Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

[f.a.s.t.]

I hope Trump picks her. The left will go even more insane. A Catholic woman with seven children, nothing could be more deplorable and irredeemable than her.

[boston_e]

Both sides will eventually rue the "nuclear option" for supreme court nominees.

[freeski]

Perfect pick.

I am getting tired of winning.

Minorities are moving to Trump.

Cankles is getting sicker and sicker...

[Kpdemello]

Let me ask you something - what's with the emphasis on winning? I mean to me, politics is about getting our leaders to provide us with good government that does what it's supposed to do without being overly burdensome. To make that work, it takes compromise and being able to work with people across the aisle, doesn't it? Why does it matter whether you're "winning" or "losing" and what does that even mean in this context? I just want to make sure teachers and firemen get paid, our country's borders get defended, and my taxes aren't too high. I don't really care who wins or loses so long as those things get taken care of.

So why should I care about "winning"

[madhatter]

Let me ask you something - what's with the emphasis on winning? I mean to me, politics is about getting our leaders to provide us with good government this is where the "winning" comes in...that does what it's supposed to do without being overly burdensome. we're working on it dems are obstructing...To make that work, it takes compromise and being able to work with people across the aisle, doesn't it? when the car is out of gas in the middle of the desert... the R's wanna walk to the nearest gas station and the D's insist on filling the tank w sand ( we gotta do something), you can't blame R's for refusing to go 50/50...Why does it matter whether you're "winning" or "losing" and what does that even mean in this context? it means the obama/leftist/progressive agenda is not only "not progressing" it's being relegated solely to the bastions of liberal "success" like SF and CHI NYC etc...everywhere else it's being shunned and removed...it means legislating from the bench at the supreme court level will no longer be a viable fall back for the leftist agenda...that's winning.... I just want to make sure teachers and firemen get paid,that's a state and local thing not a fed gov thing, lots of places have volunteer fire, not paid but its a great leftist talking point...not really, no one at the local level is ever in favor of cutting their own services your argument here is invalid.. our country's borders get defended, we are working on it, dems are obstructing it... and my taxes aren't too high.they ain't already?I don't really care who wins or loses so long as those things get taken care of.so you are overly ecstatic w trump then I take it...

So why should I care about "winning" don't worry we'll keep winning for you, you just sit back and enjoy the ride, you're welcome... but don't forget to say THANKS DONALD!!!

THANKS DONALD!!!

[brownman]

Fast with another brilliant topic and true to form is WRONG .. AGAIN

Sorry Amy .. Gump nominated Gump.

[f.a.s.t.]

Fast with another brilliant topic and true to form is WRONG .. AGAIN

Sorry Amy .. Gump nominated Gump.

How is "hoping" something happens is being wrong?

[madhatter]

Fast with another brilliant topic and true to form is WRONG .. AGAIN

Sorry Amy .. Gump nominated Gump.

How is "hoping" something happens is being wrong?

it's a brown area....

[XtremeJibber2001]

ACB seems to be more like Roberts than Alito & Thomas.

[easyrider16]

She's a judge. She respects the law. The problem is that radical right-wing Republicans don't. They just want the court to do what they want irrespective of the law. Roberts is still pretty conservative as far as justices go. He's just not what right-wingers want him to be: someone who puts their politics above the law. Btw, Kavanaugh also seems to be in the same category as Barrett and Roberts.

I do think the dissent in the recent decision regarding the Catholic agency screening for same-sex adoption makes a good point - the Court kind of dodged the broader issue of religious exemptions and when they apply. But that's how these cases work - the court is supposed to address the controversy in front of it, not a potential controversy down the road. It's one major way the power of SCOTUS is limited.

As to the Obamacare case, well, the legal arguments for striking the law down were just not very compelling. You'd have to twist yourself into a pretzel to find standing as to how any plaintiff is harmed by Obamacare now that the mandate is gone.