Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Edge-]

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.”

Literally all of this is painfully predictable, but still painfully depressing and disappointing.

[cubby]

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.”

Every time we hear (or pointedly don't hear) from OfJesse it's just another reason to dramatically expand the court. 27 is still my first choice.

[Fugus]

Well, if they try and over turn same sex marriage, I think the response for that should be when you mean bigots who support that, flirt on their wives HARDCORE. Go as far as he can get with her. And if the Bigotted Husband says that she is married, just point out that we are supposed to have equal rights under the law and the Supreme Court just said that doesn't matter.

Well, I am going off 30+ hours without sleep so my phrasing on that is all jacked up, but you get the gist of what I was trying to say. If they try and claim that gays can't be married then they throw out all reason to respect straight people's marriage as well.

[Eviscero]

Kamala Harris' questions today about climate change were brilliant.

Paraphrasing:

KH: "Do you believe climate change is real? Do you believe man has contributed to it?"
ACB: "Can't weigh in on that because potential future litigation."

KH: "... Okay... Well do you think COVID is a transmissible disease?"
ACB: "I'm not sure where this is going, but yes..."

KH: "And do you think cigarettes cause cancer?"
ACB: "Well yeah, every cigarette pack says so..."

KH: "So you believe the science on COVID and the effects of smoking, but not on climate change?"
ACB: "Climate change is a controversial and debatable issue that I can't weigh-in on because reasons..."

Not only did Kamala get Amy to admit her beliefs re. climate change, despite Amy's best attempts to hide behind legalize for "I can't answer that because it might influence ongoing or future cases," Kamala revealed something much more damaging about Amy.

Amy is, in this instance, unable or unwilling to separate her personal beliefs from her role as a judge. Ultimately all a judge does is weigh evidence. Judges are not mathematicians, they do not evaluate the validity of a proof, there is no proof in law, there is only evidence and argument. A judge lives in this gray area and is tasked with making decisions based on the strength of the evidence presented to them. Now, an objective person knows that the preponderance of evidence is in support of human-driven climate change. The case for this is entirely lopsided, just as it is for the link between smoking and cancer, and yet Amy holds that climate change is debatable. At first I thought Amy is almost certainly qualified although I think the entire nomination at this time is illegitimate. After today, I have serious doubts about her ability to be objective.

Also, fuck Lindsay Graham for his drivel about ACB representing a role model for girls that's hard to find. Is he seriously saying Christian cisgender white women are underrepresented?! That is fucking rich. Even if it wasn't total bullshit, "conservative Catholic women" not rising to positions of authority as readily as they should is their system working as intended!

[PACOX]

I gave up watching today.

I learned that ACB is extremely intelligent but also a very unlikable and dishonest person because of the way she chooses to utilize her intelligence. She lacks wisdom in her knowledge unable to humble herself outside a few opinions she aligns with, such as the philosophy of Scalia - who had the similar traits. Traits that make judicial professionals look bad.

She attempts to beat people down in semantics with a touch of condescending to remind the person she is smarter than them. She lacks humility and commonality with others - a mark of true wisdom. I say that because they hit her with brilliant questions because she talked down to people because they could keep up with her semantics even though their questions were 100% valid.

She answers nothing because she knows she can beat someone down because is lorem ipsum personified. She's learned to win arguments by by beating people with words, not their meaning but just sheer volume.

I'm worried about the SCOTUS now. Not necessarily because of it being 6-3 but because the justices will now have to work and suffer the persona of ACB...until she or they quit...and she is not going anywhere anytime soon. When you look up logical fallacies her picture should be in the within first 10 images.

I just can't justify spending my limited time listening to get.

[Milchshake]

"Impressive legal mind" ... WTF




But hey, some people are desperate to compliment her, because they think it makes *them* sound sophisticated.

She'll appreciate the compliments while flushing your voting rights away.

[Benggaul]

You know it's bad when she makes worse decisions than Kavanaugh.

https://apnews.com/article/race-and-...51bcaaa7eda224

RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

Barrett wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel in 2019 that upheld the dismissal of a workplace discrimination lawsuit by Terry Smith, a Black Illinois transportation employee who sued after he was fired. Smith’s claims included that he was called a racial slur by supervisor Lloyd Colbert.

