4652
Comments (275)
sorted by:
209
thehacker4channel 209 points ago +216 / -7

Not my first choice but I’ll stand behind Trump’s decision. Don’t Roberts us, ACB.

89
americanzoomer 89 points ago +101 / -12

everyone’s saying she’s Robert’s 2.0, but in reality she’s Scalia 2.0

73
RegularAmerican 73 points ago +79 / -6

I was reluctant to accept her because I heard she made a bad ruling regarding the lockdowns. And because I feel like these lockdowns are the most unconstitutional thing ever done accept for slavery.

32
ChokingOnARedpill 32 points ago +33 / -1

CNN: Pro Trump site claims freeing the slaves was unconstitutional

17
murderhornet 17 points ago +17 / -0

Seth Rich and Scalia will be walking out from behind the curtain together.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
20
Shampagnepapi 20 points ago +27 / -7

I mean, didn’t she..?

I do get JR2 vibes from her, but I trust Trump. I know an older Cuban would be 100% a solid pick, but we’ll see about ACB in time.

Can’t be worse than RBG at least

7
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 7 points ago +9 / -2

Can you be more specific on what you mean by “vibes”? And why?

What about ACB’s career specifically gives you “John Roberts vibes”

10
Shampagnepapi 10 points ago +21 / -11

Supporting Vaccines and lockdowns

Big no no.

14
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 14 points ago +21 / -7

Can you show me or provide the source and links and an explanation where she currently supports lockdowns and mandatory vaccines ?

Also, isn’t the president himself pretty supportive of w Covid vaccine? He’s constantly mentioning it in a positive light and gushing graces and positive words on those working on it. Saying how it will be available soon and for all Americans who choose to want one. Continues to say the left hates that he’s doing so well with ushering in a vaccine so quickly.

Do you not support President Trump either?

44
Shampagnepapi 44 points ago +47 / -3

You can support the president without supporting the vaccine lol.

You don’t have to agree 100%, we’re not leftists.

... continue reading thread?
7
Imransgarage 7 points ago +7 / -0

Wtf is this? He’s made zero comments about infringing on choice, the opposite in fact.

6
hkermit 6 points ago +8 / -2

That's 1D chess thinking.

Being this aggressive and delivering so rapidly in exactly what they've been demanding requires them to now take a contrarian position to the vaccine, at least until the election. Trump green gets to play it as it comes - no need to mandate the vaccine, but available to those that want it, he gets to nullify an argument from the left, his performance with the virus.

... continue reading thread?
8
JuicyfearsMAGA 8 points ago +8 / -0

Literally every mainstream politician supported vaccines, until Trump announced the covid vaccine may be coming soon, then the Dems, who want to force vaccinations on everyone, became anti vaxx.

Trump is supporting the vaccine but not forcing it, and it would be political suicide for his presidency to be anti vaccine in his rhetoric when so many people are brainwashed into thinking the vaccine is the key to opening

-7
EvanOnTheFly -7 points ago +9 / -16

So, typical average female.

9
Shampagnepapi 9 points ago +13 / -4

Many many females who do not support lockdowns and a vaccine for a fake virus

Not good enough.

... continue reading thread?
-6
Italians_Invented_2A -6 points ago +7 / -13

She has international adoption just like Roberts.

And from a third world country where corruption is endemic and Hillary foundation operated.

Not to mention that only a Marxist would adopt black children.

I fear she's going to be worse than Roberts. She's probably a Democrat plant.

1
RolandDelacroix 1 point ago +1 / -0

These are actually good points. There may be levers in her background, and a good Catholic takes care of the abandoned children in his own eye before importing the spec from another country. Smacks of the kind of virtue signalling typical from the weak Catholics who are destroying the church now.

BUT even another Roberts is better than an RBG or whoever Hillary would have nominated. Iff Trump gets 5-6 picks, maybe conservatives have a good shot at eeking out a 5-4 win most of the time.

9
Libertysheimdall1 9 points ago +10 / -1

I don’t know what’s in her heart. And I cannot read her mind. But the reporting on that is fake news. I will copy here much of a prior post about it. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it.

Remember that good judges address only arguments brought to them. In our system, they do not go fishing for their own (incidentally that’s why Sullivan is so wrong on Flynn).

So the ruling is limited to the arguments made. The plaintiffs did not make broad arguments that lockdowns are unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.

The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. That is, the complaint was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.

The court rejected that argument. First of all the court stated it was afraid that holding the orders wrongful for being unequal (religion better than other speech activity) would mean the IL governor could just fix the problem by further restricting religion, instead of looser rules for everything else. The judges hated that idea.

