Amy Coney Barrett

[pacman 7330]

On 10/7/2020 at 9:12 AM, GRHorn said:

 

The fact that over 20% don’t know does go to show you how a large segment of the population doesn’t follow this stuff day to day. 

Or, it's just a shitty sample.

[pacman 7330]

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

[softlynow 1784]

“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. 

[Tom 2959]

12 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah you can't make a blanket stametment that it's just one party.

 

when Biden and Harris make comments like we're not gonna say whether we'd pack the court or not that's about as political as you can  get and sounds a whole lot like you've got to vote for the bill to see what's in it

 

and for the record I do not want a super majority on the Supreme Court I like that it's somewhat divided

 

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.

[Burt 4062]

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.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

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..

[Nivek 16861]

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.

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

59 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That's an even bigger bullshit move than Trump fillings a seat when he has every constitutional right to do so 

For the record, the Democrats have every constitutional right to pack the courts.

[Dahobbs 17449]

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. 

[Rougarou 594]

If somehow Trump improbably wins, what if he also packs the court? 

[Pam Cummings 9582]

Just now, Rougarou said:

If somehow Trump improbably wins, what if he also packs the court? 

It will still obviously be both sides and he only did it because the dems are so nasty.

[Rougarou 594]

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.

[Tom 2959]

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 October 13, 2020 by Tom

[JBJ 3649]

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.

[Texaspython 231]

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?

[HillaryFan420 121]

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.   

[pacman 7330]

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.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

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 October 13, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[wildcat09 29261]

1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

If somehow Trump improbably wins, what if he also packs the court? 

You mean, what if he keeps doing what he's been doing? Yeah, we would continue to not be happy about it.

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29261]

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. 

[Brisketexan 104632]

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.

[Texaspython 231]

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? 

[wildcat09 29261]

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.

 

[elfenix 34172]

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?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

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.

[DDD Dad 14252]

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.

[Nivek 16861]

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.

[wildcat09 29261]

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. 

[Nivek 16861]

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..

[DDD Dad 14252]

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.

 

[JBJ 3649]

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.

[washparkhorn 9935]

Senator Whitehouse is explaining the corporate takeover of the federal judicial system.
 

We have dark money because that is the game plan and the culmination of the Powell Memo.

ACB is the cherry on top of the sundae. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

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 October 13, 2020 by washparkhorn

[tigol 2383]

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?

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, tigol said:

How is what is going on currently not court packing?

What is court packing?  
 

this plan has been in play since the Powell Memo. Democrats are finally seeing the problem and countering the Bradley Foundation’s plan. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

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.  

[elfenix 34172]

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.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

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.

[washparkhorn 9935]

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. 

[Firemans4Horn 17839]

Ted Cruz is the Citizens United of human beings. 

[DDD Dad 14252]

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 October 13, 2020 by DDD Dad

[JohnnyRage 1617]

So is Ted Cruz about to hypocritically accuse Democrats of having not even asked the nominee a questions about her record and then not even ask her a question about her record?

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

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? 

[Firemans4Horn 17839]

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. 

[seven 1366]

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 

[Satchel 6908]

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.

[Brisketexan 104632]

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. 

[CowboyFred 1151]

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.

[tigol 2383]

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.