United States Amy Coney Barrett Nominated & Confirmed to Supreme Court

Random Username said:
Where'd cocaine Mitch come from?
Click to expand...
There was a somewhat-kooky opponent who ran an ad that used the tagline 'Ditch Cocaine Mitch', because someone aboard a ship owned by the family of McConnel's wife tried to smuggle, like, 100 pounds of cocaine out of Colombia and got caught. As far as I know/remember it was some Alex Jones/Glenn Beck-ian level crazy-strings theory that he had anything to do with it--but it became a thing.

As to the hearings...Democrats had every right to boycott them, but it kind'a looked silly and what 'should' have been a theatrical, attention-grabbing stunt kind'a just ceded the field to Republicans entirely--so I'm somewhat mystified they'd do it. Republicans got full committee-time to mug for the cameras, and things being done will be focused on more than seats occupied by cardboard cutouts. Particularly when the objection is the odd, tangential, healthcare-focused one rather than anything really relevant?
At least that's my ameteur political read.
 
prinCZess said:
As to the hearings...Democrats had every right to boycott them, but it kind'a looked silly and what 'should' have been a theatrical, attention-grabbing stunt kind'a just ceded the field to Republicans entirely--so I'm somewhat mystified they'd do it. Republicans got full committee-time to mug for the cameras, and things being done will be focused on more than seats occupied by cardboard cutouts. Particularly when the objection is the odd, tangential, healthcare-focused one rather than anything really relevant?
At least that's my ameteur political read.
Click to expand...
They didn't thought too far ahead?
 
prinCZess said:
As to the hearings...Democrats had every right to boycott them, but it kind'a looked silly and what 'should' have been a theatrical, attention-grabbing stunt kind'a just ceded the field to Republicans entirely--so I'm somewhat mystified they'd do it. Republicans got full committee-time to mug for the cameras, and things being done will be focused on more than seats occupied by cardboard cutouts. Particularly when the objection is the odd, tangential, healthcare-focused one rather than anything really relevant?
Click to expand...
Basically, they think their non-participation makes the entire affair illegitimate, when everyone who doesn't like their shit thinks "Good, things got done."

It's a base pandering move that actually doesn't do anything practical, besides giving their opponents a clear path to accomplishing their goals. Pretty sure the Republicans did a few of these back during the Obama days, although they may have been smart and actually fillibustered and things like that.
 
I've seen some left-liberal publications argue that deprive the event of its legitimacy they should boycott it.

Which...fine that sends a statement that you don't think its legitimate. That doesn't actually matter because it is. Simply refusing to participate doesn't deprive something of legitimacy, unless you genuinely are so self centered you believe your presence determines an event, function, or ceremony's moral or legal legitimacy(which is apparently the heart of their thinking).

Its basically a refined form of temper tantrum protest-"well I won't go, that will make the whole event meaningless".
 
Lanmandragon said:
I'm fairly sure both Pelosi and Biden are "Catholic " which if true makes thier attacks hilariously ironic.
Click to expand...
Pelosi once said that as a Catholic, abortion was "sacred ground" to her. That should make her excommunicated latae sententiae, that is, the deed itself excommunicates her:

A person is latae sententiae excommunicated or, if an Eastern Catholic, ferendae sententiae if one:
  1. uses physical force against the Pope (reserved to the Apostolic See, for Eastern Catholics even to the Pope in person; can. 1370 CIC, can. 1445 CCEO; used to result ipso facto in a vitandus excommunication until 1983, can. 2343 CIC/1917),
  2. pretends to absolve (which is invalid, can. 977) his own partner in a sin against the Sixth Commandment (reserved to the Apostolic See; can. 1378 § 1. CIC, can. 1457 CCEO, can. 728 §1 CCEO),
  3. violates directly the Seal of the Confessional (reserved to the Apostolic See; can. 1388 CIC, can 1456 § 1 CCEO, Canon 728 §1 CCEO),
  4. throws away, or for sacrilegious purpose keeps back the Blessed Sacrament (reserved, for Latin Catholics, to the Apostolic See; can. 1367 CIC, can. 1442 CCEO),
  5. consecrates, as a bishop, another bishop without mandate by the Apostolic See or receives such consecration (reserved, for Latin Catholics, to the Apostolic See; can. 1383 CIC, can. 1459 § 1 CCEO),
  6. is an apostate (can. 1364 § 1 CIC, cf. can. 751 CIC; can. 1436 § 1 CCEO), that is, one who totally repudiates the Christian faith,
  7. is a heretic (can. 1364 § 1 CIC, cf. can. 751 CIC; can. 1436 § 1 CCEO), that is, contumaciously denies or doubts a dogma of the Catholic Church,
  8. is a schismatic (can. 1364 § 1 CIC, cf. can. 751 CIC; can. 1437 § 1 CCEO), that is, denies submission to the Pope or to the other members of the Church subordinate to the Pope (this is not, per se, true of one who merely disobeys an order of the Pope[12]),
  9. performs, has performed on herself, assists in, or makes possible an abortion (can. 1398 CIC, can. 1450 § 2 CCEO),
  10. commits simony in a Papal election (Universi Dominici gregis [UDG] no. 78),
  11. as a Cardinal or any other person taking part in the conclave (the conclave's secretary, etc.), makes known an exclusive or helps, in any other manner, a secular power to influence the papal election (UDG no. 80),
  12. as a Cardinal, makes any pacts, deals or promises regarding the papal election at a conclave; this does not forbid the Cardinals to discuss whom to elect (UDG no. 81).
  13. as a bishop attempts to confer Holy Orders on a woman, alongside the woman who attempted to receive the consecration. In both Eastern and Latin rites, the excommunication is reserved to the Apostolic See.[13]
Click to expand...
 
It was more along the lines of “she’s part of scary religious cult that will bring about the Handmaiden’s Tale”.

It was obvious nonsense, and the handmaiden’s tale isn’t even that well known as a cultural product. It’s mostly HBO liberals, secularists and fretters of some theocratic plot to take over America to prevent women having sex that are into it.

That sort of propaganda may be convincing to certain liberals and feminists, but it was never going to have any broad currency like Kavanaugh’s rape accusations.
 
Lord Invictus said:
That’s ridiculous. At most the SC would turn it over to the states, Alabama and Tennessee might de facto outlaw abortion but it would never be illegalized in California or New York.
Click to expand...
I doubt she would want too move there. She is from Texas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top