Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, LW Goatman said:

So is our two party shitshow solely focused on partisan politics. 

In this particular case, the Republicans have made all judicial appointments completely and unequivocally politically biased. Withholding hearings on lawful appointments for YEARS is absolutely counter to the process and duty of the Senate, and only the Republicans have done that so far. No allowing Garland's nomination or the hundreds of other federal appointments during the last 2 years of the Obama administration was absolutely the catalyst for where we are today. Even if the Senate voted on Garland, and he wasn't approved, the process should have moved forward. Sticking your head in the sand and avoiding any discussion is the problem, and an unreasonable course of action. In doing so, the Republicans are now opening themselves up to moves that further politicize these appointments and their procedures by having a backlash once Democrats gain control of the Senate, whether it be this year or in 2-4 years. We shouldn't be in this situation, but here we are.  Court packing may be the actual counter-balance to this course of action by the R's, since they refused to even discuss an appointee for 9 months prior to an election, and are now ramming through an appointment with 1 month before an election. You can't have it both ways and expect everyone else to play by the rules. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

In this particular case, the Republicans have made all judicial appointments completely and unequivocally politically biased. Withholding hearings on lawful appointments for YEARS is absolutely counter to the process and duty of the Senate, and only the Republicans have done that so far. No allowing Garland's nomination or the hundreds of other federal appointments during the last 2 years of the Obama administration was absolutely the catalyst for where we are today. Even if the Senate voted on Garland, and he wasn't approved, the process should have moved forward. Sticking your head in the sand and avoiding any discussion is the problem, and an unreasonable course of action. In doing so, the Republicans are now opening themselves up to moves that further politicize these appointments and their procedures by having a backlash once Democrats gain control of the Senate, whether it be this year or in 2-4 years. We shouldn't be in this situation, but here we are.  Court packing may be the actual counter-balance to this course of action by the R's, since they refused to even discuss an appointee for 9 months prior to an election, and are now ramming through an appointment with 1 month before an election. You can't have it both ways and expect everyone else to play by the rules. 

Hundreds of fed appointments, is that accurate? 

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but this isn't a republican thing. This is American politics thing and neither side has any moral high ground. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

True.  But why should the dems admit to anything?  The proposal of adding SC justices would be a reaction to ramming ACB through and that is still playing out.  This is like asking a coach if he plans to go for 2 or kick the extra point at the end of the game during the halftime interview.   It depends on what happens.  As others have more succulently phrased it-  Fuck around and find out!

I agree.  I guess what I was trying to say is that for once, the Dems aren't stepping on their own dicks by actually remaining silent on this.  

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

1 minute ago, LW Goatman said:

Hundreds of fed appointments, is that accurate? 

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but this isn't a republican thing. This is American politics thing and neither side has any moral high ground. 

One of their big talking points is how many judicial appointments Obama left unfilled.  What they don't say is that McConnell blocked Obama from filling them.  Bothsiderism not in play in this circumstance because it truly is a republican thing to control the courts with no regard to how it's done.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LW Goatman said:

Hundreds of fed appointments, is that accurate? 

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but this isn't a republican thing. This is American politics thing and neither side has any moral high ground. 

Fuck outta here with this shit, the Dems absolutely have the moral high ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LW Goatman said:

Hundreds of fed appointments, is that accurate? 

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but this isn't a republican thing. This is American politics thing and neither side has any moral high ground. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mitch-mcconnell-obama-trump-judges-supreme-court-conservative-biden-impeachment-a9245781.html
 

 

This is not a both sides issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah. And it got me too. I rattled off the same 4 she did and said "well, yeah, I guess so" when he said Redress. 

Well that’s troubling. “I guess so” is a wrong answer to whether the right to petition government for redress of grievances exists in the First Amendment. Dead ass wrong by you and the Judge if she shares your skepticism. 
 

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is equally as important as the other four. Without it, citizens have no ability to correct governmental overreach (outside of revolution). It comes from the Magna Carta. And yet ACB doesn’t remember it.  That’s not insignificant. 
 

there’s a bad moon on the rise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Well that’s troubling. “I guess so” is a wrong answer to whether the right to petition government for redress of grievances exists in the First Amendment. Dead ass wrong by you and the Judge if she shares your skepticism.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I agree, it's a fundamental and important right, but I just forgot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Blumenthal is a clown. 

