Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[the game]

So the vote to advance Amy Coney Barrett to the full senate was unanimous. This is good news.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court over a boycott from the committee’s Democrats.

The vote paves the way for the full Senate to confirm Barrett to the high court on Monday, ahead of the Nov. 3 election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump has repeatedly pressed for Barrett to be placed on the high court in time to resolve any election-related litigation, a request that Democrats see as a plain call for the court’s conservative majority to declare him the winner if the outcome is contested.

The swift action by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R, S-C., to meet Trump’s deadline will make Barrett the first justice in history to be confirmed so close to Election Day.

Barrett, who was a professor at Notre Dame Law School until Trump nominated her to serve on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approximately three years ago, will be the sixth Republican-appointee on the nine-judge Supreme Court, and Trump’s third nominee.

Trump nominated her to the high court last month after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who served on the bench for 27 years. Ginsburg expressed a dying wish not to be replaced until after the election.

As Ginsburg’s replacement, Barrett is expected to shift the court’s center of gravity decisively to the right, potentially imperiling the Democratic agenda items on health care, abortion access and the Second Amendment.

In focus is a Nov. 10 case the court will hear over the constitutionality of Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act.

While the Democrats did not appear at Thursday’s committee hearing, they left supersized posters of individuals who rely on the law in their seats. Republicans denounced the gesture as theatrics.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/gop-...omination.html

[cubby]

So the vote to advance Amy Coney Barrett to the full senate was unanimous. This is good news.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/gop-...omination.html

I love how you Trumpkins ignore context in almost every thing you even think you're thinking about. The vote was boycotted by the Democrats. Her advancement to SCOTUS is terrible news.

Biden has already committed to forming a Committee to discuss the makeup of the Supreme Court going forward (obviously if he is elected, /knockswood).

[Adam Jensen]

Also, literally her job as a judge, let alone a member of SCOTUS, is offering her opinions on abstract rules and hypotheticals.

Literally the bulk of the job, that isn't just courtroom management stuff. The same way that teaching is about communicating information to students, outside of classroom management stuff.

Yeah but think from her perspective, why answer these hard questions? She could answer them with literal gibberish if she wanted to, she knows the Republicans will ram her onto SCOTUS regardless. She has the job already, all this bullshit is is show.

[silveth]

Yeah but think from her perspective, why answer these hard questions? She could answer them with literal gibberish if she wanted to, she knows the Republicans will ram her onto SCOTUS regardless. She has the job already, all this bullshit is is show.

Because like any other job interview, they should be asking about her previous ruling and experience. She was following the safe standard as all the judges before her. Hypothetical ruling questions would give people the ability to tailor their arguments to try to influence a judge to rule their way. Judges really aren't suppose to do that.

[Elegiac]

Because like any other job interview, they should be asking about her previous ruling and experience. She was following the safe standard as all the judges before her. Hypothetical ruling questions would give people the ability to tailor their arguments to try to influence a judge to rule their way. Judges really aren't suppose to do that.

Literacy is also a requirement in a job interview:

Also, literally her job as a judge, let alone a member of SCOTUS, is offering her opinions on abstract rules and hypotheticals.

Literally the bulk of the job, that isn't just courtroom management stuff. The same way that teaching is about communicating information to students, outside of classroom management stuff.

Stop parroting Republican talking points.

[Edge-]

Because like any other job interview, they should be asking about her previous ruling and experience. She was following the safe standard as all the judges before her. Hypothetical ruling questions would give people the ability to tailor their arguments to try to influence a judge to rule their way. Judges really aren't suppose to do that.

Have you never been in a job interview? Because like, if I'd ever refused to answer hypothetical questions when posed to me in interviews like...I wouldn't have a job.

[Elegiac]

Have you never been in a job interview? Because like, if I'd ever refused to answer hypothetical questions when posed to me in interviews like...I wouldn't have a job.

Getting the distinct impression most of the conservative posters here are either students or Boomers that haven't actually had to apply for new employment since jelly sandals were in.

