Will Democrats try to ‘Bork’ or ‘Kavanaugh’ SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett? (Reader Poll)
What does it mean to be Borked or Kavanaughed? We’ll know it when we see it.
Republican Supreme Court nominees repeatedly have been attacked at a personal level not directed at Democrat nominees.
The term to “Bork” a nominee grew out of the Democrat treatment of Reagan nominee Robert Bork, and we all saw how Brett Kavanaugh was mistreated just two years ago.
What does it mean to be Borked or Kavanaughed? We’ll know it when we see it.
Will Amy Coney Barrett receive the “Bork” and “Kavanaugh” treatment?
So far, there was an initial burst of venom directed at her, including questioning her adoption of two children from Haiti, and of course the anti-Catholic bigotry she faced when she was nominated for the Court of Appeals in 2017. The hysterics also have centered around Obamacare and Roe v. Wade. But so far, it’s kid stuff compared to what Bork and Kavanaugh (and Thomas, and Alito, and Estrada, etc.) have gone through.
The hearings start October 12, with two more days of questioning, then a floor vote on October 22. So Democrats have some time. Remember, with Kavanaugh the fake sexual assault allegations came out after the committee hearings were over. So the end of the hearings is not the end of the threat. Until the floor vote, she is vulnerable.
Right now, there is no doubt they are digging into her childhood, teen years, and college years, hopring to find someone to accuse her of something. They also not doubt are scouring her friends, family, and her husband’s connections also. These are really bad people, they will do anything if they think they can get away with it.
So, the poll is: Will Democrats try to ‘Bork’ or ‘Kavanaugh’ SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett?
Poll Open until midnight (Pacific Time), October 9.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They will if they can find something that works that doesn’t cause them too much collateral damage.
I don’t think they will, but then I thought Kavanaugh was safe pick too.
They have had ACB on the radar for a while, if they were smart they have been working on a plan.
We will find out in 2 weeks. If they don’t, it’s only because they couldn’t find a way to do it.
They will make something up. The dumber and more outlandish the better. If necessary, they will type up a document using Microsoft Word and peddle it as typewritten documents she produced when she was the Grand Cyclops of the Ku-Klux-Klan while plotting with Putin to assassinate John F. Kennedy and later serving as Trump’s sex slave to seduce the future president to become a Russian spy, while Putin watched it all on a secret camera that Trump installed so he and Putin could watch together while they put Quaaludes in a fruit punch to serve to puppies so they could be puppy-napped and sold to Jewish merchants and sold as slave dogs to white imperialists in the Belgian Congo to sniff out blood diamonds… or something similar. Oh, and by the way, she’s a racist, and so are you.
Darn!!!!
You found the secret plot
hidden with Hillary’s missing emails!
Tell DEMS to move to Canada. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Democrat Leftists accidently reveal they think President Trump is going to win.
“Google searches in the U.S. for the terms “move to Canada” and “how to move to Canada” skyrocketed last night, hitting their peak at around 10 p.m. Eastern time…..”
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/last-nights-debate-was-so-bad-google-searches-for-move-to-canada-were-off-the-charts?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29
Can’t you come up with something original ?
Like maybe zombie killer
Make up something like Russia gate.
Which Ian Fleming book is that from?
Of course they will, that’s kind of a silly question. They cannot have another textualist or constitutionalist on the court, it interrupts their ability to destroy the country.
It’s a fine line, but I think they won’t.
Instead of making personal attacks against her, they’ll focus their attacks on the process (Trump stealing the seat, Senate rushing to confirmation, let the voters have their say, yadda yadda) and on specific cases (Roe, Obamacare, Election stuff).
This will make the confirmation hearings mostly boring — she’ll just have to explain over and over that she can’t comment on current cases.
They’ll focus the “burn it all down” rage on procedural delaying tactics, like blocking all business in the Senate until the confirmation is over.
(If Mitch McConnell is smart, he’ll use this as an excuse to rush the floor vote, so that the Senate can get back to serious work like intelligence committee hearings on electoral integrity, budgets, and the next round of covid funding.)
But like PrincetonAl above, I’ve been wrong before. I thought they wouldn’t filibuster Gorsuch, because they’d be better off keeping that for Kavanaugh. And the Ford accusations (particularly the timing) came out of the blue.
If they haven’t found any dirt on her, they will make something up, just like they did the last time.
And once again, they will have paid “demonstrators” to raise hell in the hearing room.
