Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, July 07, 2018

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch may have offered a clue about who President Donald Trump will nominate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, days ahead of the planned announcement on Monday. In a Friday op-ed article for Deseret News, a prominent newspaper in Hatch's home state of Utah, the longtime Republican lawmaker wrote a defense of the coming nominee amid a highly polarized and evenly split Senate. ... The op-ed was notable for one reason: Hatch referred to the nominee using the pronouns "her" and "she."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Let the anti-religion teeth gnashing begin...

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 06:58 PM | Reply

Why does one have to be anti-religion to believe the constitution should take precedence over the Bible? And which do you believe should take precedence?

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-07 07:02 PM | Reply

Who says that isn't what she believes? She has written extensively about the primacy of the Constitution, it's the Dems that have whined about her Catholic faith.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 07:11 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court became Illegitimate with Obama's stolen seat so for all intends and purposes SCOTUS is corrupt.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-07 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wouldn't trust anyone from the Trump administration to read aloud from the Bible let alone interpret it.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2018-07-07 07:17 PM | Reply

The anti-Catholic bigots will shriek like screaming banshees if she's the nominee. As an atheist, I don't care. There's nothing in her record to suggest that she will put the Bible before the Constitution.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-07 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4

Take it up with Count Chocojesus, weren't you all decrying the fact that he didn't "appoint" Garland in another thread because of those evil GOP Senators?

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 07:18 PM | Reply

"Who says that isn't what she believes?"

She does.

"There's nothing in her record to suggest that she will put the Bible before the Constitution."

Nonsense.
As a judge, Barrett could be expected to put her personal beliefs ahead of the law. She wrote specifically about the duty of judges to put their faith above the law in an article entitled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases." Among other things, she strongly criticized Justice William Brennan's statement about faith, in which he said that he took an oath to uphold the law, and that "there isn't any obligation of our faith superior" to that oath. In response, Barrett wrote: "We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty."
www.patheos.com

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-07 07:29 PM | Reply

LOL, read the article that Patheos quoting AFJ is so breathless about--- It was discussing whether Catholic Judges should be automatically recused or disqualified from hearing cases, like Capital Murder or Late Term Abortion, where their faith may come into play. Prof. Barrett's conclusion: A Judge is bound by the law first and should not hear a case where their faith takes precedence:

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.
Don't believe everything that someone who shares your narrative tells you to believe, Danny, do a little independent thinking and research.

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 07:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Progressive Secular Humanists" wouldn't be happy unless an extreme atheist was nominated. Look at the first sentence:

"Dangerous Catholic extremist: Amy Coney Barrett, a leading candidate..."

They thought that was so good they waited all the way to the 2nd sentence to repeat it.

"Barrett, a dangerous religious extremist who believes...

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-07 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks for the link. I only had to get to page 4 to get this:

To anticipate our conclusions just briefly, we believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.

The authors underscore being Catholic alone doesn't preclude, although they offer an even sharper view a few pages later:

The prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute; those against war and capital punishment are not.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-07 07:59 PM | Reply

""Progressive Secular Humanists" wouldn't be happy unless an extreme atheist was nominated."

Merrick Garland, Extreme Atheist. Not Taking The Original Sin Out Of Originalism since 2016.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 08:06 PM | Reply

I have to admit, I did not expect to see RightOCenter posing a thing saying Scalia should have recused himself from death penalty cases.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 08:17 PM | Reply

#11

And since they are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty, it is incumbent on them, since they are "obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty", to recuse themselves...i.e. putting the Constitution before the Bible.

Simply put, if their faith conflicts with their constitutional duty to enforce the death penalty, they must recuse themselves since their duty comes first.

Sorry that doesn't fit Patheos/AFJ's narrative, but their "interpretation" for their readers was only meant to advance same, not be truthful or accurate.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#13

If he doesn't think he can enforce it, then according to Barrett he must recuse himself.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 08:41 PM | Reply

As an aside, it always cracks me up when libs, who are ordinarily against the death penalty, take a judge to task for not enforcing same because of religious beliefs.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 08:46 PM | Reply

Perhaps more to the point, I do not think Republicans would nominate a justice that is not supportive of the death penalty. Not as a matter of faith, but when it comes to carrying out the law.

