OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 ...so what say you Chuck The Schmuck?.......obstruct the people's poll as usual and demonstrate your leadership(COUGH)"??.....yet ANOTHER miserable NYS failure in a long list of putz's extraordinaire..... Majority favor confirming Barrett to Supreme Court, oppose court packing, polls show Barrett received greater support than Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmations By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by a slim margin. The poll, released Tuesday morning, revealed that 51% of participants said they are in favor of President Trump's latest nominee joining the high court, compared to 46% who are opposed. Just 3% said they do not have an opinion on the matter, the lowest number since Gallup started taking polls on Supreme Court nominees. The poll was taken from Sept. 30 – four days after Trump nominated Barrett – to Oct. 15, the final day of her confirmation hearing. Barrett's 51% approval is higher than both of Trump's previous nominees. Justice Neil Gorsuch received support from 45% of those polled when he was nominated, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh garnered 41%. In both of those situations, far more people stated they had no opinion. For Gorsuch, 23% had no opinion and 32% were opposed, and for Kavanaugh 22% had no opinion and 37% were opposed. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett's nomination on Thursday. The full Senate will then hold a vote on whether to confirm her to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted Monday that he will make sure the process moves forward swiftly. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/polls-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-court-packing 1 1
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 Revealed: ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse Amy Coney Barrett People of Praise hire lawyers to investigate historical sexual abuse allegations as former members speak of ‘emotional torment’ Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington @skirchy Email Wed 21 Oct 2020 05.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 21 Oct 2020 08.52 EDT Shares 4,122 Amy Coney Barrett in Washington last month. Some ex-members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood of People of Praise. Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/Getty Images Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group. In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise. Of course!
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Posted October 21, 2020 She part of a sexual exploitation group!
B-Man Posted October 22, 2020 Posted October 22, 2020 Democrats will boycott tomorrow’s Judiciary Committee vote to send Amy Coney Barrett nomination to full Senate
Doc Posted October 22, 2020 Posted October 22, 2020 If the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote and no Dems showed up...
New Improved DC Tom Posted October 22, 2020 Posted October 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, Doc said: If the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote and no Dems showed up... "ACB's nomination was sent to the Senate by a unanimous vote..." 1 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 23, 2020 Posted October 23, 2020 On 10/21/2020 at 12:27 PM, Tiberius said: She part of a sexual exploitation group! ...first hand knowledge I presume.....
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Posted October 24, 2020 20 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...first hand knowledge I presume..... You're mixing up Tibs and Pooj again. 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 24, 2020 Posted October 24, 2020 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: You're mixing up Tibs and Pooj again. ...my SINCERE apology......too many frauds here to keep track of......set aside individuals(ie Trump) and consider only POLICIES for a moment......is it conceivable that not ONE SINGLE POLICY in the last 3 3/4 years has benefitted the country?.....seriously?....how foolish of me expecting an objective answer......TDS is a disease and the perfect shield to hide behind.....why did the MAJORITY say they are better off today versus 4 years ago?......doesn't the first attack on ACB's religion as an instant disqualifier tell you something?..... 1
Reality Check Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett for the win. Perfect timing. Thank you RGB... 1
B-Man Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 Not a great look, Nancy. But let’s not pretend this is the first time she’s looked bad.
Doc Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow?
Taro T Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow? They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas.
Doc Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Taro T said: They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas. Yeah, that I get. And the principled reason is "they blocked Merrick Garland." But it's all in vain.
Backintheday544 Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 3 hours ago, B-Man said: Not a great look, Nancy. But let’s not pretend this is the first time she’s looked bad. Why does she look bad for asking a Supreme Court nominee to explain her views on major laws?
SoCal Deek Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Why does she look bad for asking a Supreme Court nominee to explain her views on major laws? Because Nancy gets no say in this whatsoever! She’s not a Senator, Hey Nancy....don’t you have some actual work to do today? Edited October 26, 2020 by SoCal Deek
Backintheday544 Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 56 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Because Nancy gets no say in this whatsoever! She’s not a Senator, Hey Nancy....don’t you have some actual work to do today? I don't think Nancy comes on this board.
SoCal Deek Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: I don't think Nancy comes on this board. Probably getting her hair done!
Recommended Posts