I missed the beginning of Barrett hearing Q&A

[Jersey mike]

What is the time frame for each Q/A session, how much time is allowed for each senator?

Thanks

[carolinarider09]

I heard 30 minutes maybe followed up, after all have done their 30 minutes, another 20 minutes. 

If that is the case, its 50 minutes for each senator. 

Lindsey Graham just finished his part and it was less than 30 minutes. 

(my wife is watching I try to stay away from watching live). 

[Patrick]

I find this as bad as the debates. These senators are just rambling on and on and on.

[old2soon]

I find this as bad as the debates. These senators are just rambling on and on and on.

                     I M H O the ONLY thing they can do And Should THAT ramblin be the actual case Ther ARE Indeed grossly over paid. Apologies fer the tangent. RIDE SAFE.

[cookiedough]

I find this as bad as the debates. These senators are just rambling on and on and on.

you expected anything different?    and YES, grossly overpaid.  Not too many people I can think of that are worth over 100K per year to be honest.

[Willow]

I've watched some.  The opening statements were indeed similar to the so called debates.  I have been, however, pleased with the respect shown in the questioning of judge Barrett by most of the Democrat Senators.

I am very, very impressed by the responses given by Amy Coney Barrett.

[f6john]

 Without a doubt the Senators have met their match in Judge Barrett. I think even RBG would be pleased.

[Jersey mike]

I've watched some.  The opening statements were indeed similar to the so called debates.  I have been, however, pleased with the respect shown in the questioning of judge Barrett by most of the Democrat Senators.

I am very, very impressed by the responses given by Amy Coney Barrett.

She has shown an incredible amount of restraint. She is obviously the smartest person in that room.

She appears to be a perfect choice for the court and will fulfill her duties with incredible thought.

[Jersey mike]

Without a doubt the Senators have met their match in Judge Barrett. I think even RBG would be pleased.

Extremely professional in her posture, her lack of facial expressions, her listening to what each Senator is asking no matter how some are round about calling her a pawn and to some extent a liar.

Her responses have been even toned and with conviction. Very knowledgeable. Impressive.

[Jess from VA]

After hours of answering questions on her legal philosophy and recalling her own judgments and those of other courts, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., asked Barrett about how she prepared.  You know most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us,” Cornyn said. “Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?”



Priceless.    (It good to be the smartest one in the room)

[Serk]

She does have 7 kids, I think she's quite used to answering inane questions from bumbling toddlers all day long...

[Willow]

She does have 7 kids, I think she's quite used to answering inane questions from bumbling toddlers all day long...   

I have a suspicion that even her toddlers were smarter and more honest than some of the questioners.   

(Remember that smart is developed while intellect is genetically acquired.)    

[Oss]

When questioned by Feinstein she channeled RBG

Using a quote about why she would not speak further

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)


yup, the person being deposed is the top of the class.  It is up the Congress to get up and make some laws not SCOTUS

[Jess from VA]

If you have some time to do a little reading, here's an interesting and well written 2017 Notre Dame law (book) review article by Amy Coney Barrett on the role of federal courts (and judges) and separation of powers in our constitutional republic.  

The D's tried to use it against her in the hearing, since she (very justifiably) criticized Chief Justice Roberts in the 5-4 Sebelius decision to uphold the Obamacare individual mandate which punished people for not getting insurance with a money penalty...... by calling it a tax to save the legislation from being ruled patently unconstitutional.

(PDF)  https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&ontext=law_faculty_scholarship

I like everything about this woman for the Supreme Court.

 

[Reb]

Things were going incredibly well..... Until the water head senator from Hawaii went off on a tangent in regards to asking ACB is she ever sexually assaulted anyone. Then proceeded to complain about her use of the term "sexual preference" 

[MarkT]

Things were going incredibly well..... Until the water head senator from Hawaii went off on a tangent in regards to asking ACB is she ever sexually assaulted anyone. Then proceeded to complain about her use of the term "sexual preference" 

That was incredible.  I couldn't believe my ears.  Are you $hitting me? The dingbat doesn't belong in the same room.  How totally inappropriate.  That's the best she can do?

[Jersey mike]

Amy Klobuchar responding about what a Super Precedent is insinuates she believed she would be nominated to Supreme Court.


3:16 total....1 minute to exchange I’m referring.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlchBfW036s

[f6john]

Things were going incredibly well..... Until the water head senator from Hawaii went off on a tangent in regards to asking ACB is she ever sexually assaulted anyone. Then proceeded to complain about her use of the term "sexual preference" 

That was incredible.  I couldn't believe my ears.  Are you $hitting me? The dingbat doesn't belong in the same room.  How totally inappropriate.  That's the best she can do?

I agree for sure. I can only imagine the Democrats are trying to rattle Judge Barrett or rattle her demeanor. Were they trying to set a precedent for asking sexual behavior questions after the display they put on in the Cavanaugh hearings? This has got to be a bitter pill for the Democrats to swallow as the inevitable appointment draws near.

[Jersey mike]

Things were going incredibly well..... Until the water head senator from Hawaii went off on a tangent in regards to asking ACB is she ever sexually assaulted anyone. Then proceeded to complain about her use of the term "sexual preference" 

That was incredible.  I couldn't believe my ears.  Are you $hitting me? The dingbat doesn't belong in the same room.  How totally inappropriate.  That's the best she can do?

I agree for sure. I can only imagine the Democrats are trying to rattle Judge Barrett or rattle her demeanor. Were they trying to set a precedent for asking sexual behavior questions after the display they put on in the Cavanaugh hearings? This has got to be a bitter pill for the Democrats to swallow as the inevitable appointment draws near.

Tomorrow there will be witnesses both pro and con. Should be intriguing.

[Serk]

Newspeak is here.

A few days ago, Merriam Webster had the following definition for the word 'preference':



Last night they quickly updated it to meet Newspeak standards:



Remember comrades, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

[Willow]

Newspeak is here.

A few days ago, Merriam Webster had the following definition for the word 'preference': ... 

It appears the culture at large and liberal Congress members in particular are in a push to define sexual behavior not as a choice at any level but an ingrained immutable trait.  One must be careful starting down this slippery slope.  Once we accept that homosexual behavior is  ingrained, immutable and therefore should be accepted without any consideration of choice we expose ourselves to the arguments that pedophilia, philandery, and bestiality must also be immutable traits.  I don't think we want o be led there.  Let's not even consider men that are driven to rape and or the murder of sexual victims.

Behavior at any level my be heavily influenced by genetic or environmental input but ultimately almost all behavior is a matter of choice.  I say almost because I'm not certain that breathing can be a choice. 

[Serk]

we expose ourselves to the arguments that pedophilia, philandery, and bestiality must also be immutable traits. 

That's offensive... You're supposed to use the Newspeak term MAP, or Minor-Attracted Person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-attracted_person

[Rams]

I say almost because I'm not certain that breathing can be a choice.  

Well Heck Yeah, Shakespeare said it long ago, "To Breath or Not to Breath, that be the question."   Or something like that.  
My understanding from a friend is that Rush Limbaugh just gave her a new name, Amy "Grin and" Barret.   

Rams

[Rams]

I can only imagine the Democrats are trying to rattle Judge Barrett or rattle her demeanor.

This jurist, wife, and mother of seven is more intelligent than 90% of those questioning her.   If she can handle her career, her marriage and seven kids, there is no way those idiots will rattle her.   She has shown amazing intellect. grace and patience in her responses.   Some of these legislators don't deserve to be in the same room, much less voting on her nomination.

I'm amazed that some of these Senators ever got elected.

Rams

[Bighead]

I can only imagine the Democrats are trying to rattle Judge Barrett or rattle her demeanor.

This jurist, wife, and mother of seven is more intelligent than 90% of those questioning her.   If she can handle her career, her marriage and seven kids, there is no way those idiots will rattle her.   She has shown amazing intellect. grace and patience in her responses.   Some of these legislators don't deserve to be in the same room, much less voting on her nomination.

I'm amazed that some of these Senators ever got elected.

Rams

90% ?  You gotta be kidding it is more like 99.9999%

[scooperhsd]

Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley (both R) are lawyers and asked good, tough, but fair questions, AND gave ACB plenty of time to answer and if necessary, to explain her answers. I'd venture to say the D's on the committee (even the ones with a JD degree) didn't do anything like that. Klobochar and Harris were defintely out for whatever blood they could extract.

