Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Astalnar]

She actually is, objectively, a great choice. Young, conservative, experience in all areas of the law (practice, teaching, judge). Her resume is fantastic. She's bright in interviews, easily likeable, and so far no skeletons in the closet.

Imo - the Democrats can really only hurt themselves going too far in their investigations. Push hard, of course, and rake her over the coals in the examination during the confirmation hearings, but ultimately, Justice Barrett is going to sit on the Supreme Court.

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

As for the process of her confirmation, I expect she'll be confirmed a week before elections for maximum effect. Trump know the voters wouldn't forgive any Republicans who'd vote against her. Even Mitt Romney realises that.

I would prefer if the Senate completely skipped the hearings and went for the vote directly. Just to demonstrate to the Democrats what they created when they chaanged the laws, and so brutally and without conscience attacked Kavanaugh.

I find the attackes on Barret by vector of her adopting black children to be laughable. Left is now claiming it's racist to adopt black children. Wow. Tell that to Hollywood. I'm sure they'll be willing to return those poor orphans where they found them in order not to be branded racists.

I'm just waiting now to see how they spin a sex assault allegation against Barret at the 11th hour. The thing is, it won't work. The spell was broken with Kavanaugh.

[s_bushido]

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

Being a Catholic doesn't automatically mean you belong to some fringe Catholic cult, any more than being a Protestant means you automatically belong to some young-earth creationist "God Hates Fags" sect.

I would prefer if the Senate completely skipped the hearings and went for the vote directly. Just to demonstrate to the Democrats what they created when they chaanged the laws, and so brutally and without conscience attacked Kavanaugh.

Not enough " " in the world for this horseshit. Republicans lost their ability to whine about abusing laws and attacking political opponents when Obama was elected, and have only been more brazen about their complete disregard for democracy and decorum since Trump was sworn in.

[Astalnar]

Being a Catholic doesn't automatically mean you belong to some fringe Catholic cult, any more than being a Protestant means you automatically belong to some young-earth creationist "God Hates Fags" sect.

Not enough " " in the world for this horseshit. Republicans lost their ability to whine about abusing laws and attacking political opponents when Obama was elected, and have only been more brazen about their complete disregard for democracy and decorum since Trump was sworn in.

Unlike with the protestant many denominations, there is only ONE Catholic doctrine. Either you abide by it, or you don't. I'll let you guess which of the two actually practices their catholic faith, Biden or Barret?

Now, if they're praising Biden for being a bad Catholic, and criticising Barret for staying true to the Catholic faith, how do you think this will go with the Catholic voters, who predominanlty, as they are immigrants, vote for dems?

I'm not a Republican. I'm an outside observer. And yet, it truly is fascinating to see the left's delusions. Always the victims, when you pin them down by the rules they themselves created. I really like the squealing.

[Collegeguy]

Being a Catholic doesn't automatically mean you belong to some fringe Catholic cult, any more than being a Protestant means you automatically belong to some young-earth creationist "God Hates Fags" sect.

The left would still fall flat on its face by bringing up religion regardless. There is a reason there is separation of church and state, and every judge, politician, or government employee gets the same amenities under protection of religious choice and their duties to law.

[szechuan]

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

It won't, and not every Catholic wants a Theocracy like those Extremists the right wing chose.

I'm not a Republican. I'm an outside observer. And yet, it truly is fascinating to see the left's delusions. Always the victims, when you pin them down by the rules they themselves created. I really like the squealing.

The Democratic Party didn't create the rule the Republicans did.

[Xyonai]

The left would still fall flat on its face by bringing up religion regardless. There is a reason there is separation of church and state, and every judge, politician, or government employee gets the same amenities under protection of religious choice and their duties to law.

Being general here, I'd also say the same should also extend to individuals who think the rules of their religion are more important than the laws of the country when it comes to the dictation of policy.

But I don't think any attacks against Barrett's character - from non fringe sources - are going to be about what she says her religion is, as much as how she lets it influence her politics and, in turn, speculate on how it will influence how she rules from the bench.

- - - Updated - - -

Though I do hope ya'll will remain this ideologically consistent if, say, a Pagan or Muslum or Athiest gets nominated for a Court seat in the future.

[Slant]

Even in a compromise, most times there is a winner and a loser. Politics is absolutely a winner-loser proposition, it is the very heart of what it is.

This zero sum politics philosophy in the US makes no sense and is part of the destructive tendencies of US politics atm. You need to stop that.

[s_bushido]

There is a reason there is separation of church and state...

...which the GOP ignores literally every chance they get.

[Kiri]

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

As for the process of her confirmation, I expect she'll be confirmed a week before elections for maximum effect. Trump know the voters wouldn't forgive any Republicans who'd vote against her. Even Mitt Romney realises that.

I would prefer if the Senate completely skipped the hearings and went for the vote directly. Just to demonstrate to the Democrats what they created when they chaanged the laws, and so brutally and without conscience attacked Kavanaugh.

I find the attackes on Barret by vector of her adopting black children to be laughable. Left is now claiming it's racist to adopt black children. Wow. Tell that to Hollywood. I'm sure they'll be willing to return those poor orphans where they found them in order not to be branded racists.

I'm just waiting now to see how they spin a sex assault allegation against Barret at the 11th hour. The thing is, it won't work. The spell was broken with Kavanaugh.

I think people are focusing more on the whole People of Praise church she belongs to, rather than Catholicism in general. However, discussing the differences between those probably veers too close to discussing religion in and of itself, which is a forbidden topic here. So, it is probably best not to and to drop that angle.

[Astalnar]

The Democratic Party didn't create the rule the Republicans did.

"In 2013, Democrats were in charge of the Senate and White House, and it was the minority Republicans who were filibustering their judicial picks en masse.

So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.""
-CBS News

The Dems did it first. Certain at the time, that the Republicans are on the brink of extinction, and that they will be majority until the end of America. Since then, they got the chance to experience the taste of their own medicine. You reap what you sow. Why do you cry foul now?

[Draco-Onis]

"In 2013, Democrats were in charge of the Senate and White House, and it was the minority Republicans who were filibustering their judicial picks en masse.

So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.""
-CBS News

The Dems did it first. Certain at the time, that the Republicans are on the brink of extinction, and that they will be majority until the end of America. Since then, they got the chance to experience the taste of their own medicine. You reap what you sow. Why do you cry foul now?

How is changing the rules for confirming federal judges the same thing as refusing to even talk to a supreme court nominee for 9 months? you do realize these are not remotely the same thing. That thinking has no basis in logic you may as well go into any unrelated change in the last decades and blame it on that.

[szechuan]

The Dems did it first. Certain at the time, that the Republicans are on the brink of extinction, and that they will be majority until the end of America. Since then, they got the chance to experience the taste of their own medicine. You reap what you sow. Why do you cry foul now?

Out of Context that was for Federal Judges not SCOTUS nominees, if you want someone to blame you should blame Mitch McConnel for his hardline Republican Tribal stance on everything Obama.

In fact it was the Republicans who changed the Rules for the SCOTUS Picks.

[announced]

You know that republicans tried to make interstate abortions illegal right?

So are you going to help fund the expense of having to go to another state to get an abortion? Based on the map some people would have to travel several states just to get to one where it would be "blue"

its a magical thing, this "money" huh?

Also nothing stops them from then moving forward with federal legislation in the future.

could you imagine the outrage on the right if we used this same logic of states rights on guns. Hell if you want guns you can just move to a red state......

- - - Updated - - -



well they could do the opposite and reduce it back down to 9 as is their right.

you are basically also describing how we got here. Packing of the courts to grab power by the republicans.

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution. Your logic does not apply.

Why would I help pay for other peoples abortions? If you can't book a day off and don't have a friend or someone that can drive you across state lines? Or maybe take some responsibility and realize that even when using protection, you are consenting to all the possibilities that can happen from sex. IE. STDs, getting pregnant, etc.

[szechuan]

Why would I help pay for other peoples abortions?

You're going to pay for the kids education.

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution. Your logic does not apply.

The Constitution protects a Women's liberty to have an abortion, that logic does apply.

[Masark]

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution.

There's no right to make stupid posts on a website either.

So I presume we can arrest and imprison you for this?

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Why would I help pay for other peoples abortions?

What the absolute fuck are you on? Are you so devoid in basic policy knowledge that you don't even know what the Hyde Amendment is, or is this intentional?

The Hyde Amendment was the compromise. Those opposed to abortion didn't have to pay for them, and those who wanted an abortion could have one at their own expense or that of their insurer. That's not good enough for the people who are trying to ram through a court pick with the intent to overturn Roe, which 2/3 of the country does not want to see happen.

And the same people are trying to get the rest of us to pay for their religious institutions through the same mechanisms. I don't want to pay for your fuck spawn to get a Jesus education or have my tax dollars go to organizations that think LGBTQ people have, I dunno, fucking cooties or something and won't serve them. But, here we are with court cases aplenty trying to do just that.

[postman1782]

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution. Your logic does not apply.

Why would I help pay for other peoples abortions? If you can't book a day off and don't have a friend or someone that can drive you across state lines? Or maybe take some responsibility and realize that even when using protection, you are consenting to all the possibilities that can happen from sex. IE. STDs, getting pregnant, etc.

But there is a right to bodily autonomy. And there is a law that states that you don't pay for other peoples abortions at all. And if you are forcing people to drive across state lines, then you have a problem.

[Astalnar]

Out of Context that was for Federal Judges not SCOTUS nominees, if you want someone to blame you should blame Mitch McConnel for his hardline Republican Tribal stance on everything Obama.

In fact it was the Republicans who changed the Rules for the SCOTUS Picks.

The Dems paved the way. The Republicans followed their example. What's your argument here? Nuclear option was OK for everything but the SCOTUS?

The one who holds majority in the senate is the one who dictates the rules. Everything else is just empty talk, and the Dems throughout the years demonstrated times and times again, that they're perfectly willing to hold Reps to the rules they set up, while not following them themselves. Now they get to see it the other way around.

[Levelfive]

The Dems paved the way. The Republicans followed their example. What's your argument here? Nuclear option was OK for everything but the SCOTUS?

The one who holds majority in the senate is the one who dictates the rules. Everything else is just empty talk, and the Dems throughout the years demonstrated times and times again, that they're perfectly willing to hold Reps to the rules they set up, while not following them themselves. Now they get to see it the other way around.

Hold the tape.

[postman1782]

The Dems paved the way. The Republicans followed their example. What's your argument here? Nuclear option was OK for everything but the SCOTUS?

The one who holds majority in the senate is the one who dictates the rules. Everything else is just empty talk, and the Dems throughout the years demonstrated times and times again, that they're perfectly willing to hold Reps to the rules they set up, while not following them themselves. Now they get to see it the other way around.

Really? What fucking alternate reality did you pull this shit from? The Democrats have NEVER held up a nomination, but Republicans did in 2016 with Garland. And now, there should NEVER be a nomination in an election year.