Not on the issue of Griswold. That is the Right to Privacy. If she questions Griswold, she is fringe.
 

I assume she questions it because she will not answer whether it was correctly decided. She will answer for Brown, not Griswold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She'll answer for Brown because there's no concern that anyone brings a challenge against it. They figured out long ago how to de facto segregate schools to their liking.

She's not answering for Griswold because she, along with the rest of the conservative justices, will be begging people to bring cases that will let them narrow if not overturn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

So what date does she get voted in?  Oct 23rd?

Pre-Election for sure.
 

The next four will be sworn in before October 2021. Her election rulings will pave the way for expansion of the Court to 13 (one Justice for each Circuit Court). 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Well that’s troubling. “I guess so” is a wrong answer to whether the right to petition government for redress of grievances exists in the First Amendment. Dead ass wrong by you and the Judge if she shares your skepticism. 
 

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is equally as important as the other four. Without it, citizens have no ability to correct governmental overreach (outside of revolution). It comes from the Magna Carta. And yet ACB doesn’t remember it.  That’s not insignificant. 
 

there’s a bad moon on the rise. 

well, even more troubling is that she claims to be more of a constitutional originalist. she also participated in the "no notes!" clown show, so it's a bad look considering those two things. it's not to much to ask someone who is going to rule on the merits of constitutional law to, i dunno, actually know the constitution.  

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

31 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

So what date does she get voted in?  Oct 23rd?

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham scheduled a committee vote for 9 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 15, the morning of the last day of hearings. Barrett’s nomination is expected to be brought up for a vote at that meeting and then delayed for a week, per committee rules.

If that happens as expected, the GOP-led committee would then vote to approve her nomination Thursday, Oct. 22. That would set up a final confirmation vote on the Senate floor the week of Oct. 26."

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-confirmation-hearings-amy-coney-barrett-db36d00a151d6aea8514ecd311fe9dca

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Oh no, she forgot 1 of the 5 rights off the top of her head. I guess she doesn't know anything about the constitution at all!!!!

 

56 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, even more troubling is that she claims to be more of a constitutional originalist. she also participated in the "no notes!" clown show, so it's a bad look considering those two things. it's not to much to ask someone who is going to rule on the merits of constitutional law to, i dunno, actually know the constitution.  

1234

 

Somewhat agree that it was more of a brain fart than her knowing.  I can guarantee my ConLaw professor from law school knows the five off the top of his head at any given moment tho.

Edited by CowboyFred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her not answering questions that seem answerable in not tipping her hand on how she'd vote is bullshit. Also, her not remembering to include some writings that were dug up is also shitty. This whole rush job sucks ass and makes me and most Americans mad and jaded about this whole fucking process. Fuck you, you disingenuous BITCHASS HANDMAID!!!!

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

Just now, burntorangebongos said:

Her not answering questions that seem answerable in not tipping her hand on how she'd vote is bullshit. Also, her not remembering to include some writings that were dug up is also shitty. This whole rush job sucks ass and makes me and most Americans mad and jaded about this whole fucking process. Fuck you, you disingenuous BITCHASS HANDMAID!!!!

she's more of an aunt lydia than a handmaid, but i get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/barrett-emerges-as-anti-kavanaugh-429481
 

as much as this whole thing sucks, we know this bitch is getting confirmed. 
 

the article linked above is good news. The democrats needed to speak about Obamacare and election oriented issues. They needed to not be shown on national TV viciously attacking this woman. 
 

So far we haven’t given republicans the chance to have a repeat of that shitty ass Lindsey Graham moment during the kavanaugh hearings. I know for a fact that the hearings made republicans amped to vote and we lost several senate seats in the midterm elections because of it. 
 

so far, so boring and that’s what democrats need because I think we’re in a good place going into the election. 
 

fuck McConnell and fuck graham. 

Edited by Voldemort86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Her not answering questions that seem answerable in not tipping her hand on how she'd vote is bullshit. Also, her not remembering to include some writings that were dug up is also shitty. This whole rush job sucks ass and makes me and most Americans mad and jaded about this whole fucking process. Fuck you, you disingenuous BITCHASS HANDMAID!!!!

Its the RGB rule.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amy-coney-barrett-uses-the-ginsburg-rule-very-carefully-on-day-two-of-scotus-confirmation-hearing/vi-BB19Z3YP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It's not just RBG's rule, its part of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a/k/a the ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A(6):

       A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. 

It used to be observed more regularly before these things turned into a complete shit show.

 

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

5 hours ago, seven said:

Meh, but what an odd question. 

It is kind of odd.  You can easily make it six as it is best to separate establishment of religion from free exercise thereof.  Freedom of the press is enumerated, but it could easily be subsumed in speech, so back down to five.

A bit of a gotcha game there.

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

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is kind of odd.  You can easily make it six as it is best to separate establishment of religion from free exercise thereof.  Freedom of the press is enumerated, but it could easily be subsumed in speech, so back down to five.

A bit of a gotcha game there.

I agree with the first paragraph entirely, but it wasn’t a gotcha game. It was fucking Ben Sasse that asked the question. It was obviously meant to be a softball so some GOPers could go “oh look, she respects the Constitution so much she’s got it memorized!”

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

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I agree with the first paragraph entirely, but it wasn’t a gotcha game. It was fucking Ben Sasse that asked the question. It was obviously meant to be a softball so some GOPers could go “oh look, she respects the Constitution so much she’s got it memorized!”

His entire line of questioning was shit.  Serves him right that it blew up into a soundbite for serving up that dog shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I agree with the first paragraph entirely, but it wasn’t a gotcha game. It was fucking Ben Sasse that asked the question. It was obviously meant to be a softball so some GOPers could go “oh look, she respects the Constitution so much she’s got it memorized!”

True enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Criticizing her looks. Someone else criticized her voice earlier too. That shit is stupid and wrong. There's a thousand good reasons to oppose her nomination and they have to do with who she is and what she'll do, not what she looks or sounds like.

I'm not a fan of her voice.  It's ultra strange because she's a Nawlins gal that went to school in Memphis.

I'm guessing she had one of those Irish Channel sort of Brooklyn accents before she went total midwestern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kind of odd.  You can easily make it six as it is best to separate establishment of religion from free exercise thereof.  Freedom of the press is enumerated, but it could easily be subsumed in speech, so back down to five.
A bit of a gotcha game there.

The question was a softball from a republican. How is that a gotcha?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


The question was a softball from a republican. How is that a gotcha?

wildcat already pointed that out.

I'm not listening to the hearings because a) the outcome is a foregone conclusion b) I can evaluate her on my own and c) I cannot stand listening to legislators bloviate, I don't care what the topic is or how serious it is.  It's depressing as fuck.

QED, I only saw Soledad's tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACB won’t answer whether she agrees with Griswold (an inherent right to privacy exists in the Constitution). 
I need to start a religion so ACB will fight tooth and nail for my beliefs.  

Not sure I agree with the whole penumbra doctrine myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:


Not sure I agree with the whole penumbra doctrine myself.

Fair enough. But, that is a broad penumbra you would consider removing from protection. Lesser rights (Citizens United) have broad protection. Corporations have enormous rights. Capital (Domestic and International) is well protected by the United States. That penumbra protects a lot of capital (along with fundamental rights for individuals, which should be the focus, but in reality is not). She is an outlier on that issue with Thomas.

Quote

 

There is nice analysis floating in the legalsphere on the 6-3 supermajority. Something about this is all working out well for Alito. Gorsuch is level headed and might become the new center of influence who can be reasoned with. Who knows. 

Judge, and soon to be Associate Justice Barrett, is pegged to the right end of the table. She is Clarence Thomas' successor when he retires (and his seat is filled by AOC (the neoliberals want her and that disgusting class of beatniks out of their hair - got to love the culture wars)). But I digress.

 

The system is out of whack when someone applying for the Supreme Court will not say whether Griswold was correctly decided. That is long settled. There are innumerable reliance interests hard wired into a post-Griswold world. That reality should be enough for the Roberts 5, if they coalesce. 

ACB and Thomas will be the two writing those opinions Thomas is known for. She may be to the right of Thomas. We can't plumb her depths on that issue since she announced Griswold might be struck if she only had an appeal in front of her . . . 

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



×
×
  • Create New...