Page 3 of 59 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
53
... LastLast
  1. #41
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Considering the current political climate, I don't doubt that she'll be in the Supreme Court by Early November.

    Sure Mitch can't spare the time too actually vote on a COVID relief bill but he'll sure as shit get his act together to ratfuck our courts for the next couple decades.
    The good thing about throwing delaying tactics at this is that we keep people like Graham and Ernst in DC instead of out campaigning. That should be our current goal.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    Second, from a broader point of view, I'm pointing out Barrett's qualifications from either the Conservative side or an objective evaluation
    When was the last time a judge got sat to scotus with 3 years of experience on the bench?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Considering the current political climate, I don't doubt that she'll be in the Supreme Court by Early November.

    Sure Mitch can't spare the time too actually vote on a COVID relief bill but he'll sure as shit get his act together to ratfuck our courts for the next couple decades.
    They voted on a “skinny” bill that was defeated. He has shown zero interest in getting one done though.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Considering the current political climate, I don't doubt that she'll be in the Supreme Court by Early November.

    Sure Mitch can't spare the time too actually vote on a COVID relief bill but he'll sure as shit get his act together to ratfuck our courts for the next couple decades.
    I've never seen a turtle move so fast on an issue before. That should be the message to everyone out there suffering - ESPECIALLY those living in Kentucky. If you have been dealt with death or hardship, look at the lack of effort and energy the Senate Majority Leader has put forth on this pandemic. But literally, hours when a justice passes away, suddenly, this is his highest priority. Not the lives of millions dealing with COVID, but sitting a judge ASAP.

    So much for "All Lives Matter"... Which by the way, we all knew was just BS anyways.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenGoldSharpie View Post
    The good thing about throwing delaying tactics at this is that we keep people like Graham and Ernst in DC instead of out campaigning. That should be our current goal.
    Graham will just keep begging people on Fox News for more money. Because he's just thatt pathetic.
    The MF has been impeached. Now he needs to GTFO.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm just asking this for a more overview discussion, but what is the difference between Scalia and Barrett?
    I can’t say I know enough about her rulings to compare them off the top of my head. My point about the rapid delegitimization of the court was because of a) the process, hypocritically stuffing a nominee into the court in record time, and b) the increased ideological distance between the institution and the public- what @GreenGoldSharpie was saying.
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    -H.L. Mencken, 1920

  6. #46
    I wonder....


  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    I can’t say I know enough about her rulings to compare them off the top of my head. My point about the rapid delegitimization of the court was because of a) the process, hypocritically stuffing a nominee into the court in record time, and b) the increased ideological distance between the institution and the public- what @GreenGoldSharpie was saying.
    Some notes about here

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN26G37S

    In a 1998 Marquette Law Review article she co-wrote exploring the effect of the Catholic church’s teachings on federal jurists, Ms Coney Barrett said the church’s views on prohibiting abortion and euthanasia are “absolute” because they “take away innocent life.

  8. #48
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    When was the last time a judge got sat to scotus with 3 years of experience on the bench?
    She might be the least experienced SCOTUS Justice for sure. I think if there were a chink in her experience CV, it would be that.

  9. #49
    Immortal Thepersona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Puerto Montt, Chile
    Posts
    7,782
    US, get your fucking act together, and start throwing out religioin into the bin of history it belongs.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  10. #50
    Wow she's a serious religious nutjob. I'm sure republicans are going to vote her through anyways, but holy shit.

    The GOP is broken.

  11. #51
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Some notes about here

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN26G37S

    In a 1998 Marquette Law Review article she co-wrote exploring the effect of the Catholic church’s teachings on federal jurists, Ms Coney Barrett said the church’s views on prohibiting abortion and euthanasia are “absolute” because they “take away innocent life.
    That's interesting because she said in her Circuit Court confirmation (IIRC) that a person's personal religious beliefs should not impede on jurist rulings. And if they do...the jurist should recuse themselves.

    Perhaps there are some legitimate fights to be had against her confirmation. I wonder if Graham and McTurtle are going to let that happen.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That's interesting because she said in her Circuit Court confirmation (IIRC) that a person's personal religious beliefs should not impede on jurist rulings. And if they do...the jurist should recuse themselves.

