Advertisement

Nick Anderson for October 17, 2020

68 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Daeder  3 months ago

    She’s on message with the Republicans:

    “The Democratic Republic must die.”

     •  Reply
  2. Concretionist  3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  3. preacherman  3 months 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. William Bednar Premium Member 3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  5. William Bednar Premium Member 3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  6. cdward  3 months 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. Odon  3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  8. MontanaBill Premium Member 3 months 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. mourdac Premium Member 3 months 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. The Love of Money is . . .  3 months 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. Alberta Oil Premium Member 3 months 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. martens  3 months 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. ncorgbl  3 months ago

    Barrett is a liar who lied while under oath Tuesday.

     •  Reply
  14. piobaire  3 months 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. mistercatworks  3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  16. jvscanlan Premium Member 3 months ago

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

     •  Reply
  17. ragsarooni Premium Member 3 months 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. randolini Premium Member 3 months 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 Premium Member 3 months 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. Michael G.  3 months 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. dickanders Premium Member 3 months ago

    She is the Koch candidate. Watch environmental issues.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Nick Anderson

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement