Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Elegiac]

Like I said, at some point, trained or untrained, a continuous string of coincidences stop being coincidences and start being a pattern.

The term for this is conspiracy theory.

Look, I'm a software engineer. I don't pretend to be a doctor or play one on television.

But feel perfectly comfortable tossing out claims of serious illness as "obvious" when, no, it's not obvious - it's uneducated people seeing what they want to see.

But, if it's not cognitive decline (whether from just age or something more acute), then what would you expect it to be?

The cognitive decline expected of someone of Joe Biden's age (which would also apply to Trump, who is in objectively much worse health), combined with the fact he's overcome a speaking disorder.

And he's just the kind of person who puts his foot in his mouth.

Y'all just think these traits add up to something sinister because you've been told not to like the guy, lol.

There is a clear difference in Trump just stating nonsense and Biden having slurred speech and incoherent thoughts at times.

Yes, the difference is your perception.

You're trying to generalise that as if it's widely accepted fact and not the result y'all spend too much time on Facebook.

[DingDongKing]

Stop letting it derail the thread, ignore it.

This. This. This.

[Elegiac]

Well, hang on a second. I never said I'd never vote for a Democrat.

I would have voted for Andrew Yang (even being against UBI) and I'd have happily marched my ass down to the public voting station and cast my vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

Let's not assume we know everything about each other

Oh, a Gabbard stan. Figures.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop letting it derail the thread, ignore it.

I mean what is there really left to discuss?

Serena Joy's probably gonna get put on the court and we won't know the long term effects until after the election.

[TotallyGenericName]

Stop letting it derail the thread, ignore it.

Well, my take on Amy Coney Barrett is simple: it's unfortunate for Democrats but it happens.

I would both hope and expect them to be absolutely ruthless when it plays out the same way in the future.

Packing the court, on the other hand, is not really a great call no matter the side.

If the Republicans end up losing an election, they deserve whatever comes their way. Honestly. I'm kind of a hardcore guy like that though.

Historically, this is not even remotely out of the normal though. When the president and senate share parties, it almost always happens. When they don't, it doesn't.

I think Republicans making that big stupid grand stand statement was dumb because, at the end of the day, they didn't need to. All it did, if anything, is kick the can down the road and force them to eat a massive piece of pie when the shoe did indeed end up on the other foot.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, a Gabbard stan. Figures.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean what is there really left to discuss?

Serena Joy's probably gonna get put on the court and we won't know the long term effects until after the election.

Awww, come on now. She wasn't that bad.

She'd have made a pretty solid first female president.

And, as an added plus, I really liked the fact that she seemed to resonate that "honorable" persona about her.

[Kellhound]

You don't have to get embarrassed just because you forgot desalination existed for a second there.



Which they'll enforce with...what money, exactly?



Yes, but this would not actually make them any richer as every banana and cocoa republic from here to Timor-Leste proves.

"If you wont let us destroy the natural environment then we'll just secede and become cotton/lumber republics" isn't really a compelling threat. Lol.

You would need 14 of the largest plants in the world just to replace the Colorado River, which would require about 10 Palo Verde nuclear plans to power.

I don't know, the money that any legitimate country has? Gold perhaps? (Depends on who gets Fort Knox.)

There is a difference between richer and rich enough.

Yes, we already established you have no concerns with the environment so long as it is destroyed elsewhere.

[TotallyGenericName]

The term for this is conspiracy theory.



But feel perfectly comfortable tossing out claims of serious illness as "obvious" when, no, it's not obvious - it's uneducated people seeing what they want to see.



The cognitive decline expected of someone of Joe Biden's age (which would also apply to Trump, who is in objectively much worse health), combined with the fact he's overcome a speaking disorder.

And he's just the kind of person who puts his foot in his mouth.

Y'all just think these traits add up to something sinister because you've been told not to like the guy, lol.



Yes, the difference is your perception.

You're trying to generalise that as if it's widely accepted fact and not the result y'all spend too much time on Facebook.

I mean I have noticed what appears to be a pretty obvious kind of cognitive issue. I'm not an expert.

I have always felt like the debates held so much weight for this reason so, I suppose, we may know on Wednesday whether or not you were right and it was all overblown or not.

But, one way or another, I feel like we should know a lot more come Wednesday.

[Gestopft]

Carter sweeping in the mid 70s and Clinton sweeping in the early 90s proves my point. And, that's of course, among a myriad of other victories.

1) Clinton didn't exactly "sweep" the South. And he and Gore were both Southerners
2) Carter won after the national shame that was Nixon's criminality, and he himself was...also a Southerner
3) I noticed you dropped the 60's this time around; perhaps you remembered that 5/6 of the states the GOP won in 1964 were in the Deep South? And that Democrats didn't win any Southern states in 1968- George Wallace did?

Maybe you can explain yourself why the block of states that used to be reliably Democratic is now reliably Republican?

[Kellhound]

Because the rural areas happen to be convenient.

It would be difficult, yes, but the point is that this is not the 1860s and there's not even a remote parity between the two. So saying "let's split up the country" as if it's two roughly equivalent groups parting ways and not a situation of a deadbeat husband being asked to act responsibly around the house and threatening to file for divorce because they'd rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

Because rural areas happen to have the space so you do not have to deal with it in the cities.

If you are so convinced your view is right, you should be pushing for the country to split harder than I am am, as it would help your side more. The only reason I can see that you don't, is you want control. You want to force everyone to adhere to your utopian vision.

[PACOX]

I know some want the court extended enough to give dems the advantage, but honestly I wouldn't feel good about that. Assuming Barrett gets the seat, to me that makes one of the last three appointments bogus.

While Kennedy retiring and the circumstances of his son etc... is sketchy, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves something fucked up happened.

If you remove republican hypocrisy, that means either Gorsuch or Barrett is an invalid appointment. Either it's okay to appoint a judge in an election year or it isn't. Either way, republicans should lose a seat.

I'd support expanding the court to 11 seats and conservatives keeping a one seat advantage, which is what they should have. Not only would I like to see term limits, but each new president (from an election) should also get to replace the longest sitting judge.

I'm leaning more towards this proposal. Only expand the courts so that judges can be effectively rotated out, min one per presidential term, while allowing them to serve long (20-25 years) but limited terms.

Expanding the courts so that once party can gain an advantage or the over, or even if they swap power, is a recipe for disaster. For one we shouldn't be worried about parties when discussing SCOTUS. Ideology is one thing, partisan politics have no place on the bench. The discussion should never be how many Dems vs Republicans are on the bench. It's liberal vs conservative judges. The parties shift, flop, come, go, have their own agendas independent of the federal government. There will always be people who lean left or right.

[uglykermit]

Under His Eye

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Stop letting it derail the thread, ignore it.

Pathetic, isn't it? It's literally a rear guard defense on why the majority should accept minority rule based on a child's reading of history and threats to leave the union if they aren't allowed to make cultural determinations for the entire country.

This thread got real sad real fast.

[TotallyGenericName]

1) Clinton didn't exactly "sweep" the South. And he and Gore were both Southerners
2) Carter won after the national shame that was Nixon's criminality, and he himself was...also a Southerner
3) I noticed you dropped the 60's this time around; perhaps you remembered that 5/6 of the states the GOP won in 1964 were in the Deep South? And that Democrats didn't win any Southern states in 1968- George Wallace did?

Maybe you can explain yourself why the block of states that used to be reliably Democratic is now reliably Republican?

What in the world? Do you understand that Wallace was a Democrat? He ran as a Democrat like every single election basically before and after that. He just didn't win the Democratic primaries because there was a stronger candidate: Lyndon B. Johnson.

As I said before, this is history. It's irrefutable.

And the block of states that was once Democratic is now Republican due to voting on actual issues and not skin color - 30 years later. Claiming that it was some magical switch through which no evidence can actually bare out is preposterous.

The woefully lacking Democratic talking point of change taking time is incorrect. It would be much more notable if, like I said, Democrats were actually switching parties but they weren't.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Maybe you can explain yourself why the block of states that used to be reliably Democratic is now reliably Republican?

I'm only going to dignify this with one post because I think you'll appreciate it. Here's Kevin Kruse, citing texts and primary sources, on how the South shifted.

[Saucexorzski]

Pathetic, isn't it? It's literally a rear guard defense on why the majority should accept minority rule based on a child's reading of history and threats to leave the union if they aren't allowed to make cultural determinations for the entire country.

This thread got real sad real fast.

when the authoritarian left wingers get into power they can make those reeducation camps in the likes of the CCP. i'm sure it will be for the best.

[s_bushido]

So have we come around to simultaneously arguing that land mass > people and denying the party realignment happened in the ~60s in the same thread at the same time? Amazing.

[postman1782]

when the authoritarian left wingers get into power they can make those reeducation camps in the likes of the CCP. i'm sure it will be for the best.

Jesus christ the fucking hyperbole.

[Saucexorzski]

So have we come around to simultaneously arguing that land mass > people and denying the party realignment happened in the ~60s in the same thread at the same time? Amazing.

Naw they arguing over letting folks form their own countries under laws they like instead of subjecting the two sides to the rule of the other. But perusal the authoritarian left won't let folks leave.

[Machismo]

Are people really still trying to defend white supremacy??

Yep...

[Elegiac]

Naw they arguing over letting folks form their own countries under laws they like instead of subjecting the two sides to the rule of the other. But perusal the authoritarian left won't let folks leave.

As with Brexit:

It's not that we aren't letting you, it's that you'd be stupid to do so.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

when the authoritarian left wingers get into power they can make those reeducation camps in the likes of the CCP. i'm sure it will be for the best.

I don't give a shit what you malfunction is or what shallow end of the internet you pull your trash from. The basis of the problem at hand is that a minority is attempting to grab power through institutions and those opposed to them have the majority to render them politically irrelevant for a generation. It's looking likely that the only thing that may be holding Democrats back in January is an unwillingness to be ruthless with their fellow countrymen.

That won't last if this continues.