Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

 

spacer.png

Why don’t you have a drink or two.  Think how delicious that alcohol would taste right now.  You know you want some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 
 
wI0ADcdUNg_7cff25CWZtWw9h5Se25Ye8C3T8n55EQ52R_Lu_ZbZJinym8gPDRZIrK077g=s128

Speaking as an Astros fan, last year there was about an hour in between Altuve hitting the home run off of Chapman and Brandon Taubman making an ass out himself in the clubhouse followed by all of the stuff that came next.
Tonight is your Altuve home run. Drink up (lol who am I kidding), because shit is about to suuuuuuuuuuuuck for you.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2020 at 2:04 PM, Cacti said:

Maybe the outlook isn’t so grim; the world population seems to be headed for an adjustment:

Link

That's good because there's going to be less land for them to wander and a tad warmer.  

 

16 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Superspreader The Sequel: Are You Feeling Lucky?

 

Nope, masks are required. Edit: that's what I get for listening to the news.  Fuck 'em--glad they are immune in thought.  Already making bad decisions.  If there's a silver lining, maybe it's that pride goes before a fall.  

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

 

spacer.png

Are you okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

 

spacer.png

The Dems were more diverse in 1996 than the Republican Party is today. WaPo did an article on it.

Yes we all realize Clarence is your token so you can make crazy diversity statements like what’s above, but he isn’t the savior for Blacks and radical right wingers like yourself wishes he was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP will never have the right kind of black folks.  I mean even ole Pancho takes shot at the less than black dude.

 

LOLz.  It's such a fool's errand attempting to appease the scorekeepers.   Just fucking roll with the best candidate...

 

Oh that's what happened?   mmmmkay, then.  Moving on.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

The Dems were more diverse in 1996 than the Republican Party is today. WaPo did an article on it.

Yes we all realize Clarence is your token so you can make crazy diversity statements like what’s above, but he isn’t the savior for Blacks and radical right wingers like yourself wishes he was. 

Maybe the GOP Superspreader II Celebration at the WH yesterday with Thomas participating was to increase his exposure chances so Trump could gain another nominee. It's not like anyone in that group really cares about another person beyond an orbit of self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that I'm a white upper middle class male, nothing she or a conservative court does will really have a direct impact on me. But that's not the case for my kids, and friends of mine. I didn't even watch any of the vote or swearing in. Just too depressing. 

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

On 10/13/2020 at 2:07 PM, 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.

19 ?  That's a lot of people to have to debate issues.  Sounds like a recipe judicial gridlock. What are most 1st world nations SC sizes ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Given that I'm a white upper middle class male, nothing she or a conservative court does will really have a direct impact on me. But that's not the case for my kids, and friends of mine. I didn't even watch any of the vote or swearing in. Just too depressing. 

Same here.  In addition, I don't have kids, so I'm not really moved by what happens after I'm 6 feet under.  But, I have friends, family and coworkers whose lives could be really upturned by this group of "Christian" tools.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

19 ?  That's a lot of people to have to debate issues.  Sounds like a recipe judicial gridlock. What are most 1st world nations SC sizes ?

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mrs Whiggins said:

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

I can see needing more folks to decide on who gets to sit on a court, but it seems like too many justices would end up having to be a group of compromisers to get anything done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nine is somewhat of an upper limit for effective small group communication (*Comm 101 so take that with a grain of salt) but they've made it work until it didn't. So, I guess we will find out.

 

*If there are any comm specialists around here I'd appreciate insight, but the thinking goes that as groups grow much beyond those boundaries people tend to migrate toward the smaller number of 6-8. I have no citations for this, going off memory.

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

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It depends on how the recount would’ve been conducted, but assuming for the moment that you’re correct, this isn’t the defense of SCOTUS’s intervention republicans seem to think it is. If Bush was going to win the recount regardless, why intervene with no real legal basis in order to stop the recount? Wouldn’t it have been preferable to count the votes and determine the legitimate winner?

I'm not particularly justifying it.  Just saying the "stolen election" rhetoric is overheated if not false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

Mitch would have rolled those over regardless of what Reid did or didn't do.  Don't kid yourself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

Yeah, this is an interesting point, as are your prior observations on "numbers of deciders."

As an initial matter, I think reaching a "judicial consensus" is or should be a different thing from reaching a "political" or "voting" consensus.  That may be naivete or an elevation of form over substance.

I do think with a larger number of justices, we are going to have more fragmented pluralities (concurrences in part, dissents in part) than ever before, which may raise issues of clarity. And that would weaken the court.  Maybe that's appropriate. 

A large majority, like 80% I think, of the opinions of the court currently are unanimous.  A larger percentage still are "not very" divided, i.e. 8-1 or 7-2 with crackpot dissents from Thomas and/or Alito.

That kind of thing might fall by the wayside.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

That's why I favor jurisdiction stripping over court expansion. Congress should use its power to curtail judicial review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

It's a little revisionist history blaming Harry Reid for getting rid of the filibuster.  It wasn't for a Supreme Court justice but for lower court judges/other appointees/laws that the Republicans were stonewalling since a black guy was president and the goal of the Republican party was to make sure Obama got zero laws passed, judges appointed at any level, etc...  This is really on the feet of McConnell.  That being said, I have no problem if the Democrats do take the Presidency and the Senate and remove the Filibuster so they can pass legislation including an update of the Supreme Court.  Yeah it could hurt them in the future but you know what would really hurt them.... DOING FUCKING NOTHING.  The Republicans have proven they will do whatever they want with no consequence so it's about time for the Dems to try that also.  

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

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not particularly justifying it.  Just saying the "stolen election" rhetoric is overheated if not false.

I strongly disagree because what would have resulted had the count been allowed to continue wasn't known when the five conservative justices acted to stay the recount. In fact, Bush's lead when they did so had slipped to fewer than 200 votes. The stay was wrong and the ultimate ruling was absolute bullshit with no basis in law, which they made pretty obvious with their "ok guys seriously we'll only do this one time we promise" bullshit. The (arguable) fact that Bush would've won had the recount been allowed to finish does nothing to retroactively make their wrongful actions ok.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for lower court judges because the GOP was engaging in unprecedented obstructionism and had he not done so, Trump would've had even more vacancies to fill. If you think Mitch McConnell wouldn't have immediately eliminated that himself the moment Trump took office you are a fool.

And anyone who is scared of what might eventually result from court expansion needs to be a hell of a lot more scared of what will definitely result if we don't.

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

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably worth noting that by most if not all analyses, the 2000 election would have obtained the same result with or without the recount halted and terminated by Bush v. Gore.

Fair enough, but that means little in regards to the 3 justices who were doing their best to 'make sure.'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the Sixth Circuit rehears cases en banc, there are 18 judges deciding the case.  when the Fifth Circuit goes en banc, it's 16 judges. 

there is no magic to 9 justices.  it can easily be expanded to 13 or 15.  after all, SCOTUS is essentially a super en banc hearing.  adding 4 or 6 new voices isn't something radical.  appellate lawyers already deal with it when they argue to en banc panels, and circuit courts churn out hundreds of en banc rulings each year.  having 13 or 15 SCOTUS justices ruling on 75-80 cases a year is workable and manageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That's why I favor jurisdiction stripping over court expansion. Congress should use its power to curtail judicial review.

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...