    Perhaps there are some legitimate fights to be had against her confirmation. I wonder if Graham and McTurtle are going to let that happen.
    I am a bit divided in this, I am thinking democrats perhaps should consider boycotting the entire thing altogether. The right has already telegraphed their attacks that's it's all religious discrimination instead focus the entire thing on how she is the end of the ACA, abortion rights and all that. The democrats in congress are usually pretty bad at questioning to begin with last thing they need is someone's line being used against Biden.

  13. #53
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,494
    New light is being shed on Barrett's Catholic group People of Praise.

    The 48-year-old appellate court judge has said she is a “faithful Catholic” but that her religious beliefs would not “bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge”.

    At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God”.
    People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “highest authority”.
    Perhaps the group does have some commonalities with The Handmaid's Tale. Now I'm wondering where the name Handmaid originated for the book/series.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm just asking this for a more overview discussion, but what is the difference between Scalia and Barrett?
    None. Scalia was an awful justice too, and made shit up all the time on the bench.

    He just wrote it beautifully, and in legalistic circles, so people were like "Oh, he's okay." He was not okay. He flouted the norms of jurisprudence regularly. The few times he agreed with what could broadly be considered justice were to try and create legal precedence for more of his fringe opinions.

    Scalia may have passed muster in the 80s......Scalia v. 2.0 is unacceptable in 2020.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    Ya know if I was Neil Gorsuch I'd want to know how they went from picking a fairly run of the mill dude like myself to Kavanaugh and soon Coney Barrett. This is a perfect metaphor for the GOP as a whole....We used to be OK and just disagreed with the Democrats. Now we're all for just letting it out there that we support sex offender alcoholics and theocracy as long as its the religion we choose.
    Gorsuch is not "run of the mill" either. Let's stop normalizing these people's fringe views. He's a hard right conservative, just like Thomas and Alito, and the man he replaced, Scalia. Dude sides with the liberals on ONE CASE and everyone's like "Oh, he must not be that bad."

  15. #55
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I am a bit divided in this, I am thinking democrats perhaps should consider boycotting the entire thing altogether. The right has already telegraphed their attacks that's it's all religious discrimination instead focus the entire thing on how she is the end of the ACA, abortion rights and all that. The democrats in congress are usually pretty bad at questioning to begin with last thing they need is someone's line being used against Biden.
    That's my concern as well. The Democrats must weigh their effort to oppose Barrett with how those efforts will shed negative light on Biden, as well as how those efforts will ultimately be effective. I mean, what would it take for McTrump to withdraw this candidate?

  16. #56
    I think one thing, and only one thing, should be pointed out about ACB's religious views, and I say this as a confirmed Catholic who spent 20 years in Catholic schools, all the way through law school: Her "cult" of evangelicized Catholics believe women are subservient to their husbands, and that they MUST take instruction from their husbands, who are the head of their household.

    So what's to prevent her husband from being a shadow justice? If he tells her she should rule one way on a decision, mustn't she rule that way?

    That should be immediately disqualifying, and yet, if Democrats bring it up in her nomination hearing, the Republicans will be screaming "Religious persecution!!!!" despite the right's A) traditional hatred of Catholics coming from Evangelicals, B) our Presidential candidate being Catholic, and C) our Speaker of the House being Catholic.

  17. #57
    Just what we need, more religion in our government. Freedom of religion should mean freedom from religion as well.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That's my concern as well. The Democrats must weigh their effort to oppose Barrett with how those efforts will shed negative light on Biden, as well as how those efforts will ultimately be effective. I mean, what would it take for McTrump to withdraw this candidate?
    To me there's no upside in participating in her hearing, she doesn't matter it's what she represents. She will lie her ass off so any promises she makes is not worth anything.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That's my concern as well. The Democrats must weigh their effort to oppose Barrett with how those efforts will shed negative light on Biden, as well as how those efforts will ultimately be effective. I mean, what would it take for McTrump to withdraw this candidate?
    I would think their efforts should focus on the hypocrisy of the GOP and the potential damage to the court’s legitimacy if the nominee is rushed through right before an election

    I don’t think there is any scenario under which McConnell doesn’t get her in.
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    -H.L. Mencken, 1920

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    I would think their efforts should focus on the hypocrisy of the GOP and the potential damage to the court’s legitimacy if the nominee is rushed through right before an election

    I don’t think there is any scenario under which McConnell doesn’t get her in.
    Agreed they are better off boycotting the whole thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •