276
MAGA world turns against Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
276 points (100.0% liked)
News
38680 readers
1661 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ironically, ACB really is a DEI hire with the undertone of “unqualified” they use. At the time Trump was either pressured or he had otherwise promised he’d nominate a woman.
ACB has less than HALF of the experience of any other SCOTUS judge, Kavanaugh included. She was blatantly unqualified.
Clarence Thomas has entered the chat.
Not only wasn't he the most qualified judge, he wasn't the most qualified Black judge, and he wasn't even the most qualified Black conservative judge.
The irony is that he was very interested in the civil rights movement as a student. (And let's face it, this is not surprising for a Black student from the late 60's/early 70's.) And he was a bright student, he got accepted unto many law schools and was one of only 12 black law students at Yale. He's not a moron.
And when he graduated from Yale, and sought a job in private practice, he found that law firms assumed he must have gotten his degree because of affirmative action, and not on his merit. So, having experienced systemic racism firsthand, he sought to root it out everywhere....
.... Sike! That's not it at all. Rather than blame the racist law partners who assumed nobody with that much melanin could graduate from Yale without help, he blamed Yale for giving him a "worthless degree" with the taint of affirmative action all over it, and embarked on a career dedicated to tearing down anything that would help minority groups. No wonder Republicans like him so much.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
There was a time when Clarence's mindlessly textualist dissents were basically a drinking game for Law Students. Take a shot every time he mentions that something didn't exist in 1789! He was also famous for never, ever asking questions in oral arguments. Then of course there are the famous complaints about salary. Dude simply does not give a fuck, but that kind of committed disdain for the institution ended up serving him well as the GOP sank down to meet him.
Did the others have a history of being a sex pest and easy to buy off with an RV worth a couple hundred thousand dollars?
That's why Thomas was picked, he was a useful idiot.
That was before I started paying attention so I’m unfamiliar with his nomination process
If you have time for drama, look up Anita Hill.
Thomas's nomination was a giant shit show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill
https://wams.nyhistory.org/end-of-the-twentieth-century/the-information-age/anita-hills-testimony/
Thomas' confirmation hearings are now the template for all of them because they were so batshit insane.
The republiQans hate getting a calm, competent, immenently qualified judge like Kagan where they got nothing.
This would be true, but all of Trump's appointees are underqualified, so it's on par for him.
Kavanaugh had the necessary professional experience, on par with the rest of SCOTUS at the time. It’s just that he’s so clearly partisan, that he should not have been confirmed by the senate.
Also, had he had an actual backbone, he would have let the FBI run and finish his background check. Allegations are allegations. People may lie. The FBI should have run the full investigation to see if the allegations had merit or not. But this didn’t happen. Therefore, in my opinion, he is unqualified even if he didn’t commit sexual assault
His crybaby blubbering "I like beer" temper tantrum is pretty disqualifying IMO
Well, yes. I’m saying his legal career on paper made him look qualified. What made him look unqualified was, well, (IMO) everything not directly related to his legal work.
I'm addition to his sexual assault history, the FBI should have been allowed to look into the large amount of gambling debt that disappeared when journalists looked into it, and his alcoholism. Any of those should be disqualifying for the highest Court in the country.
The perjury he was doing while testifying to Congress was also enough in my book as well as his beer outburst trying to respond to Klobuchar.
Many of Trump's appointees have been highly qualified. He usually ends up firing them and calling them idiots.
You must be talking about his first term. Even then, some of them were…. yeah
Reince Priebus was Trump's first Chief of Staff. He was a big wig in the GOP with tons of Washington experience. Totally qualified for the job, iirc he lasted less than a month.