Amy Coney Barrett

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Only three months?  Lucky bastard.  You could get what's coming to you, though.  You might be in for another year of this.  Yay, legal processes!

(I was fortunate to deal almost exclusively with patent issues, which while dry and incredibly boring, don't lend themselves to the same degree of delay.)

LOL.  I'll lose the project if it takes much longer and will have to move on to something else, which would suck based on the time that we have already sunk and the topic (cancer outcomes). 

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not sure that punting on the tough questions is the quality I would particularly look for in a SCOTUS nominee, but will acknowledge that I am kinda pissy at in house counsel at the moment for dragging out something that should have taken less than a week into a three month delay because they decided to punt to outside counsel. 

 I’ve experienced that  too, but I understand why it happens that way. It’s the same reason they almost always reck outside counsel on commercial contracts and  it’s the reason I’d be happier with one of them on the court than corporate hired guns. 

[softlynow 1783]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Where is she at on civil liberties? Can we get some legal analysis of her positions?

She’s been with the 7th for less than 3 years. She’s a former Federalist Society member and has the profile cons love. Clerked first Scalia. (If she’s another Scalia, she’ll always side with LE when drugs are involved, and the 4th amendment won’t mean much outside of your home). Below is the Scotusblog writeup from 2018, and there are a few mildly controversial rulings in there. I’m sure another rundown will be forthcoming. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/amp/

[Anastasis 23394]

Yeah, that is the article that I linked from SCOTUS blog in the OP softly.

7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Clerked first Scalia. (If she’s another Scalia, she’ll always side with LE when drugs are involved, and the 4th amendment won’t mean much outside of your home).

I don't know how all this clerking thing works in your field. Are we suppose to automatically assume that the people who clerk certain judges adhere to all of their positions? Or do we analyze their writings on their own merits?

Edited September 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Yeah, that is the article that I linked from SCOTUS blog in the OP softly.

I don't know how all this clerking thing works in your field. Are we suppose to automatically assume that the people who clerk certain judges adhere to all of their positions? Or do we analyze their writings on their own merits?

I see you aren't very familiar with conservative jurisprudence.

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I see you aren't very familiar with conservative jurisprudence.

I just wish that you guys would turn shit around on reasonable timelines. 

[Gil Bang 25898]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I see you aren't very familiar with conservative jurisprudence.

Or reality in general.

[Anastasis 23394]

9 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

a religious kook with a clown car vag.   

Perfect. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Clerking does not necessarily mean that you adopt all of "your" justice's, or judge's philosophies.  But, generally speaking, you are politically aligned with the justice for whom you clerked.

Also, most clerks are baby lawyers making their first foray into judicial reasoning from the judicial angle, so you can't help but think that the clerkship is going to be highly influential.  That seems to be particularly the case of Scalia's clerks.

Still, it's difficult to impossible to inhabit the mind of another person or be that other person, so there are bound to be some differences.

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

the legitimacy of the candidate will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.  the proceedings and if/when they move forward will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.

this won't be held up, halted, or dragged out because of "smearing" of a candidate or someone coming" forward telling "lies" about that candidate.  they could be squeaky clean or jack the fucking ripper.  this is about mcconnell's bullshit hypocrisy and partisanship and trump's insistence on everything being "us vs them".  it will end up costing him the presidency (among other things) and them the senate, but hey, i'm sure they'll take solace knowing they put a 3rd person on the court when they're out of power.

I mean, they were losing the presidency and senate anyway, which is why this is happening right now, so, don’t see any change in the calculus here at all as it relates to the election. 

[Pancho 44487]

Russia is on board!

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I don’t know why y’all are arguing about this. If she is nominated and confirmed she will vote to overturn roe v Wade. You either support that or you don’t. That’s it. She’s terrible otherwise on any other issue but that’s a given.

[berlinerbaer 670]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

the legitimacy of the candidate will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.  the proceedings and if/when they move forward will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.

this won't be held up, halted, or dragged out because of "smearing" of a candidate or someone coming" forward telling "lies" about that candidate.  they could be squeaky clean or jack the fucking ripper.  this is about mcconnell's bullshit hypocrisy and partisanship and trump's insistence on everything being "us vs them".  it will end up costing him the presidency (among other things) and them the senate, but hey, i'm sure they'll take solace knowing they put a 3rd person on the court when they're out of power.

All of this.

I have no interest in digging up dirt on this woman. No Democratic senator should have to hunt for any excuse to reject her confirmation. 

This must solely be about the stolen pick from 2016. The appearance of such blatant partisan politics will resonate with voters much more than culture wars, civil rights issues, or any stories of past transgressions. Everyone outside of the maga base is sick of that shit.

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

All of this.

I have no interest in digging up dirt on this woman. No Democratic senator should have to hunt for any excuse to reject her confirmation. 

This must solely be about the stolen pick from 2016. The appearance of such blatant partisan politics will resonate with voters much more than culture wars, civil rights issues, or any stories of past transgressions. Everyone outside of the maga base is sick of that shit.

This. Just oppose her based on the recent history and the political dysfunction. You don’t need to but Russia, meh abortion this one. 

[hpslugga 4044]

11 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

It will be bitter. (e.g., At least Merrick Garland didn't have a spiritual advisor assigned by his church to supervise him.) (https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/07/amy-coney-barretts-alleged-religious-group-people-of-praise-what-is-it.html)

Reckless path by Republicans. Follow your rule for nominations in an election year. When you don't, you are untrustworthy to lead the nation. 

There was never any such “rule.” That was made up bullshit that was convenient for them to invoke when their boy wasn’t in the White House. Now? They can’t wait to nominate someone to replace RBG...even though the SCOTUS isn’t in session and a bunch of those GOP senators are out campaigning for the very seats they seek to retain in order to make such nominations. 

Anyways, a “rule” implies a principle. They have none. Over the last 40 years they have worked so tirelessly to pander to the religious right while whoring themselves to the very wealthiest Americans that, in the process, they’ve become totally stripped of pride.

Too much pride, of course, is a bad thing but there’s such thing as too little and it’s just as bad. In losing pride, you lose two other things: honor and shame.

One thing we can surely say about this lot of cretinous buffoons that call themselves “the Republicans”: they have no honor, and they have no shame.

[Fozzz 152]

6 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I am.  Most of the shit that is currently wrong with this country is because of "Christians".  

Some folks follow Christ, and I'm cool with that.  

 

Some folks wear neon T-shirts that say "I"m a CHRISTIAN".  Those are the guys that call me a sinner  and  tell me that I'm going to hell, and also jack off in the corner while their wife is getting it up the ass from a young cabana boy. 

Which one are you?

Shut the fuck up. 

[Fozzz 152]

8 hours ago, formermav43 said:

This sounds like the same argument that was trotted out against every Catholic candidate for President in the good old days.

I would take it back to King Charles tbh. 

[softlynow 1783]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, that is the article that I linked from SCOTUS blog in the OP softly.

I don't know how all this clerking thing works in your field. Are we suppose to automatically assume that the people who clerk certain judges adhere to all of their positions? Or do we analyze their writings on their own merits?

She has a tiny record, so that’s what we have to go on. She may break from her mentors, and SC justices do often drift, sometimes pretty far, from the ideologies of their early careers, but you can’t link to their future thoughts. 
 

I have to laugh that I blew past your OP link. I had read that previously, and went searching for more on ACB when RBG died. There’s very little out there to discuss. Not that any of it matters beyond predicting how consistently she’ll did with Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Beer! Most likely, quite. There will be little suspense if the court remains at 9 members. 

[Woodrow Call 494]

She's kinda hot. I'd fuck her a couple of times. 

[tantric superman 4667]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I don’t know why y’all are arguing about this. If she is nominated and confirmed she will vote to overturn roe v Wade. You either support that or you don’t. That’s it. She’s terrible otherwise on any other issue but that’s a given.

In that same way, I'm not sure why anyone thinks that fear of being hypocritical will override the desire to overturn RvW.   One of the only understandable reasons that people give for voting for Trump is that he will put judges on the court who will fuck with all liberal plans.

They will say "fuck you", when you bring up the hypocrisy.  Because it just makes you cry harder.

To that I will add "fuck you" for letting Trump win and "fuck you" for letting Ted Cruz win. 

[Anastasis 23394]

So here is the other potential...confirmed to current position with 80-15 vote, Cuban.  Interesting the election year dynamics involved in the pick.  Maybe one helps shore up evangelicals, the other Florida. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lagoa

Early life and education[edit]

Lagoa was born in Miami, Florida on November 2, 1967.[5][better source needed] A Cuban-American, Lagoa is the daughter of parents who fled from Cuba following the Revolution and the assumption of power by Fidel Castro.[6] She grew up in the majority Cuban-American city of Hialeah, Florida.[7] Lagoa earned a Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, in 1989 from Florida International University, where she majored in English and was a member of the Phi Kappa Phi honor society. She received her Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1992; while at Columbia, she was an Associate Editor of the Columbia Law Review.[7]

Federal judicial service[edit]

On September 12, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Lagoa to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[12] On October 15, 2019, her nomination was sent to the Senate. President Trump nominated Lagoa to the seat being vacated by Judge Stanley Marcus, who previously announced his intention to take senior status on a date to be determined.[13] On October 16, 2019, a hearing on her nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.[14] On November 7, 2019, her nomination was reported out of committee by a vote of 18–4.[15] On November 19, 2019, the Senate invoked cloture on her nomination by a vote of 80–15,[16] and on the next day, November 20, confirmed her nomination by a vote of 80–15.[17] She received her judicial commission on December 6, 2019.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So here is the other potential...confirmed to current position with 80-15 vote, Cuban.  Interesting the election year dynamics involved in the pick.  Maybe one helps shore up evangelicals, the other Florida. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lagoa

Early life and education[edit]

Lagoa was born in Miami, Florida on November 2, 1967.[5][better source needed] A Cuban-American, Lagoa is the daughter of parents who fled from Cuba following the Revolution and the assumption of power by Fidel Castro.[6] She grew up in the majority Cuban-American city of Hialeah, Florida.[7] Lagoa earned a Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, in 1989 from Florida International University, where she majored in English and was a member of the Phi Kappa Phi honor society. She received her Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1992; while at Columbia, she was an Associate Editor of the Columbia Law Review.[7]

Federal judicial service[edit]

On September 12, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Lagoa to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[12] On October 15, 2019, her nomination was sent to the Senate. President Trump nominated Lagoa to the seat being vacated by Judge Stanley Marcus, who previously announced his intention to take senior status on a date to be determined.[13] On October 16, 2019, a hearing on her nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.[14] On November 7, 2019, her nomination was reported out of committee by a vote of 18–4.[15] On November 19, 2019, the Senate invoked cloture on her nomination by a vote of 80–15,[16] and on the next day, November 20, confirmed her nomination by a vote of 80–15.[17] She received her judicial commission on December 6, 2019.

 

While interesting I think the Cubans in Florida are voting heavily for trump no matter what. 

[David Dennison 18661]

Great. Another person in power who believes in fairy tales.

[Gatorubet 30117]

I am kinda pissy at in house counsel at the moment for dragging out something that should have taken less than a week into a three month delay because they decided to punt to outside counsel. 

How ya gonna lateral move if you don’t offer up some billable hours to your target?

[Gatorubet 30117]

Will the left come up with a liar like Blasey Ford accusing her off rape at an undisclosed location and undisclosed date /time?

 

Oh, you, Comrad!!!

[Gatorubet 30117]

a religious kook with a clown car vag.   
Perfect. 

DTF is a good quality, generally.

[Pancho 44487]

Phil Rucker on MSNBC reporting that Barbara Lagoa is rising quickly on the list as the replacement. 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Phil Rucker on MSNBC reporting that Barbara Lagoa is rising quickly on the list as the replacement. 

lol, Cuban-American.  Wonder why he would choose her?

 

Edit:  JFC.  From the AP:

Quote

“She’s excellent. She’s Hispanic. She’s a terrific woman from everything I know. I don’t know her. Florida. We love Florida. So she’s got a lot of things — very smart,” Trump said in a call-in interview with “Fox and Friends.”

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Biff Tannen

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Phil Rucker on MSNBC reporting that Barbara Lagoa is rising quickly on the list as the replacement. 

She's my bet because Florida.

[Anastasis 23394]

Apparently trump is scheduled to be in Miami on Friday.  Probably just dropping for a Doral Burger. 

[Mapache 1117]

On 9/20/2020 at 10:52 AM, JimmyJames said:

While interesting I think the Cubans in Florida are voting heavily for trump no matter what. 

This wont help with the Puerto Rican vote in Florida. I used to live in Puerto Rico and they don't care for the "pretentious" Miami Cubans.

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

15 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Phil Rucker on MSNBC reporting that Barbara Lagoa is rising quickly on the list as the replacement. 

