Barrett: My Life Experiences ‘Don’t Dictate How I Decide Cases’ | MSNBC

Barrett: My Life Experiences 'Don't Dictate How I Decide Cases' | MSNBC 1

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett spoke about her life experiences but assured that while they have given her wisdom, they "don't dictate how I decide cases." Aired on 10/13/2020.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Barrett: My Life Experiences 'Don't Dictate How I Decide Cases' | MSNBC

72 Comments on "Barrett: My Life Experiences ‘Don’t Dictate How I Decide Cases’ | MSNBC"

  1. Kendrick Jones | October 13, 2020 at 4:34 PM | Reply

    What a LIAR …already!!!

  2. Except abortions and birth control. She’ll impress her religious beliefs on women.

    • I’m against abortion. But I’m not gonna tell you can’t have one.
      But I do think you should pay for it. Not tax payer funded.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 5:53 PM | Reply

      *Democratic Coverup for Fannie and Freddie Led to 2008 Meltdown*
      https://humanevents.com/2008/09/30/democratic-coverup-for-fannie-and-freddie-led-to-2008-meltdown/

      *If anyone wants to find the people responsible for the current financial meltdown, they need to look no farther than the Democrats — Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and their Fannie Mae pal Franklin Raines — to indentify the culprits.*

    • God I hope so

    • Why do you believe what you stated? Please be very specific.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:09 PM | Reply

      *Whose Policies Led To The Credit Crisis?*
      Sept 2008 https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/

      *The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.*

      It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. After the fit hit the shan, as Michelle says, these same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.

      The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.

  3. “but assured that while they have given her wisdom, they “don’t dictate how I decide cases.”

    – Liar

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 5:49 PM | Reply

      *BLAME BARNEY FRANK FOR THE RECESSION, NOT GEORGE BUSH*
      https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/blame-barney-frank-for-the-recession-not-george-bush/

      *The progressive Democrats in power must believe that the citizens of this country are absolute morons, either that or they haven’t read a newspaper in two years and don’t realize that George Bush is no longer president. The Democratic party plans on retaining their change message for their 2010. Their new tag line is “vote for us, or its back to the bad old economic policies of George Bush. That’s right Barack Obama and his progressive majority are going to campaign as if they were all still in kindergarten “Its not my fault….blame Bush.”*

      Not only is that approach childish, but it belies the truth. Allow me to suggest that the policies of Barney Frank had more to do with the bursting of the housing bubble, the resulting bank crisis and the “great recession,” than the policies of George Bush. Led by Frank the Democratic party brought down the banking industry by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then he blunted the Republican attempts to regulate the industry

      Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”

    • @William H Music 2020 Are you off your meds again?

    • Wink 😉

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:17 PM | Reply

      *In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout*
      Aug 2010 https://eppc.org/publications/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

      *In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.*

      As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

      Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 — which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

      Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.

      The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).

      Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key difference between the two.

      On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM | Reply

      *Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession*
      Sept 2016 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html

      *On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.*

      “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”

      In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.

      When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.

      The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.

      The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem — remember “Murphy Brown” — let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.

  4. This is a ridiculous statement.

  5. I see shades of Kavanagh/Barr here with the avoiding answers to crucial questions. She seems like a perfect politician really, never mind a judge.

  6. Fernando Flores | October 13, 2020 at 4:43 PM | Reply

    If this woman would it have any decensy she wouldn’t take the position and all of those adopted kids that she has, is a freaking front

    • William H Music 2020 | October 13, 2020 at 5:45 PM | Reply

      Ummmm in reality Democrats support the LGBTQ community.
      tinyurl.com/vpf95na 🎶

    • Fernando Flores | October 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM | Reply

      @jm z full of hate? Ignore her?
      No wonder why the country is the way it is.
      Look yourself in the mirror you’ll find out who’s the small minded.

    • Whatcha gonna do when Trump wins?
      🎃🎃🎃👻👻👻👻

    • What a hateful comment. Filled with misspelling

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:19 PM | Reply

      *In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout*
      Aug 2010 https://eppc.org/publications/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

      *In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.*

      As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

      Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 — which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

      Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.

      The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).

      Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key difference between the two.

      On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.

  7. Barrett is a right wing Catholic that follows white evangelical ideology and history shows that LIBERAL really means liberated from white supremacist Christianity Ideology

    • Zebra Zagadore | October 13, 2020 at 6:19 PM | Reply

      @Mueller Time Give yourself a thumbs up?

    • יהושע יהושע | October 13, 2020 at 6:24 PM | Reply

      @Mueller Time *your first name suggests that you are Hitler’s ideological remnants*

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:32 PM | Reply

      *Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession*
      Sept 2016 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html

      *On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.*

      “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”

      In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.

      When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.

      The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.

      The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem — remember “Murphy Brown” — let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.

    • @יהושע יהושע lol. Your name is of some language I’ve never seen. You meddling in our elections?? Get Bob Mueller to bust out a can of Mueller time

    • @Zebra Zagadore now I did just for you

  8. Cort Schumacher | October 13, 2020 at 4:48 PM | Reply

    No, her religious beliefs do shape her decisions on cases, she has already provided proof of that and she should never be confirmed to the Supreme Court

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM | Reply

      *Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession*
      Sept 2016 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html

      *On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.*

      “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”

      In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.

      When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.

      The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.

      The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem — remember “Murphy Brown” — let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.

    • @David Hale refusing to answer the question answers the question.

    • @Elmosweed you didn’t answer mine so why should I answer yours

    • @Let’s do it Joe Biden for president there isnt a rush and this has been done many times before an election..the dems are acting like this isnt the case but, that’s because they are playing on uneducated people..

    • Richard MacLean | October 13, 2020 at 7:58 PM | Reply

      Pope Francis does. 🤣

  9. Barrett is a crazy religious cultist who wants to drag America back to the 50s

    • @Mueller Time Agreed. How can one man make so many lunatic lefties act like lunatic lefties? It’s an amazing power he has. I’m a pro choice Canadian saying this lol. Democrat’s are fking lunatics present day. Cheers

    • William H Music 2020 | October 13, 2020 at 5:43 PM | Reply

      Nothing is progressive about getting slammed in the crapper.
      tinyurl.com/y2lvvf75 🎶

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 5:49 PM | Reply

      *BLAME BARNEY FRANK FOR THE RECESSION, NOT GEORGE BUSH*
      https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/blame-barney-frank-for-the-recession-not-george-bush/

      *The progressive Democrats in power must believe that the citizens of this country are absolute morons, either that or they haven’t read a newspaper in two years and don’t realize that George Bush is no longer president. The Democratic party plans on retaining their change message for their 2010. Their new tag line is “vote for us, or its back to the bad old economic policies of George Bush. That’s right Barack Obama and his progressive majority are going to campaign as if they were all still in kindergarten “Its not my fault….blame Bush.”*

      Not only is that approach childish, but it belies the truth. Allow me to suggest that the policies of Barney Frank had more to do with the bursting of the housing bubble, the resulting bank crisis and the “great recession,” than the policies of George Bush. Led by Frank the Democratic party brought down the banking industry by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then he blunted the Republican attempts to regulate the industry

      Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”

    • Richard MacLean | October 13, 2020 at 7:59 PM | Reply

      Pope Francis can excommunicate her anytime. Do you know what that means to a Catholic? Eternal damnation.

    • @foreigner fan isn’t it fun watching?

      “Never interfere with an enemy that’s in the process of destroying itself”

  10. This answer was a cop out. She’s done interviews where she said “when I struggle to make a decision, I rely on my faith”. Now her life experience doesn’t matter huh? I call BS.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 5:54 PM | Reply

      *Democratic Coverup for Fannie and Freddie Led to 2008 Meltdown*
      https://humanevents.com/2008/09/30/democratic-coverup-for-fannie-and-freddie-led-to-2008-meltdown/

      *If anyone wants to find the people responsible for the current financial meltdown, they need to look no farther than the Democrats — Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and their Fannie Mae pal Franklin Raines — to indentify the culprits.*

    • @Keith Johnson – Shelby GT500 this doesn’t even justify a response.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:18 PM | Reply

      *In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout*
      Aug 2010 https://eppc.org/publications/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

      *In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.*

      As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

      Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 — which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

      Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.

      The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).

      Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key difference between the two.

      On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.

    • It’s not only a cop-out, it’s a just plain silly notion. _Of course_ one’s life experiences shape who one is, including how you think and act. _What else could possibly determine such a thing?_ If she had been born in Haiti, to Haitian parents who did not sell their children for money, she would probably think and act differently than she does now with the life experiences that she has had. She might even practice a different faith if she had been born to different parents in another country.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM | Reply

      *Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession*
      Sept 2016 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html

      *On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.*

      “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”

      In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.

      When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.

      The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.

      The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem — remember “Murphy Brown” — let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.

  11. Acer Maximinus | October 13, 2020 at 5:02 PM | Reply

    Barret: “My life experiences don’t dictate how I decide cases, my religion does.”

  12. Progressive Humanist | October 13, 2020 at 5:28 PM | Reply

    No, but your life BELIEFS do. And they are extremist, cultist (People of Praise). No person with such true believer glassy-eyed belief should be in a position of power. Especially when its values run country to that of our secular democracy and she has plead allegiance to them before and above honoring the Constitution. She needs help, not power.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/amy-coney-barrett-bad-choice-women

  13. Progressive Humanist | October 13, 2020 at 5:28 PM | Reply

    ACB is a radical true believer christian who is literally for Christian Canonical Law.

    She and other extremist repub christians are trying to turn our secular democracy into an oppressive christian nationalist theocratic state, exactly the kind the founders were intensely afraid of and thus constructed US democracy, the first secular democracy in the world, to protect against (separation of church and state).

    Some good reading:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life (also check out the author’s many books)

    “The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American” by Andrew L. Seidel

    “Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic” by Matthew Stewart

    • 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 maga

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:28 PM | Reply

      *Frank’s fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco*
      Sept 2008

      *That’s Barney Frank’s story, and he’s sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector,” Frank said; the country is in dire straits today “thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” And that philosophy goes “back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, ‘Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.’ “*

      In fact, that isn’t what Reagan said. His actual words were: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

      Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits — many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be — they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.

      The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

      The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

      All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

      http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

  14. Let’s do it Joe Biden for president | October 13, 2020 at 5:34 PM | Reply

    Interesting how republicans is in a rush for this yet for stimulus they took the time and still nothing

    • Drunk Nancy is holding up stimulus. Thats the democrat house. This is moving fast because it’s the Republican senate that knows how to work.

  15. Everyone’s life experiences shade your world…including law.

  16. “My life experiences don’t dictate how I decide cases.” Perhaps not, only you know that. But your husband dictates all your decisions. So where does that leave your decisions regarding your judgment?

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:28 PM | Reply

      *Frank’s fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco*
      Sept 2008

      *That’s Barney Frank’s story, and he’s sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector,” Frank said; the country is in dire straits today “thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” And that philosophy goes “back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, ‘Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.’ “*

      In fact, that isn’t what Reagan said. His actual words were: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

      Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits — many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be — they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.

      The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

      The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

      All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

      http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

  17. Coney Barrett signed a letter that said “abortion in all cases is unethical and should not be allowed.”
    So now we’re supposed to believe her when she sits up there and lies under oath? 🤔
    republican Christian values right there! 😂🤣

  18. charles beaudry | October 13, 2020 at 6:00 PM | Reply

    SHE HAD HER KIDS AT TRUMP’S COVID LAWN PARTY! SITTING NEXT TO INFECTED TRUMP’S AND STAFF! NO PROTECTION NO MASK! “CHILD ENDANGERMENT”

  19. Translation: “The fact that I grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth has nothing to do with it.”

  20. She said that her career in law is a means to an end. How are they not asking about that? I think it’s highly relevant. What end? They are terrified of the answer.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.