Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[DingDongKing]

I see the confirmation hearing of this lady has started.

Video link above. Feinstein discussing Obamacare and Coney Barrett's distaste for it. Making good points.

Coney Barrett sitting there not giving a fuck because she doesn't care about people.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Seats held artificially open so a minority party could perform a hostile take over of courts that the majority doesn't support.

You are quoting someone who said "court packing" did you not even fucking read what you're quoting??????? it's right there IN WORDS because we're all on a damn forum.

You're trying to shame a group of people that view raw politics as more important than integrity.

The simple fact is that this court will surely hand down wildly unpopular opinions and a whole lot of conservatives believe that will be the end of it. What is more likely to happen is this further politicizes the courts and those unpopular opinions spark outrage and significant protests that will make stuff like this summer more and more common. The cultural cost of putting Barrett on the court is going to absolutely ring the social conservative's bell, and institutional power is nothing compared to cultural power.

[Adam Jensen]

I see the confirmation hearing of this lady has started.

Fucking goddamned hypocrites.

Sorry gay people, hold on to your marriage licenses tightly . . . The fucking gall of all of this. Lindsey Graham and Mitch in 2016 are all like "you can't let the President select a SCOTUS nominee in an election year!" and yet here we are, with Trump getting his third SCOTUS pick.

Then they have the gall to whine about Democrats planning to pack the courts, like WTF has McConnell been doing the past 4 years?

How did we let America's stupidest, most ignorant, most idiotic, most dangerous President affect the court for 30-40 goddamn years?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Personally I think this woman is a nut case, but I don't honestly see anyway of being able to stop her confirmation or even slow it down, read something last night about how the majority thinks we should wait but just recently it seems less people are against her confirmation now. I say get the senate get the presidency and stack the courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Fucking goddamned hypocrites.

Sorry gay people, hold on to your marriage licenses tightly . . . The fucking gall of all of this. Lindsey Graham and Mitch in 2016 are all like "you can't let the President select a SCOTUS nominee in an election year!" and yet here we are, with Trump getting his third SCOTUS pick.

Then they have the gall to whine about Democrats planning to pack the courts, like WTF has McConnell been doing the past 4 years?

How did we let America's stupidest, most ignorant, most idiotic, most dangerous President affect the court for 30-40 goddamn years?

Easily, because in the between times, coupled with fatigue people seem to actually like and are someone even entertained by the very morons who elect this shit.

[Thelxi]

I'm really enjoying the hearing so far. Democrats are making it clear that they can't/won't fight her confirmation, but will instead focus on exposing the big donor money that is behind this, through narrow GOP senate/WH support. Republicans are trying to convince 8th graders, aka Trump supporters, that this is really not political at all or has anything to do with ACA/elections. lol

It's also very obvious that Democrats will make sure to pay this back in kind when first presented the opportunity. As far as I can tell this will be one last short-term political gain for the GOP/Trump that will inevitably backfire. The question is when.

[PACOX]

Im so over the 'precedent' argument. The parties will do what is beneficial to them, full stop. The GOP doesn't care about "unwritten rules and conditions" but they will us them against opponents. And they love when you say "but you guys did it" because it means they can take down the facade.

A president chooses the judges and is in office until January. The peopleget to choose a Supreme Court judge no more or less than they choose the head of the FBI. Attacking whats legal when its too late is pointless and the last thing you want is for a nomination for a liberal judge to be upheld (again) because precendece gets used against them.

The whole concept of allowing seats to remain vacant because of politics is crazy onto itself. Any position should be filled ASAP to maintain the functioning of government, the failure to do so means there are a flaw and exploitable vulnerability in the system.

All that nonsense aside, if you're angry/concerned about this confirmation - vote. Tell everyone you know to vote. Vote out the people who hold the system hostage for personal political gain. Vote out the people who are in charge of the processes. Educate your family and friends about the in and outs of the process and why its important to pay attention.

This battle was lost in 2010 when the Senate was lost and remained in that state for 10 years. Too often does the left ignore the system until the house has been burned down then expects a party that has never been honorable to suddenly adopt a sense of morality.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Im so over the 'precedent' argument. The parties will do what is beneficial to them, full stop. The GOP doesn't care about "unwritten rules and conditions" but they will us them against opponents. And they love when you say "but you guys did it" because it means they can take down the facade.

A president chooses the judges and is in office until January. The peopleget to choose a Supreme Court judge no more or less than they choose the head of the FBI. Attacking whats legal when its too late is pointless and the last thing you want is for a nomination for a liberal judge to be upheld (again) because precendece gets used against them.

The whole concept of allowing seats to remain vacant because of politics is crazy onto itself. Any position should be filled ASAP to maintain the functioning of government, the failure to do so means there are a flaw and exploitable vulnerability in the system.

All that nonsense aside, if you're angry/concerned about this confirmation - vote. Tell everyone you know to vote. Vote out the people who hold the system hostage for personal political gain. Vote out the people who are in charge of the processes. Educate your family and friends about the in and outs of the process and why its important to pay attention.

This battle was lost in 2010 when the Senate was lost and remained in that state for 10 years. Too often does the left ignore the system until the house has been burned down then expects a party that has never been honorable to suddenly adopt a sense of morality.

Personally I am kind of curious that after Trump is out of office, investigated and no longer protected by the Office, should the level of corruption be shown, is it possible all of his appointments as well as executive orders become void.

I am sure it's wishful thinking but meh.

I agree with everything you've said here, people unaware people that support Trump have dug in their heals and are ready to fight this war at any price.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm really enjoying the hearing so far. Democrats are making it clear that they can't/won't fight her confirmation, but will instead focus on exposing the big donor money that is behind this, through narrow GOP senate/WH support. Republicans are trying to convince 8th graders, aka Trump supporters, that this is really not political at all or has anything to do with ACA/elections. lol

It's also very obvious that Democrats will make sure to pay this back in kind when first presented the opportunity. As far as I can tell this will be one last short-term political gain for the GOP/Trump that will inevitably backfire. The question is when.

Hopefully before Thomas and Alito get to tank Obergefell v Hodges.

[PACOX]

Personally I am kind of curious that after Trump is out of office, investigated and no longer protected by the Office, should the level of corruption be shown, is it possible all of his appointments as well as executive orders become void.

Well he executive orders can be trumped the say way Trump attacked Obama's executive orders. One criticism against Obama is that he relied on executive orders (he was surrounded by opposition which wasn't necessarily his fault) that could be easily overturned - as a number were. So Biden can (and should) override a lot of Trump's nonsense but at the same time solidify measures into law (assuming the Senate can be flipped).

As for his appointments, doing something like that has been flirted with throughout history but rejected for reason. If you can prove that appointments were illegal (and some have been before the guy has been even voted out), then appointments are nullified. But appointments can't just be taken away because the guy ended up being a scumbag.

All it would take is another perfect storm where you have a McConnell, a Trump, and a Barr to purge the government fill it with yes men because they make up some nonsense like "Obama was illegitimate in our eyes so where going to purge the government of anyone who was hired/appointed during his administration". It would have abused and cause chaos.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well he executive orders can be trumped the say way Trump attacked Obama's executive orders. One criticism against Obama is that he relied on executive orders (he was surrounded by opposition which wasn't necessarily his fault) that could be easily overturned - as a number were. So Biden can (and should) override a lot of Trump's nonsense but at the same time solidify measures into law (assuming the Senate can be flipped).

As for his appointments, doing something like that has been flirted with throughout history but rejected for reason. If you can prove that appointments were illegal (and some have been before the guy has been even voted out), then appointments are nullified. But appointments can't just be taken away because the guy ended up being a scumbag.

All it would take is another perfect storm where you have a McConnell, a Trump, and a Barr to purge the government fill it with yes men because they make up some nonsense like "Obama was illegitimate in our eyes so where going to purge the government of anyone who was hired/appointed during his administration". It would have abused and cause chaos.

Interesting reply, fuck it I say expand the bench to 13

[Milchshake]

The battle was lost in 2000 and again in 2016 or 1968. When people said:

• <whinge> Dems are trying to use a SCOTUS to shame me into voting for them
• <whinge> Dems are trying to use a SCOTUS to blackmail me into voting for them

It no accident that the 50 years of GOP judicial dominance started when Cosplay Leftists began playing purity politics and taking out their daddy issues on LBJ.

Protip: google the "Lochner Court", because it'll be another 40 years of that BS.
Current GOP judges have been citing Lochner as precedent for their rulings. ugh

[PACOX]

Interesting reply, fuck it I say expand the bench to 13

Someone had a good suggestion.

I would like to see set term limits with a president replacing a judge each term. You'd want to expand the courts for something like that to work.