But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”

Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”

1
riffology 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for posting this. Based on this, it does sound like she has a constitutional jurisprudence and was ruling based on the specific arguments of the case. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I feel about the pick. How many times have we seen insane rulings that take into account items not even mentioned in the case arguments?

3
JuicyfearsMAGA 3 points ago +4 / -1

That really is a stain on her career so far. Ideally it'll be the only major one and I hope she can follow Scalias legacy

1
deleted 1 point ago +5 / -4
8
RegularAmerican 8 points ago +9 / -1

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html

It was decided on September 3rd. They began hearings August 11th 2020. She also cited the 1905 jacobson decision. She's pro forced innoculation.

-1
hkermit -1 points ago +7 / -8

I like the Trump win on this, but with that ruling I'm out.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
Master_Wyatt_Gurp 3 points ago +5 / -2

Don't purity spiral. Don't be THAT guy. Who would you have chosen instead? And i mean specifically by name, not just a concept of a person.

7
Marshall 7 points ago +7 / -0

Allison Rushing.

4
zestygobble 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lagoa

1
EagleI 1 point ago +3 / -2

It looks like this case was brought before three circuit judges, including Barrett. How do we know what her opinion is from theirs? I searched the doc for her name and only found it at the top.

3
article10ECHR 3 points ago +3 / -0

How do we know what her opinion is from theirs?

Because she didn't file a dissenting opinion?

2
The-Trumpologist 2 points ago +3 / -1

Did you know Kavanaugh also refused to take the case up (cuz he agreed)

But I'll bite, what exactly do you think the ruling said?

7
RegularAmerican 7 points ago +7 / -0

I didn't read the whole thing there is like 22 pages. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html

Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.

2
The-Trumpologist 2 points ago +3 / -1

Oh I thought you meant the lock down case

The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.

Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal

That' imo is a fair ruling.

As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy

9
Marshall 9 points ago +10 / -1

I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.

3
RabidZoo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Putting RFID chips in people would be the "mark of the beast". He's probably part of the reason why Africans kill healthcare workers in their country. They force vaccines on their families and it ends up killing them.

0
Italians_Invented_2A 0 points ago +2 / -2

One could be in favor of mandatory vaccination in principle....

But absolutely not for a new unproven vaccine for a disease that has such a low death rate!!

0
IntersectionalXhe 0 points ago +1 / -1

You can’t get your lady balls waxed without a vaccine.

0
daveinpublic 0 points ago +1 / -1

Who said anything about mandatory vaccines?

... continue reading thread?
2
RegularAmerican 2 points ago +3 / -1

My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.

-4
The-Trumpologist -4 points ago +3 / -7

As someone who got COVID19, this isn't a fun illness to get. That's all I'll really say. A vaccine is a godsend

... continue reading thread?
1
salvecitizen 1 point ago +2 / -1

How did she fail to do her job well in that instance?

Her job, of course, is not to be pro- or anti-lockdown, but to rule on the law and the Constitution as written.

2
RegularAmerican 2 points ago +2 / -0

I guess it's because the 3 judge panel or whatever made a pretty poor ruling on their unconstitutional lockdown in the 7th circuit case.

9
Throwingway22 9 points ago +18 / -9

Whether she is Roberts or not is yet to be seen, but her record says she's no Scalia.

3
usuck911 3 points ago +5 / -2

Agree, she was sold to Trump as someone who worked under Scalia so must be same as having Scalia.

Trump or advisers did not bother to dig deeper in to her past rulings?

9
Master_Wyatt_Gurp 9 points ago +12 / -3

It's disinfo. People are believing rumormilling likely started by those in opposition to her and seeded lies into our movement.

Easy people. There is literally nothing to call her a Roberts on. Nothing. IF that changes, then it changes. So far? No.

2
americanzoomer 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yep.

-3
Italians_Invented_2A -3 points ago +2 / -5

International adoption

1
Smartalex22 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did she do it through Hilary's people?

1
Italians_Invented_2A 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who knows? Maybe, maybe not.

But in third world countries everything works with corruption and bribes.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't any shady deal that the Democrats can uncover. Or already have.

5
kekkk 5 points ago +5 / -0

Still better than whoever Hillary would've replaced RBG with.

3
Brave1884 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’m more concerned senate republicans are going to argue over this and cause a scene right before the election. Democrats will read out her Scalia comments and vote no pretty quietly hoping the RINOs ruin it for us. Not getting her confirmed after Trump nominated her while we have the numbers would truly be fucking disgraceful

2
Italians_Invented_2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

Perhaps Trump could put forward a second nomination and have that one nominated in record time

1
SigSeikoSpyderco 1 point ago +2 / -1

They have the votes. This will move along fine.

-4
deleted -4 points ago +4 / -8
12
magafornian 12 points ago +13 / -1

The first quote is from an opinion piece from a commentator, not a CNN writer. It says this right at the top of the opinion: "Editor's note: Commentators weigh in on President Donald Trump's selection of Amy Coney Barrett. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the authors." -- so they are not agreeing with it.

The second is just simply a statement of fact. I don't see anything in favor of her there. It's literally just saying what she is.

So I don't see the praise here. What am I missing?

12
UPplNoALotBoutTrucks 12 points ago +13 / -1

You're not missing anything, and I'm not seeing any good evidence that appointing Barrett was the wrong decision. Let's trust Trump's judgement on this one. If she truly is part of the Deep State she will expose herself in time.

20
magafornian 20 points ago +21 / -1 (edited)

Thanks, pede. I feel like I've been taking crazy pills all day. I've seen more unsupported accusations against her today than I can handle. "I hate her." "Why?" "Because I think she takes orders from the Vatican." "Ummmm...What are you basing that on?" "She's Catholic!" "Ohhhh yes, well that proves it then." (and so many other ridiculous unfounded allegations, ad nauseam)

I feel like I'm on Reddit reading leftist rants. It's very un-Trumpian. We're winners. Winners don't behave like this.

14
electioninfection 14 points ago +14 / -0

Clarence Thomas and Scalia are both Catholic and they are the strongest Constitutionalists on the SCJ. That's why I don't understand the anti-Catholic animus.

10
Robbybobbyrobbob 10 points ago +11 / -1

It's been going on lately around here on several topics -- something fucky is going on.

4
wrathofdog 4 points ago +6 / -2

If she truly is part of the Deep State she will expose herself in time.

Is that supposed to be reassuring?

2
SpezIsDead 2 points ago +3 / -1

Tom Cotton, I don't give a shit about gender, I want the man NYT purged itself over. I want NYT to be forced to publish his essays.

4
timetrap 4 points ago +5 / -1

haha. One quote was from an opinion piece. the other wasn't praise.

-8
deleted -8 points ago +1 / -9
2
SpezIsDead 2 points ago +3 / -1

doubt

0
OhLollyLollyPop 0 points ago +1 / -1

We will see.

0
deleted 0 points ago +5 / -5
5
EagleI 5 points ago +6 / -1

Deep state defeated in two years is laughable. It will take decades to root out the depths of evil in our government. See Epstein case for details.

4
Darkheartisland 4 points ago +4 / -0

I say fire everyone and then have a job fair for the 25% of jobs that will remain. No one that has ever lived in DC should be eligible to be hired.

3
Italians_Invented_2A 3 points ago +3 / -0

This. It would have been do fucking easy.

Did you work under Obama? If yes, then you're fired.

Trump could have just hired random people from this forum and it would have been better.

0
RabidZoo 0 points ago +1 / -1

We'll see. You have inside info?

10
Anaconda 10 points ago +14 / -4 (edited)

fair enough. i think it is appropriate to always say "don't roberts/kennedy/o'connor/warren/blackmun/souter/stevens/brennan us, ACB"

10
Kek_Johnson 10 points ago +11 / -1

If you get a chance check out "The Federalist Society"...it'll make more sense. The Wikipedia page hasn't been leftyfied yet. Barrett was a member off and on for a few years the past few decades.

7
15
PromiseImNotASpook 15 points ago +15 / -0

I like how advocating that the law follow the constitution is considered “moving the judiciary to the right.”

Fucking Whacko world.

7
ChokingOnARedpill 7 points ago +10 / -3

Lagoa was my first choice....but she might fill Breyers spot lol

24
squarkle_bargle 24 points ago +25 / -1

Lagoa was appointed by Jeb Bush and had the support of 20+ Senate Democrats during confirmation. She also conveniently has almost zero judicial history to look over...

15
JohnyBlaze99 15 points ago +15 / -0

This exactly, Barrett was the logical choice. It's a great pick.

4
ChokingOnARedpill 4 points ago +5 / -1

Fair enough.

4
PromiseImNotASpook 4 points ago +6 / -2

Dont know much about her, have heard some good things but she just kind of stands out like a diversity pick to me.

