Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett

Anastasis

By Anastasis
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ousuxndallas
ousuxndallas

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

Continental Op
Continental Op

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury f

Tom
Tom

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 a

Posted Images

Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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. 

In other words, all your information sources are shitty.

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

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

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

It's a pox on the Senate politicians, not the Court nominees. 

We are asking a person to decide what is the law of the land will be when she is faced with fundamental disputes.

People do have the right to know how she comes to her conclusions.  That is the same with any nominee. But they punt instead, because the Senate has taught them it is better to punt than have a detailed discussion of legal standards. 

Situation Normal: All Fucked Up

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14252

Posted
Posted
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? 

So one is “packing the court” by filling spaces artificially held open by obstruction. The other is “expanding” the size of the court.

Sounds like the Republicans are the only ones packing things. You know, like filling up South Austin’s mom?
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14252

Posted
Posted

Also what is interesting is that the only thing that the Republicans needed to secure the ability to “pack” the court was a Senate majority. In other words, a majority of minority of the population representation. Then they just had to wait it out until they got a Republican President.

Whereas the horrible specter of The Democrats’ court lacking would be the result of a majority in the House, and a majority of the states (senate and electoral college).

Hmm.

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

Anastasis 23394

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes. Both sides presented her with questions she declined to answer. 

Which questions related to her legal thought process that were not tied to cases that the individual asking the question knew would result in a recusal were unanswered?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29261

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Which questions related to her legal thought process that were not tied to cases that the individual asking the question knew would result in a recusal were unanswered?

I have no idea what you’re asking for here, which i consider to be a good indication that you don’t want a real answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I have no idea what you’re asking for here, which i consider to be a good indication that you don’t want a real answer.

I ain't a lawyer like most of the assholes here, so give me some room to work. I would find it frustrating to respond to most of these nonsense questions from Senators applied to my field. Do you think that ACB has been more obfuscating on any specific line of questioning than any of her recent predecessors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Do you think that ACB has been more obfuscating on any specific line of questioning than any of her recent predecessors?

No, she wasn't any different than any other recent. 

Broken system with a packed Supreme Court tied to the goals of the Powell Memo. You should read that sometime. Now that was a Supreme Court Justice who let his views air out in the open. Back then, as long as he wasn't a Commie - anything goes. 

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/powellmemo/

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Which questions related to her legal thought process that were not tied to cases that the individual asking the question knew would result in a recusal were unanswered?

Not being a smartass here, just don't have the time to review the transcript:  

 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=questions+amy+coney+barrett+refused+to+answer&t=osx&ia=web

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

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

Almost anytime the federal government tries to do anything, my level of respect for all our elected federal representatives goes down.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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?

 

 

That’s not unusual. Seems like most of the Senators spend more time speechifying that asking any questions.

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

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

We need not address the objective prong of the analysis, because Smith falters on the subjective prong. He introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his sub-jective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological dis-tress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record. He clashed with his supervisors over pay, and they confronted him with foul language. As early as August—the first month of his employment—he sent memoranda to the Department complaining of a “hostile work environ-ment.” On Smith’s own account, his supervisors made him miserable throughout his employment at the Department. But as we have already discussed, he has no evidence that his su-pervisors were lashing out at him because he was black.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-2948/18-2948-2019-08-21.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9674

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am quite sure.  The helicopter drones are quite selective when it comes to calling out board misogyny. 

i call my male friends cunts all the time... it is a state of mind, not a gender specific adjective.

I did not see her testimony so perhaps there is a good explanation and I  owe her an apology, but I did read her explanation.  If anyone, male or female, thinks that a supervisor using  the n-word around his black subordinates does not constitute a hostile work environment they are a cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

Barrett's argument seems pretty weak.  It rests upon the notion that if you make an employee feel shitty enough, and then you call him a nigger and he fails to prove that this made him feel even shittier, then you can't prove a hostile environment. 

When a supervisor calls you a nigger because you filed an EEOC case, I think it might be incumbent upon a judge to allow that case to go to trial.  That's a whole hell of a lot different than cases where a supervisory employee jokingly calls someone "nigga" or says "nigga please".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

some really profound legal analysis here. 

You're the guy who watched her on C-SPAN.  Tell us what her defense was.  I just posted the decision.   And in fairness, reading that decision, she is really saying that Smith's attorney did a shitty job.

Edited by tantric superman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Barrett's argument seems pretty weak.  It rests upon the notion that if you make an employee feel shitty enough, and then you call him a nigger and he fails to prove that this made him feel even shittier, then you can't prove a hostile environment. 

When a supervisor calls you a nigger because you filed an EEOC case, I think it might be incumbent upon a judge to allow that case to go to trial.  That's a whole hell of a lot different than cases where a supervisory employee jokingly calls someone "nigga" or says "nigga please".

Not a lawyer, but seems to me to be a pretty untruthful recanting of her position. Maybe par for the course in your profession though I will allow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...