry apocalypse for me. Just my luck.

                  1. So falling down drunk.
                    Fine.
                    Fuck off and die.

  13. If you don’t think corporate funds (dark untraceable money) weren’t used to set this up then you’re a fucking idiot. Trump is a bought man. Do I believe ACB is bought? No I don’t. However moneyed interests put Trump where he is today and that gave them the foothold to demand tit for tat and get someone like her put in the judge’s seat so that their best interests (Citizens United) will be the status quo for a while. They NEED judges like her in there to guarantee that any legislation passed to limit their opaque contributions to buying off candidates stays hidden. That is precisely why she is sitting in that seat. I think she will be good for 2nd amendment rights and individual rights too. ACB is a mixed bag of good and bad, but don’t fucking act like dark money from cowardly corporate lobbyists didn’t buy her a seat at the table.

    1. “…Trump is a bought man…”

      Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company.

  14. Do online job & earn 1000$ for 6 hours dailyVisit Here
    All Copyrights Reserved © 2020

  15. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..Usa Online Jobs

  16. Please wake me when the outrage about her overturning Kelo or Gonzales v Raich starts- anibar

  17. Since its OK to ask an absurd question like Hirono did because “she asks the same absurd question every time” maybe they can follow up and ask if she attended rape parties.

  18. No, Amy Coney Barrett Isn’t Part of a ‘Dark Money’ Plot To Overturn Gay Marriage and Abortion

    Remember, there never has been and never will be a larger agenda surrounding homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Scalia’s rants about making Christians the enemy of humanity by virtue of the fact that they’re Christian was just the psychotic ravings of a out-of-touch loon. Any such “agenda” is just a grass roots reaction to the Republican agenda of following through on what were originally Democratic policies of cracking down on homosexuality and refusing to give government jobs to homosexuals.

    Also, any notions about associations between socio-political malleability, homosexuality, and socialism are between laughable parody/charicature and outdated McCarthy-ist bunk.

    Also, there is no Antifa either. Again, grass roots reaction to Republican agenda.

    Nothing to see here.

    1. The Koch brother is more than happy to have us bickering over psychosexual politics while he secures his regulatory obliterations and tax giveaways. But just because the model of governance you’re use to is a man who can’t walk or chew gum without causing a massive national crisis doesn’t mean we more advanced specimens of humanity can’t both worry over the basic rights of individuals and try to keep oligarchic forces from destroying democracy.

  19. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda.'”

    Ginsburg disagreed.

  20. Barrett may not be part of a plot to roll back freedoms, but she sure as hell will work towards turning America into a theocracy.

  21. She is part of a plot to overturn Roe vs Wade. That is not a theory it is a fact and it is based on Trump’s own words. He said he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe vs Wade.

Please to post comments