[Zython]

Because like any other job interview, they should be asking about her previous ruling and experience. She was following the safe standard as all the judges before her. Hypothetical ruling questions would give people the ability to tailor their arguments to try to influence a judge to rule their way. Judges really aren't suppose to do that.

It's weird that a Republican would be so hesitant to engage in hypotheticals, since usually they do that at the expense of engaging with real world examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you never been in a job interview? Because like, if I'd ever refused to answer hypothetical questions when posed to me in interviews like...I wouldn't have a job.

This IS a fan forum for a game that is notorious for requiring large amounts of time and money to engage with. It's quite possible many of them have never worked for a living.

[Adam Jensen]

Have you never been in a job interview? Because like, if I'd ever refused to answer hypothetical questions when posed to me in interviews like...I wouldn't have a job.

"So, Adam, you want to be a programmer and you say you know Java. Tell me then, what are the four fundamentals of object oriented programming?"
"Oh I don't wanna get into the hypotheticals of that right now, but I can do hello world: 'System.out.Println("Hello world");'. I can Stack Overflow the rest."
"You're hired!"

[Endus]

Because like any other job interview, they should be asking about her previous ruling and experience. She was following the safe standard as all the judges before her. Hypothetical ruling questions would give people the ability to tailor their arguments to try to influence a judge to rule their way. Judges really aren't suppose to do that.

Even in interviews for minimum-wage and entry-level positions, I got asked hypotheticals about ethical conduct.

I'm seriously doubting you've ever had a real job interview, if you're not aware of how they go.

And yes; lawyers always tailor their arguments so that the judge can see the value in that argument. That's literally the point of a lawyer, and what they do in court. That's the whole deal. So not only do you not understand job interviews, it appears you don't even understand how courts work.

[breadisfunny]

It's weird that a Republican would be so hesitant to engage in hypotheticals, since usually they do that at the expense of engaging with real world examples.

- - - Updated - - -



This IS a fan forum for a game that is notorious for requiring large amounts of time and money to engage with. It's quite possible many of them have never worked for a living.

yes because clearly most people who play a SUBSCRIPTION BASED GAME THAT REQUIRES MONEY HAVE NEVER HELD A JOB.

[Zython]

yes because clearly most people who play a SUBSCRIPTION BASED GAME THAT REQUIRES MONEY HAVE NEVER HELD A JOB.

I didn't say they had no source of money, I just said they didn't work for a living.

[Zan15]

yes because clearly most people who play a SUBSCRIPTION BASED GAME THAT REQUIRES MONEY HAVE NEVER HELD A JOB.

does not require money at all anymore.

[SirBeef]

So the vote to advance Amy Coney Barrett to the full senate was unanimous. This is good news.




https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/gop-...omination.html

Don't worry, in 2021, the Dems will impeach Boof Kavanaugh for lying under oath to congress and expand the court and add 7 more liberal judges and forever bury conservative ideals for multiple generations to come.

[Biglog]

The GOP might chuckle about ACB. But it really is scorched Earth nuking on their part that will have some major repercussions for years to come. And McConnell from comments today is all but acknowledging that they are going to lose the Senate. The scorched earth strategy is likely to backfire since it really was assuming they'd hold onto the Senate as they have for quite a while now. Supporters of this move should realize they are trading this move with ACB for likely loss of the Senate, leaving Demos probably in control of the House, Senate, and WH for at least the next 4 years. Polls show it's cost them far more votes than it's gained. Also, it's set the precedent that openings in the SC will only be filled if the WH and Senate are held by the same party. Maybe not a good move if your party is going to be the minority for awhile.

[eschatological]

The GOP might chuckle about ACB. But it really is scorched Earth nuking on their part that will have some major repercussions for years to come. And McConnell from comments today is all but acknowledging that they are going to lose the Senate. The scorched earth strategy is likely to backfire since it really was assuming they'd hold onto the Senate as they have for quite a while now. Supporters of this move should realize they are trading this move with ACB for likely loss of the Senate, leaving Demos probably in control of the House, Senate, and WH for at least the next 4 years. Polls show it's cost them far more votes than it's gained. Also, it's set the precedent that openings in the SC will only be filled if the WH and Senate are held by the same party. Maybe not a good move if your party is going to be the minority for awhile.

