Advertisement

Nick Anderson for October 17, 2020

70 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Missing large
    Daeder  about 1 month ago

    She’s on message with the Republicans:

    “The Democratic Republic must die.”

     •  Reply
  2. Brain guy dancing hg clr
    Concretionist  about 1 month ago

    Mitch and his gang are more interested in Roe v Wade, but this is 2nd on their list.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    preacherman  about 1 month ago

    From what I saw of the hearings, Barrett is either very dim or super obtuse. But, then again, many SCOTUS nominees obfuscate on most of the questions put to them. But, I got the impression that had she been asked whether she thought the Earth was flat, she’d have no opinion.

     •  Reply
  4. Tor johnson
    William Bednar Premium Member about 1 month ago

    What about term limits for Congress people? That dead on arrival, too?

     •  Reply
  5. Tor johnson
    William Bednar Premium Member about 1 month ago

    With some folks, when you mention Roe v Wade, they think you’re talking about Basketball.

     •  Reply
  6. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 1 month ago

    I think if this goes through, and Biden wins, and the Senate goes Democratic — then the SCOTUS is going to grow in size. I say GOOD!!! Raise it to twenty.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Odon  about 1 month ago

    When a large number of her counterparts at Notre Dame say no we would listen.

     •  Reply
  8. Warning
    MontanaBill Premium Member about 1 month ago

    Regardless of your feelings for those two subjects, if they violate the Constitution, they should be either struck down or amended by the legislature to meet the requirements of the Constitution. Obamacare (ACA) was purposely made convoluted in order for the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ (Jonathan Gruber) to allow passage. If that convolution makes it unconstitutional, blame Gruber and the Democrats.

     •  Reply
  9. Celtic tree of life
    mourdac Premium Member about 1 month ago

    How can a person who believes in absolute values as dictated by her faith arbitrate civil matters which are in conflict with that faith?

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    The Love of Money is . . .  about 1 month ago

    I expected a had written note with a black Sharpie rather than a ransom style note. At least she didn’t lie about “not speaking” to Trump. . . . . /s

     •  Reply
  11. Can flag
    Alberta Oil Premium Member about 1 month ago

    A religious zealot might be a better way to describe her. And.. is the qualification trump needed to get the evangelists vote.

     •  Reply
  12. Pine marten3
    martens  about 1 month ago

    I noticed that a lot of women seem to have an almost instinctive response against Coney Barrett. I’m not sure if it is ideology or just the way she presents, her body language, that is putting them off.

     •  Reply
  13. Left me my tree silohette
    ncorgbl  about 1 month ago

    Barrett is a liar who lied while under oath Tuesday.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    piobaire  about 1 month ago

    @cdward — I hope they do expand the SCOTUS.

    The Trumpublicans are sneering at the Democratic Party. “We Trumpublicans can do whatever we want, and those nicey-nicey wishy-washy Democrats will never stand up to us.”

    The Democratic Party needs to fight hard, and stop imagining that the Trumpublicans will “play nice” or “play fair”. That’s pure fantasy.

    The Democratic Party also needs to use the full force of the law to punish any misdeeds of Trump and Associates, whenever (pray to God soon) he is out of office. Turning the other cheek hasn’t worked with Republicans or Trumpuplicans for decades, and it won’t work now. Give them a free pass or a slap on the wrist, and it will be like authorizing them to do it again and more in the future.

     •  Reply
  15. Kirby close up with poppies behind   close cropped
    mistercatworks  about 1 month ago

    It means she believes the law is “wholly writ” and should never evolve.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    jvscanlan Premium Member about 1 month ago

    I believe it. She’ll uphold the sham that is textualism

     •  Reply
  17. 22ebfcac ced8 4f81 81ab 38a9544c0f83
    ragsarooni Premium Member about 1 month ago

    This,this,this APPLICANT for the honor of Justice isn’t fit to have her initials used as an identifier. Prolly never will since there was only ONE justice with that privilege,u know,like Madonna,Cher et al……

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    randolini Premium Member about 1 month ago

    She’s not a textualist, she is a far right extremist and not pro life, but pro fetus. Where does the GOP find these unqualified morons.

     •  Reply
  19. Durak
    Durak Premium Member about 1 month ago

    Textualist. Huh.

    The language we speak isn’t even really the same English language that the Constitution was written in, and they want to be “textualists”.

    Why? Because it’s easier to lie, cheat and steal when we play word games.

     •  Reply
  20. Usa 003
    Michael G.  about 1 month ago

    A religious bully who will not understand that she has no right to mandate what she thinks her imaginary friend has told her.

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    dickanders Premium Member about 1 month ago

    She is the Koch candidate. Watch environmental issues.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Nick Anderson

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement