Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Valkyrst]

She is Catholic, and of course there has been morons calling Bill Maher out for his anti-religion stuff against her, because she is a bad choice.

I have ZERO issue with religion or people being religious. Even if you want to celebrate it, that's fine. Just don't use religion to make other people lose out. Women's rights is a fundamental element of a democratic and free nation. Don't fuck with the basics. And don't even get me started on the other issues she has including healthcare, gun control and what not. She's a bad choice regardless of what Bill Maher says, and he's a fucking tool.

[postman1782]

Oh neat, are we going to get a new slew of wholly disingenuous 'you only dislike her because she's a Christian/Woman!!' pearl clutching to shield her from legitimate criticism?

There were people doing that after Real Time aired Friday against Maher, so I fully expect it.

- - - Updated - - -

I have ZERO issue with religion or people being religious. Even if you want to celebrate it, that's fine. Just don't use religion to make other people lose out. Women's rights is a fundamental element of a democratic and free nation. Don't fuck with the basics. And don't even get me started on the other issues she has including healthcare, gun control and what not. She's a bad choice regardless of what Bill Maher says, and he's a fucking tool.

Oh, I fully expect these morons to try to get rid of Roe V Wade based on their religions, even though if they have actually read their books, their book loves abortion, but I am not going to get into that.

[Zan15]

Remember folks, Roe v Wade (while important) is a distraction. The true Republican project will be significantly advanced by this. If you have Democratic Senators in your state on the Judiciary Commmitee, tell them to hammer her on labor rights, antitrust, and money in politics.

- - - Updated - - -



30 more years of unlimited money in politics, even more concentrated corporate power, and screwing workers into the dirt- thanks to gullible Conservatives such as yourself.



Wait, locking kids in cages wouldn't be "presidential" if he was just more stoic about it?!

but but they get to keep their gunz and get bigger gunz with more bigger loud noises....who needs all those other rights when you got big gunz!

- - - Updated - - -

sad part is Trump does not even support the anti-abortion stance.
He most likley does not even give a shit one way or another since it has no personal impact on him.
he just needs to say that to get elected.

he also has enough money to send his daughter and granddaughter to another country to get an abortion if they need one. unlike most of the country who will have no choice.

[Draco-Onis]

but but they get to keep their gunz and get bigger gunz with more bigger loud noises....who needs all those other rights when you got big gunz!

- - - Updated - - -

sad part is Trump does not even support the anti-abortion stance.
He most likley does not even give a shit one way or another since it has no personal impact on him.
he just needs to say that to get elected.

he also has enough money to send his daughter and granddaughter to another country to get an abortion if they need one. unlike most of the country who will have no choice.

I think the saddest part is Donald Trump is really our first Atheist president, the only god he worships is the one in the mirror.

[Josuke]

I think the saddest part is Donald Trump is really our first Atheist president, the only god he worships is the one in the mirror.

I dont know why you'd have expected any different?

[Endus]

I do not believe that being religious should disqualify anyone from a job.

I am atheistic, if it matters.

Being religious isn't the problem.

The problem is thinking your religious rules/guidelines have any relevance to anyone but yourself. And with a position as a judge of any level, thinking your faith and the principles derived therefrom have any place in informing your opinions on the law, which it should not. Personal faith is fine, when you keep it personal, and don't use it in place of actual responsible policy work or adjudication of law.

When Canada pushed through abortion reform, removing the remaining legal restrictions federally and mandating it as a right, just like any other health care procedure, it was Prime Minister Paul Martin who was at the helm, and supporting the process, despite himself being a Catholic and firmly pro-choice. Because he knew that his role was not to push his own religious views on the populace, but to protect every citizens' right to make these choices absent any religious rule from the government.

"My religion says that I shouldn't do that" is totally fine.
"My religion says that you shouldn't be able to/allowed to do that" means you are seeking to violate people's civil rights and freedoms, and you should not be tolerated in polite society, because you're a religious zealot.

