WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face senators’ questions over her approach to health care, legal precedent and even the presidential election during a second day of confirmation hearings on track to lock in a conservative court majority for years to come.
Let’s talk about politics, Lindsay: Particularly, democracy and dictatorship in a republic. To your, Lindsay Graham’s point of view, Obamacare has been a disaster for South Carolina. Therefore, to indulge your point of view, you would deny your constituents whom you supposedly represent, coverage during unemployment and in the case of preexisting condition. Taking no notice of what your constituents’ points of view may be. You, Lindsay, favor a dictatorial politic that doesn’t belong in the United States at all, let alone in the Senate or on the Supreme Court.
wow
linny is on a roll this morning.
spent the first part campaigning for his seat.
linny is in Me me me me me mode.
changing channel the rest of it is reruns
Quickly got my fill of it too, and switched the TV off altogether
Is it naive to think that, after being sworn in, on a Bible no doubt, she’ll answer all questions truthfully?
That’s the book that demands unquestioning faith in things like immaculate conception. Yes, I think it naive.
Trump called the ACA a jobs killer. But he claims he was so good for the economy, even while the ACA was in effect. Go figure. Krugman in the Nytimes today says they want to squash Obamacare because people will see the good it’s doing and ask for more.
Old Linz was particularly flamboyant, wasn’t he?
We need to see his medical records. He’s gotta be on something.
That popularity and desire for more may be what Graham considers a disaster. Can’t know for sure, since he didn’t provide any reason other than it’s just his personal point of view.
Republicans need to look into those Bachman- crazy eyes and think long and hard about this incredible opportunity to own the libs.
Ask her if she thinks Roe (or Griswold, for that matter) was “correctly decided"–NOT if she thinks they’re "settled law” (implying (but not guaranteeing) that she thinks they’re precedents worthy of maintaining)!
And if not, why not?
(Plessy v. Ferguson was “settled law”, right up until Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka KS overturned it!)