Amy Coney Barrett

[washparkhorn 9967]

Sasse is such a beta. 

[Guest Lobo]

I keep flipping through the 2020 RNC official party platform.  I totally expected, given the ages of Breyer, Ginsburg, and Thomas...that there'd be a plank/line item about opposing a potential packing of the court in the next 4-8 years.  So as to remain true to the constructionist interpretation of my party with regard to the SCOTUS.  

But nope, such a burning topic in their loins...the adamant opposition to any party---particularly a Biden/Pelosi/Schumer government ---having any chance to "Pack the Courts."

Instead, all there was was a crayon drawing by Eric Trump and Mitch McConnell that said, "Trump Over Everything (the Perfect Physical Specimen).  

The GOP had its chance to formally oppose this.  Now confirm your nominee.  And live the consequences.  That's how perpetuity works.  

[pyrohornIII 4844]

The right uses Roe V Wade as a righteous smokescreen to cover up the shit they do in suppressing votes and destroying healthcare and other social safety nets.

[Mdhorn 6148]

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

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.

They don't care because he doesn't care.  It's a stall to get him elected.  It's all pie in the sky, it can be anything when it doesn't exist but it won't be whatever the Democrats plan is because insert logical bullshit explanation.  DOTARD has no plan so there is no both sides which invalidates their fence sitting, both sides approach. So yeah, it's obvious who they support.   He's already said elect me and I'll show you the plan. Like everything else, he'll punts to his stooges--here, create one, except this doesn't have to work, we're repealing ACA so nothing can in fact replace it lawfully anyway.  

He also said if elected, he'd release his taxes.  GFY is now the reply.  That's also his health care plan.     

[Mdhorn 6148]

5 hours ago, Rougarou said:

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.

curious if he has to win the House too for this since it would have to be put forth and not just up to the Senate?  BATESHORN bat signal

Edited October 13, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Brisketexan 106430]

4 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

The right uses Roe V Wade as a righteous smokescreen to cover up the shit they do in suppressing votes and destroying healthcare and other social safety nets.

This.  Abortion is the biggest trojan horse political issue of all time.

They use "but abortion" to publicly justify their support of candidates, judges, etc. who also hold a shitload of other loathsome views.  But the truth is, those loathsome views (making sure minorities don't get to vote, ensuring that corporations wield greater power than any human, ensuring that healthcare is first and foremost, a means to further engorge the accounts of campaign donors, etc.) are what they REALLY support.

If we took away abortion tomorrow......they would find some other reason to support the exact same shitty people doing the exact same shitty things.  Because -- big shock -- it's all about the shittiness.  It's a feature, not a bug.

[Horn Dog 10138]

40 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 is what needs to happen.  Expand the SC and expand it big.  Dilate piece of shits like Thomas and Alito so they can sit in the corner and mumble to themselves.

And to those worried about Pubs expanding it again?  Good.  Expand it again.  The more it is expanded, the less each individual  justice matters and the less one president and one senate majority leader can fuck with it.  Expand it all the way to 100+ if you want cause here is the kicker... dems have and will continue to represent the majority of people in this country.  The longer the game, the more it advantages the majority.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Horn Dog

[StruggleBus 3922]

I'd totally smash Judge Barrett. She's hot. 

I'll leave y'all to debate the irrelevant details. 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

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.

One is filling vacated SCOTUS seats. One is creating new seats to fill. 
 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

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

It is within the right of the legislature to try to add seats if they wish. Will they get 50 Senators to agree to it and face potential electoral consequences? Manchin? Sinema? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

“originalism” - total bullshit and I can’t believe so many legal scholars still think this is a legitimate framework.  

[gmr548 16681]

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

Well, that'd require legislation from Congress, which a democratic house won't pass, obviously. Rs regaining the house is so far fetched it's not even worth bringing up as a hypothetical. It's like talking about Trump winning NY.

However, if Ds pack the court, Rs will absolutely do it if they find themselves with the trifecta and a hostile SCOTUS. I don't think anyone is ignorant of that.

[CowboyFred 1162]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“originalism” - total bullshit and I can’t believe so many legal scholars still think this is a legitimate framework.  

Barrett claims she's an originalist or textualist yet the document she is going to be interpreting originally (or textually) does not allow her the right to even be up there soooo....

[gmr548 16681]

curious if he has to win the House too for this since it would have to be put forth and not just up to the Senate?  BATESHORN bat signal

Yes. "Packing the court" is dependent on complete democratic control of Congress and the WH.

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[UncleSonny 6788]

31 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It is within the right of the legislature to try to add seats if they wish. Will they get 50 Senators to agree to it and face potential electoral consequences? Manchin? Sinema? 

"It is within the right of the legislature to push this nomination through against the will of the people and further expose their blatant hypocrisy. Will they get 50 senators to agree and face potential electoral consequences? Collins? Romney?" 

It's been said over and over again that Republicans have been shamelessly court packing so fuck concern trolling about the Democrats potential electoral consequences for adding seats. Like Horn Dog said, there are more Dems in this country anyway, if they manage to wrestle power away despite all of the institutional disadvantages it's time to go scorched earth and bury the minority party for a generation. 

 

[Foosters 18182]

Also, we should probably abolish the senate too

[Michael Knight 13179]

The Court is the least representative body in Government it should be expanded to meet the needs of the nation and so each seat isn't some life or death struggle between ideologies . What's the actual difference between a 11-10 decision vs a 5-4 one?

[Huckleberry 34324]

10 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

What's the actual difference between a 11-10 decision vs a 5-4 one?

12 votes, 6 on each side

Oh, that was rhetorical. 

[Anastasis 23686]

Every time there is one of these confirmation hearing, my level of respect for US Senators goes down. 

[Aqua Buddha 14764]

I like how she's Mrs Super Catholic yet every one of her views down to felons not voting but not owning guns is 100% in line with the current Republican Party.

If I were on the committee, I'd flat out ask how if there's anything with the Republican Party she disagrees with.  Love to hear the answer.

[Horn Dog 10138]

2 hours ago, StruggleBus said:

I'd totally smash Judge Barrett. She's hot. 

I'll leave y'all to debate the irrelevant details. 

I would too but got damn that crackly voice of hers. I would need to go all “originalist” and stick a sock in her mouth.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Horn Dog

[wildcat09 29522]

15 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I like how she's Mrs Super Catholic yet every one of her views down to felons not voting but not owning guns is 100% in line with the current Republican Party.

If I were on the committee, I'd flat out ask how if there's anything with the Republican Party she disagrees with.  Love to hear the answer.

It's just the purest serendipity that the original intent of all of the founders aligns perfectly with the policy preferences of the 2020 Republican Party on all issues. 

[SquishMitten 10493]

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. 

Wat? Like the one they are currently replacing? If it’s just the one, why not done?!?

[SquishMitten 10493]

I like how she's Mrs Super Catholic yet every one of her views down to felons not voting but not owning guns is 100% in line with the current Republican Party.
If I were on the committee, I'd flat out ask how if there's anything with the Republican Party she disagrees with.  Love to hear the answer.

They’re asking the questions wrong, at least from the couple hours I’ve watched. Don’t ask “how would you rule in a case on topic X” because she’s not going anywhere near that, nor should she. But asking “in your heart, as a private citizen, do you believe that topic X is right in God’s eyes.”

[DigglerontheHoof 21509]

21 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I would too but got damn that crackly voice of hers. I would need to go all “originalist” and stick a scock in her mouth.

fify

[Anastasis 23686]

It's amazing to me that certain Senators seem to not understand that it is their job to legislate policy, the judiciary's job to assess the legal basis of legislation against the Constitution, and the people's job to change the constitution if an incompatibility with the people's will is identified. 

[Dnaguy 12551]

2 hours ago, StruggleBus said:

I'd totally smash Judge Barrett. She's hot. 

I'll leave y'all to debate the irrelevant details. 

5 bio kids brah.

Don’t know how much tread is left on those  tires.

[Gap03 3374]

1 minute ago, Dnaguy said:

5 bio kids brah.

Don’t know how much tread is left on those  tires.

Dude, you know Ted Cruz is going to be checking Pornhub on the reg to see when the Amy Coney Barrett parody pron hits ...

[Anastasis 23686]

2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

5 bio kids brah.

Don’t know how much tread is left on those  tires.

Not sure that you know how this actually works brah. 

[Brisketexan 106430]

55 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Every time there is one of these confirmation hearing, my level of respect for US Senators goes down. 

Dude.....once you're at that bottom line, where else do you go?

[Dnaguy 12551]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not sure that you know how this actually works brah. 

[Francisco 2.0 32503]

10 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Dude, you know Ted Cruz is going to be checking Pornhub on the reg to see when the Amy Coney Barrett parody pron hits ...

Nah, that ain't Ted's style.