But then Danforrh already found the necessary moral lebensraum for that nicely carved out in #11.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 08:47 PM | Reply

"And since they are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty"

But they're not. Thats the whole point of #11.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 08:48 PM | Reply

So I was off target, my #13 should be about abortion cases, which are morally absolute. Not that morally wishy washy death penalty. Silly me!

And I'd only expect the GOP to nominate someone who'd recuse themselves on abortion if they already had other votes to overturn Roe in place.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 08:53 PM | Reply

#18

Read the article, Snoofy, sound out the big words if you need to, you will realize that #11 doesn't accurately capture the thesis and argument contained therein.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 08:56 PM | Reply

And I'd only expect the GOP to nominate someone who'd recuse themselves on abortion if they already had other votes to overturn Roe in place.

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-07-07 08:53 PM

Roe isn't getting overturned, ever, it is a red herring thrown out to work the idiots on both sides of the political spectrum into a pliable frenzy...

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-07 10:10 PM | Reply

Roe isn't getting overturned, ever, it is a red herring thrown out to work the idiots on both sides of the political spectrum into a pliable frenzy...

#21 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

There are idiots, and then there are homicidal idiots who hide behind twisted religion in their justification to killing abortion doctors ...

A Brief History of Deadly Attacks on Abortion Providers

www.nytimes.com

It's these right-wing murderous idiots who need to get your memo -- not the liberal activists agitating for Roe to remain the law of the land.

#22 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-07 10:41 PM | Reply

"Read the article, Snoofy, sound out the big words if you need to, you will realize that #11 doesn't accurately capture the thesis and argument contained therein."

Danforth has a salient quote

You have you asking me to do your homework for you.

Can you guess which argument I find more persuasive?

(Hint: It's not yours.)

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 11:17 PM | Reply

> Hatch Uses 'She' to Describe Upcoming SCOTUS Pick
> assuming the gender
> implying
> MFW

ixquick-proxy.com

#24 | Posted by drpierce at 2018-07-07 11:21 PM | Reply

"Roe isn't getting overturned, ever"

See, this is what makes people like you so dangerous.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that really believe what you just said.
Which means you're either ignorant of the fact that parts of Roe have already been overturned, or you somehow don't think that counts.

Of course, it could be that you know full well "Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),[3] the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework" en.wikipedia.org and you're simply choosing to be dishonest to advance a dishonest narartive. Which doesn't really make you any less dangerous, but at least it's easier to diagnose.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-07 11:22 PM | Reply

Let the anti-religion teeth gnashing begin...

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Well...

given the perverted notion of religious freedom being pushed by the right, why is that an invalid reaction?

Personally, I'm assuming that by picking a woman they'll push the identity politics aspects of her credentials to try and cover the extremist judicial philosophy she's shown on the bench.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-07 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The anti-Catholic bigots will shriek like screaming banshees if she's the nominee. As an idiot, I don't care.

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

We know, Nulli. We know.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-07 11:56 PM | Reply

www.scotusblog.com

A few excerpts:

While at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a 2012 "statement of protest" condemning the accommodation that the Obama administration created for religious employers who were subject to the ACA's "birth control" mandate. The statement lamented that the accommodation "changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy."

It explored the effect of the Catholic Church's teachings on the death penalty on federal judges, but it also used the church's teachings on abortion and euthanasia as a comparison point, describing the prohibitions on abortion and euthanasia as "absolute" because they "take away innocent life." The article also noted that, when the late Justice William Brennan was asked about potential conflict between his Catholic faith and his duties as a justice, he responded that he would be governed by "the oath I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States"; Barrett and Garvey observed that they did not "defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty."