DEMS always make up lies ‘n’ stuff
Lies are their core essence.
With Covid, they will hopefully limit the access to the hearings and keep the professional hecklers out
The hecklers will be the Dems invited guests
Racism and defund the Police are the flavors of the moment. I expect a racial disparity attack –
“Do you think it is right that Black Men are disproportionately sent to prison?”
They end up in prison proportional to their crime rate, and their crime rate is damning.
Of course they will. The only question is: what will be the line of attack?
I am thinking anti-Catholic bigotry will be the primary weapon, and in the background minor Soviet agitators like Ibram X Kendi will push the “white colonialist human trafficker” angle to muddy the waters. Safe to say that right now the Joseph Goebbels media is frantically scouring Haiti to find anyone credible who will testify that the Barretts kidnapped their two adopted children.
Am I the only one old enough to remember how JFK’s Catholicism was used against him? “Will he follow the Constitution or take orders from the Pope?”
Absolutely. The dems will turn this into a circus to fire up their base and as a get out the vote tactic.
It will fire up the base- my thought is that it will turn off the white suburban women
I don’t believe they will Bork her directly. My bet will be that they systematically pick off certain Republican Senators who have no backbone.
Just because Romney and others have acquiesced to moving “the process” forward, I don’t believe they will actually vote for her. Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Sasso and others are giving lip service.
So, look for 5 or 6 Republican Senators to feel the wrath.
Any of them that don’t vote for her had best just pack up their office, that’s a suicide move.
McConnell already said he had the votes – although naturally, that’s subject to change.
After Tuesday’s debate, I don’t think the Dems want to give their base yet another reason to stay home on election day. No minds were changed. Trump’s already super energized base got what they expected, a vigorous Republican candidate willing to take the fight to the entire world while already dismayed Dems saw what they feared most, a weak and confused Biden.
They know Barret is a done deal and I think they want to get past this ASAP so they can move on to “the Orange Man cheated!” part. I’m thinking they want more time to play that card before the election and don’t want another tedious, drawn-out shit=show for Trump to pound away on. It’s a gift to Trump and they know it.
I think there is a fair chance of a couple Dems voting “Yes”.
My wife said she was blown away by this 2016 one hour long Barrett lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjTEdZ81lI&feature=emb_rel_end
I have not watched it yet. However, if she is that impressive, trashing her like Kavanaugh might cost them the election. IMO, that makes the risk too high for a nomination they can’t stop.
Members of a party that advocates killing upwards of 900,000 unborn babies each year, is capable of anything. Amoral hedonists think think nothing of lying, cheating, any way necessary to score their goals. Truth be damned.
Hear. Hear.
How many thousands of grannies and grandpa’s did Cuomo off already?
Weasel Zippers
VIDEO: Andrew Cuomo Claims COVID Patients Were Never Sent To NY Nursing Homes…
So full of crap you can smell him across the Hudson.
Cuomo tells Finger Lakes Daily News that COVID patients were never sent to nursing homes
“It never happened” pic.twitter.com/JssBVNqg7n
— Jewish Deplorable
upwards of 900,000 unborn babies each year
In America alone. Selective-child is a progressive operation. Planed Parenthood Federation and other progressive organizations operate abortion chambers globally.
As many as 50 to 75 percent of pregnancies end before getting a positive result on a pregnancy test. Most women will never know they were pregnant, though some may suspect they were because of pregnancy loss symptoms.
Week 5
The rate of miscarriage at this point varies significantly. A 2013 study found that the overall risk of losing a pregnancy after week 5 was 21.3 percent.
Weeks 6–7
The same study suggested that after week 6, the rate of loss was just 5 percent. In most cases, it is possible to detect a heartbeat on an ultrasound around week 6.
Weeks 8–13
In the second half of the first trimester, the rate of miscarriage was between 2 and 4 percent.
Source: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#pregnancy-loss-rates-by-week
My point, is do we really want more children in the hands of people who do not want them, people who will not actually raise children well. We have a epidemic of cradle to grave welfare. Children who consistently become habitual criminals.
Children deserve parents who are 100% committed to raising them to achieve their full potential. At least 20 years of striving to do the best they can for their children.
Do we really want people who knowingly do not use birth while having sex, who reason they can just get an abortion, having babies? People like that should not be allowed to screw up a child.
