Dana Houle, who identifies herself on Twitter as an adoptive parent who has "elected Democrats," sent out a series of tweets on the topic that began by asking, "Does the press even investigate details of Barrett's adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not bc it involves her children."
Houle deleted the tweet following widespread backlash, including from Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.), but continued standing her ground. She wrote later, "I shouldn't have tweeted this...Not because it is smearing someone as engaging in child sex trafficking, but because I didn't realize all the rubes out there would take offense to it."
But Houle was not alone in her thinking.
John Lee Brougher, who identifies himself on Twitter as a supporter of several Democratic politicians and affiliated groups, tweeted, "As an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children, and the treatment of them since. Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning."
So now this lady is covertly being portrayed as a sex trafficker? Does the left know no bounds???
Hey, all you have to do is put it out there,right?
Senate confirmation hearings to start October 12 for Barrett
By Steve Holland, Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Senate will likely open hearings on his third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Oct. 12 and he expected a full Senate vote before the Nov. 3 election.
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting
Senate confirmation hearings to start October 12 for Barrett
By Steve Holland, Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Senate will likely open hearings on his third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Oct. 12 and he expected a full Senate vote before the Nov. 3 election.
Why the delay?
Usually all senators meet with the candidate individually first...
This background process normally takes ~2 months, it is already being expedited.
Usually all senators meet with the candidate individually first...
This background process normally takes ~2 months, it is already being expedited.
Thank you Lyuokdea, I thought some of the procedures could be dismissed since she was vetted, had hearings, and was appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman (witness at Trump's impeachment hearing) said Saturday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett “deserves” a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them".
Usually all senators meet with the candidate individually first...
This background process normally takes ~2 months, it is already being expedited.
Thank you Lyuokdea, I thought some of the procedures could be dismissed since she was vetted, had hearings, and was appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.
Almost all Supreme Court Justices have been vetted and appointed to a previous Circuit Court of Appeals.
Roberts - D.C. Circuit Thomas - D.C. Circuit Breyer - First Circuit Alito - Third Circuit Sotomayer - 2nd Circuit Kagan - Did not, was previously solicitor general of the US Gorsuch - 10th Circuit Kavanaugh - DC Circuit
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman (witness at Trump's impeachment hearing) said Saturday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett “deserves” a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them".
The idea that "is qualified" is the only standard we are supposed to use when evaluating supreme court picks is a joke.
If you disagree with her views on ACA and Roe v. Wade, you should oppose her.
If you agree with her views on ACA and Roe v. Wade, then I guess you should support her.
EDIT: The Democrats also use this argument to support their own nominees, it is BS then too.
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.
So she is not part of the handmaid's tale group. But she is part of a group that believe she must do as her husband says... Shouldn't he also have to be vetted and confirmed since she can't be trusted to make her own decisions?
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.
So she is not part of the handmaid's tale group. But she is part of a group that believe she must do as her husband says... Shouldn't he also have to be vetted and confirmed since she can't be trusted to make her own decisions?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
donny just rambles on nonsensically until he steers the ‘answer’ back to himself and how unfair he’s been treated. He needs no teleprompter to feel like a victim.
The video... just how many of our norms are democrats willing to break? smh
You're just now asking that question? LOL I guess late is better than never.
At the end of the day, there is zero reason why this nomination shouldn't go forward. What would Trump or the GOP have to gain by holding off? They certainly wouldn't gain the respect of anyone here by doing so. Since Trump was elected the left has proposed ideas like increasing the number of Senators, the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College, etc all things that would fundamentally change the Institution, so you can't even say that the GOP should hold off in order to preserve the Institution or any other traditions.
And according to you guys Trump is nothing more than a narcissistic a-hole who literally doesn't give a fig about anybody else... so why should he care if people are pissed at him? I'll even admit that to Trump "famous" and "infamous" are as different in meaning as "flammable" and "inflammable".
If the Dems were smart they'd continue to paint her as a boogeyman on specific court cases and try to get a little political capital out of that. Past that? They really should shut up about this adding Justice seats if Biden gets elected nonsense. For the same reasons (or lack of) I mentioned above why shouldn't Trump take them up on that idea and tell 'ol Lyndsey Graham to add 2 more from his list and get them seated before November? That would be 11 seats... even if Biden wins, good luck trying to sell the American people on adding more seats on top of that. Then you get to deal with a 8-3 court for the next 20-30yrs...
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
I wasn't asking anything! I couldn't believe the things they were saying. The party of Trump talking about dems breaking norms! LMAO You can't make this crap up.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
The Democrats hurt themselves if they make crazy claims about ACB as a person. *
** This of course, would change if something verifiable and important came up in background checks -- like happened with Kavanaugh. There is no indication that will happen in this case.
Instead they should focus on the fact, that she is likely to make rulings on Health Care and Roe v. Wade that are very unpopular with the majority of Americans.
That, itself, should be a reason for Americans not to support her nomination.
EDIT: I also want to note that Republicans are being a bit ridiculously choosy here. The worst part about Twitter is that it is easy to find the **worst argument** that anybody on the other side has ever made -- and then "pretend" that this argument represents the other side.
Most Democrats, including important politicians, left-leaning median members, etc. are making the right arguments and are not leveling dumb personal attacks. But if Breitbart pretends that only the crazies exist, then they don't have to care about legitimate arguments made against ACB as a candidate.