When questioned about the article at her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett stressed that she did not believe it was "lawful for a judge to impose personal opinions, from whatever source they derive, upon the law," and she pledged that her views on abortion "or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge." She acknowledged that, if she were instead being nominated to serve as a federal trial judge, she "would not enter an order of execution," but she assured senators that she did not intend "as a blanket matter to recuse myself in capital cases if I am confirmed" and added that she had "fully participated in advising Justice Scalia in capital cases as a law clerk."

In another article, Stare Decisis and Due Process, published in the University of Colorado Law Review, Barrett discussed the concept of stare decisis – a legal doctrine that generally requires courts to follow existing precedent, even if they might believe that it is wrong. Barrett wrote that courts and commentators "have thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books"; in a footnote, she cited (among other things) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe v. Wade. Barrett's detractors characterized the statement as criticism of Roe v. Wade itself, while supporters such as conservative legal activist Ed Whelan countered that the statement did not reflect Barrett's views on Roe itself, but instead was just an example of competing opinions on the reliance interests in Roe

Other sections describe a judge ruling in favor of corps over civil rights (against years of case law), corps against individuals and that a Constitutional right doesn't extend to a particular hearing because there hasn't been a case saying exactly as such.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 12:15 AM | Reply

Oh, and I'll amend my previous post now that I've read some on this judge.

They're pushing the identity politics to cover the fact that she doesn't really have a lot of judicial experience at the bench (seems to be more an academic) to pin on her. What is there seems along the lines of what I would expect from the extremist GOP we currently have at the wheel but there's also not tons of dirt to throw at her either.

Of course, being 46 and, therefore, able to serve for likely the rest of my natural life she's an excellent candidate by the loony right standards.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 12:18 AM | Reply

[T]hey'll push the identity politics aspects of her credentials to try and cover the extremist judicial philosophy she's shown on the bench.

What extremist views? She's only been on the bench 8 months. According to one count, she's participated on 9 reported opinions, 8 of which were unanimous. She authored none of the majority opinions and wrote one dissent. The SCOTUSblog article describes the dissent;

Barrett disagreed with her colleagues, in a separate opinion that began by emphasizing that the standard for federal postconviction relief is "intentionally difficult because federal habeas review of state convictions" interferes with the states' efforts to enforce their own laws. In this case, she contended, the state court's decision rejecting Schmidt's 6th Amendment claim could not have been "contrary to" or "an unreasonable application of" clearly established federal law (the requirement for relief in federal court) because the Supreme Court has never addressed a claim that a defendant has a right to counsel in a pretrial hearing like the one at issue in this case. While acknowledging that "[p]erhaps the right to counsel should extend to a hearing like the one the judge conducted in Schmidt's case," she warned that federal law "precludes us from disturbing a state court's judgment on the ground that a state court decided an open question differently than we would -- or, for that matter, differently than we think the [Supreme] Court would."
So what was extremist?

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 12:24 AM | Reply

They're pushing the identity politics to cover the fact that she doesn't really have a lot of judicial experience ...

Again, so? She's in the mold of "Justices Kagan, Rehnquist, Fortas, White, Powell and Frankfurter, along with a few dozen others, were confirmed without ever having spent a single day as a judge."

#31 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 12:28 AM | Reply

"Barrett wrote that courts and commentators "have thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books"; in a footnote, she cited (among other things) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe v. Wade."

That fails the Susan Collins "demonstrably" test. Let's see if Collins realizes it.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-08 12:37 AM | Reply

"What extremist views? She's only been on the bench 8 months. "

Then I guess we'll just have to take her at her word.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-08 12:39 AM | Reply

After all that's happened in the White House over the past 17 months, I'm still having trouble getting my mind around the fact that an individual like Donald Trump is privileged to select a Supreme Court Justice for the United States of America -- and this is the second time he's done it. Mind blowing that our country has descended to this depth. And it can only spiral lower over the ensuing months.

I find myself obsessing on a line from the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" wherein a television newscaster casually refers to "the former United States of America."

#34 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-07-08 12:45 AM | Reply

Then I guess we'll just have to take her at her word.

What word is that? The ones you take completely out of context at 32?

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 01:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The ones you take completely out of context at 32?"

She wrote Catholic judges could see fit to be pro death penalty, but abortion and euthanasia are absolute. She also targeted for repeal a law supporting Roe v Wade.

Whatever is "out of context" is minutia.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-08 01:13 AM | Reply

#34 | Posted by nimbleswitch

Relax. There just aren't that many insane people. Just remind yourself that there only two conspiracy theories that are true: UFO's are real and there is not a single scientific study that shows fluoridation is both safe and effective.

That should help you sleep soundly. I know it does me.

#37 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-07-08 01:16 AM | Reply

She wrote Catholic judges ...

Should consider recusing themselves when faced with those issues. That was the context of that article. Which is a deflection from the context of the footnote from a different article on stare decisis that you quoted at 32.

But if you just mix it all together and throw it at the wall surely something wholly ignorant will stick. Is that what you want? Is that the way to examine candidates for such high offices?

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 01:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Again, so? She's in the mold of "Justices Kagan, Rehnquist, Fortas, White, Powell and Frankfurter, along with a few dozen others, were confirmed without ever having spent a single day as a judge."

#31 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I didn't think you'd be this dense...

Her lack of record means she's largely a black box. There's little to pin on her philosophy wise and, therefore, little to definitely challenge her on during a confirmation hearing.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 01:34 AM | Reply

So what was extremist?
#30 | POSTED BY ET_AL

A defendant lacking counsel during a hearing isn't a violation of the 6th amendment right to counsel because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled specifically that that is the case.

It's taking the saying "missing for forest for the trees" to the extreme, don't you think?

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 01:37 AM | Reply

"I didn't think you'd be this dense..."

He's not, but he thinks we are if we can't see that he's a right winger pretending to be nuetral. As always.

#41 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-08 01:51 AM | Reply

Her lack of record ...

Is a strike against her, imo. I prefer both trial court and appellate court OJT. I would add a taste of elective office too but that's pie in the sky. Justice O'Connor was last to hold elective office.

#42 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 01:58 AM | Reply

Has Et_Al said Roe is safe? That would be something.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-08 02:01 AM | Reply

"Should consider recusing themselves when faced with those issues. That was the context of that article."

And that Capital Punishment was justifiable, but abortion was absolute.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-08 02:05 AM | Reply

Her lack of record ...
Is a strike against her, imo. I prefer both trial court and appellate court OJT.

Or even extensive experience in either.

If I remember her record correctly she's only been a sitting judge for 8 months? Before that she clerked up until about 2000 and was an academic at Notre Dame afterwards. She doesn't seem to have much judicial experience period.

As for the lengthy list of those appointed without experience as a judge I'm rather shocked and find little comfort in another name being added.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 02:05 AM | Reply

It's taking the saying "missing for forest for the trees" to the extreme, don't you think?

No, whether or not the defendant has a right to counsel was not the question. It was a habeas case which she explains has specific rules for examining whether the trial court erred, and you can bet the majority explained the rules pretty much the same as she did. Part of that rule is whether the trial judge misapplied or did differently than "clearly established" law. Since the issue of the right to pretrial counsel at certain stages is not "clearly established" she concludes the trial court did not err. Her opinion lost but it is not extreme.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 02:12 AM | Reply

No...Since the issue of the right to pretrial counsel at certain stages is not "clearly established" she concludes the trial court did not err.

Yeah, there's a forest there. Try not to miss it.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 02:19 AM | Reply

"Since the issue of the right to pretrial counsel at certain stages is not "clearly established"

If you had to give a ballpark of how many of our rights are "clearly established," is it 30%, 80%, what?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-08 02:20 AM | Reply

And that Capital Punishment was justifiable, but abortion was absolute.

As a matter of Catholic doctrine, not law.

And she says if Catholic doctrine gets in the way judicial duty the law requires recusal.

