Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, renesauz said:

absolutely, and it was brilliant. But we aren't the same today. Then, 80%+ of the population was still rural, and the biggest states didn't dwarf the smallest by anywhere close to the same numbers they do today. 

I think the idea is still sound, and we should keep it, but it's worth re-visiting some specific duties, such as this one. I'm not even certain there's a better answer.

I think people look at things in too short of a time frame.  Look at California.  It has voted for a Republican more recently than Minnesota.

I saw a liberal professor post a tweet that all rural area people should be forced to live in city for a while just to experience how life is supposed to be.  He forgets the fact that the people in the Rural areas are the ones the feed his stupid butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightStalkers said:

All this hand wringing is going to be for nothing.  Collins, Romney and Murkowski have all said no to voting until after the election.  Grassley said in the past he wouldn't do it either before.  There isn't going to be a vote.

I'll believe it when i see it. Today I'd bet my life savings that there is a vote. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I'll believe it when i see it. Today I'd bet my life savings that there is a vote. 

Honestly the reason i see it is they are all politicians.  The first idea is to get reelected.  The second idea is remember the first idea.  The third idea is to support your party so they can support your reelection.  The fourth idea is to do the peoples work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'll believe it when i see it. Today I'd bet my life savings that there is a vote. 

Really?

I don't know the inner workings on this.

What does it take to have a vote? And would they have a vote if they didn't know if they had enough votes to confirm? How does that usually work?

Some info here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

For the people who thought Obama should be allowed to make the Supreme Court appointment in 2016, what do you think their non hypocritical position should be now?

That Garland could have been the longest nomination period in the history of the Supreme Court and still been confirmed and whoever gets nominated now doesn’t even have time to hit the average number of days of vetting for a Supreme Court justice before the election.  We’re pushing through a nomination without being able to even vet a lifetime appointment. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sand said:

The thing that is always forgotten is that justices do not end up as they are initially thought to be.

This court is still a left leaning court if you look at recent cases.  And that is after three appointments from this POTUS.

Even if DJT gets another one I doubt this court leans right.

Since the Nixon Administration 19 Supreme Court Justices were confirmed, 15 were appointed by GOP Presidents but somehow the Court leans left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightStalkers said:

All this hand wringing is going to be for nothing.  Collins, Romney and Murkowski have all said no to voting until after the election.  Grassley said in the past he wouldn't do it either before.  There isn't going to be a vote.

As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year

i saw a tweet of his saying the same as Collins and Murkowski.  and i believe Grassley repeated his statement during the Kavanaugh hearings..

Collins did say until after jan 21 today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Honestly i don't see that .  I don't see a big shift left.    The congress has shifted multiple times in the last 20 years.  Look at President Obama when he took over in 2008.  At that point everyone said the Republican party was dying.  8 years later he had lost over 1000 federal or local election seats to the Republicans, including both the House and the Senate.  It was the worst performance in the history of the country election wise statistically. ( and who knows Trump may beat him at that)

I didn't say a big shift.  But if the country is not shifting left then why is it so important to thwart the "liberal agenda" by making judicial appointments such a priority?  And I don't mean just this one?  I don't want to get too carried away but isn't the handwriting on the wall that some of what seems impossible today for the left is still inevitable?

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightStalkers said:
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year

i saw a tweet of his saying the same as Collins and Murkowski.  and i believe Grassley repeated his statement during the Kavanaugh hearings..

Collins did say until after jan 21 today.

I just checked Romney's twitter account and his only tweet in the past week was a eulogy to RBG. It said nothing about voting.

Are you sure about your info?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I didn't say a big shift.  But if the country is not shifting left then why is it so important to thwart the "liberal agenda" by making judicial appointments such a priority?  And I don't mean just this one?  I don't want to get too carried away but isn't the handwriting in the wall that some of what seems impossible today for the left is still inevitable?

No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That Garland could have been the longest nomination period in the history of the Supreme Court and still been confirmed and whoever gets nominated now doesn’t even have time to hit the average number of days of vetting for a Supreme Court justice before the election.  We’re pushing through a nomination without being able to even vet a lifetime appointment. 

Yeah, but there’s plenty of time to confirm before the inauguration. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I just checked Romney's twitter account and his only tweet in the past week was a eulogy to RBG. It said nothing about voting.

Are you sure about your info?

Can't find it now for some reason. I think i saw it when he was trending  yesterday..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

Yeah, but there’s plenty of time to confirm before the inauguration. 