0
OhLollyLollyPop 0 points ago +1 / -1

She has been a law professor at Notre Dame for years and has a long time to contemplate the Constitution.

9
SiBear117 9 points ago +9 / -0

Anyone praised by Rubio and Jeb is a hard pass NO!

1
Seanp12 1 point ago +2 / -1

That rules out basically everyone in Florida prior to Rick Scott's election to the governorship, and a lot of people after that.

1
SiBear117 1 point ago +1 / -0

And?

-1
Seanp12 -1 points ago +1 / -2

And that means that you've eliminated basically everybody with any kind of serious judicial record from that state. And if you repeat the same basic standard (i.e. anybody RINOs ever liked) across the nation, you've eliminated all of them, too. The Trump revolution is not even four years old.

4
yacsb 4 points ago +5 / -1

I dont think we have to worry. She's against Obamacare and of course abortion. Dems hate her and are mad already. They knew it was gonna be here weeks ago, and Don Lemon was on CNN talking about getting rid of the electoral college and adding puerto rico as a state LOL They are TERRIFIED. She won't Roberts us.

3
FluffiPuff 3 points ago +3 / -0

I love you for saying this. Thank you for setting the tone - we all have so much at stake, but I pray with you that Amy will do Justice Scalia proud.

-12
deleted -12 points ago +17 / -29
45
thehacker4channel 45 points ago +46 / -1

They are. For being Catholic primarily.

44
whippeat 44 points ago +46 / -2

They are. All the media are saying she is dangerous, a religious nutter etc.

Pelosi et al need to be careful. If they savage her for her religion, they alienate a LOT of people. That’s another reason she’s a smart pick.

27
fluffykitten 27 points ago +28 / -1

I want to see her be called a white supremacist with black kids

33
13
SpezIsDead 13 points ago +20 / -7

I'm going to be honest here, that is red flags all over, bail, find someone else. Every public figure who has been adopting foreign 3rd world kids are fucking freaks of nature, not because of the adopting the kids, it's just normal people don't do that shit.

like there aren't American kids in America waiting to be adopted? Name a normal person who is not a freak that has adopted foreign kids since year 1990?

7
WU_HAN_FRU 7 points ago +8 / -1

Michael Jackson.

3
Cacciali_Via 3 points ago +4 / -1

Babies are hard to find and adopt in America. People wanting to adopt them have to jump through lots of hoops and spend lots of money. Adopting a healthy white baby is the rarest of all. The cheapest and most plentiful babies are black.

3
cuckslasher 3 points ago +3 / -0

pretty sure she has plenty of money and connections

-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
... continue reading thread?
1
SpezIsDead 1 point ago +1 / -0

Plenty of black American children waiting to be adopted in the US.

... continue reading thread?
2
Imransgarage 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lol you don’t know any real people? You are referring to celebrities who are a fucked class of people regardless of what the specific is.

1
SpezIsDead 1 point ago +1 / -0

I was counting CEOs and other non-celebrity public figures, but feel free to give an example to prove I'm wrong at any time. You still haven't done that btw.

... continue reading thread?
1
iPertinax 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not just any pundit, the leading 'brain' behind modern critical race theory.

14
libsrcucks 14 points ago +14 / -0

Not to mention they’re from Haiti. So if Clinton foundation ever did go to the Supreme Court they would be destroyed

0
Italians_Invented_2A 0 points ago +2 / -2

Or they'd win because they have dirt on ACB likes they have on Roberts.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
libsrcucks 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah

13
rationalistone 13 points ago +14 / -1

I appreciate that Trump questions a lot of what his advisors tell him, but I fear this is one of the times he shouldn't have listened. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect we have another Chris Wray situation. If the Dems don't use everything, including the kitchen sink, to stop the nomination then I believe we will have our answer. This election will probably be decided in the courts (eventually). If Barret is a Deep State pawn, then Trump will have screwed himself over.

3
usuck911 3 points ago +5 / -2

1000% in agreement and upvote

Trump appointments are his only weakness and the deep state are taking full advantage. And it's so easy for Trump to reverse this weakness by personally performing a deep background research on any potential appointments suggested to him.

2
kekNation 2 points ago +4 / -2

What makes you think she deep state?

She have a college fling with Barr?

2
Brave1884 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

Dems (as in Congress) don’t really care what happens with her. She’s not a terrible choice for them. Her getting appointed makes us look hypocritical to the moderate crowd. Her not getting confirmed will rally the left voters. If they really did “time” RGB death they did a good job for once. McConnel wants this pick to go through in an attempt to kill moral for the left as he’s been polling worse in KY and mail in requests have skyrocketed there. I think they should have just waited till after Election Day to say anything.

5
PawsOfMotion 5 points ago +5 / -0

Fake news media: Hold my light beer

17
MerlynTrump 17 points ago +17 / -0

Yeah, but it shouldn't matter if ACB is a religious nutter since she's replacing Ginsburg who was another religious nutter. Just a different religion (Catholicism in Barrett's case, feminism in Ginsburg's).

13
Anaconda 13 points ago +15 / -2

i think you mean communism in ginsburg's case

5
IncredibleMrE1 5 points ago +6 / -1

Communism feminism, same difference.

4
Saremei 4 points ago +4 / -0

Feminism came from Communism after all.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +4 / -5
5
AmericanMason1 5 points ago +6 / -1 (edited)

Funny you should mention Churchill. You apparently didn't read the entirety of his famous essay. Churchill wouldn't agree with a pissant like you.

"But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire."

-2
deleted -2 points ago +3 / -5
... continue reading thread?
1
endthefed11 1 point ago +3 / -2

Correct. They consider themselves to be members of the tribe apart from the goy. Thus they have massive in group preference that goes unnoticed because of their appearance.

0
WU_HAN_FRU 0 points ago +1 / -1

One of these is a death cult; the other isn’t.

8
MAGA_4EVER 8 points ago +11 / -3

Its very weird because Pelosi is also a staunch known catholic

28
CharethCutestory 28 points ago +30 / -2

So staunch she’s an abortion radical. Catholic Democrats are hypocrites.

10
PandoraBoxed 10 points ago +10 / -0

Biden is also a Catholic!

6
Saremei 6 points ago +7 / -1

If there's one thing in common with every catholic I've ever known in my entire life, including relatives, it's that they vote solidly democrat. They do it even while espousing religious views entirely antithetical to their political affiliation.

A good example is my aunt. She was raised in a conservative southern baptist household in a small town. She moved to the state capitol to find work. She found work with the democrat party. After becoming a democrat, and dating one, she became a catholic. All this conversion to the democrat party/catholicism took place in the 60s. She still is exactly the same. She will spout every single democrat talking point and only votes for democrats, despite holding religious views at odds with homosexuality and abortion.

9
Hardcouer 9 points ago +9 / -0

Look up any exit poll analysis from the last 30 years. Catholics are split almost exactly 50/50. The observant ones vote almost like evangelicals, the nonobservant ones lean left strongly.

5
Kekistaniphil 5 points ago +5 / -0 (edited)

She has actually been automatically excommunicated for supporting pro-abortion candidates.

It literally says that in the Catechism.

The ignorance is unbelievable.

[NOTE]: please see my reply below. I was too quick to claim what the Catechism said about excommunication. Those who "procure a completed abortion" are automatically excommunicated. Whether voting for a politician who supports abortion constitutes "procurement" is another question. But the situation is not good. And support for abortion is seriously and gravely uncatholic.

2
Cacciali_Via 2 points ago +2 / -0

What are the repercussions of that? Can she still take communion at her local church?

... continue reading thread?
3
The-Trumpologist 3 points ago +4 / -1

Trump won the catholic vote in 2016

5
christianknight 5 points ago +5 / -0

So is Biden.

2
Joe_Hiden_69 2 points ago +2 / -0

Heretics. They all pretend to be, few are.

5
NotProgCensored 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pelosi et al need to be careful. If they savage her for her religion, they alienate a LOT of people. That’s another reason she’s a smart pick.

Very true. Know who else is Catholic? Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

2
Kek_Johnson 2 points ago +2 / -0

Biden and Pelosi both claim to have the same faith as ACB.

5
whippeat 5 points ago +5 / -0

And neither has lived up to it. However, ACB has.

14
Ryoten 14 points ago +15 / -1

They are attacking her. Not only are they attacking her religious beliefs, they're investigating how she obtained two Haitian children, so they can say they're illegal and have child protective services come for them. They can literally black mail her with her own kids.

7
PawsOfMotion 7 points ago +9 / -2

I think Trump would've foreseen media controversy about the kids. It's a good 4D move because any attack relating to somebody's children will alienate quite a few voters.

And in this situation they wouldn't be able to simply hide it like they do with riots, because it's them making a public attack about her mothering / kids. So they have to show it. Very fine line politically.

2
EagleI 2 points ago +3 / -1

She should have seen this coming a mile away too. I have to imagine everything is in order with her adoptions and paperwork, and she is prepared to take this on.

3
PawsOfMotion 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree. You see the same thing with Kavanaugh who made an extremely detailed dairy even as a damn teenager. Imagine bothering with that as a teen.

And i reckon even if she did in fact have issues with adoption, the public would still react badly if the left chose to criticize her for it. Regular citizens know that adoption is a tough process and there are always going to be complications.

0
Anaconda 0 points ago +7 / -7

u/Mammoth_Actuary is a robert barnes cocksucker. the same robert barnes who said last sunday that he is a lifelong liberal democrat and the same robert barnes who is such a shitty lawyer that during the sandy hook lawsuit trial for alex jones, alex jones FIRED HIS FAT ASS in the middle of the trial, LMAO!

-4
deleted -4 points ago +1 / -5
1
ShweetCheezus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like they did Roberts.

12
Twitter 12 points ago +13 / -1

I see them attacking her all the time we're just used to some unknown women coming out of no where saying she was raped 50 years ago, they are fucked - can't call her racist since she has black children, can't call her sexist/rapist...all their favorite Isms are useless.

10
HuntedVVumpus 10 points ago +10 / -0

They'll still call her all the isms. If Candace Owens can be a white supremacist and Ben Shapiro can be a Nazi, ACB could be ...ANYTHING. I can't wait to hear it.

11
Toughsky_Shitsky 11 points ago +15 / -4

... ALWAYS the best sign that you done fucked up in an appointment.

10
Good_Behavior_Day 10 points ago +10 / -0

The lefties on my Facebook feed are repeating "Cult Member" and "gives guns to violent felons".
Patience, they're just getting warmed up. It'll be nuttier than the Kavanaugh hearings.

4
rationalistone 4 points ago +5 / -1

The zealots on the left will say whatever. I'm more curious to see how hard Dem leaders, who take their orders from the Deep State, try to stop her. We will know she was a bad choice if they don't take out all the stops to get her.

3
ChokingOnARedpill 3 points ago +5 / -2

With someone like Barrett on the supreme court and people like Lauren Boebert getting into Congress, the stage is being set for us to get nationwide constitutional carry.

9
Anaconda 9 points ago +11 / -2

umm. they are. they are accusing her of kidnapping her haitian children and they say she is abusing ALL her children.

2
HCQaddict 2 points ago +2 / -0

I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS!

2
CantThinkOfUserName 2 points ago +5 / -3

You're not paying attention.

-6
Anaconda -6 points ago +4 / -10

u/Mammoth_Actuary is a robert barnes cocksucker. the same robert barnes who said last sunday that he is a lifelong liberal democrat and the same robert barnes who is such a shitty lawyer that during the sandy hook lawsuit trial for alex jones, alex jones FIRED HIS FAT ASS in the middle of the trial, LMAO!

2
ObongoForPrison2020 2 points ago +4 / -2

They are. Get on Twitter and you'll see the seeds being planted.

-1
SmugFrog -1 points ago +4 / -5

They are and their racist attacks against her children echo the racist attacks being made against her here by racist, alt-reich shitheads like you who still haven't figured out that they have no place in this movement. Proving once again that the Horseshoe theory is real.

1
NotoBabylon 1 point ago +2 / -1 (edited)

What movement is that espousing your globalist views and calling yourself an anti globalist? Lol

-1
SmugFrog -1 points ago +3 / -4

"Anyone who is not a Nazi is a globalist..." Eat shit, moron.

3
NotoBabylon 3 points ago +3 / -0

Muh nazi. You mad commie

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
erdrick27 -2 points ago +5 / -7

She's my last choice, I'd prefer literally any of the other women over her. First choice is Lagoa because she knows that you can't show any mercy to communists, after that would be Rushing.

2
KColl123 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Left has already started attacking her trying to delegitimize her adoptions. For all the things the Left is trying to drum up, she will not forget them when she fills that seat!

1
thehacker4channel 1 point ago +1 / -0

I was hoping the same would go for Kavanaugh, but he’s been soft on a number of rulings which disappoints me greatly.

78
IncredibleMrE1 78 points ago +80 / -2

Thomas would likely retire if GEOTUS wins.

Breyer is 82 - certainly no spring chicken. Likely to retire as well.

The "wise latina" is a diabetic blob. One seizure away from croaking.

Our majority could seriously go from 5-4 (after ACB confirmation) to 7-2 by 2024. GEOTUS gets 6 Supreme Court appointments during his two terms. KEK, please bless us with the continued greatest timeline.

26
HeavyVetting 26 points ago +27 / -1

The fairness-obsessed libs may never recover.

13
corntortilla 13 points ago +15 / -2

So? Who fucking cares?

8
tufftoffee 8 points ago +8 / -0

I hope the libs move out by that point

4
IncredibleMrE1 4 points ago +4 / -0

He was saying it because it's a good thing.

1
corntortilla 1 point ago +2 / -1

And I’m buttressing his idea. Fuck’em. I’m over what they think or whether they recover.

12
CocaineMitchsDealer 12 points ago +12 / -0

I'm just gonna go ahead and call my doctor because this one's gonna last wayyyy more than 4 hours.

2
OhLollyLollyPop 2 points ago +2 / -0

You would have thought the marches and riots tonight would have been all about this, but they weren't.

3
Shampagnepapi 3 points ago +3 / -0

Won’t matter if a leftists ever wins again

They’ll just bump it up to 15 judges or give them term limits. There’s a lot more work to do.

1
Truthseeeeker 1 point ago +2 / -1

I doubt Breyer would retire under Trump, plus Thomas is still relatively young so I think it’s unlikely he would get another pick.

65
CocaineMitchsDealer 65 points ago +68 / -3

Your "wet works in the vineyard" failed, Pedosta!

36
Mr_Clit_Beastwood 36 points ago +36 / -0

Never saw the response to his question: "Do you think I would do better playing dominoes on pizza or pasta?"

22
CocaineMitchsDealer 22 points ago +22 / -0

Right, because that's how normal people talk...

I'd like to think it went something like "I don't care, so long as if I ever pass out and Nadler my pants in public, make sure you chuck me like a side of beef into a van and leave one of my shoes behind."

18
ADAM_SCHITT 18 points ago +18 / -0

Or a pizza related map on a handkerchief

5
ImSorryForUrFeelings 5 points ago +5 / -0

What a collector's item!

55
JoeIsAHoe 55 points ago +55 / -0 (edited)

This is the number for Seattle + Portland antifa bail fund, this is how they get out of jail free, 877-622-6223 SPAM IT

https://www.nwcombailfund.org their website to prove it..

45
EPic 45 points ago +47 / -2

Whose that hottie next to ACB ?

83
nodoxplz 83 points ago +83 / -0

If you think he's hot now wait until you hear his bedroom talk.

"The constitution isn't a living organism. It's a legal document, and it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say."

Tell me that doesn't turn you into putty.

13
CocaineMitchsDealer 13 points ago +14 / -1

Sploosh

7
corntortilla 7 points ago +7 / -0

And “it’s dead, dead, dead”.

27
DoesItWorkAlready 27 points ago +27 / -0

Whose that hottie next to ACB ?

I dunno but I hear the pillow talk is a killer

7
lerm4comptroller 7 points ago +7 / -0

Take your damn upvote, you heathen.

7
Toughsky_Shitsky 7 points ago +9 / -2

Fucking HAWT freedom-defending Constitutionalist ... no homo.

1
Seanp12 1 point ago +2 / -1

Italians were the first Latin lovers.

39
Notablitheringidiot 39 points ago +39 / -0

She can actually smile unlike RBG.

RBG just kind of snarled.

13
ChokingOnARedpill 13 points ago +14 / -1

You know how they never showed the Wicked Witch of the East? RBG is what she'd look like if they had pulled her out from under the house.

34
DemsHaveNoHomeHere 34 points ago +36 / -2

I love how morons call infanticide "reproductive rights". Let's make these sluts and betas reeeeee like never before!

23
RegularAmerican 23 points ago +24 / -1

I recently found out I'm gonna be a dad. It'll be one more MAGA baby that Planned Genocide won't be able to get their forceps on.

9
tufftoffee 9 points ago +9 / -0

CONGRATULATIONS 🎊 🎂

8
OhLollyLollyPop 8 points ago +8 / -0

Congrats, Pede! A brand new centipede on the way!! 🥳🥳

5
WU_HAN_FRU 5 points ago +6 / -1

MAZELTOV!

5
HCQaddict 5 points ago +5 / -0

RegularAmerican,

I'm a fan of your posts. I think you'll make an excellent father!

4
DemsHaveNoHomeHere 4 points ago +4 / -0

Congrats pede!!! 🍻 🇺🇸

27
Texipede 27 points ago +27 / -0

Funny how it all works out

1
Ponzo 1 point ago +1 / -0

"As ani intern, ACB had a romantic relationship with scalia" - the left, soon

21
sagebrushfire 21 points ago +23 / -2

A woman who cares more about the sanctity of life rather than fixing her “walked out of his apartment, heels in hand, hair sticking up, hangover to end all hangovers” mistake.

20
1776ThereIsaidIt 20 points ago +20 / -0

We have burned by Republican president's SCOTUS picks so I understand the skepticism but keep in mind we are replacing a radical leftist with a maybe conservative. Considering what the side of beef would have put on the court, I'll take my chances with ACB.

8
ChokingOnARedpill 8 points ago +9 / -1

I would take 5 ACBs over 1 RBG,

8
kirovri 8 points ago +8 / -0

We're also replacing what has been a walking corpse for a long time with an actual person. I mean just look at them: https://thedonald.win/p/HXy7KLaK/acb-vs-rbg/c/

If you listened to her talking it was even worse, she belonged in a retirement home many years ago. The reasonable thing would have been to retire under Obama while he had a senate majority. But because she's a partisan political hack and dumb radical feminist she didn't retire, because she cared that much about the President replacing her having a vagina. Now she's given Trump another SCOTUS pick. That's her legacy, leftards.

18
deplorablepatriot [S] 18 points ago +18 / -0

The salt will be off the charts!

2
C0RNP0P 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’m gonna respond to this comment because I think it’s fitting.

I had CNN on (don’t ask why, airbnb did me dirty but I fixed it quick) and some chick, don’t know who, was saying republicans are anxiously waiting for dems to fight the choice and throw a fit but the democrats may just stick with the catholic narrative/roe/wade etc.

12
Pat4ever 12 points ago +12 / -0

Nadler filled his seat.

12
Donger-Lord 12 points ago +13 / -1

Gloves off, give the commies hell, grab a wood chipper

9
45willwinagain 9 points ago +9 / -0

This picture and the story behind it will come in handy when they start looking into the meaning of "wetwork at the pool by the vineyard".

8
WhiteLash 8 points ago +8 / -0

How quickly can we get her in? What's the timeline look like roughly or best case scenario?

7
bluebahloo 7 points ago +7 / -0

Before the end of October.

4
NotProgCensored 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

Lindsey said hearings start Oct 12.

13
NYforTrump 13 points ago +13 / -0

Why not fucking Monday? They've had all week to get ready for the nomination. Why the hell are they gonna take a 2 and a half week break?

3
NotProgCensored 3 points ago +3 / -0

Plus it's Lindsey's Judiciary Committee

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

Campaign season.

11
corntortilla 11 points ago +11 / -0

They don’t need hearings. She’s recently been confirmed by the senate for her current job. Vote on Monday!

5
sesquipedalienator 5 points ago +5 / -0

They killed Scalia, so we killed Hillary's chances and put Scalia's intern in his seat.

5
Maaglin 5 points ago +5 / -0

She's an originlist, pro 2nd amendment, anti-abortion.

Good enough for me.

5
Friendly_B 5 points ago +5 / -0

THEE SPECTACULAR ACB

4
Aoikaze2000 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not only that, but the horde of lesbian Karens see a beautiful woman with an awesome family and REEEEEEE even harder.

3
TrumpRocks 3 points ago +3 / -0

I still believe Scalia was murdered. It's amazing how fishy everything was, and how fast the story was dropped by all of the media.

3
learntocode 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dems are doing a post-modern critical theory interpretation and filling their seats by shitting their diapers.

3
ChokingOnARedpill 3 points ago +4 / -1

Jerry Nadler shuffles exit stage right.

3
PraiseBeToScience 3 points ago +3 / -0

Every picture she's got them crazy eyes lol

3
RussianBot9000 3 points ago +5 / -2

I dunno man there's stuff alleged on 4chan about her running a poker game in the Supreme Court chambers and she allegedly skimmed the pot and it was Scalia had to keep her from getting canned. Rough week ahead!

2
KekProphet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds like a scene from Rounders

1
bjjmike69 1 point ago +1 / -0

link to 4chan discussion?

3
YukonQuismias 3 points ago +3 / -0

She’s the clerk of a Supreme Court Justice that was murdered during 0bama’s Reign of Error.

3
Throwingway22 3 points ago +4 / -1

I wish I trusted this pick. It's 50/50 for me. Make me wrong, please.

2
OhLollyLollyPop 2 points ago +2 / -0

She is likely to be better than Roberts, but women are always going to be more liberal than men.