What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s said:
I am sure this has been discussed but I don’t want to wade through all of what I’m sure is a messy thread. How typical is it for a Supreme Court judge to have no trial experience and only a couple years as a federal judge? I know she taught for a long time. Is this relatively normal?
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I believe chief justice John Roberts had zero trial experience prior to being appointed.   

 
Ilov80s said:
I am sure this has been discussed but I don’t want to wade through all of what I’m sure is a messy thread. How typical is it for a Supreme Court judge to have no trial experience and only a couple years as a federal judge? I know she taught for a long time. Is this relatively normal?
Click to expand...
Kagan and Rehnquist both had zero experience as Judges.  There are more, but they are the most recent.

 
Thanks. I saw she was approved by the Bar Association. Is that a good thing or a rubber stamp? Do they ever not endorse a nominee?

 
Ilov80s said:
Interesting. Not a good mark on him. What was the particular reason? And why did he get the nomination over ACB?
Click to expand...
Probably because she had just been confirmed to the Federal Court less than a year earlier.  Kavanaugh had an extensive legal history and was a well respected Federal Judge.

 
Shutout said:
If you want I guess you can ignore the absolute fact that if she were to agree to what they are asking, it would violate her standing as a urgent sitting judge and you ignore that they know that but do what makes you feel like you know.  It's only been stated twenty times on TV today but I guess if you never get off CNN you may have missed it.  Spin it how you want but I'm going to have to go with the former judges and legal constitutional attorneys on this one over you.  

The reality is it is all a dog and pony show that means nothing,. They look foolish when they waste time doing nothing at all that actually contributes to the purpose of the hearing.  With every one of their bitter phrases they just show us all how petty they are.  There is absolutely nobody that can be honest with themselves and review her and and say they have an issue with her. 
Click to expand...
I literally quoted three justices answering this exact question.  You’re just wrong.

 
Zow said:
In my first and only ever real job interview I forgot the 8th Amendment. Just outright blanked on it. Felt so, so dumb. 

So, yeah, it happens. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, but people actually care about the 1st.

And you weren't up for SCOTUS.

 
Biff84 said:
2. Establish a deadline for nominations during election years. My preference would be very late in the year. No confirmations during the lame duck period.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree with this. You don't stop doing your job just because you're about to move on to another or retire. Or at least you shouldn't. (Admittedly, many do stop working before they should)

 
Ilov80s said:
Interesting. Not a good mark on him. What was the particular reason? And why did he get the nomination over ACB?
Click to expand...
Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.

 
FUBAR said:
Totally disagree with this. You don't stop doing your job just because you're about to move on to another or retire. Or at least you shouldn't. (Admittedly, many do stop working before they should)
Click to expand...
I’m talking extreme cases. Spell out a timeframe of nomination to confirmation vote, let’s say 30 days, and if that isn’t able to be completed before the election, then it would be delayed.

 
-fish- said:
Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I get the partisan reasons why GOP or Dems would choose their judges. I was just curious on more objective measures. 

 
-fish- said:
Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.
Click to expand...
Just reviewed this.  They had him rated as “well qualified” but then they urged the senate to delay confirmation hearings so the FBI could investigate sexual assault allegations.  They also were reviewing their rating but once he was confirmed they announced the review was terminated as a matter of policy.   

 
FYI, I looked up Kavanaugh and he had a top notch rating from the ABA but they scheduled a review of it after the accusations of sexual assault. They dropped the review because he was confirmed and they deemed it no longer applicable.

 
Stoneworker said:
You're confusing politics in the nomination process with the Senate's Constitutional duty to advise and consent during the confirmation process.

What McConnell did was dirty politics.

The Democrats lost to McConnell at politics...and so now they are (highly likely) abdicate their sworn duty by childishly voting No without any merit-based reason to do so.

Two completely different things.
Click to expand...
Man the mental gymnastics...

 
oops  Just kind of forgot to disclose the talk to an anti-abortion group where she criticized Roe v. Wade.  But she can't comment on precedent, right?   

Oh, she also "forgot" seven other similar talks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biff84 said:
I’m talking extreme cases. Spell out a timeframe of nomination to confirmation vote, let’s say 30 days, and if that isn’t able to be completed before the election, then it would be delayed.
Click to expand...
I'd say if they can't complete it before the next Senate.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You don't think that there are any voters out there that are pretty sick of "both sides" that will punish their Senator for such a pure partisanship "no" vote such that this will push them to vote against that candidate?  ...
Click to expand...
I cant see it. Maybe if Merrick Garland would have been a woman I could see there having been some sort of effect. Like a swing suburban woman thinking that was sexism and that finally pulled her toward the dems(I cant ever see the swing going the other way though, with say Barrett. If sexism is a true factor I dont see how you lean back GOP)

I fully admit I could be wrong here but I just cant convince myself that's a real thing. I guess the variable is that the next nominee from Obama could have been a woman, but now we are really getting into the weeds. 
Click to expand...
You might not see it, but did those that do political analysis in 2016 see the possibility?   I think they did.  Maybe your argument could be that since such stuff seemed to make little impact in 2016, in fact it seemed to help GOP candidates that the "risk" for a democrat in a contested race to cast a "no" vote is minimal.  But I don't think it works this way.  What GOP candidates get away tend to bite democrats.  This probably works the other way around also, just we haven't had as many examples lately to consider them.  So maybe we should now suspect that GOP Senator is going to be rewarded for voting no for anything other than a far right nominee.  And it is an unknown as to whether a democrat will be rewarded or punished.  You suspect rewarded or no difference, and I suspect punished (but probably not to a relevant extent).  Maybe!

 
-fish- said:
oops  Just kind of forgot to disclose the talk to an anti-abortion group where she criticized Roe v. Wade.  But she can't comment on precedent, right?   

Oh, she also "forgot" seven other similar talks.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the senate judiciary committee will get right on that.

 
gianmarco said:
I'm sure the senate judiciary committee will get right on that.
Click to expand...
It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   

 
-fish- said:
It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   
Click to expand...
What she can comment on now as a judge is indeed different than what she may have done or said as a private citizen. She can no longer comment on that stuff as a sitting judge. Not sure what part of that you’re missing, but you’re missing it repeatedly. 

 
-fish- said:
It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   
Click to expand...
You can disagree with a decision as a professor and still respect precedent.  

Roe v Wade will never be overturned.  I sincerely doubt they'll ever even try.  It'll be one of those Louisianna have to have a hospital next door cases.  

 
Don Quixote said:
The Vice headline has been updated with a new headline describing an activity beyond exposure, and.... wow.
Click to expand...
From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 





“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.





“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

 
Juxtatarot said:
It was my understanding that most people don't wear pants during Zoom calls.
Click to expand...
I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.

 
HellToupee said:
From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed
Click to expand...
And moron. Confirmed. 

 
HellToupee said:
From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed
Click to expand...
Link

 
AAABatteries said:
Juxtatarot said:
It was my understanding that most people don't wear pants during Zoom calls.
Click to expand...
I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Click to expand...
I wear a shirt, tie and shorts or sweatpants.

 
HellToupee said:
From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed
Click to expand...
What not to do while bored on a zoom call.

 
AAABatteries said:
I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Click to expand...
It didn't just slip out. It sounds like he was actively rooting for the Yankees and thought his camera was off.

 
-fish- said:
The 46% opposed is by far the highest opposition to any confirmation in the poll results they cite, which go back to Bork.  What's interesting about this poll is only 3% have no opinion.  The lowest prior was 19%.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is interesting. I have find the older I get, the more I realize I don't know, which leads me to having fewer opinions. However, my anecdotal view of the world is that more people have more and more opinions than they used to. I feel like I'm going in the opposite direction as society on that one. I find it interesting when people express deep, strong opinions on topics that they, IMO, really shouldn't have opinions. Everyone seems to become an expert 10 minutes after a new hot topic hits the news cycle.

 
dgreen said:
I find it interesting when people express deep, strong opinions on topics that they, IMO, really shouldn't have opinions. Everyone seems to become an expert 10 minutes after a new hot topic hits the news cycle.
Click to expand...
Moreover, the opinions that people hold so strongly about everything are rarely even their own. People just repeat whatever their favorite polemicist says because they think it makes them seem smart. (It typically has the opposite effect, IMO.)

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Moreover, the opinions that people hold so strongly about everything are rarely even their own. People just repeat whatever their favorite polemicist says because they think it makes them seem smart. (It typically has the opposite effect, IMO.)
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Yeah, I've definitely found myself in a tough spot when I spout off some point I heard someone else make and someone provides a solid response to it. I then just respond with  :mellow:  because I don't know enough about the topic to continue the conversation. I feel like I do that a lot less now that I've probably done that so many times that I realize how little I actually know about most topics.

 
-fish- said:
The 46% opposed is by far the highest opposition to any confirmation in the poll results they cite, which go back to Bork.  What's interesting about this poll is only 3% have no opinion.  The lowest prior was 19%.
Click to expand...
The high number of people having an opinion for ACB vs. prior confirmations can be largely attributed to timing + potential 6-3 conservative tipping point IMO.

Political awareness has been heightened for months due closeness to election, pandemic, riots, stimulus fights, etc.

The high opposition is obviously due to massive paranoia and publicity regarding ACB's religious beliefs and conservatism...plus 6-3 majority representing a tipping point.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
8K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top