Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[beanman12345]

this fucking talking point of "Dem's are attacking her because of her faith" is just pants on heads retarded. Are they just not even aware there are 6 Catholics on the supreme court already? yes, most of them are conservatives, but Sotomayor is arguably the furthest left on the entire bench, even before RBG passed.

[Edge-]

this fucking talking point of "Dem's are attacking her because of her faith" is just pants on heads retarded. Are they just not even aware there are 6 Catholics on the supreme court already? yes, most of them are conservatives, but Sotomayor is arguably the furthest left on the entire bench, even before RBG passed.

Not when their base gobbles this victimhood shit up. They don't need Democrats to say shit about this, Republicans just need to say Democrats are and their base pulls up their victim hoods.

[Inuyaki]

Did Kennedy just say that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Did I understand that right?

He seems a little bit confused in general, is he having a stroke?

[Edge-]

Did Kennedy just say that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Did I understand that right?

He seems a little bit confused in general, is he having a stroke?

Who knew that Kennedy was secretly John Blutarsky.

[Inuyaki]

It's kinda interesting though, that she couldn't answer any "hypotheticals" (which were actually clear questions about the law) from Dems before, but now can go into the hypotheticals by Kennedy. She is a fast learner it seems /s

[Fugus]

Exactly - this is all sauce for expanding the court. 27 SCOTUS Justices total, 18 new - all appointed by [hopefully] President Biden; (/knockwood). All in their early to mid 40's. All ready to sit on the court for decades. And the reasoning behind it is to depoliticize SCOTUS appointments.

At this point, the Supreme Court already has little to no legitimacy left and this so far will get rid of all legitimacy they have. The majority of it is made up of nominations from people who the nation voted against, one of them is a potential serial rapist and one of the last three (Depending on whether you support the excuse behind Garland or not) has no place being there to begin with.

At this point, I would strongly support states refusing to listen to them at all until that shortcoming is addressed.

- - - Updated - - -

It's extremely difficult to do so, especially for a SCOTUS judge, based on my understanding. It's the same as a presidential impeachment, House has to vote with a simple majority to send to the Senate, then the Senate needs to have a 2/3 majority to remove the judge.

Not so familiar with what the bar is for impeachment, if there even is one, but short of Democrats + Independents getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it's never happening. Even if they do, I'd be surprised because there would be conservative Democrats that would likely be worried about losing their seats if they removed her.

Long story short, it's a god-damned awful shit sammich and we're probably going to have a generation of Coney Barret opinions.

Question, it taking 2/3rds majority in the Senate to remove, is that a Senate procedure or is that in the constitution? Because if it is just Senate rules, I would have them change the rules to a simple majority if they take the house back just like the Republicans did to ram them through.

As far as the conservatives democrats losing their seats, that wouldn't be for 2 years minimum by which time they can outlaw gerrymandering admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, expand the Supreme Court, and so many other things that would make that a moot point overall. At which the point, would these conservative democrats support their nation at the expense of losing elections, the Republicans already proven they won't.

[Edge-]

Question, it taking 2/3rds majority in the Senate to remove, is that a Senate procedure or is that in the constitution? Because if it is just Senate rules, I would have them change the rules to a simple majority if they take the house back just like the Republicans did to ram them through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...y%20of%20State.

Yes, it's in the Constitution apparently. Impeachment is uniform for civil offices across the board apparently.

As far as the conservatives democrats losing their seats, that wouldn't be for 2 years minimum by which time they can outlaw gerrymandering admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, expand the Supreme Court, and so many other things that would make that a moot point overall. At which the point, would these conservative democrats support their nation at the expense of losing elections, the Republicans already proven they won't.

IIRC Gerrymandering is for House seats, it wouldn't impact the Senate. Getting 4 more seats for DC/PR would help, even if they all went to Democrats, but Democrats would still need to pick up a number of seats and there would still be some vulnerable moderate/conservative Democrats that might shy away from such a bold move.

[Fugus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...y%20of%20State.

Yes, it's in the Constitution apparently. Impeachment is uniform for civil offices across the board apparently.



IIRC Gerrymandering is for House seats, it wouldn't impact the Senate. Getting 4 more seats for DC/PR would help, even if they all went to Democrats, but Democrats would still need to pick up a number of seats and there would still be some vulnerable moderate/conservative Democrats that might shy away from such a bold move.

Well, they got Kavanaugh's number even if the Senate couldn't do anything. He committed perjury on live TV during his confirmation hearings. That is punishable by 5 years in prison. Expanding the courts can take care of the rest.

For the gerrymandering bit, while it wouldn't help with the nominations bit directly, it would effectively prevent them from screwing that house and getting bills the nation voted against in the process. If Congress actually matches the will of the voters (Unlike now), it would put the stop on a LOT of that stuff. Especially if they put in the Wyoming Option which further changes it.

I would also take this time (If they have even an iota of balls in them) to divide California into multiple smaller states which would give them more equal representation to their population size.

If they take all 3 houses, they have plenty of options, the question is, have they learned enough about dealing with these traitors to actually grow 2 balls between the lot of them for once in my lifetime.

[Zeth Hawkins]

The majority of it is made up of nominations from people who the nation voted against, one of them is a potential serial rapist

Is it safe to assume you are referring to Justice Kavanaugh?

[Toppy]

"the good old days of segregation"

I hate this country and wish I could leave it.

[bladeXcrasher]

"the good old days of segregation"

Wonderful wordsmiths the Republicans are.

[Milchshake]

"the good old days of segregation"

Should be a clear reminder that all of this conservative/libertarian bullshit started as backlash to Brown vs Board of Education.


The Right saw that the law could finally be used to dismantle segregation and reacted in horror. So they launched the Federalist Society and all of the "small government" memes.

[Paranoid Android]

Just a reminder: Amy Coney Barrett would never have become an appellate judge if GOP Senate had confirmed President Obama's nominee Myra Selby, a Black woman, to Indiana seat on 7th Circuit in 2016. But GOP blocked Selby, kept seat open & Trump filled it w/Barrett. #CourtPacking

https://twitter.com/LeslieProll/stat...031339008?s=19

This is a fact and is indeed court packing.

[Elegiac]

Is it safe to assume you are referring to Justice Kavanaugh?

Yes, we are in fact referring to the Chief Rapist of the Supreme Court.

[Fugus]

Is it safe to assume you are referring to Justice Kavanaugh?

Yep, the one they blocked the FBI from actually looking into while claiming they were allowing for a "Limited Scope" background check that was so limited they didn't talk to him, all his accusers, about what happened during the hearings or what came in them, or to the dozens upon dozens of people from his past that contacted them to refute his story.

We hold junkies interviewing for a job at a local car wash to higher standards than we held that guy.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

insulting people who voted for certain candidates because of an unforseen election outcome. stay classy mmo-c. this post is so ironically hilarious it hurts.

Thanks for holding up the standard!

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/LeslieProll/stat...031339008?s=19

This is a fact and is indeed court packing.

Without a doubt. It is pretty much their only hope to force things upon people that don't want it. Legislation though representation has failed because most the time they cant even get THERE OWN PEOPLE to vote for it as a majority. So now it's an attempt to circle around the law.

[Adam Jensen]

She doesn't even know basic information about the First Amendment: Watch: Barrett can't name all five freedoms of the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of press
Freedom to petition the government

[Edge-]

She doesn't even know basic information about the First Amendment: Watch: Barrett can't name all five freedoms of the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of press
Freedom to petition the government

I am not surprised.

Did Republicans ask her to hold up her blank notepad again? Because I think she would have benefitted from some notes on this very basic question.

[Endus]

She doesn't even know basic information about the First Amendment: Watch: Barrett can't name all five freedoms of the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of press
Freedom to petition the government

I don't understand how you can claim be a Constitutional originalist and a scholar of that document and not know it backwards and forwards.
It's not even that fucking long. And it's way easier to read than most legal documents, since it has no standing law to reference and legal language hadn't become as stuffed with jargon as it has today.

Like, if you question me about something in the IPCC's latest major climate report, the AR5, I can probably give you a rough data-free breakdown without fact-checking. I'll want to double-check for the specific data points and such. But 1> that document's like a thousand freaking pages and it's written with tiny text and a lot of it is graphical to boot, and 2> I'm a researcher working in climate change, but I don't claim to be a specialist in that particular document in the first place.

It's like if someone claims to be a biblical scholar, but can't remember the names of Adam and Eve's three kids. Yes, three. Everyone forgets Seth.

[Themius]

Conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to tell senators if she would vote to overturn decisions that provide legal protections to birth control and same-sex marriage, prompting one Democratic lawmaker to say her silence on those issues left him “stunned.”

Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and the federal appellate judge clashed in one of the most pointed exchanges of the second day of her questioning by the panel. He pressed her on past decisions by US federal courts, including the Supreme Court, on both hot-button issues.

As she has on issues ranging from the 2011 Affordable Care Act to whether a president can both pardon himself and unilaterally delay an election, Ms Barrett declined to state clearly how she would rule if challenges to those previous decisions reached a high court on which she was a jurist.

“I am surprised and I think a lot of Americans will ne scared by the idea that people who simply want to marry or have a relationship with the person they love could find it criminalized, could find marriage equality cut back,” Mr Blumenthal said. “I think it would be an America where I wouldn’t want to live.”

Though she remained cool and calm, as she has the entire three days of her confirmation hearing, the nominee did appear less-than-pleased with the line of questioning.

“Well, senator, to suggest that’s the America i want to create isn ‘t based on any facts in my record,” she said, despite writings she has published in law journals taking conservative stances on those and other matters.

She contended a passage from one of those articles he read aloud merely reflected her saying that judges questioning the legality of such issues is “par for the course” in a legal decision-making venue.

Ms Barrett told the senator she did not want to give people the impression that contraception soon will be illegal.

But she would not say whether she would have ruled with the majority in one case that upheld legal birth control.

“I am stunned you won’t say you would have been in the majority,” he said before moving to a new topic.