“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”

Barrett went on to say that Smith “introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his subjective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological distress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record.”

A possible colleague of Barrett’s took a different view on racial slurs in 2013. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then serving as a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C, said one utterance was enough. “But, in my view, being called the n-word by a supervisor ... suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment. That epithet has been labeled, variously, a term that ‘sums up . . . all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America,’ ‘pure anathema to African-Americans,’ and ’probably the most offensive word in English,” Kavanaugh wrote. “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment actionable” under federal anti-discrimination laws.

[Zan15]

Kamala Harris' questions today about climate change were brilliant.

Paraphrasing:

KH: "Do you believe climate change is real? Do you believe man has contributed to it?"
ACB: "Can't weigh in on that because potential future litigation."

KH: "... Okay... Well do you think COVID is a transmissible disease?"
ACB: "I'm not sure where this is going, but yes..."

KH: "And do you think cigarettes cause cancer?"
ACB: "Well yeah, every cigarette pack says so..."

KH: "So you believe the science on COVID and the effects of smoking, but not on climate change?"
ACB: "Climate change is a controversial and debatable issue that I can't weigh-in on because reasons..."

Not only did Kamala get Amy to admit her beliefs re. climate change, despite Amy's best attempts to hide behind legalize for "I can't answer that because it might influence ongoing or future cases," Kamala revealed something much more damaging about Amy.

Amy is, in this instance, unable or unwilling to separate her personal beliefs from her role as a judge. Ultimately all a judge does is weigh evidence. Judges are not mathematicians, they do not evaluate the validity of a proof, there is no proof in law, there is only evidence and argument. A judge lives in this gray area and is tasked with making decisions based on the strength of the evidence presented to them. Now, an objective person knows that the preponderance of evidence is in support of human-driven climate change. The case for this is entirely lopsided, just as it is for the link between smoking and cancer, and yet Amy holds that climate change is debatable. At first I thought Amy is almost certainly qualified although I think the entire nomination at this time is illegitimate. After today, I have serious doubts about her ability to be objective.

Also, fuck Lindsay Graham for his drivel about ACB representing a role model for girls that's hard to find. Is he seriously saying Christian cisgender white women are underrepresented?! That is fucking rich. Even if it wasn't total bullshit, "conservative Catholic women" not rising to positions of authority as readily as they should is their system working as intended!

LOL she lawyered the hell out of a future SCoTUS member...damn...our poor future....

she should not have commented on COVID or Cigarettes because there are cases in the courts right now that could end up on her bench.

Just on Oct 5th they had to decide to hear or not hear a case on tabacco out of NY. FL case is now in the state supreme court on appeal so its destined to work its way up.

We've already have had several COVID related cases hit as well.

[silveth]

Well, if they try and over turn same sex marriage, I think the response for that should be when you mean bigots who support that, flirt on their wives HARDCORE. Go as far as he can get with her. And if the Bigotted Husband says that she is married, just point out that we are supposed to have equal rights under the law and the Supreme Court just said that doesn't matter.

Well, I am going off 30+ hours without sleep so my phrasing on that is all jacked up, but you get the gist of what I was trying to say. If they try and claim that gays can't be married then they throw out all reason to respect straight people's marriage as well.

Ummm. Trump was the first president that was for same sex marriage before office. Do you really think he would nominate her if he thought that she would help them over turn it?
I can accept people losing it over roe v wade or even citizen's united, but same sex marriage?

[Machismo]

Ummm. Trump was the first president that was for same sex marriage before office. Do you really think he would nominate her if he thought that she would help them over turn it?
I can accept people losing it over roe v wade or even citizen's united, but same sex marriage?

Of course he would, thats a stupid question.

He'd nomjnate Hitler for judge spot, if he thought that his base would approve.

Trump has pushed anti-LGBT policies multiple times, and the GOP still has a major homophobia problem.

[Howel]

Ummm. Trump was the first president that was for same sex marriage before office. Do you really think he would nominate her if he thought that she would help them over turn it?
I can accept people losing it over roe v wade or even citizen's united, but same sex marriage?

I fear that before presidential race Trump, and Trump in the race and in office, are two fairly different people.

Heck, he found God all of a sudden comparatively to his past.

