"Well Qualified"

[Zam-Zam]

Washington (CNN)The American Bar Association on Sunday rated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as "well qualified," its highest rating, an important endorsement ahead of what are expected to be contentious confirmation hearings on her Supreme Court appointment this week.


Complete text: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html



So, then, what's the problem?

 

[middleview]

Washington (CNN)The American Bar Association on Sunday rated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as "well qualified," its highest rating, an important endorsement ahead of what are expected to be contentious confirmation hearings on her Supreme Court appointment this week.


Complete text: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html



So, then, what's the problem?

What was the problem with Garland? Same problem applies to Barrett.

 

[marvin martian]

What was the problem with Garland? Same problem applies to Barrett.

But you disagreed with what happened to Garland, right?

LOL

 

[ObamacareForever]

Washington (CNN)The American Bar Association on Sunday rated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as "well qualified," its highest rating, an important endorsement ahead of what are expected to be contentious confirmation hearings on her Supreme Court appointment this week.


Complete text: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html



So, then, what's the problem?

Who the bar association rates as qualified doesn't matter.

 

[ObamacareForever]

But you disagreed with what happened to Garland, right?

LOL

Ok, we agree Coney should get the same fate as Garland.

 

[marvin martian]

Ok, we agree Coney should get the same fate as Garland.

Only if you believe Garland got what he deserved. It seems you do.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Only if you believe Garland got what he deserved. It seems you do.

Are you saying he didn't deserve his fate?

 

[marvin martian]

Are you saying he didn't deserve his fate?

You're saying he did. That's the topic of this thread, and it's been noted.

Thanks

 

[Zam-Zam]

What was the problem with Garland? Same problem applies to Barrett.

He never came up for a vote, as far as I can recollect.

 

[middleview]

He never came up for a vote, as far as I can recollect.

McConnell wouldn't allow a vote. One guy.

 

[middleview]

Only if you believe Garland got what he deserved. It seems you do.

Republicans set the rules...no nominations within a year of elections. Let the people vote...right?

 

[Zam-Zam]

McConnell wouldn't allow a vote. One guy.

One democratically-elected guy.

As I've heard it said, elections have consequences.

 

[middleview]

One democratically-elected guy.

As I've heard it said, elections have consequences.

So even though there are 100 democratically elected senators...only one got to stop the nomination....oh, by the way...didn't the senate decide that the filibuster for an SC nomination would not be allowed?

 

[Zam-Zam]

So even though there are 100 democratically elected senators...only one got to stop the nomination....oh, by the way...didn't the senate decide that the filibuster for an SC nomination would not be allowed?

Do you think this is a new system, just implemented?

Anyway, back to the topic - What, specifically, disqualifies the candidate?

So far, nada.

 

[middleview]

Do you think this is a new system, just implemented?

Anyway, back to the topic - What, specifically, disqualifies the candidate?

So far, nada.

same as Garland...thx

 

[marvin martian]

Republicans set the rules...no nominations within a year of elections. Let the people vote...right?

So you supported what happened with Garland. I should be able to go back in your posting history and find that. Let's have a look, shall we?

 

[Zam-Zam]

same as Garland...thx

Garland...never got a vote. Good, bad, or indifferent, he never went through the hearing process. Ergo, he is irrelevant with respect to Justice Barrett.

I think it's a good sign that no one on the left has anything negative to say about Justice Barrett (at least, nothing that is actually relevant). This bodes well for her.

Sounds more and more like a slam dunk.

 

[Dawg]

What was the problem with Garland? Same problem applies to Barrett.

Try to stay on topic

Barrett "Well Qualified"

not a damn thing in topic of Garland and look, you jacked the whole OP

 

[middleview]

Try to stay on topic

Barrett "Well Qualified"

not a damn thing in topic of Garland

qualification for the supreme court is the topic.

 

[Dawg]

qualification for the supreme court is the topic.

Yes, for Barrett

nothing in topic of Garland

Soon she will be confirmed