He will have Jim Jordan do it, while looking over Jim's shoulder and stroking it.

 

 

[Anastasis 23686]

Haven't been able to watch much of the circus, but curious if any of the law dogs here have substantive critique of her testimony. 

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, UncleSonny said:

"It is within the right of the legislature to push this nomination through against the will of the people and further expose their blatant hypocrisy. Will they get 50 senators to agree and face potential electoral consequences? Collins? Romney?" 

It's been said over and over again that Republicans have been shamelessly court packing so fuck concern trolling about the Democrats potential electoral consequences for adding seats. Like Horn Dog said, there are more Dems in this country anyway, if they manage to wrestle power away despite all of the institutional disadvantages it's time to go scorched earth and bury the minority party for a generation. 

 

The last poll I saw had a plurality of voters approving of moving forward with ACB nom. 
 

From what I’ve seen court packing is less popular. I think that’s part of Biden’s desire to skirt topic. He’s knows it’s not popular but doesn’t want to hurt feelings of his CR-type minions. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34070]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The last poll I saw had a plurality of voters approving of moving forward with ACB nom. 
 

From what I’ve seen court packing is less popular. I think that’s part of Biden’s desire to skirt topic. He’s knows it’s not popular but doesn’t want to hurt feelings of his CR-type minions. 

Where the fuck you getting your information? Plurality? Seriously? Best I've seen it's about 50/50. And trust me, if Trump gets away with it, I'm 100% in favor of Biden expanding the court - and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. Funny thing is, no one ever asks me (ie - I never get polled on these things).

[Longhorn_Fan68 34070]

I mean, GR just seems to say the opposite of what is true. Guess he's just following dear leader's example:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-popular-supreme-court-nominee-in-recent-history

Amy Coney Barrett is the least popular Supreme Court nominee in recent history

A plurality of voters disapprove of her confirmation. Many more support the policies she might vote to undo

[UncleSonny 6788]

 

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The last poll I saw had a plurality of voters approving of moving forward with ACB nom. 
 

From what I’ve seen court packing is less popular. I think that’s part of Biden’s desire to skirt topic. He’s knows it’s not popular but doesn’t want to hurt feelings of his CR-type minions. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-want-to-wait-until-after-the-election-to-fill-the-supreme-court-vacancy/

These polls are from before ACB was nominated, but I can't imagine Trump's last few weeks and Barrett specifically being the nominee has swung the numbers very positively. 

As for court packing being less popular...I haven't seen figures on that either way. But you being so wrong about where voters stand moving forward with ACB doesn't really give me any sense that you know what you are talking about. Regardless, that will just be a messaging battle like everything else and I think one Dems can win.

[Brisketexan 106430]

2 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

But you being so wrong about where voters stand moving forward with ACB doesn't really give me any sense that you know what you are talking about.

1 - he knows the truth.

2 - he's lying.

It's the Trump way.  The sooner you realize that every word out of the mouth of a Trump supporter is either a direct lie or based on a lie, the sooner you can understand them.  And disregard them.

[BradInATX 9208]

22 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The last poll I saw had a plurality of voters approving of moving forward with ACB nom. 
 

From what I’ve seen court packing is less popular. I think that’s part of Biden’s desire to skirt topic. He’s knows it’s not popular but doesn’t want to hurt feelings of his CR-type minions. 

You know if this were a "normal" election I would agree with you that the Democrats should answer. It's not. This is a president and GOP that has adopted constant lying, distorting, and gaslighting as a policy. Not typical politician "you ask me if the sky is blue? Well, there are lots of ways to answer that...", but full blown "the sky is pink!" type lying. Everything is lying, attacking, and distorting. So if you're the Democrats, why are you going to make an intellectually honest attempt to have a conversation about a very nuanced issue that requires critical thinking, when the other side of the conversation has no intention of doing any of that? 

You don't get to call someone out for not coming to the table for a conversation when you are wholly incapable of and unwilling to participate in rational conversation. They can demand honest discourse when they give it back instead of defaulting to lying and gaslighting almost 100% of the time. Until that happens, they can go sit at the kids' table with the idiot rednecks that have bought the bullshit they're selling.

You want to know why Biden isn't answering you? Because you don't deserve an answer.

Edited October 13, 2020 by BradInATX

[GRHorn 105]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Where the fuck you getting your information? Plurality? Seriously? Best I've seen it's about 50/50. And trust me, if Trump gets away with it, I'm 100% in favor of Biden expanding the court - and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. Funny thing is, no one ever asks me (ie - I never get polled on these things).

Here’s what I was going off you blowhard. I posted it here last week. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34070]

lol, I'M the blowhard? is the sky orange in your world? ffs

[mchookem 16710]

so i haven't watched any of this because...well, i can only take so much horror with this shitshow. this is what it is and is going to happen. 

but anyway...just happened to turn on Kamala's turn to 'question' ACB...am i right in that this seems like Kamala just said 'fuck it' and isn't going to question her b/c it's a fake show at this point, she's using her time instead to hammer home the election message?

 

 

[Anastasis 23686]

Bought to queue up this testimony video for my daughter to show her how to embrace logic with even keel against blow hards.  

[Mdhorn 6148]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Nah, that ain't Ted's style.

He will have Jim Jordan do it, while looking over Jim's shoulder and stroking it.

 

 

It is definitely in his wheel house--he was busted doing it earlier.

[washparkhorn 9967]

3 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so i haven't watched any of this because...well, i can only take so much horror with this shitshow. this is what it is and is going to happen. 

but anyway...just happened to turn on Kamala's turn to 'question' ACB...am i right in that this seems like Kamala just said 'fuck it' and isn't going to question her b/c it's a fake show at this point, she's using her time instead to hammer home the election message?

Spot on. 

Sen. Whitehouse showed how this is just a culmination of the long-standing Republican court packing plan.

On the optics - this is a Potemkin village. It's a circus. The only question is the timing of the final vote allowing her to move onto the Court and decide election issues. She will get the votes she needs. 

[Mdhorn 6148]

40 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You know if this were a "normal" election I would agree with you that the Democrats should answer. It's not. This is a president and GOP that has adopted constant lying, distorting, and gaslighting as a policy. Not typical politician "you ask me if the sky is blue? Well, there are lots of ways to answer that...", but full blown "the sky is pink!" type lying. Everything is lying, attacking, and distorting. So if you're the Democrats, why are you going to make an intellectually honest attempt to have a conversation about a very nuanced issue that requires critical thinking, when the other side of the conversation has no intention of doing any of that? 

You don't get to call someone out for not coming to the table for a conversation when you are wholly incapable of and unwilling to participate in rational conversation. They can demand honest discourse when they give it back instead of defaulting to lying and gaslighting almost 100% of the time. Until that happens, they can go sit at the kids' table with the idiot rednecks that have bought the bullshit they're selling.

You want to know why Biden isn't answering you? Because you don't deserve an answer.

Not to mention the president is now a COVID carrier that doesn't follow rules--so let him sit alone in his own mess. All debates should be via Zoom.  This hearing should be done via Zoom

Edited October 13, 2020 by Mdhorn

[washparkhorn 9967]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Bought to queue up this testimony video for my daughter to show her how to embrace logic with even keel against blow hards.  

ACB feels you. Here's a shortcut: If you are a nominee, just say you cannot answer the question because it is an issue you may have to decide in the future. 

Spotless logic to some, I suppose. They don't want meaningful information regarding a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Right?

[Foosters 18182]

43 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You know if this were a "normal" election I would agree with you that the Democrats should answer. It's not. This is a president and GOP that has adopted constant lying, distorting, and gaslighting as a policy. Not typical politician "you ask me if the sky is blue? Well, there are lots of ways to answer that...", but full blown "the sky is pink!" type lying. Everything is lying, attacking, and distorting. So if you're the Democrats, why are you going to make an intellectually honest attempt to have a conversation about a very nuanced issue that requires critical thinking, when the other side of the conversation has no intention of doing any of that? 

You don't get to call someone out for not coming to the table for a conversation when you are wholly incapable of and unwilling to participate in rational conversation. They can demand honest discourse when they give it back instead of defaulting to lying and gaslighting almost 100% of the time. Until that happens, they can go sit at the kids' table with the idiot rednecks that have bought the bullshit they're selling.

You want to know why Biden isn't answering you? Because you don't deserve an answer.

Today, the sitting president of the United States accused his political opponent of ordering the murder of Seal Team Six, and @GRHorn wants to know why that opponent wont give a straight answer to a question.

 

 

[Anastasis 23686]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

ACB feels you. Here's a shortcut: If you are a nominee, just say you cannot answer the question because it is an issue you may have to decide in the future. 

Spotless logic to some, I suppose. They don't want meaningful information regarding a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Right?

Now comment on the precedent from others in the same position.