[silveth]

I gave up watching today.

I learned that ACB is extremely intelligent but also a very unlikable and dishonest person because of the way she chooses to utilize her intelligence. She lacks wisdom in her knowledge unable to humble herself outside a few opinions she aligns with, such as the philosophy of Scalia - who had the similar traits. Traits that make judicial professionals look bad.

She attempts to beat people down in semantics with a touch of condescending to remind the person she is smarter than them. She lacks humility and commonality with others - a mark of true wisdom. I say that because they hit her with brilliant questions because she talked down to people because they could keep up with her semantics even though their questions were 100% valid.

She answers nothing because she knows she can beat someone down because is lorem ipsum personified. She's learned to win arguments by by beating people with words, not their meaning but just sheer volume.

I'm worried about the SCOTUS now. Not necessarily because of it being 6-3 but because the justices will now have to work and suffer the persona of ACB...until she or they quit...and she is not going anywhere anytime soon. When you look up logical fallacies her picture should be in the within first 10 images.

I just can't justify spending my limited time listening to get.

So her being trained and similar to Scalia, the unanimously appointed justice, and acknowledged swing vote for years is the big problem? You problem is that she may vote based on what she feels is right buy the constitution even if it goes against her personal beliefs? I mean that is what her mentor has been known for.

[DingDongKing]

This is the issue with conservatives who live in the past. They think because someone got nominated 98-0 almost 34 year ago (!) would be in the same spot today. Scalia today would be an incredibly contentious nominee in today's day and age, because his views on the world are outdated.

[Edge-]

So her being trained and similar to Scalia, the unanimously appointed justice, and acknowledged swing vote for years is the big problem? You problem is that she may vote based on what she feels is right buy the constitution even if it goes against her personal beliefs? I mean that is what her mentor has been known for.

I think we should be concerned about any judges who are a part of a partisan judicial activist group like The Federalist Society, to be honest.

[Machismo]

So her being trained and similar to Scalia, the unanimously appointed justice, and acknowledged swing vote for years is the big problem? You problem is that she may vote based on what she feels is right buy the constitution even if it goes against her personal beliefs? I mean that is what her mentor has been known for.

His stance on gay marriage would like to have a chat with you.

[Xyonai]

This is the issue with conservatives who live in the past. They think because someone got nominated 98-0 almost 34 year ago (!) would be in the same spot today. Scalia today would be an incredibly contentious nominee in today's day and age, because his views on the world are outdated.

Honestly considering how many of these same people don't think the Southern Strategy flipped parties around it kinda lines up with them being unable to comprehend things like 'Context' and 'Shit changes after a while'. It's also why they'll see Politicians change their stances on social issues and scree about them 'pandering!' and fail to understand that most people change when exposed to new ideas.

[DingDongKing]

Honestly considering how many of these same people don't think the Southern Strategy flipped parties around it kinda lines up with them being unable to comprehend things like 'Context' and 'Shit changes after a while'. It's also why they'll see Politicians change their stances on social issues and scree about them 'pandering!' and fail to understand that most people change when exposed to new ideas.

He wrote a Crime Bill 26 years ago! And voted on a War 17 year ago! Trump was sexually assaulting women at that point. He's President now. So...

[eschatological]

So her being trained and similar to Scalia, the unanimously appointed justice, and acknowledged swing vote for years is the big problem? You problem is that she may vote based on what she feels is right buy the constitution even if it goes against her personal beliefs? I mean that is what her mentor has been known for.

Wait, did you just suggest Scalia was a SWING vote?

Scalia and Thomas (with Rehnquist before) have been the ideologically, consistently conservative wing of SCOTUS for decades.

[Shadowferal]

Ya, Scalia rarely ever voted with the liberal side. I think what annoyed some on that side was how intelligent and thoughtful his opinions tended to be. (Fucker was hell in that regard)

[eschatological]

Ya, Scalia rarely ever voted with the liberal side. I think what annoyed some on that side was how intelligent and thoughtful his opinions tended to be. (Fucker was hell in that regard)

He was intelligent and thoughtful in the same way Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are intelligent and thoughtful. They speak with authority, use high-falutin' language, talk in rhetorical circles, but when you look into at any depth, it all unravels.

He was a scumbag, through and through.