Not saying it is advisable but RBG herself took less time than there is to the election.  I believe hers took 42 days from announcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NightStalkers said:
7 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I just checked Romney's twitter account and his only tweet in the past week was a eulogy to RBG. It said nothing about voting.

Are you sure about your info?

Can't find it now for some reason. I think i saw it when he was trending  yesterday..

Is it possible that you actually saw this tweet from a guy who claimed to have spoken to a "high level Romney insider"?

Because Romney's office denied that rumor last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.

And that doesn't count some of the media people who won't deal with the left.  Guys like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.  And Rubin used to work for The Young Turks (TYT).

I can see this election going either way a landslide for Biden or a landslide for Trump or anything in between.  I don't think the traditional polling companies know how to pick up Trump voters or if Trump voters will even cooperate with them.  One of the most accurate polls for Trump support maybe the Trafalgar group.  The forecasted the Trump wins in 2016 in Michigan and PA.  They also had the Florida 2018 Senate and Gov races correctly and nobody was showing any of these races that way, and they did.  And Trump may have pissed off enough people to lose big.  I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

Has anyone on this board ever participated in a Poll?  I have never been in one and don't know anyone i worked with or friends with ever has...

This is an indication that you are employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

And that doesn't count some of the media people who won't deal with the left.  Guys like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.  And Rubin used to work for The Young Turks (TYT).

I can see this election going either way a landslide for Biden or a landslide for Trump or anything in between.  I don't think the traditional polling companies know how to pick up Trump voters or if Trump voters will even cooperate with them.  One of the most accurate polls for Trump support maybe the Trafalgar group.  The forecasted the Trump wins in 2016 in Michigan and PA.  They also had the Florida 2018 Senate and Gov races correctly and nobody was showing any of these races that way, and they did.  And Trump may have pissed off enough people to lose big.  I have no idea.

Neither do the pollsters, they regularly prove that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spodog said:

This is an indication that you are employed.

Actually right now i am not.  When i said i hadn't heard of anyone  who had  included a bunch of people i worked with in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Yeah, but there’s plenty of time to confirm before the inauguration. 

Also, if Trump is smart (insert joke here) he will pick somebody who has already been vetted recently, like Barrett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Also, if Trump is smart (insert joke here) he will pick somebody who has already been vetted recently, like Barrett.

It is highly likely if a vote happens before the election Barrett will be the likely nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yes, you made the point that democrats would do the same thing.  But you argued that it was it duty of the GOP Senate to block such a shift.  I might have been wrong about the election having anything to do with it.  Or at least I'm not going to try to prove it with more searches.

Fair enough?

But it was an unprecedented action.  I mean I guess 135 years earlier a lame duck president nominated someone that the Senate choose not to consider until the new president renominated him so there was some precedent.  And there were other nominees where the congressional session ended, but none were ignored for such a period of time as Garland's.  

But there have been 8 times in history where the Senate took no action on a Supreme Court and another dozen plus times the nomination was officially withdrawn in many cases because it was obvious no action or a rejection was going to occur.  Being towards the end of a term does not make it anymore remarkable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Really?

I don't know the inner workings on this.

What does it take to have a vote? And would they have a vote if they didn't know if they had enough votes to confirm? How does that usually work?

Some info here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html

 

Mcconnell brings it to the floor.....nothing special has to happen. If those in a close race win reelection,  they'll bring it forward as soon as that is confirmed..... sometime in nov is my guess

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

Trump fans must be furious that he said he will nominate a woman.

Why?  I thought Barrett should have been the nominee the last time.  I would vastly prefer her over Kavanaugh, and that was even before all the rapey stuff came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

Trump fans must be furious that he said he will nominate a woman.

Wasn't the first woman appointed by Republicans in Sandra Day O'Conner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Why?  I thought Barrett should have been the nominee the last time.  I would vastly prefer her over Kavanaugh, and that was even before all the rapey stuff came out.

 

There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.

Really? She lives in the UK and you say she is a Democrat?

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

 

There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.

I am not a big Trump guy one way or another.  But if Biden is only considering women that isn't necessarily a good thing.  He should appoint the best judge and if that happens to be a woman that is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.

Oh.  I'm okay with Kamala Harris and I expect that I'll probably be okay with Trump's pick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Really? She lives in the UK and you say she is Democrat?

I know that but she supports mostly Democrats in the US.   Her political leanings match the liberal philosophy.  But she is being attacked by the far left in the UK and the US due to cancel culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, renesauz said:

Similarly, current Presidents generally didn't continue to hammer at retired Presidents and other formerly prominent politicians who had retired from public service/life.