Nothing important come up in Kavanaugh's back round check. That's why the "witness" couldn't remember where, when, who, etc. Nothing more than another failed fabrication.
Nothing important come up in Kavanaugh's back round check. That's why the "witness" couldn't remember where, when, who, etc. Nothing more than another failed fabrication.
You don't even have to debate the merits here.
If there are two named witnesses, who come out, and are willing to testify (under oath!) that the candidate committed a felony -- the senate should take a day to listen to that before appointing somebody (for life) to one of the most important jobs in the country.
Nothing important come up in Kavanaugh's back round check. That's why the "witness" couldn't remember where, when, who, etc. Nothing more than another failed fabrication.
You don't even have to debate the merits here.
If there are two named witnesses, who come out, and are willing to testify (under oath!) that the candidate committed a felony -- the senate should take a day to listen to that before appointing somebody (for life) to one of the most important jobs in the country.
Two named witnesses that couldn't recall any details are not witnesses.
Nothing important come up in Kavanaugh's back round check. That's why the "witness" couldn't remember where, when, who, etc. Nothing more than another failed fabrication.
You don't even have to debate the merits here.
If there are two named witnesses, who come out, and are willing to testify (under oath!) that the candidate committed a felony -- the senate should take a day to listen to that before appointing somebody (for life) to one of the most important jobs in the country.
Two named witnesses that couldn't recall any details are not witnesses.
Instead they should focus on the fact, that she is likely to make rulings on Health Care and Roe v. Wade that are very unpopular with the majority of Americans.
That, itself, should be a reason for Americans not to support her nomination.
But very popular with Republicans, especially Republican women when it comes to abortion.
Liberal women’s groups, Planned Parenthood rush to rip ACB, say she will ‘turn back the clock on equality’
"Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans want to steal another seat on the Supreme Court so that Amy Coney Barrett can help repeal Roe [v. Wade] and shred the Affordable Care Act – but not before she votes with a new, ultra-conservative majority to validate an election he intends to steal," the National Organization for Women said in a statement.
Liberal women’s groups, Planned Parenthood rush to rip ACB, say she will ‘turn back the clock on equality’
"Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans want to steal another seat on the Supreme Court so that Amy Coney Barrett can help repeal Roe [v. Wade] and shred the Affordable Care Act – but not before she votes with a new, ultra-conservative majority to validate an election he intends to steal," the National Organization for Women said in a statement.
Liberal women’s groups, Planned Parenthood rush to rip ACB, say she will ‘turn back the clock on equality’
"Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans want to steal another seat on the Supreme Court so that Amy Coney Barrett can help repeal Roe [v. Wade] and shred the Affordable Care Act – but not before she votes with a new, ultra-conservative majority to validate an election he intends to steal," the National Organization for Women said in a statement.
I mean - aren't those the things that Conservatives (or Trump himself) say she is going to do?
That's what they said Kavanaugh was going to do, even though he was very clear he wouldn't. Has ruled multiple times in favor of precedent, even when it conflicts with his personal beliefs.
ACB could be a different story, though.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
The Senate gets to advise and consent to the appointment. The Senate didn't want him. Get over it.
The senate's job is to hold hearings. They didn't do their job. Deal with it.
Stop promoting they do two opposite things and claim they have some right to act that way. And you winder why you were labeled deplorable.
Um... they do have the right to act that way. Hypocritical? Sure. I don't see why more people are admitting it because it doesn't matter if it is. Is it dirty politics? Yeah it is and I said as much back with Garland.
So?
Sometimes I do wish our representatives acted in a more respectful, "Gentleman's Agreement" manner in the course of their business. But it was the lefties who sank that ship before Trump got elected.
It's why Trump got elected. I disagree with a lot of you guys on this stuff, but the difference between me and you, I don't think you guys are stupid. Which is why for the life of me to this day you guys still refuse to see how the behavior of the left and Democrats was the single biggest reason for Pres Trump to even exist.
You guys need to get over it. No one is impressed by your accusations of hypocrisy or calls for "Republicans to man up". Pfft! You guys have neither the moral or ethical standing to demand anyone be held accountable to you. None whatsoever. Every single one of you crying about how Trump isn't doing enough to "unify" have at one time or another explicitly or implied that every poster here who leans on the right is a:
-racist -homophobe -Nazi -supports sexual assault and the list of truly base, [censored] things to call people goes on.
For years you guys have done it without apology, without remorse, and with impunity... until Trump came along. Donald Trump's behavior is the mirror image of how you guys have treated anyone who disagreed with you.
The Republicans have ZERO responsibility to clean up Harry Reids mess. Cocaine Mitch warned him about getting rid of the 2/3 majority for confirmation. To quote Barack Obama's mentor the Reverend Wright your "chickens have come home to roost".
If none of that sank in then I'll make one final, simpler point:
You just called Erik deplorable because he stated a fact about process that you didn't like. I agree that it is dirty politics, but it is politics within their Constitutional authority. Instead of presenting a rebuttal based on the Constitution or law, you decide to level a personal insult against him.
Way to be the exemplar of civility and unity, a paragon of morality and ethics, a shining beacon that we should aspire to, and to be the change you want to see in the world. That nose bleed must be from picking it too deep because the High Road you guys think you travel on isn't as high as you think.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
