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 (6 Viewers)

sho nuff said:
I think for a lifetime appointment...and even some other long term things...yes, it is legitimate to ask if the person has ever been accused of such things.  I don't find it offensive to be asked such  thing at all.
Click to expand...
Insisting on using the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" is far more offensive, especially for a Supreme Court nominee, but what do I know. :shrug:

 
What I don’t get is that the Senate makes the law. Pass a GD law that passes constitutional muster. Harris actually asks a question, a loaded one for sure.

The ACA sucks. Get M4A and push it through.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
But does she like beer?
Click to expand...
I grew up Catholic and "we" love booze, gambling and sex.  Of course the sex has to be monogamous and in a heterosexual marriage.  Still, I think it beats most religions in those categories.

ETA I couldn't disagree more with the bolded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
beef said:
I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.

 
beef said:
I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  
Click to expand...
Agree with this.

 
There was a stat thrown that there had been 29 SC nominees during an election year. 19 of those were when Senate and President were same party and 17 were confirmed. 10 were when the parties differed and only 1 of 10 were confirmed. 

 
beef said:
I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  
Click to expand...
Yeah this is fair. And she's pretty reasonably qualified (which is the metric). Frankly, I'd venture to say that most nominated to SCOTUS have been very qualified and should have been affirmed without issue. Off the top of my head Harriet Myers is the only nominee that I can recall that didn't objectively fit the profile. I do believe Kavanaugh's demeanor and behavior in his nomination process should have disqualified him. 

 
Gawain said:
There was a stat thrown that there had been 29 SC nominees during an election year. 19 of those were when Senate and President were same party and 17 were confirmed. 10 were when the parties differed and only 1 of 10 were confirmed. 
Click to expand...
The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.
Click to expand...
I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

 
whoknew said:
I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Good post.  She is qualified but timing off and kavanaugh definitely at the bottom.  While I believe most would consider her conservative just as much rbg was liberal but she was confirmed 92-8 I believe...

 
whoknew said:
I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Same. 

 
whoknew said:
I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
That's totally fair.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.
Click to expand...
Except only one of the ten was confirmed. It has been politics since Jefferson split from Adams.

 
whoknew said:
I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Yup

 
dgreen said:
To me, asking everyone removes any assumed offensiveness.
Click to expand...
So as long as your neighbor is inclusive to all and asks your wife AND you mother and daughters if they cheat on their men then it's not offensive?  

The point is, it's baseless, especially considering she has already been vetted to the max.  She is confirmed on a lower court for crying out loud.  This is truly an insulting waste of time in this setting.  

 
Shutout said:
So as long as your neighbor is inclusive to all and asks your wife AND you mother and daughters if they cheat on their men then it's not offensive?  

The point is, it's baseless, especially considering she has already been vetted to the max.  She is confirmed on a lower court for crying out loud.  This is truly an insulting waste of time in this setting.  
Click to expand...
Why would my neighbor be questioning them?

 
Gawain said:
There was a stat thrown that there had been 29 SC nominees during an election year. 19 of those were when Senate and President were same party and 17 were confirmed. 10 were when the parties differed and only 1 of 10 were confirmed. 
Click to expand...
This is true.  I posted a long post on this a few weeks ago and I've seen the same line stated on TV since.  This is consistent info.

 
There’s next to now chance the nomination is stopped. Best for the Democrats to just get it over without much potential backlash. Question her aggressively but avoid the theatrics and controversies. Then use the appointment politically. Hammer the hypocrisy, what changes might happen as a result and that this was their priority over the pandemic.

Stupid behavior now is equivalent to a getting a personal foul call the end of a blowout loss that gets you suspended for the first playoff game. You lost, it’s not fair but nothing you do will change the fact that you lost. Move on and live to fight another day.

 
Best moment of the day:  Klobuchar asking if Roe was a Super Precedent and when asked what her definition of super precedent was--she more or less said she didn't know.  

Second best:  Booker trying to trick her into commenting on Masterpiece Cake shop v Colorado and her pointing out exactly what direction he was heading in.

 
As it’s all for show I haven’t really watched much of this but the snippets I have seen she seems calm, cool and forthright. Not offputting, clearly intelligent and from the backstory I’ve read she’s a good human being.  I may not agree with her on some core issues but then again she hasn’t ruled on any of those so that’s just a presumption. Seems qualified if I were a Dem senator I’d be happy she was put up. Considering the power position the right is in a real horror show could have been put up and passed through.  She’s clearly not that.  

 
dkp993 said:
As it’s all for show I haven’t really watched much of this but the snippets I have seen she seems calm, cool and forthright. Not offputting, clearly intelligent and from the backstory I’ve read she’s a good human being.  I may not agree with her on some core issues but then again she hasn’t ruled on any of those so that’s just a presumption. Seems qualified if I were a Dem senator I’d be happy she was put up. Considering the power position the right is in a real horror show could have been put up and passed through.  She’s clearly not that.  
Click to expand...
It is hard to watch.  I've looked up sessions on youtube for the Senators I like/don't like.  