My prediction - recommendation will be approved along partylines. Followed by the whole Senate the same way. I suppose they could shock us and actually have some Senators vote on merit instead of partyline.

[old2soon]

I can only imagine the Democrats are trying to rattle Judge Barrett or rattle her demeanor.

This jurist, wife, and mother of seven is more intelligent than 90% of those questioning her.   If she can handle her career, her marriage and seven kids, there is no way those idiots will rattle her.   She has shown amazing intellect. grace and patience in her responses.   Some of these legislators don't deserve to be in the same room, much less voting on her nomination.

I'm amazed that some of these Senators ever got elected.

Rams

                 From what I've seen of some of these elected officials I M H O the folks that Keep on Reelecting these people back into office either suffer from cranial rectal inversion or the folks reelecting them are actually dead. I've tried to arrive at another conclusion on this but at this stage I'm baffled. And the questioners-I'll stop here before I git in trouble Again. RIDE SAFE.

[Jersey mike]

Newspeak is here.

A few days ago, Merriam Webster had the following definition for the word 'preference':



Last night they quickly updated it to meet Newspeak standards:



Remember comrades, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

I watched the exchange between Hirono and Barrett regarding the use of that phrase. Hirono claimed it was NOW and offensive description. I missed when (at what point in time...year) Judge Barrett used that phrase. I, having heard many different ways through the years in which the people of that community have referred to their way of life have used different terms and phrases in their development in societyand explanation of lifestyle.

To chastise a phrase or description which may have been acceptable in the past and apply current language standards and practice is in and of itself wrong. Hirono was just out to score points.

[Jess from VA]

Preference vs hard wire (born that way) is crap.

Hard wire may be true for some, but preference is a voluntary, elected, learned choice my many.

Just trying to mainstream abnormality.... by the abnormals (and their elected cheerleaders). 

But your honor, I was just a natural born killer, rapist, criminal, pervert.  Guilty.

You'll notice most of the D's are just out to hear themselves talk, score with their base voters, and muddy the nominee the best they can.  They don't waste time with many actual questions since the answers get them nowhere (they want to go).  Mostly, they shame themselves.

[Jersey mike]

Preference vs hard wire (born that way) is crap.

Hard wire may be true for some, but preference is a voluntary, elected, learned choice my many.

Just trying to mainstream abnormality.... by the abnormals (and their elected cheerleaders). 

But your honor, I was just a natural born killer, rapist, criminal, pervert.  Guilty.

You'll notice most of the D's are just out to hear themselves talk, score with their base voters, and muddy the nominee the best they can.  They don't waste time with many actual questions since the answers get them nowhere (they want to go).  Mostly, they shame themselves.

There must have been an approved talking point syllabus distributed for the Democrats because they never broke from it whereas the Republicans were determined to allow AC Barrett to discuss the law and give insight into her legal experiences and expertise. Yes they threw a few softball questions in as well as allowed her to elaborate on her family life but the Democrats just tried to zero in on some false narratives and outright lies...boldface lies, twisted rhetoric, and complete misrepresentation of legal facts which Judge Barrett thoroughly explained in detail.

They continuously asked questions which they knew were in the scope of questions ACB was restricted from answering and labeled her as uncooperative which the media jumped on as refusals to answer questions without the media’s explanation of the rules of judicial restraint she is obligated to uphold.


As far as the ACA goes, the Democrats must be sweating bullets because they (presumably must) know the ACA has legal faults in it.

[Rams]

Then proceeded to complain about her use of the term "sexual preference"  

This started a discussion between my wife and myself, she (being much more "liberal" than myself) with a few lesbian friends was shocked that the word preference was now a derogatory term when combined with sexual.   So, she (and I) have been trying to figure out what or how one is to phrase such a "situation" and be politically/socially correct.  

This isn't nearly as big a deal to me as it is to her (I call a spade a spade) but, together we have yet to figure this one out.   I mean really, who knew................  The fact that Merriam-Webster changed their definition immediately says something also.

Rams

[scooperhsd]

I too call a spade a spade, and I will never apologize about offending someone about my "supposed ignorance" of their social status. You will get back what you send to me - respect gets respect.

[Oss]

Imagine my surprise when people chose to become offended at the expression
Chinese cooties.

Neither racist nor ethnic slur

You can say German Measles, Rocky Mountain Spotted fever, Lyme disease, Ebola, Hong Kong Flu but not Chinese virus or cooties.

Diseases are named for where they come from

Then when I call it CCP virus (Chinese Commie Party) the left also loses its mind.

My many chinese clients are not offended, In fact they use CCP virus almost exclusivelty being totally anti communist  No sane person who left a communist or socialist society wants to go back there

After all Mao killed over 60 million in the great leap forward and executes almost 100000 or more yearly who practice their Moslem or other beliefs. Many of the body parts going for their lucrative organ harvesting program    Yeah I dont trust that government under the CCP

[Willow]

I've watched a fair amount of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.

The opposition seems to be often concentrating on the benefits of legislation that they fear will be overturned.  My understanding is that role of the judicial branch is limited to determining whether or not a challenged legislation meets legality under existing law including the U.S. Constitution.  Considering whether the legislation is beneficial or harmful is not their job.

Some of the witnesses have attacked the judge's position as an originalist indicating that in their view the Constitution as written is simply not applicable in today's world.  They, therefore, insist upon viewing the Constitution as an evolving document.  Actually the formers of the Constitution gave room for the document to evolve but that evolution (changing) is to be done by the legislation branch or the states, not by the judicial branch of the government.

I am amazed at how well certain senators are able to lie with a straight face while accusing the opposition of lying.   

[Jess from VA]

As far as the ACA goes, the Democrats must be sweating bullets because they (presumably must) know the ACA has legal faults in it.

That's the understatement of the month.

ACA was/is a large bag of excrement.

I do not want socialized medicine (or medicare for all) ever, but if both sides could come up with something that was actually affordable, reasonable, helpful, and not 20 thousand pages (half of them taxes and penalties), and everyone could actually read it before voting, I'd be willing to listen.  

[Rams]

I've watched a fair amount of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.

SNIP

I am amazed at how well certain senators are able to lie with a straight face while accusing the opposition of lying.    

Carl,
While I am in agreement that the Constitution has a formula for change already present, that doesn't seem to fit some folks agenda.   Having said that, I have a suggestion.

Merriam Webster seems to be willing to make changes based solely on this hearing.   May I suggest you contact them and consult by giving them what is bolded and underlined as a possible definition addition to the noun politician.   I feel certain that description qualifies.  

Rams

[scooperhsd]

]

As far as the ACA goes, the Democrats must be sweating bullets because they (presumably must) know the ACA has legal faults in it.

That's the understatement of the month.

ACA was/is a large bag of excrement.

I do not want socialized medicine (or medicare for all) ever, but if both sides could come up with something that was actually affordable, reasonable, helpful, and not 20 thousand pages (half of them taxes and penalties), and everyone could actually read it before voting, I'd be willing to listen.  

100% agree. If Congress at the time of passing that Act would have said "WHOA - we need to read , digest and discuss this before voting on it" it probably wouldn't be the turkey it turned into. NO LEGISLATION ( short of Declaration of War) is so important that it must be enacted immediately without having a chance to read it and discuss it before voting on it.

[Jersey mike]

]

As far as the ACA goes, the Democrats must be sweating bullets because they (presumably must) know the ACA has legal faults in it.

That's the understatement of the month.

ACA was/is a large bag of excrement.

I do not want socialized medicine (or medicare for all) ever, but if both sides could come up with something that was actually affordable, reasonable, helpful, and not 20 thousand pages (half of them taxes and penalties), and everyone could actually read it before voting, I'd be willing to listen.  

100% agree. If Congress at the time of passing that Act would have said "WHOA - we need to read , digest and discuss this before voting on it" it probably wouldn't be the turkey it turned into. NO LEGISLATION ( short of Declaration of War) is so important that it must be enacted immediately without having a chance to read it and discuss it before voting on it.

If anyone remembers and doesn’t mind, can you refresh my memory on how it was passed. I seem to remember it was passed in the middle of the night, possibly without Republicans present in the Senate to vote or raise objections.