Allows you to get good use out of a judge without them staying on the bench out of touch, keeping a seat warm until a bidder comes along (Kennedy).

[Edge-]

Well he executive orders can be trumped the say way Trump attacked Obama's executive orders. One criticism against Obama is that he relied on executive orders (he was surrounded by opposition which wasn't necessarily his fault) that could be easily overturned - as a number were. So Biden can (and should) override a lot of Trump's nonsense but at the same time solidify measures into law (assuming the Senate can be flipped).

Was chatting with a lady who's a big fundraiser for the Biden campaign (i.e. more access) and she actually talked about this. Apparently the campaign is already putting together lists of the EO's Trump has signed off on and preparing to overturn a huge number on day one. It was actually pretty reassuring to hear that they already have this on their radar in a big way, even if his EO's will be temporary as well.

[cubby]

Was chatting with a lady who's a big fundraiser for the Biden campaign (i.e. more access) and she actually talked about this. Apparently the campaign is already putting together lists of the EO's Trump has signed off on and preparing to overturn a huge number on day one. It was actually pretty reassuring to hear that they already have this on their radar in a big way, even if his EO's will be temporary as well.

That is really reassuring regarding the EO's. I would guess that Biden has no short supply of people willing to join his staff or work for free to try and right the ship if he's elected. I read that his campaign hired thousands of attorneys and volunteers across the country to defend the right to vote from Trump's ongoing and upcoming attacks.

[Edge-]

That is really reassuring regarding the EO's. I would guess that Biden has no short supply of people willing to join his staff or work for free to try and right the ship if he's elected. I read that his campaign hired thousands of attorneys and volunteers across the country to defend the right to vote from Trump's ongoing and upcoming attacks.

Yeah, apparently they're getting their shit together. Lots of lawyers in case they need to challenge things, prep work for transition and identifying areas to focus on first to undo Trump's chaos etc.

It was reassuring for sure. Now we just gotta keep doing whatever it is we can to get Biden in there to make use of these peoples work.

[cubby]

Interesting reply, fuck it I say expand the bench to 13

The current "thought process" on expansion is 19-27. @PACOX with the possibility of term limits - although those come with their own problems. I think writing in some rules on when and how the nomination process should take place would be prudent, but I'm not certain how well those would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Whatever rules we try to put into place to keep the GOP from running their shenanigans, which we must assume they will always do if they can, we have to game those rules out to see how they could be manipulated. Plus, the "Trump Effect" of essentially ignoring those rules and court orders must be taken into effect (something like bright line punishments if not followed).

I would expect someone on Biden's staff is leading that initiative. If the Trump campaign is already trying to make "stacking the court" part of the election dialogue, Biden's team must be working at it.

[Rasulis]

Every single Democrats on the panel, that had their turn to talk so far, talked about ACA and GOP misplaced priority in pushing the the nomination over Covid-19 rescue bill. No one has talked about her Catholicism or Roe vs. Wade.

[DingDongKing]

Every single Democrats on the panel, that had their turn to talk so far, talked about ACA and GOP misplaced priority in pushing the the nomination over Covid-19 rescue bill. No one has talked about her Catholicism or Roe vs. Wade.

Because her Catholicism isn't grounds to disqualify her from being a Supreme Court Justice. And Roe v Wade will come. And regardless, she's getting in. Optically, the most important thing that the Dems can do is NOT provide Conservatives with any new talking points.

[Gestopft]

Democrats are making it clear that they can't/won't fight her confirmation, but will instead focus on exposing the big donor money that is behind this

Are they actually doing this? Do I get to be happy with the Dems?!

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully before Thomas and Alito get to tank Obergefell v Hodges.

Yes that, but probably the worst precedent they can tank is Chevron deference. We have to really, really hope they don't

- - - Updated - - -

Protip: google the "Lochner Court", because it'll be another 40 years of that BS.

If Obergefell or Roe get tanked, it will be bad. But a new Lochner court is THE project of the GOP and their donors.

[Rasulis]

Because her Catholicism isn't grounds to disqualify her from being a Supreme Court Justice. And Roe v Wade will come. And regardless, she's getting in. Optically, the most important thing that the Dems can do is NOT provide Conservatives with any new talking points.

True. They can't stop her nomination anyway. They may as well turn the fact that she may vote against ACA on November 10 into an election issue.