Third time I'm saying this and it's NOT changing:
Kav will go down, Amy will be slam-dunked in.
You just fucking watch; that has always been the plan.
>Kav was never POTUS pick - he is BushCIA pick
Amy was confirmed one year ago with the same Committee. And there won't be any #MeToo shit. It's fucking brilliant.
God, this 128D chess is just so M. Night Shyamalan…
>AMY?
Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed by thiis Committee last year and rumored to be POTUS first pick. Allegedly POTUS strong-armed into Kavanaugh, a Yalie Bushite CIA fuck who covered up Vice Foster for the Clintons – so a member of BOTH crime families.
What part of "she was already confirmed by this committee last year" did you not get? That's the beauty.
>I wanted Amy to be nominated, was fine with kavanaugh because he is conservative enough for me
Yep, brilliant move to keep everyone in check.
>If he goes with AMY he shuts down Metoo. Might be a better option but it still looks like 2nd best and a win for Dems
The confirmation hearings for Amy already happened Oct 2017. They might do a day or two for any follow-ups, but these exact Senators voted for her 55–43 on October 31, 2017 including 3 Dems. That's the slam dunk. BOOM.
https://www.ozy.com/need-to-know/is-amy-coney-barrett-trumps-scotus-backup-plan/89437
Even fucking wapo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-picked-the-wrong-judge/2018/07/09/d356f84a-83de-11e8-8589-5bb6b89e3772_story.html?utm_term=.949ac6d03f84
>I like the premise, but don't understand.
>If already confirmed, what is timeline to seat her?
Federal judicial service
On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015.[14][15] President Barack Obama's nominee for the vacancy, Myra Selby, was blocked by the Senate due to the opposition of Senator Dan Coats (Republican of Indiana).[16] A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[17]
During Barrett's hearing, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decision-making on the court. Feinstein, concerned about whether Barrett would uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, followed Barrett's response by stating "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern".[18][19][13][20] Senator Dick Durbin asked "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?" He was criticized by the editorial board at his alma mater, Georgetown, a Catholic university, for his requesting a clarification of Barrett, regarding her self-descriptive terminology, “orthodox Catholic.” He contended her definition might unfairly characterize Catholics who may not agree with the church's positions about abortion or the death penalty. She responded, “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense.” Barrett further opined that judges aren't bound by precedent conflicting with the Constitution.[21] The subject of Feinstein and other Democrats' concern was a 1998 article by Barrett where she wrote that judges could recuse themselves from hearing matters if their faith conflicted with issues to be decided in cases they might otherwise hear.[16] An article in the conservative National Review asserted, "Senators must inquire about these issues when considering lifetime appointments because ensuring impartiality and fidelity to precedent are critical for the rule of law."[18][22][13] Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts[23][24] while defended by others.[25] The issue prompted questions regarding the application of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution which mandates: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”[26][21][23][24][25] During her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[23]
On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line basis of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[27][28] On October 30, 2017, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[29] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017, with three Democrats – Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin – voting for her.[6] She received her commission on November 2, 2017.[2]
Barrett had been included on President Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017. In July 2018, following the retirement announcement of Anthony Kennedy, she was considered as a possible successor,[11][30] though Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the position[31] Barrett could be considered to fill future Supreme Court vacancies.[32]
>On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Also a lifetime appointment. And she was confirmed. There's NO FUCKING NEED for full hearings. The senators are exactly the same. The Republicans will push this.
She was confirmed by THIS COMMITTEE last year for a lifetime Circuit Court judgeship. Three Dems even voted for her. I'm sure they'll find an arcane rule that says they can ask her 10 more questions or something. Who fucking knows? But the whole hearing has already been done and it ended last Halloween with a a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017, with three Democrats – Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin – voting for her.
Happy Halloween, motherfuckers.
>The idea that she was already confirmed so its a slam dunk quickie is FLAT OUT WRONG. Stop with the fucking mental gymnastics.
So you're an arcane Senate rules expert then, anon? OK, let's see it.