So she sucks in a great many ways, but I’ve actually been surprised that Coney Barrett hasn’t been the rubber stamp i expected her to be
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
713 points (98.5% liked)
politics
23952 readers
2694 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If it makes you feel better she basically is the rubber stamp you expected, all she did here was “show skepticism”
load more comments
(3 replies)
That's the double edge sword of a lifetime apppintment, they are beholden to no one after getting appointed (nothing short of a 2/3 senate conviction or illegal autocoups)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Every time I see verbs such as "rips" "slams" "melts down" I stop reading because I know it's going to be hyperbole
I know.
Could you imagine if any of the articles about the right wing attacking itself were in any way realistic?
load more comments
(2 replies)
If they don't like that law, there is one path for them to change it: Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that, fuckers.
Does maga realize that the more they attack someone, the more they drive that person away?
The more they attack someone verbally the more threats that person will receive from their cult.
It’s not about their rage changing anyone’s mind. It’s the threats of violence that follow. Those can make people fall in line or go into hiding and either of those is a win for the oppressors.
Its a cult, they don't care. It just leads existing cult members to isolate harder from outsiders and stay loyal.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.
Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.
She is an imposter, she’s wildly unqualified for the job, she is the least qualified judge to ever sit on the bench by a wide margin, she’s a DEI hire. Shes an imposter who absolutely in no way deserves her job but she’s not an imposter for “being skeptical” of ending birthright citizenship, I do predict she will fold like a house of cards over this and do nothing to protect birthright citizenship.
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.
The text of the amendment isn't murky at all.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
There's no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn't convey citizenship.
And that's why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.
Any reason to justify what they are doing.
The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.
That's not how it would work at all. They'd be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
load more comments
(45 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.
First time reading about the GOP?
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Don't they KNOW the Founders EXPLICITLY Only Protected the RIGHT to SHOOT UP A SCHOOL?
load more comments
(1 replies)