>My point, is do we really want more children in the hands of >people who do not want them, people who will not actually >raise children well. We have a epidemic of cradle to grave >welfare. Children who consistently become habitual criminals.
This skyrocketed when Democrats gave us the “Great Society” – I hear it while counseling people all the time. “I can just go get disability (SSDI) rather than find a job” is the most common. Food stamps/EBT, Section 8 housing assistance, Medicaid, heating and utilities assistance. We make it far too easy to be unproductive. I know a guy who has been on disability for 12 years – since he graduated high school. I knew him as a kid – he is not disabled. He has fathered 5 kids neither he nor the 3 mothers have custody. He stays in his apartment and plays online video games all day. He’s an intelligent moron.
>Children deserve parents who are 100% committed to raising >them to achieve their full potential. At least 20 years of >striving to do the best they can for their children.
I agree 100%.
>Do we really want people who knowingly do not use birth while >having sex, who reason they can just get an abortion, having >babies? People like that should not be allowed to screw up a >child.
Our culture and education systems teach them this. They also teach them that the father isn’t needed in the home, patriotism is bad, work is optional for survival, and most importantly, you don’t need to take responsibility for your self and actions as an adult. It’s not your fault. Everyone’s a winner.
These anti-concepts are like pouring acid on the American psyche – destroying us from within. If we don’t get a handle on them and fast, we will collapse from within.
The education system needs to be revamped top to bottom. Culture is a harder problem, but good parents need to keep their kids away from them for multiple reasons.
Members of a party that advocates killing upwards of 900,000 unborn babies each year, is capable of anything. Amoral hedonists think think nothing of lying
They do tend to embrace wicked solutions. That said, not amoral, but rather Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic, politically congruent (“=”) quasi-religious (“ethics”).
President Donald Trump is nailing it tonight in Minnesota
describing last night’s debate.
The Supreme Court pick will probably be covered as well.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/30/president-trump-great-america-comeback-and-peaceful-protest-duluth-mn-900pm-livestream/
Of course they will try. The real poll is what we should call this one.
Coney-Barreted – Has a nice ring to it. A little awkward, though.
Barrated – Sounds like something you do to hair. Not to be confused with berated, which is what the Dems will have done plenty of by the time the process is over.
Coneyed – Sounds a little too much like Comeyed, which may already be taken, and looks like con-eyed, which could be confusing, but might be appropriate, depending on the line of attack.
Change the pronunciation a little and you could have “Coney Berated.”
Of course they will. Anyone here learn from history?
What line their attack will take I cannot determine, probably a combination of religious and something else. We know they are already attacking her religion and children through their media operatives.
Since scorpions cannot help but to be themselves, I fully expect it will be impossible for Democrats NOT to do one or the other. I’m leaning more toward them trying a “Bork” than a “Kavanaugh”.
If course they’re going to try and Bork ACB. They’re probably photoshopping images of her into men’s magazines and videos, creating a fake past that she had an abortion, cheated on her husband, her biological children aren’t her husband’s, yada, yada, yada…
Think of how they treated Sarah Palin, but worse.
Of course they will try. As the Scorpion said to the Frog: “I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature.”
I was totally going to use the scorpion reference too… Cuz it fits.
Vegas won’t take bets with odds like the sun coming up, the tide, or this.
The question you should have asked is whether they will peel off any GOP traitors.
I think the answer is no. They could plant a suitcase with body parts of missing children in the trunk of her car and cocaine Mitch would still move this forward BECAUSE of Kavanaugh.
For all the uncertainty I have of sleepy Joe winning in Nov (which defies logic, but logic’s vote will get lost in the mail), this SCOTUS thing is the one thing I am truly optimistic of.
For once the GOP has resolve on something. Don’t fuck it up.
1) They will undoubtedly try. So far there has been absolutely no downside for those who perjured themselves, and quite a bit of fame and some fortune for them.
2) Until there IS a downside, personally, it will continue.
3) Once there is a certainty of an appropriate penalty for such perjury, it will slow down and then stop.
4) How close are we to that certainty becoming real?
Subotai Bahadur
Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes!
Which makes having the hearings so incomprehensible.
We know the following:
1. Hearings are not constitutionally required.
2. The Democrats have made it clear they will oppose her unanimously. Some will even refuse to meet with her.
3. Accordingly, the hearings are not about persuasion.
4. Furthermore, Judge Barrett (Judge Coney Barrett? I’m not sure of the correct form. Sorry.) has already been through a rigorous (and insulting) confirmation for the Federal bench. Thus, apart from her own jurisprudence, there is nothing new to learn…only new insults to hurl. As for her jurisprudence, just look it up.
5. If there is no persuasion possible and no informative purpose there is no reason to hold the “hearing”. There is certainly no good faith on the Democrat side as as their public utterances make clear.
So, if the hearing is nonsensical, why have it?
Some say Sen. Graham wants to be seen publically running the hearing for publicity purposes in his tight Senate race. Some say they want to keep Committee Democrat Senators off the campaign trail (though this cuts both ways, if the GOP succeeds in the nomination, it would be positive publicity). Some say the GOP wants the Democrats to expose themselves as the sleaze that they are. Some suggest the GOP Senators are just clueless and just think things, this time, will be like the old collegial days.
Maybe. But I think it is about something else.
Gutlessness.
I think Graham and the rest are scared of being excoriated by the media if they bypass the hearing. They will be insulted and painted by CNN and MSNBC and the NY Times and the Washington Post etc etc as “Trump’s Lackeys” and they don’t have the courage to face that and fight back.
Years ago Ronald Reagan said that the most frightening words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I am here to help.”
I suggest the following update to the most frightening words. “We’re from the Republicans and we have your back.”
And I think that is why Judge Amy Coney Barrett will have to subject herself (and her children) to the insults and barbs of the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
Nailed it
Maybe.
It’s also possible that Ms. Graham wishes to drag the damn thing out in the hopes that Trump loses the election, while back home it *appears* he is working hard for the confirmation.
Why bother with a hearing?
If it was the other way around, there would be no hearing – or the sh*t infesting the GOP would compliantly vote ‘yes’,
The only question is which line of attack they will choose.
Most likely, EVERY line of attack they can think of, then focus on those that seem to work best for them.
Democrats only care about one thing: POWER
They have no shame, and there is no depth to which they would not sink to gain any advantage whatsoever.
“Power” equates with money, from the democrat/swamp point of view.
The top 1% of our country is looting the rest. Getting elected to office is not a license to steal.
I voted yes because, “Duh!” wasn’t one of the options.
The thing is, it’s impossible to predict what form the attack will take, because they’re not limited to things that actually happened, or even to things that could plausibly have happened. They can come up with anything, so trying to guess it in advance is useless.
But I imagine that right now the People of Praise are being investigated like no community has ever been investigated since the Templars. If there’s something salacious or scandalous to report about them, we will soon hear all about it, even if it happened 100 years ago.
The problem for the dems mudslinging is that after Kavanaugh, they have all the believe-ability of the Duke Lacrosse accuser crying rape AGAIN at a fraternity party across town.
The SCOTUS smear mobile is out of gas… they are going to have to hoof it to the mudslinging party and that’s hard to do in Jimmy Choos.
I suspect they are planning to “hoof it” to the court packing party after hoofing it to the fake ballot party.
45 no votes? I didn’t know that many Democrats even read this blog.
We’re in a civil war, folks. Denial is getting weary..
The left means business, and the left’s business is genocide.
Leftist Former CEO of Twitter Dick Costolo Wants to Watch His Political Opponents Get Lined Up Against a Wall and Shot in the “Revolution”:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/leftist-former-ceo-twitter-dick-costolo-wants-line-political-opponents-wall-shoot-dead-revolution/
Obama’s science czar’s plans for mass genocide:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-science-czars-plans-for-mass.html
They’ll try. She’ll make a great Supreme Court justice.
To “Bork” or to “Kavanaugh” is to make attacks—real or imaginary—along professional or along personal lines.
Personal attacks on Barrett are horribly risky, since she’s a member of a protected subspecies, and to the identity culture warriors, nothing is more sacred . . . not even the long shadow of Roe. Although D’rats and their fellow travelers can shave it mighty close, as witness the Palin treatment, that doesn’t mean Senators can do so with impunity.
Professional attacks will be more likely, if solely because less risky. But “Borking” is a deceptive term.
Youngsters in the crowd may not remember, but Bork carried a yuuugge piece of baggage, one which fixed his place in history. He had been Nixon’s hatchet man. Recall that Nixon wanted to fire Archibald Cox, whom A.G. Elliot Richardson had appointed Special Prosecutor investigating Nixon’s alleged crimes. After the White House eventually issued orders to fire Cox, Richardson refused to do it, choosing to resign instead. His #2 at Justice, Wm Ruckelshaus, did the same. The next in line was Robert Bork. He fired Cox, intending to resign after that, but was talked out of it, apparently by Richardson (though accounts vary on that point). But no matter, Bork ended up the man who sacked
Romethe Special Prosecutor.Saying that anyone who doesn’t have a similar history could be Borked is like arguing that Tammerlane would make a poor Secretary of Defense because he was from Asia. It entirely misses the point.
Does a bear shit in the woods?
of course Democrats will remorselessly attack this woman because she has been nominated by OMB during the tenure of his Presidency. And as we all know, Presidency’s go from January to the end of September in an election year.
Democrats will lose their shit over this nomination because they understand the implications of a 9 Justice SCOTUS. Makes it a little harder for them to steal the up coming election.
The question is, are there enough Republican Senators with balls and a backbone to push back against this all or will enough of them realise their actual masters, Democrats, want them to vote against this nomination.
Im not a betting man when it comes to ball sackless Republican Senators doing the right thing and I wouldnt bet a liberals left flap on this one.
I think the Dems know what the risks are if they try to flay her over religion. It won’t go well with voters, so I don’t believe that will be the main thrust of their attack. (Nit saying something won’t). I see them attacking her in a manner they believe has the potential to resonate with voters – they are going to attack her as a threat to ACA. They will call out her previous writings and twist every position she took. Biden hinted at that view during the debate. I believe they see it as her vulnerability, one they can attack without risking looking like as crazy as they did during Kavanaugh.
They are counting on the fact that the majority of Americans only know what the media says is true, which they believe help them convince America she is ought to destroy the lives of anyone with pre-existing conditions.
Their goal – scare enough Americans that poll sensitive Republicans running for office will back down from casting a Yes vote.
What do you mean by “will they”. democrats have already started by questioning her religious affiliation. democrats’ve already started with that vile tweet questioning her and her husband’s adoption of the two children from Haiti. And as horrible as those are I suspect we haven’t even seen the beginning of the smear campaign against Amy Coney Barrett.
Personally, I think McConnell should not have a confirmation hearing but should go directly to a floor vote and confirm the nomination of Barrett to the Supreme Court. And to hell with the democrats. They aren’t going to vote to confirm Barrett no matter what is done. So why bother giving them a platform to smear Barrett. Just get this over with now. No delays.
Like a bug to a bug zapper
Democrats generally use the “nuts and sluts” attack against women. Neither will likely gain traction against ACB but some have run the nuts flag up to see who salutes. That is in “all Catholics are nuts”, or “orthodox” Catholics are nuts.
I suspect they will try to destroy her with everything they have. In many respects she is more dangerous to them than Palin, and they will go after her and her family with even greater fury.
They’re already floating going after her adopted children, and I would not be surprised if they try to take away her biological children. Possibly rolling CPS audits and allegations of abuse or fraud in the adoption process.
Think is, the left paid no visible price for what they did with Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, so what would dissuade them from going all in berserk to stop this nomination?
I expect to see a series of “news” stories on unethical adoptions. Focusing on unethical practices in international adoptions (featuring Haiti, of course); and stories on the ethical problems surrounding interracial adoptions. As if there is something wrong with interracial families, or as if it would be better to leave children unloved and adrift in a broken system rather than placing them with families who want them and will love them, regardless of race and background.
There will be conflict though when and if it starts to interfere with the Chinese trade of selling little girls for $25-50K a pop to desperate childless white people on the left coast.
Seems like a good time to revisit the cray cray lesbians who drove the 6 adoptees over the cliff.
Embrace the power of”and”!
One group will Bork the other Kavanuagh. A third group will violate the peace at her house and threaten her family and their work places. Others will find new and clever ways to demonstrate their evil.
Of course they will, it seems to be the only play in their playbook. But there are secondary questions:
Will it stop the conformation (no)
Will it help their fundraising (yes)
Will it help them on the presidential election (probably not)
Will it help them in senate races (I don’t have a strong feeling- hopefully not)
The left controlled the SCOTUS from the 1930s till Kavanaugh now its there turn in the barrel. They no longer have social engineers in robes on the bench to force their agenda on the country no matter wah the vote was.
Democrats took their shot at Amy Coney Barrett with contaminated covid swabs during testing before her nomination ceremony. Barrett already had covid but the White House and many Senators are now sick.