Some of those laws are outdated. They were written when people thought differently than we do today, so those laws are outdated. The mentality that made those laws necessary doesn't exist anymore.

Then you agree that constitutional originalism is a dumb idea and that Barrett's stance regarding it is complete nonsense and should invalidate her as a candidate to the Supreme Court, all by itself?

Because you can't think any part of the Constitution is "outdated" and also be an originalist.

[eschatological]

Depends... the UN has been sounding the alarm for some time now and more so lately and immigration and refugee lawyers see no reason why black or Latino Americans can't claim asylum. One example is that Roma people in Hungary are often awarded asylum in Europe and Canada with the reason being... in their country, the police target them, abuse them, give them dispropriate jail sentences. When they are killed there often is little to no followup, and wrongful deaths aren't investigated and when there is an investigation it is usually scant and the outcome is.... nothing.

I actually wonder what will happen if Biden is a clear-enough winner of this election, and Trump refuses to concede, and takes a legal battle to SCOTUS and wins, and they install him as President.

I mean, does the UN then kick the U.S. off the Security Council, and sanction the country?

I know we've already chilled out on NATO, but do we get kicked out of NATO too?

It's scary, but that's what SHOULD happen if the above scenario plays out. And in 4 years, Trump would've managed to make the U.S. a global pariah.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh neat, are we going to get a new slew of wholly disingenuous 'you only dislike her because she's a Christian/Woman!!' pearl clutching to shield her from legitimate criticism?

It's already happening.

Dems have a Catholic Speaker of the House and Presidential Candidate, and Evangelicals on the Far Right usually can't stand Roman Catholics, but this Catholic happens to be in an Opus Dei-level cult of Catholicism where it's okay, so now they're pearl clutching anyone who dares criticize that as "persecuting her for her religion!"

[cubby]

Barrett is going to get confirmed. And she will be unremovable (fed judges must be impeached - i.e. 2/3's vote of Senate).
She will wind back the law in almost every category of social justice, in some cases all the to the 1930's.

Barrett is walking through almost every door Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opened, and when Barrett arrives at her final destination, she will close them all.

If was are lucky enough to have a Biden administration with a Blue Senate, we must pack the court - significantly. 19-27 at least.

[Sunseeker]

I actually wonder what will happen if Biden is a clear-enough winner of this election, and Trump refuses to concede, and takes a legal battle to SCOTUS and wins, and they install him as President.

I mean, does the UN then kick the U.S. off the Security Council, and sanction the country?

I know we've already chilled out on NATO, but do we get kicked out of NATO too?

It's scary, but that's what SHOULD happen if the above scenario plays out. And in 4 years, Trump would've managed to make the U.S. a global pariah.

- - - Updated - - -



It's already happening.

Dems have a Catholic Speaker of the House and Presidential Candidate, and Evangelicals on the Far Right usually can't stand Roman Catholics, but this Catholic happens to be in an Opus Dei-level cult of Catholicism where it's okay, so now they're pearl clutching anyone who dares criticize that as "persecuting her for her religion!"

I'm more interested if the American people will have the will to actually revolt.

[s_bushido]

I actually wonder what will happen if Biden is a clear-enough winner of this election, and Trump refuses to concede, and takes a legal battle to SCOTUS and wins, and they install him as President.

If Biden is the "clear winner" there would be nothing for Trump to challenge.

What would the supreme court rule on? That there must be recounts? That all the ballots in Biden's favor should be thrown out?


If there is a situation where Trump loses and yet is installed as president regardless, the response would have to come from within the US itself...not from international bodies.

[Josuke]

If Biden is the "clear winner" there would be nothing for Trump to challenge.

What would the supreme court rule on? That there must be recounts? That all the ballots in Biden's favor should be thrown out?


If there is a situation where Trump loses and yet is installed as president regardless, the response would have to come from within the US itself...not from international bodies.

Can't really be a "clear winner" when there is blatant cheating.

[s_bushido]

Can't really be a "clear winner" when there is blatant cheating.

There can easily be if, despite all the cheating, he still can't muster enough votes to take swing states.

[Blur4stuff]

Reminds me of the church my grandparents went to for their entire lives. Women weren't allowed to have any kind of position within church or at home that could potentially give them authority over males. The only exception was if the male was a kid. Once you became a teenager then you were, by default, the decision maker in any situation where it was just you (a male) and the rest women. I had to on many occasions take the lead even though there were women present that were multiple decades older.

I'll never forget how weird it was to be in a situation where either a prayer need to be said or something else and have all the women look at me and wait. I loved my grandparents, but that was some crazy backwards shit.

I have to give the church credit, though, for actually following the bible. It teaches that women aren't allowed to have authority over men. That they should be silent and obey. Most christians and churches obviously ignore that.

[Masark]

If Biden is the "clear winner" there would be nothing for Trump to challenge.

What would the supreme court rule on? That there must be recounts? That all the ballots in Biden's favor should be thrown out?

The constitution guarantees a Republican government, therefore the Democratic party is unconstitutional.

[Adam Jensen]

Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

/rant off

- - - Updated - - -

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'm surprised she wasn't seated by an emergency session tonight.

[Captain N]

Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

/rant off

Can't say much for Gorsuch but Kavanaugh is definitely on there to because someone mysteriously paid all of his debts who may need a favor at some point. Coney Barrett is something for Trump to point at and say "See I do respect women" that his Cult will gobble up even though she's just there to push for discrimination under the guise of Religious Freedom.

[Adam Jensen]

I do not believe that being religious should disqualify anyone from a job.

I am atheistic, if it matters.

Being religious? No.

Using that religion to tell other people what to do? Yes.

Barack Obama was religious, went to church . . . and never brought it into politics.

Joe Biden is a Catholic, goes to church, hasn't brought it into politics

Don't push your religious values on me, unless there's an equal secular equivalence to it (thou shalt not kill is a pretty good ethics rule after all.) If your position cannot be argued without invoking some deity or superstition, then stfu and sit down.

[s_bushido]

Being religious? No.

Using that religion to tell other people what to do? Yes.

You're talking about people who convinced themselves that enforcing their beliefs on others is part and parcel of "being religious." It's why they lost their minds over the gay rights stuff...because they simply couldn't comprehend that someone else doing something that supposedly goes against their beliefs has no effect on their lives whatsoever.

[cubby]

I do not believe that being religious should disqualify anyone from a job.

I am atheistic, if it matters.

The issue isn't whether a nominee is religious or not - it's the effect that religion has on their lives and professional career. Some of the quotes from Barrett and the covenants of People of Praise are worth further investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

/rant off

Another important point for the justification of expanding the court. I noticed that the Dems were discussing it "being on the table" when McTrump first announced they would replace Justice Ginsberg, and now that talk has disappeared. I hope that's because the Dems are serious about it, and don't want that particular topic to distract from the Barrett confirmation.

[Adam Jensen]

The issue isn't whether a nominee is religious or not - it's the effect that religion has on their lives and professional career. Some of the quotes from Barrett and the covenants of People of Praise are worth further investigation.

- - - Updated - - -



Another important point for the justification of expanding the court. I noticed that the Dems were discussing it "being on the table" when McTrump first announced they would replace Justice Ginsberg, and now that talk has disappeared. I hope that's because the Dems are serious about it, and don't want that particular topic to distract from the Barrett confirmation.

I read one strategy of 15 judges, where 9 get randomly picked to hear a case. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, it's just one thing I read. I can't find that article, but I found another one by Brookings filled with different proposals.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...supreme-court/

I do agree with term limits. 10 years. Then they're done. No more SCOTUS. Maybe go back to lower courts, but no longer eligible to serve on SCOTUS.

It does need to change because Brookings is right. There shouldn't be an apocalyptic ideological fight every time a SCOTUS judge retires/dies.