#49 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 02:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah, there's a forest there. Try not to miss it.

#47 | POSTED BY JPW

Sorry. Clearly you're not the legal system.

I just had to laugh because after reading your post I couldn't help but think all you'd said was "yes" without meaning to.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 02:23 AM | Reply

Yeah, there's a forest there. Try not to miss it.

I haven't missed it. The law requiring counsel at some stages is not "clearly established." Many are but not all. (Full disclosure, I have not read the opinions and am not defending either the majority or her dissent.)

But anyway, I fall on the side of there being a "right" to counsel at any stage of any legal proceeding, even civil. I'm a strong supporter of the Full Employment of Lawyers Act.

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 02:34 AM | Reply

But anyway, I fall on the side of there being a "right" to counsel at any stage of any legal proceeding

Which is what I was driving at.

In any case, we'll have to see if Judge Barrett is even the nominee. The way the Trump administration operates it's a huge assumption that they'll limited the pick to a pre-released list.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 02:43 AM | Reply

We'll see.

I'm kinda pulling for the off card late entry, Hardiman.

#53 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-08 03:11 AM | Reply

"She" was just a sensitive pronoun choice, and can mean any gender / trans in the context of the piece. Gather oppo on the other possible nominees. Probably a white dude with a last name beginning in "K".

#54 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-07-08 07:24 AM | Reply

#7 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Now THAT'S racism.

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-07-08 12:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-07-08 12:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Now THAT's ignorance.

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All this "she" talk reminds me of the very underrated ... youtu.be

#57 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-07-08 03:04 PM | Reply

Is it Caribou Barbie?

#58 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-07-08 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Conservatives use religion to obfuscate their evil again. Hilarious.

#59 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-08 03:26 PM | Reply

Trump picks all the best people. I'm sure his Bible based search will go great. Especially since he doesn't know a thing about religion.

#60 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-08 03:47 PM | Reply

when I was young I remember hearing my parents [Republican] discussing JFK with their friends, worrying that if he were elected, as a Roman Catholic, he would take direction from the Pope. Dems elected him and that did not come to pass, so why am I hearing the same BS now decades later from the party that elected JFK??

#61 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-07-08 04:01 PM | Reply

when I was young I remember hearing my parents [Republican] discussing JFK with their friends, worrying that if he were elected, as a Roman Catholic, he would take direction from the Pope. Dems elected him and that did not come to pass, so why am I hearing the same BS now decades later from the party that elected JFK??

POSTED BY MSGT AT 2018-07-08 04:01 PM | REPLY

Brcause religious folks back then weren't as nutjobby as they are today. THAT'S why.

#62 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-08 04:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#62 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-07-08 04:04 PM | FLAG: Interesting as I've never met a Catholic 'nutjobby'. Can you cite some for me?

#63 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-07-08 05:31 PM | Reply

so why am I hearing the same BS now decades later from the party that elected JFK??

It isn't her Catholic beliefs specifically, but her possible bias towards religious views when on the bench.

Given the sick version of "religious freedom" pushed by the right, any judge deferential to religions biased views isn't good. We'll have to see how pro-corporation, police and anti-voting/civil rights she is.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 09:13 PM | Reply

The GOP is undertaking an ideological cleansing of government agencies.

It's quite obvious they're actually installing an ideological reorientation by removing ideas they don't agree with and replacing them with people who think they way they're told.

#65 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-08 10:20 PM | Reply

A political party is.. playing politics? Holy ---- Bruce, you might be on to something.

#66 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-07-09 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's quite obvious they're actually installing an ideological reorientation by removing ideas they don't agree with and replacing them with people who think they way they're told.

#65 | Posted by BruceBanner

And you think the Dems wouldnt/dont want to do the same?

I guess you are as dumb as you sound.

#67 | Posted by boaz at 2018-07-09 11:07 AM | Reply

AND she is a Catholic Jew!

inSincerely Excited

googoognoles

#68 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-09 01:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort