Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't know why any of us care about this process.  She could stand up and say "I will only rule in cases however the Chosen One, decreed to rule lesser men by the Lord God on high, Donald J. Trump, tells me to rule, and also, I will do all I can to ensure that women are not allowed to vote," none of it matters.

This is a sham hearing, being held only to meet the minimum legal requirement.

She's in, we know what we're getting.

Win the election, then pack the court.  That's the game that's been declared.  Play it.  Escalate it to whatever degree necessary, because once the governor is off, its off.  Win.

Conservatives have elected 15 of the past 19 or 20 SC justices. But the GOP is trying to get Biden to answer about  Dems packing the court. Laughable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Legislating from the bench,” “activist judges,” “originality,” “textualism,” “strict constructionism” and so on are simply rhetorical cover for the tradcons and allies of capital in siding with their favored interests. It’s totally unsurprising that conservative justices will opine from the living constitution perspective when it suits them. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tom said:

 

Oh go fuck yourself, you intellectual pussy and your both sides bullshit.  Your party coalesced around the idea that a supreme court judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year just a few years ago.  How many of Obama's other judge nominations did Mitch also refuse to confirm after 2014?  RBG dies a month and a half before an election and you shitpigs can't confirm a conservative activist judge fast enough.

I hope Democrats take away the filibuster and pack the fucking courts so fast your head spins.  They probably won't because Democrats have no backbone, which is why Republicans continue to be the fucking worst and continually get away with this bullshit, but I pray they grow a backbone and for once play your asshole games.  Fuck your "both sides" nonsense.

Just quoting because it needed to be said more than once.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tom said:

 

Oh go fuck yourself, you intellectual pussy and your both sides bullshit.  Your party coalesced around the idea that a supreme court judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year just a few years ago.  How many of Obama's other judge nominations did Mitch also refuse to confirm after 2014?  RBG dies a month and a half before an election and you shitpigs can't confirm a conservative activist judge fast enough.

I hope Democrats take away the filibuster and pack the fucking courts so fast your head spins.  They probably won't because Democrats have no backbone, which is why Republicans continue to be the fucking worst and continually get away with this bullshit, but I pray they grow a backbone and for once play your asshole games.  Fuck your "both sides" nonsense.

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???

I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.

So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???

I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.

So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

well, your guy keeps claiming he is going to fix health care without an actual plan and has been running with that for 5 years, along with the Money Pit "2 weeks" answer, or the "elect me and I will show you"  so I figure you could give Biden a little latitude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???

I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.

So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

Just curious, what exactly do you think the 9th Circuit has done to "back door [the Dems'] desires?" I'm quite confident you have no idea what you are talking about. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is, if he wins and decides to open up the arms race that is packing the courts and jumping them up every 4 years to try and mute the influence of the previous administration, is that okay and cool as a political maneuver, since we are talking about it being cool if Biden wins election? 

Granted his winning the election is like a 12.5% chance at this point so probably just a thought exercise at this point with less than 30 days to election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???

I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.

So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

 

Get fucked, you witless coward.  You absolutely support this move.  You support it with your vote.  You know exactly the precedent your party has set with its actions and your attempts to deflect doesn't work for anyone who has paid attention for the past years. YOU ASSHOLES SAID JUST THREE YEARS AGO THAT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULDN'T BE REPLACED IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  NOBODY HAS FORGOTTEN.  I absolutely hope Joe BIden and the Democrats have the balls to pack the court to offset your bullshit. It would be a fine bookend to Mitch McConnell's legacy of being an obstructionist bitch. 

Edited by Tom
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, elfenix said:

legislating from the bench is how we got private property in our legal tradition.  we've legislated from the bench for damn near 1000 years.  you'd think people would be used to it by now.

5th amendment.  Landmark cases like Kelo, Algins, Fuller have only limited that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???

I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.

So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

Would you have been ok if Obama installed Merrick Garland on the SC and claimed the senate was abrogating their constitutional duty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, softlynow said:

“Legislating from the bench,” “activist judges,” “originality,” “textualism,” “strict constructionism” and so on are simply rhetorical cover for the tradcons and allies of capital in siding with their favored interests. It’s totally unsurprising that conservative justices will opine from the living constitution perspective when it suits them. 

Justices can also be very bad historians in a manner that is convenient for ends that match their ideological priors.   

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue..

It's political bullshit, hand-waving, and you know it. Packing the courts is not a Democrat issue. There is no reason for them to answer a question on an isdue fabricated by Republicans. Republicans are using it to fear-monger.

The only party who need answer questions on court packing are the Republicans. They are the ones who have deployed senseless tricks time and again to pack the courts.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Would you have been ok if Obama installed Merrick Garland on the SC and claimed the senate was abrogating their constitutional duty?

If the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with itIf the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with it

I don't know what the legal definition of abrogating  their constitutional duty would be and how long that period would need to be

 

I think it was completely hypocritical for Mitch McConnell to say it's too soon to select a supreme court justice under Obama but now has no problem rushing it through

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Just curious, what exactly do you think the 9th Circuit has done to "back door [the Dems'] desires?" I'm quite confident you have no idea what you are talking about. 

He doesn't. He's the dumbest poster on the board, since CLH seems to have never migrated over to Surly.

Anyone who actually thinks "originalism" is a real thing and not just a pretextual cover for reading conservative political goals into law is a liar or a rube. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with itIf the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with it

I don't know what the legal definition of abrogating  their constitutional duty would be and how long that period would need to be

 

I think it was completely hypocritical for Mitch McConnell to say it's too soon to select a supreme court justice under Obama but now has no problem rushing it through

Yet you will continue to cast your vote for GOP Senate candidates to that McConnell can stay in control.  You acknowledge that the GOP Senate is lying hypocrites, and you reward that behavior with your continued support.  That's a sure-fire way to guarantee MORE of that behavior.

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

 

 

 

Well, see, she's lying to Congress.  That's what they do.  It's their brand.  She had to do it in order to get her full membership card, it's like an initiation rite.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with itIf the Senate hast to vote on it then yes I would have a problem with it

I don't know what the legal definition of abrogating  their constitutional duty would be and how long that period would need to be

 

I think it was completely hypocritical for Mitch McConnell to say it's too soon to select a supreme court justice under Obama but now has no problem rushing it through

Well, if one branch refuses to do their job, what’s the executive to do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the ritual the GOP plays every time they nominate a judge/justice. They spent decades building up the Federalist Society in order to cultivate judges who will implement their political agenda in the courts and never hide that intention, until it's time to talk about any actual judge/justice they nominate. Then all of a sudden it's "how dare you say she'll overturn Roe, this here is a brilliant impartial jurist and we have no idea how she'll vote!" That's definitely why they're prioritizing her nomination over economic and pandemic relief even with an election imminent.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Well, if one branch refuses to do their job, what’s the executive to do? 

 Again what's going to constitute abrogation, what period of time ?obviously there's got to be one, but what is it ?

 This issue seems classic for a constitutional amendment to establish a period of time before an election where supreme court justices can't be nominated/confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He doesn't. He's the dumbest poster on the board, since CLH seems to have never migrated over to Surly.

Anyone who actually thinks "originalism" is a real thing and not just a pretextual cover for reading conservative political goals into law is a liar or a rube. 

As a somewhat reformed originalist I take issue with your broad sweep.  The problem isn't with the concept (especially when coupled with judicial restraint).  The problem is the political machinations that have caused legislatures and Congress largely to cease to represent the majority of their constituents.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet you will continue to cast your vote for GOP Senate candidates to that McConnell can stay in control.  You acknowledge that the GOP Senate is lying hypocrites, and you reward that behavior with your continued support.  That's a sure-fire way to guarantee MORE of that behavior.

Well, see, she's lying to Congress.  That's what they do.  It's their brand.  She had to do it in order to get her full membership card, it's like an initiation rite.

everybody knows that lying to Congress is only a problem if the person is a Democratic Party member or poor/middle class/upper class but not Italian supercar upper class.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

As a somewhat reformed originalist I take issue with your broad sweep.  The problem isn't with the concept (especially when coupled with judicial restraint).  The problem is the political machinations that have caused legislatures and Congress largely to cease to represent the majority of their constituents.

I don't see how legislatures being unrepresentative of their constituents has anything to do with the intellectual validity of originalism. The (primary) problem with originalism is that it pretends that everyone at a specific point in time fully agreed on what every phrase in the Constitution meant. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

As a somewhat reformed originalist I take issue with your broad sweep.  The problem isn't with the concept (especially when coupled with judicial restraint).  The problem is the political machinations that have caused legislatures and Congress largely to cease to represent the majority of their constituents.

They represent the morons and the super rich.  Everyone else can get fucked since they are too busy trying to dodge all the bullshit hurdles..

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't see how legislatures being unrepresentative of their constituents has anything to do with the intellectual validity of originalism. The (primary) problem with originalism is that it pretends that everyone at a specific point in time fully agreed on what every phrase in the Constitution meant. 

We can agree to disagree.  My comment was directed at the practical reality of implementing what I believe is an valid jurisprudential perspective.  The reality of the judiciary's position in our government is, in my view, far different than was intended, as a result of many factors, and has led in large part to minority rule rather than majority rule with minority protections.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, elfenix said:
2 hours ago, JBJ said:
5th amendment.  Landmark cases like Kelo, Algins, Fuller have only limited that right.

Are you suggesting that private property didn't exist in our system prior to the 5th amendment?

If you are using "our system" to include all the way back to medieval England, land rights were created by decrees (executive lawmakers) and chancellorships (executive administrations) adjudicated land law.  Common Law only recognizes rights to personal property as things which are readily carried by a person wherever they may go.

If you mean homesteading as a new world phenomenon, again created by law, not adjudicated into existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz up now. Texas must be so proud. Right to abortion is Radical according to him. 
 

he says dark money is “so-called dark money.”  How did he get elected?  Oh yeah - low information voters succumbing to dark money. 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey fuck you.....  I have never said I support this move, but hey you are a typical reactionary partisan hack here on the surly.    What's sad though is your candidates won't say what they're going to try to do if they win... pack the court .  They wont state their positions on an issue.. so fucking typical of democrats ...bait and switch..... you have to vote for the bill to know what's in it.
That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so (whether you or I agree with that or not).  The left always needs to back door their desires, and the 9th circuit has been that conduit for years.  Roosevelt did the same thing in the 30's. Which party was he a member of ?  Hmmmmmmm ???
I don't want a super majority on the supreme court. I like a fairly even balance, but more importantly I want them to make rulings based on Constitutional grounds  not political desires.
So go fuck yourself again, if you can even get it up..

How is what is going on currently not court packing?
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Ted Cruz up now. Texas must be so proud. Right to abortion is Radical according to him. 
 

he says dark money is “so-called dark money.”  How did he get elected?  Oh yeah - low information voters succumbing to dark money. 

Cruz now defending Citizens United.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JBJ said:

If you are using "our system" to include all the way back to medieval England, land rights were created by decrees (executive lawmakers) and chancellorships (executive administrations) adjudicated land law.  Common Law only recognizes rights to personal property as things which are readily carried by a person wherever they may go.

If you mean homesteading as a new world phenomenon, again created by law, not adjudicated into existence.

i mean the kings bench read a statute and came up with a meaning that wasn't necessarily readily apparent from the outset and boom, private real property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tigol said:


How is what is going on currently not court packing?

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.

And the Constitution doesn't limit the number of judges to the federal judiciary, so if the Democrats secure the WH and a majority in both houses they could likewise constitutionally adjust the number of judges on various courts, the corollary of what the Republican-controlled Senate has done by refusing to confirm open judiciary seats during Obama's term as President.

This is a stupid argument.  One is packing by obstruction, the other is packing by addition.  Two sides of the same coin.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.

Who determines the # of justices that sit on the court? What does the constitution say on it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.


Lucky to have three picks? Where did the first pick come from smart guy. Your arguments have the strength of a wet paper towel. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Cruz now says we are one justice away from federal courts ordering the removal of crosses and stars of David from tombstones in Arlington National Cemetery.  
 

what a carnival barker. 

Listened to him on my lunch time drive and it was pretty gross how inaccurate literally everything he said was. What a grimy little pimp 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.

Think of it more of balancing the Court. I like the idea of 7more SC Justices, which would bring the number to 19. This would dilute the power (real,or imagined) of any one judge and would make the national spectacle that occurs when a justice retires or dies unnecessary. There’s really no good reason for us to have the smallest SC among 1st world nations other than the fact it’s been this way for 100 years. Republican senators are arguing against Observing precedent as I write this and Barrett’s not a big fan of it either.. 

To skittish Democrats I say, what’s the point of having power if you’re not going to use it? Be like Republicans. Give the finger to anybody objecting to your exercise of your power.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

To skittish Democrats I say, what’s the point of having power if you’re not going to use it? Be like Republicans. Give the finger to anybody objecting to your exercise of your power.

This.  The GOP has made one rule absolutely and abundantly clear: if you have power, use it.  Nothing else matters.

If you are playing against an opponent who follows only that rule, and you attempt to follow any OTHER rule, you will lose, 100% of the time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Think of it more of balancing the Court. I like the idea of 7more SC Justices, which would bring the number to 19. This would dilute the power (real,or imagined) of any one judge and would make the national spectacle that occurs when a justice retires or dies unnecessary. There’s really no good reason for us to have the smallest SC among 1st world nations other than the fact it’s been this way for 100 years. Republican senators are arguing against Observing precedent as I write this and Barrett’s not a big fan of it either.. 

To skittish Democrats I say, what’s the point of having power if you’re not going to use it? Be like Republicans. Give the finger to anybody objecting to your exercise of your power.

this.  gop doesn't give a shit so fuck them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it ?  The constitution allows the president to nominate SCOTUS, and the Senate to confirm. Trumps been lucky to have 3 picks.  And by packing the court I mean adding more justices, which is something  Biden Will most definitely try to do if elected, but is too chicken shit to admit it.

Answered by DDD.

Chickenshit? No. Not falling for obvious troll bait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...