But it's a lot like impeachment.  Senators want to talk so the American people hear them.  They either throw soft ball questions or try to trip her up.  

 
jm192 said:
But it's a lot like impeachment.  Senators want to talk so the American people hear them.  They either throw soft ball questions or try to trip her up.  
Click to expand...
That’s all any of these hearings and the like are anymore, a performance. Everyone is fighting for their gotta quote or headline but no real substance is being sought. I could not be more disenchanted with both sides of the isle.  As the months/years go by I fear I’m turning into @ren hoek, lol.

 
Obie Wan said:
Immediately thereafter, Ted Cruz confirmed that dark money spending favors the D by at least 3 to 1
Click to expand...
It does.  Democratic Super PACs are getting massive funding.  Fund for Policy Reform ($45M), Democracy PAC ($35M), Carpenters and Joiners Union ($30M), 1630 Fund ($25M), Senate Majority PAC ($20M), League of Conservation Voters $20M), Everytown for Gun Safety ($15M).  The top Republican Super PACs are American Action Network ($20M) and America First Policies ($15M).  It's the pot calling the kettle black.  

 
jm192 said:
Best moment of the day:  Klobuchar asking if Roe was a Super Precedent and when asked what her definition of super precedent was--she more or less said she didn't know. 
Click to expand...
That was a great exchange but it went much further. Klobachar knew. She was just trying to catch Barrett, who didn't fall for it. Instead, Barrett explained that a super precedent was a case that no one disputes, no one even talks about anymore because it is settled law, like Brown vs. Bd. Ed. Klobachar then went on to ask why Roe isn't a super-precedent.  Barrett's answer was awesome, saying that considering how many questions she had been asked up until that point about Roe makes it clear that it is disputed and therefore isn't settled law and doesn't qualify as a super-precedent. :mic drop: 

 
Just in case anybody doubts that the "sexual preference" thing is something that was just made up yesterday, here's Websters on the subject:

https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1316223349719216128

Edit: To be clear, when I say that this issue was "made up yesterday," I really do mean literally yesterday.  48 hours ago this expression was completely uncontroversial.  My prediction is that it will go back to being uncontroversial the moment after Barrett is confirmed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildcat said:
Coming from a person who is not voting for Trump, she is knocking this out of the park.  To be against her confirmation would be 100% partisan politics by the Dems.  No way around it.  Even CNN is struggling to find something bad to hang their hat on.
Click to expand...
ACB is a high character person and judge.  Would be sad and politcal if she did not get a good portion of Dems voting for her.  We could have done much worse.

 
Here's The Advocate using the term "sexual preference" literally three weeks ago, without any controversy or disclaimers or anything:

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1316381852039622656/photo/1

I don't want to belabor this point too much because we all know it's going to evaporate as soon as the senate votes on Barrett's nomination.  But when people send a clear, unmistakable signal that they're arguing in bad faith, it's important to make a note of that for future reference.  Also, we should all push back when people try to gaslight others over stuff like this.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Here's The Advocate using the term "sexual preference" literally three weeks ago, without any controversy or disclaimers or anything:

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1316381852039622656/photo/1

I don't want to belabor this point too much because we all know it's going to evaporate as soon as the senate votes on Barrett's nomination.  But when people send a clear, unmistakable signal that they're arguing in bad faith, it's important to make a note of that for future reference.  Also, we should all push back when people try to gaslight others over stuff like this.
Click to expand...
You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.

 
dgreen said:
You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.
Click to expand...
I live in this world.  I encountered the unfortunate term "Latinx" probably 3-4 years ago.  Lots of people in my little professional circle use the term "BIPOC" fluently, as do I.  I no longer get a nervous twitch when I see someone use the term "cisgender" unironically.  While I think the social justice cult is a little silly, I am pretty much 100% up to speed on the official terminology.

"Sexual preference" is completely fine.  There's nothing wrong with that term, it implies nothing about anyone's sexual preference being a choice, and anybody who claims to be offended over Barrett using this expression really needs to bring receipts of them objecting to that term previously because otherwise I am going to assume that they're lying.

 
dgreen said:
You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.
Click to expand...
I think I was the first person to write about it and I thought it was a thing. If I'm wrong, ok. But I looked on some LGBQT+ sites and they had it as a thing. And, frankly, it makes sense to me. 

But again, if I'm wrong, I will freely admit that.

 
I kept thinking ACB reminds me of someone and it finally it hit me last night while watching Ozark.   Looks a little bit like Laura Linney. Now I keep thinking of the scene where Marty is giving her a slap on the bottom.

 
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
7K
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: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top