Watched for a few minutes this afternoon and watched as ACB and watched as she basically told a Democratic Senator in the nicest, most respectful, and dignified way that his question was simply stupid and she was not going to fall into the trap of answering it.
“I have a view whether I love or hate it,” Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday when asked about Roe v. Wade by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, without revealing that view. “One reason why it may be comforting to you to have an answer is also why I can’t pre-commit to approaching a case in any particular way.”
That answer was emblematic of Barrett’s day as she repeatedly emphasized that she would not commit to pre-judging any case a certain way while Democrats pressed her to do just that.
“I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can,” Barrett said, also to Feinstein, D-Calif., citing Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing. “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.”Barrett says she won’t give issues ‘thumbs up or thumbs down’ as Dems grill nominee on ObamaCare, Trump | Fox News
In what way is this illegitimate? What would be illegitimate would be the President not fulfilling his Constitutional duty just because it is an election year. Despite your party’s repeated borderline treasonous attempts to overthrow his duly elected Presidency and your refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, Donald J. Trump is still the President. What is dangerous is the precedent you are setting by abandoning your role of Advice and Consent and corrupting it into the role of Obstruct and Vilify. I don’t know where you get unpopular from but even it that is true the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is not and should never be subject to a test of popularity. That would reduce the highest court in the land to the level of sleazebag politicians like yourself.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday night promised that Democrats will not “supply quorum” for votes to advance Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation effort, essentially meaning that Democrats will boycott the votes in an attempt to stall the confirmation ahead of the election.
Schumer made the comments during a Sunday night press conference in which he also demanded Barrett recuse herself from any cases involving the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the presidential election. Schumer called the Barrett confirmation process “illegitimate, dangerous and unpopular,” Sunday as Democrats ramp up their rhetoric ahead of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Barrett that start Monday.
Schumer says Democrats won’t give GOP quorum to advance Barrett nomination | Fox News
Senator Chuck Schumer’s comments outside the Supreme Court building were reprehensible, dangerous, and beneath the dignity of Senate Minority Leader as well as Mr. Schumer himself. As bad as they were, though, it is understandable how Schumer, who rarely has an unscripted public moment, made those comments infinitely worse in his mealy-mouth explanation on the Senate floor. His inability to simply say, “I was wrong> I should not have said that. No one should ever say that. there is never a valid reason to threaten any Supreme Court Justice.”
Instead, what we got was some incomprehensible nonsense about being from Brooklyn. I was born in raised in Brooklyn, mostly in Flatbush. If I were to threaten Justice Ginsberg in the same way you threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, I would be facing what Chuck should be facing. Not censure, but jail.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., may still face consequences from his colleagues after facing criticism from conservatives and liberals alike for remarks he directed towards Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at an abortion rights rally last week that some have considered threatening.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has continued to call for Schumer to be censured after introducing a resolution in the Senate to do just that. And dozens of well-known conservative leaders signed a letter Monday adding their voices to the calls.
GOP SENATORS CALL FOR CENSURING SCHUMER OVER SUPREME COURT COMMENTS
“Of course Schumer’s attacks were ‘inappropriate’ and ‘wrong’! He should be CENSURED,” Hawley tweeted Friday, in response to a video of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who stated that Schumer’s remarks sounded “like a physical threat.”Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure | Fox News
George Conway is no fan of the President. It would be fair to say he despises Donald Trump as much as Schumer. But Conway isn’t deaf. And neither are the American People. In a way, I am less bothered by Schumer’s statement than by his refusal to disavow it. On the steps of the Supreme Court, at a political rally where emotion is running high, it is easy to blurt out something stupid and irresponsible. This is particularly true with Schumer, who rarely utters a word in public without a script in front of him. But refusing to own up to it and admit that he blew it is inexcusable and makes one wonder about his original intent.
George Conway, the anti-Trump husband of Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, admonished Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for his comments this week allegedly threatening two Supreme Court justices, saying that his Thursday apology “isn’t enough.”
In a Washington Post op-ed, Conway broadly condemned Schumer’s comments a day earlier outside the court building. Schumer was at an abortion rally and said Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had “released the whirlwind” and would “pay the price.”
“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he said.
Conway also panned Trump’s previous comments undermining members of the federal judiciary while asking Schumer and all federal officials to do better.
“Those were threats, pure and simple,” Conway said of Schumer’s comments, before turning to what he sees as a solution to the problem.George Conway admonishes Schumer over Supreme Court comments, says apology ‘isn’t enough’ | Fox News
OK, this was not a paraphrase. We didn’t have an Adam Schiff moment and make this up out of whole cloth to make it say what we wanted it to say. This is the unedited video of what the democratic Senate Majority Leader said on the steps of the Capitol yesterday. It is disgusting and it shows just how far off the cliff the leftists have pushed the Democratic Party.
A fired-up Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., appeared to issue a vague warning toward Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, during a rally held as the court heard arguments in a high-profile abortion case. At the rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer noted that the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, is the first “major” abortion case since President Trump’s court picks have been on the bench. The dispute, dealing with restrictions over who can perform abortions, involves a Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016, before either Trump justice was on the Supreme Court and before conservatives held a 5-4 majority. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer warned. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”Schumer unloads on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh at abortion rights rally: ‘You will pay the price!’ | Fox News
I long for the days when we had a press that had standards and practices that would be concerned with truth and fairness. The only standard they seem to have now is based on yellow journalism.
(Image courtesy Pixabay)
The briefs are flooding in at the U.S. Supreme Court in a case in which the justices are being asked to reverse a Philadelphia policy that critics say is causing “grave harm” to children. The policy bars faith-based foster-care agencies from helping needy children, points out a brief from 44 members of Congress asking the court to review a lawsuit against the city brought by Catholic Social Services.
“Religiously motivated providers and parents have played a critical role in filling this need for centuries from coast to coast, and to drive them out ignores the critical need and the grave harm to children that would be caused by their loss,” the lawmakers told the court.
In another brief, officials from 10 states argued that working “with a diverse coalition of child-placing agencies provides better services to children in foster care and the potential parents eager to care for them.”
As WND reported, the city ordered Catholic Social Services to change its religious doctrine if it wanted to continue placing foster children as it had for a century.
The city’s “nondiscrimination” policy requires any partner agency to place children with same-sex couples.
Can someone tell me how a policy that to force a religious organization to change its core beliefs to bring it into line with secularists can even jokingly be referred to as “non-discrimination?”
Source: Major U.S. city bans Christian agencies from helping kids – WND