Amy Coney Barrett

[Dutchrudder 11115]

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. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

16 minutes ago, seven said:

Meh, but what an odd question. 

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. 

[RomaVicta 29797]

17 minutes ago, seven said:

Meh, but what an odd question. 

Yea. She's proven she's intelligent. Just a brain fart.

[LW Goatman 1117]

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. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

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.  

[pyrohornIII 4809]

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.

[wildcat09 29261]

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. 

[Horn Dog 9674]

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.

[Anastasis 23394]

43 minutes ago, seven said:

Meh, but what an odd question. 

Sasse's entire questioning was an abortion. 

[Anastasis 23394]

Blumenthal is a clown. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

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. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

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. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

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. 

[wildcat09 29261]

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.

[EuroHorn 3204]

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

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

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

Fair enough and thank you.
 

The right to petition government is the pressure relief valve for avoiding revolution. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

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 October 14, 2020 by washparkhorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

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.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

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

[CowboyFred 1151]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Sounds like a confident, highly competent woman. 

ahem...

2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

 

[Dutchrudder 11115]

22 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

ahem...

 

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!!!!

[CowboyFred 1151]

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 October 14, 2020 by CowboyFred

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

5 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

 I can guarantee my ConLaw professor from law school knows the five off the top of his head at any given moment tho.

Yeah, but he hasn't been hypnotized by 2 days of inane questioning by 100 year old men.

[Captainant 27468]

I do find it pretty on-brand that a trump nominee wouldn't remember that we have a right to protest

[elfenix 34172]

i gotta hand it to trumpy, he found the one person in america who doesn't seem to hold opinions on or give thought to much of anything. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by elfenix

[burntorangebongos 10681]

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!!!!

[hayden_horn 11360]

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.

[Voldemort86 2259]

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 October 14, 2020 by Voldemort86

[workswithseed 2037]

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

[TwiceHorn 31290]

19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

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

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 October 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31290]

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.

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

A bit of a gotcha game there.

Makes for good tweets. 

[wildcat09 29261]

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!”

[Anastasis 23394]

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. 

[TwiceHorn 31290]

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.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

 

[TwiceHorn 31290]

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.

[Bama Chick 28596]

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?

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Because It's Funny 

 

[TwiceHorn 31290]

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.

[StruggleBus 3922]

God I fucking hate lawyers 

[washparkhorn 9935]

23 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

God I fucking hate lawyers 

guiltypeoplesaywhat?

[Underdog 28457]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Don't leave me hanging, bro?  I needs to know who the 4th turtle is.  

[DDD Dad 14252]

Yeah but her students thinks she's the bestest

Well maybe Joe does.

[South Austin 52150]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Don't leave me hanging, bro?  I needs to know who the 4th turtle is.  

Picasso.

[DDD Dad 14252]

I look forward to seeing you point out the posts where I've spouted anything racist.

Not sure about racist but certainly vapid.

[DDD Dad 14252]

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.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

 

[Gatorubet 30118]

God I fucking hate lawyers 

God does not hear your musings. God wants you to pay your legal bill.

[washparkhorn 9935]

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 . . .