 

Trump has done so in a much more vulgar and undignified manner but the revisionist history that Obama didn't blame George W Bush for pretty much all eight years is quite funny to see

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightStalkers said:

I know that but she supports mostly Democrats in the US.   Her political leanings match the liberal philosophy.  But she is being attacked by the far left in the UK and the US due to cancel culture.

Which is the way it should be after her appalling comments regarding transgender folks. When she preaches hate like this, no one should be surprised that people sympathetic to LGBT+ rights will stop buying her Harry Potter books.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, renesauz said:

Similarly, current Presidents generally didn't continue to hammer at retired Presidents and other formerly prominent politicians who had retired from public service/life.

 

Your bias for you team is shining though.  Obama beat the crap out of Bush at every turn for years and Bush kept his mouth shut.  The only difference between their behavior is that Trump permanently resides in the sewer and Obama occasionally takes a vacation from the sewer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Which is the way it should be after her appalling comments regarding transgender folks. When she preaches hate like this, no one should be surprised that people sympathetic to LGBT+ rights will stop buying her Harry Potter books.

Look i don't care what people do with their lives . If a person want to identify as transgender more power too them.  But that is a decision that the person makes later in life.  But you can only be born either a male or female.  How you choose to identify later is up to you and you shouldn't be discriminated against for that choice.  But there are some things that are affected by that choice.  Like what happens if hospitals have to go by your gender choice despite being physically the opposite sex.  There have been stories on the net of a person saying they were a transgender male in a hospital and the doctor could clearly see that the person was pregnant.  And like i said how you want to live your life more power to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans push a nominee, after what happened 4 years ago... no more negotiating. Ever. Pure us vs them forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Endowed said:

Republicans push a nominee, after what happened 4 years ago... no more negotiating. Ever. Pure us vs them forever. 

Your side did that with Obamacare.  Don't act like this is some new thing

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your side did that with Obamacare.  Don't act like this is some new thing

Agreed, we’ve been there for quite awhile. This will be nothing new. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your side did that with Obamacare.  Don't act like this is some new thing

Pure us vs them forever. 
 

🇺🇸

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your side did that with Obamacare.  Don't act like this is some new thing

No. They/Rs stopped it. Then they/Rs will have done it.

They/Ds forced medical care. Lots if things get forced. But this was refusing to allow, changing the rule set, then forcing in the very thing you refused.

This will no longer be governance.  No more negotiations... no more care. They will be enemies.

 

Edited by Endowed
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Endowed said:

No. They/Rs stopped it. Then they/Rs will have done it.

They/Ds forced medical care. Lots if things get forced. But this was refusing to allow, changing the rule set, then forcing in the very thing you refused.

This will no longer be governance.  No more negotiations... no more care. They will be enemies.

 

I sense a peaceful protest..... errrrr riot on the horizon

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I sense a peaceful protest..... errrrr riot on the horizon

Peace will be replaced. :(

While you laugh it up.

  • Laughing 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insomniac said:

Since the Nixon Administration 19 Supreme Court Justices were confirmed, 15 were appointed by GOP Presidents but somehow the Court leans left.

And with that, the legal system joins the media, science, facts, and reality as having a liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Endowed said:

Peace will be replaced. :(

While you laugh it up.

I'm not triggered by the left's threat of violence.  

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I'm not triggered by the left's threat of violence.  

That hasn't worked well in the past.  The riots of the mid 60's produced 5 out of the next 6 presidential terms to be Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best thing for Trump is we are not talking about 200,000 Americans and as he says the "losers and suckers" who died fighting for us.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

We came to a decision for that situation 4 years ago. Are you saying we came to a clear decision for how this would be handled in the future? I know Graham said his opinion but is that law?

Precedent is often as good as law. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The majority leaders in the Senate get to decide, just like 4 years ago.  

Sure but acknowledge  that their line of reasoning is BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Sure but acknowledge  that their line of reasoning is BS

To a certain extent.  But you need to read the article in the Wall Street journal.  

divided Government” reflected an absence of a “nationwide consensus” on constitutional philosophy. “Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” the future vice president insisted.

That was Joe Biden saying that in 1992.  So the BS is on both sides.  At the time the Bush Sr. was president and the Dems owned the Senate.  Same situation as in 2016.  And Biden was the Judiciary Chairman at the time.

The Republicans have the constitutional right to put in a nominee and if they have enough votes to confirm.  Is it the wisest thing for Republicans in Congress or Trump politically maybe another question.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.