Shot:

Quote

Sen. Josh Hawley: I will only vote for a justice who understands that Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided'

https://news.yahoo.com/sen-josh-hawley-only-vote-142042189.html

Chaser:

Quote

One key sticking point for Lagoa with Republicans could be abortion; during her confirmation hearing for the 11th Circuit, she told the Senate she believes Roe v. Wade is “binding precedent of the Supreme Court“ and “settled law.” 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/21/what-to-know-about-barbara-lagoa-potential-supreme-court-pick-whose-stock-is-rising/#2676dfd35356

 

 

... (he'll still vote for her)

[Dnaguy 11777]

On 9/20/2020 at 11:52 AM, JimmyJames said:

While interesting I think the Cubans in Florida are voting heavily for trump no matter what. 

This.

My only explanation I’ve come up with is that they somehow have a genetic predilection to autocrats. It’s just that the ones that got off the island want the right wing kind and the ones that stayed like the left wing kind.

Fucking weird.

[workswithseed 2037]

46 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

lol, Cuban-American.  Wonder why he would choose her?

 

Edit:  JFC.  From the AP:

 

Probably the same reason that Joe said he was chosing a woman of color.

[Pancho 44487]

No, actually it’s not.

[workswithseed 2037]

Just now, Pancho said:

No, actually it’s not.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Mapache said:

This wont help with the Puerto Rican vote in Florida. I used to live in Puerto Rico and they don't care for the "pretentious" Miami Cubans.

Yeah, I don't think this is good for Florida at-large.  Most non-Cuban hispanics don't care about or for Cubans.  No one is going to get "jazzed" because the nominee is from their state.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

42 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

This.

My only explanation I’ve come up with is that they somehow have a genetic predilection to autocrats. It’s just that the ones that got off the island want the right wing kind and the ones that stayed like the left wing kind.

Fucking weird.

We've discussed this several times.  Many are wealthy, many more were wealthy.  They were kicked out of their country by a commie.

They see themselves as well-off whites.  And they are perma-pissed about SOCIALISM!!!! (common among ex-Russians, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, etc.).  And they're susceptible to the strain of Catholicism that makes conservatives.

Edited September 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45499]

34 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Well, joe picked a woman of color because it is the right thing to do. Get more diversity and a more well-rounded representation of America into a position of power. Do you really think that is dotard’s plan?

 

Let me edit this, because I don’t think that joe was being 100% altruistic about it, but come on. Which party has a more truthful record of giving a shit about minorities?

Edited September 21, 2020 by Biff Tannen

[workswithseed 2037]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We've discussed this several times.  Many are wealthy, many more were wealthy.  They were kicked out of their country by a commie.

They see themselves as well-off whites.  And they are perma-pissed about SOCIALISM!!!! (common among ex-Russians, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, etc.).

I mean they were killed under the name of socialism.

Edited September 21, 2020 by workswithseed

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

From the Bay of Pigs to the appointment of Justice Laoga, god bless this stupid fucking country. 

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well, joe picked a woman of color because it is the right thing to do. Get more diversity and a more well-rounded representation of America into a position of power. Do you really think that is dotard’s plan?

Okay, then same here. I don't see why you don't want a woman and person of color on the Supreme Court? You can't really play both sides on this.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I mea! They were killed under the name of socialism.

They should also understand by virtue of that experience that Biden and the Democratic party are nowhere near socialism.

However, my Hungarian father-in-law, who hates liberals because he sees communists, makes a good case that the Hungarian Social Democrats got overrun by commies and led directly to communism.  So he sees it as a slippery slope.

Edited September 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45499]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Okay, then same here. I don't see why you don't want a woman and person of color on the Supreme Court? You can't really play both sides on this.

See edit

[wildcat09 29260]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I mean they were killed under the name of socialism.

Considering they live in Miami, I don't think they were.

[workswithseed 2037]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

They should also understand by virtue of that experience that Biden and the Democratic party are nowhere near socialism.

There is a reason we got Ayn Rand. There's a reason we're hyper sensitive to fascism and racism even if it's not there.

[workswithseed 2037]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

See edit

I can see both thinking that minority, and a woman looks good to the public.

[workswithseed 2037]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Considering they live in Miami, I don't think they were.

They were mostly dead.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Cool. Cool cool cool

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

There is a reason we got Ayn Rand. There's a reason we're hyper sensitive to fascism and racism even if it's not there.

Well, except we aren't hypersensitive to racism, especially, or fascism, because they are both the order of the day.

Rand herself is an example of an upperclass Soviet refugee with a violent adverse reaction to socialism/communism.

Edited September 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn