5 Reasons Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation
Is Entirely Legitimate
PJ Media,
by
Tyler O'Neal
Original Article
Posted By: FlyRight,
10/27/2020 4:09:45 AM
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Monday. Democrats have argued that the process was illegitimate, either because it took place during a global pandemic or because it took place as Election Day drew near or because the Senate refused to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016.On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) effectively rebutted these arguments, and he had previously rebutted one more.
Here are 5 reasons Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation was entirely legitimate.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
udanja99 10/27/2020 6:54:00 AM (No. 585804)
As to #3, Mark Levin last night pointed out that, if you go back far enough, there were a few justices who were confirmed on the same day they were nominated and even more who were confirmed within 2-5 days after their nominations.
And as to #4, you just know that Schumer, if he were running the senate, would confirm a leftist nominee if the leftist president had just lost an election. And he would do it gleefully and with great malice.
I don’t know about you but I’m thoroughly enjoying some Schumer tears this morning - they’re delicious!
31 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Krause 10/27/2020 7:06:03 AM (No. 585818)
Is Schumer assuming that all justices practice judicial activism just because a lot of democrat judges do? Also, let me know when the first person dies because of having Barrett on the SC.
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Hugh Akston 10/27/2020 8:03:25 AM (No. 585880)
Now let's have the states re-petition the Court for emergency hearings regarding the counting of ballots for days after the election.
13 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 10/27/2020 8:11:28 AM (No. 585888)
Hillary and Chucky Schumer oppose it. THAT is legitimate enough!
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
petrichor 10/27/2020 8:31:25 AM (No. 585913)
It never had anything to do with legitimacy. It's about the Dems having judges who will honor their agenda instead of the constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong.
19 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Catfur27 10/27/2020 8:34:57 AM (No. 585915)
Trump played the SCOTUS nominations brilliantly...he could have nominated Barrett last time...but held that card to play ...anticipating an opening soon by the elderly, ailing, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg ...the dems - who embarrassed themselves with their Kavanaugh tantrum - could not afford to hold another circus so close to Election Day.... they had no way to block Barrett
28 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
swarfer 10/27/2020 8:43:11 AM (No. 585923)
The Constitution states the President nominates, the Senate confirms. This is exactly what was done. The Constitution only authorizes quorums, not super quorums which committees establish through “gentleman’s” agreements. These have no legal basis and are simply a means of allowing legislators an excuse for not moving legislation forward.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 10/27/2020 8:46:21 AM (No. 585924)
Sixth reason - we expect the dims to challenge the election results in court. The matter will be placed in the hands of the SCOTUS. Having nine Justices prevents a tie vote and prevents Roberts from being the wild card.
13 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
papasparky 10/27/2020 8:48:36 AM (No. 585926)
"5 Reasons Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Is Entirely Legitimate -- The Demo-Rats need to read this. "
This statement makes one very large but totally inaccurate assumption --that being, Democrats know how to read!! '
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
starboard 10/27/2020 8:55:49 AM (No. 585934)
#9 My thoughts exactly. Democrats don't read. They are given their talking points and they repeat them.
10 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
rikkitikki 10/27/2020 9:07:00 AM (No. 585957)
Reason #6: democrats have objected that since RBG was liberal and activist, she should be replaced with a like-minded judge to keep the current balance on the court.
Fact is that RBG herself replaced a fairly conservative justice, Byron White, who was one of two dissenting votes on Roe v. Wade.
ACB's appointment merely undoes the mistake that was made in choosing RBG.
11 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Zigrid 10/27/2020 10:48:36 AM (No. 586121)
Schummer was playing politics with the process... who was he playing to... I don't know... but it was pathetic and self serving....poor New Yorkers... their representatives are all political hacks.... Cuomo and deblasio and schummer... not one Constitutionalist among them ....no wonder people are fleeing New York....
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
RayLRiv 10/27/2020 10:49:19 AM (No. 586124)
"Ruth Buzzi Ginzburg…" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
901AtTheRiver 10/27/2020 1:54:12 PM (No. 586374)
The democrats appear to gloss over the point that Ruth B. Ginsberg had every opportunity to be replaced by a democrat president and enjoy a nice retirement.
4 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "FlyRight"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)