As a progressive, I'd trade potentially only 2 years of a lost Senate (opposition Congresses tend to be voted in during a 1st term POTUS's administration) for 30 years of a 6-3 progressive Court any day of the week.

That's the smart play for them.

All they have to do is hammer the idea that "packing the Court" is unAmerican, cost the Dems image points. Maybe the cowardly Dems then don't do it, but even if they do pack the Court, they use it to run and win back the Senate, sans filibuster which they eliminated, and then forget all their arguments about it being unAmerican and pack it themselves.

If I was a GOP political strategist, this is exactly the tack I'd take. They looted and burned down everything they could for 4 years before being thrown out, and now they're trying to escape with the crown jewels.

[cubby]

Don't worry, in 2021, the Dems will impeach Boof Kavanaugh for lying under oath to congress and expand the court and add 7 more liberal judges and forever bury conservative ideals for multiple generations to come.

Unfortunately, they won't. The House might be able to indict and pass impeachment, but the Senate wouldn't vote to remove - I know you know it takes 2/3's to convict, and the Democrats won't have.

The best path for the Democrats is a "defuse the Supreme Court polarization by expanding it to a size where one vacancy won't dramatically affect the country" by increasing the size of the court from 19-27. And then the Democrats fill every single one of those seats.

Then do the same for the Circuit Courts - all 12.

And when the GOP and their fuck-wit idiot supporters and Insane Trump Cult Followers complain, just ignore them. They literally have nothing to add to a positive discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

As a progressive, I'd trade potentially only 2 years of a lost Senate (opposition Congresses tend to be voted in during a 1st term POTUS's administration) for 30 years of a 6-3 progressive Court any day of the week.

That's the smart play for them.

All they have to do is hammer the idea that "packing the Court" is unAmerican, cost the Dems image points. Maybe the cowardly Dems then don't do it, but even if they do pack the Court, they use it to run and win back the Senate, sans filibuster which they eliminated, and then forget all their arguments about it being unAmerican and pack it themselves.

If I was a GOP political strategist, this is exactly the tack I'd take. They looted and burned down everything they could for 4 years before being thrown out, and now they're trying to escape with the crown jewels.

Agreed. And if Biden and a Democratic Senate win out (/knockwood) and they have the guts to do increase the court size, they have to market it as a "Depolarizing Initiative" targeted to make the SCOTUS vacancies non-explosive and divisive.

[SirBeef]

As a progressive, I'd trade potentially only 2 years of a lost Senate (opposition Congresses tend to be voted in during a 1st term POTUS's administration) for 30 years of a 6-3 progressive Court any day of the week.

That's the smart play for them.

All they have to do is hammer the idea that "packing the Court" is unAmerican, cost the Dems image points. Maybe the cowardly Dems then don't do it, but even if they do pack the Court, they use it to run and win back the Senate, sans filibuster which they eliminated, and then forget all their arguments about it being unAmerican and pack it themselves.

If I was a GOP political strategist, this is exactly the tack I'd take. They looted and burned down everything they could for 4 years before being thrown out, and now they're trying to escape with the crown jewels.

Then just point right back that the GOP has expanded or shrank state SPs all the time to give them control or make it so they keep control after a dem leaves a vacancy so it can't/doesn't need to be filled. As well as put on blast the GOP plan to not have a hearing or fill any judicial seat for 4 years if HRC won and they retained the presidency. They would have left the court with 1 person if 8 dies during this last 4 years. SO funk them all to hell with Trumps orange cheeto. I am tired of the country being held hostage by a minority party with no vision nor willingness to govern.

[Katchii]

yes because clearly most people who play a SUBSCRIPTION BASED GAME THAT REQUIRES MONEY HAVE NEVER HELD A JOB.

1) It just requires someone to pay, doesn't mean it's THEIR money
2) Folks with no job can play enough to earn enough gold to buy tokens

[Xeones]

It baffles my mind that republicans think this can go forward without democrats packing the court if they get the senate with Biden.

McConnel literally said today they had to do this because democrats can undo everything else they've done. No this can be functionally undone too.