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 (7 Viewers)

Patient Zero?

Breaking WaPo: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was diagnosed with the coronavirus earlier this year but has since recovered, three officials familiar with her diagnosis told The Washington Post.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Patient Zero?

Breaking WaPo: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was diagnosed with the coronavirus earlier this year but has since recovered, three officials familiar with her diagnosis told The Washington Post.
Click to expand...
How early in the year though?  Can't imagine she'd be contagious afterward

 
Sinn Fein said:
A Senate GOP aide, on background, tells the Post that some Rs are now discussing asking Leader McConnell to "take the Senate out of session next week" before the ACB hearings start in mid-October. "If some in the Republican caucus get sick, we are screwed," the aide says.

This, may be the only thing that could derail this nomination.

Senate business requires a quorum - 51 senators to be present on the Senate floor.  The Dems could call for a quorum call, and then leave the floor - requiring all GOP senators to be present on the floor to conduct business.
Click to expand...
They will delay any other Senate business to ensure they get to her hearings.  I mean...what hasn't he already put on hold or ignored to further his/Trump's agenda?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I can see where a person might think that if he or she were born in 2008.  Those of us who lived through the W administration remember things a wee bit differently.

More generally, the problem with the filibuster dates back to the 1970s, when the senate started allowing people to "filibuster" legislation without actually standing up in front of the podium and speaking.  That had the completely predictable effect of making filibusters way more common than they used to be and it resulted in today's de fact 60-vote requirement for anything substantive to pass (except through reconciliation).  At a bare minimum, this practice needs to be dialed way back.  I'd prefer to see it abolished altogether.
Click to expand...
Was going to post this but you beat me to it.  To me, there is nothing wrong with the  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style filibuster.  How long is one person or even group of people really going to be able to talk and hold the floor?  Are they actually going to be willing to spend 48 hours straight talking to keep Joseph P. Livingconstitution off of the 5th circuit?  The "gentleman's" filibuster where we just ask for cloture and you can say no and we change the subject is stupid and deserves to die.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, he did that despite there being any other mechanism to get nominees confirmed while McConnell et al refused to confirm anyone for anything. One of his ambassadors literally died waiting to be confirmed. At least be intellectually honest there, too. 
We can take it back as many steps as you want. But the actual mechanism that made it possible wasn’t any of them. It was 2017. 
Click to expand...
Right.  McConnell used the filibuster and Reid decided to "nuke" it.  McConnell extended that to the Supreme Court.  I've been honest about it from the get-go.  Next time, Schumer or whoever will go farther, then McConnell or who follows will go beyond that.  I'm not holding McConnell out as some pious individual, but acting like Harry Reid's actions didn't help precipitate it all is preposterous.

 
squistion said:
Mitch will try to force it through, but with 2 members of the Judiciary Committee testing positive to COVID and being under quarantine, it makes it less likely.
Click to expand...
Interesting. 
I wrote last week that no matter what Republicans say now, if there is no vote before November 3  and if Trump and Republicans get trounced, everything changes. So unless they do it before the election, it’s still in doubt. 

 
timschochet said:
Interesting. 
I wrote last week that no matter what Republicans say now, if there is no vote before November 3  and if Trump and Republicans get trounced, everything changes. So unless they do it before the election, it’s still in doubt. 
Click to expand...
I agree that this nomination is a lot more problematic in a lame duck session.  I expect McConnell will move it along before the election.

 
timschochet said:
If Tillis and Lee are out for any long period of time, McConnell won’t have the votes. 
Click to expand...
Considering they are both positive, I would hope they are out for at least 14 days so no one else gets sick here.

 
jm192 said:
For mild disease, the CDC recommends 10 days.  
 

Either way, a short timeline got shorter.
Click to expand...
Do they have to be there for anything but the final vote? I assume attendance must not actually matter otherwise dems would just not show up and wa lah. delay. 

 
Right or wrong....one of the first things I thought of when I heard all these judiciary committee people catching covid was "I wonder if they are going to relent on their demands that the Senators/Reps should be there in person to legislate.  This has been a consistent talking point for months now.  

 
The Commish said:
Right or wrong....one of the first things I thought of when I heard all these judiciary committee people catching covid was "I wonder if they are going to relent on their demands that the Senators/Reps should be there in person to legislate.  This has been a consistent talking point for months now.  
Click to expand...
Dems will probably switch sides also - and now insist on in-person voting.

 
The Commish said:
Right or wrong....one of the first things I thought of when I heard all these judiciary committee people catching covid was "I wonder if they are going to relent on their demands that the Senators/Reps should be there in person to legislate.  This has been a consistent talking point for months now.  
Click to expand...
This is a rule that really should change -- requiring in-person voting during a pandemic is dumb.

 
Marianne LeVine@marianne_levine · 38s

Dems are signaling Senate will be out until 10/19, per aides

That certainly shortens the time frame to get a nominee done before the election.  Obviously not impossible, by any stretch, but not leaving much margin for error.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is a rule that really should change -- requiring in-person voting during a pandemic is dumb.
Click to expand...
See, I don't even know if they followed through on it or not.  I just remember them making a big stink over being on Capitol Hill, in person.  I don't know if they went so far as to make actual rules or not.  I found it some mind-numbingly stupid that they were throwing those tantrums that I just began ignoring it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
See, I don't even know if they followed through on it or not.  I just remember them making a big stink over being on Capitol Hill, in person.  I don't know if they went so far as to make actual rules or not.  I found it some mind-numbingly stupid that they were throwing those tantrums that I just began ignoring it.
Click to expand...
That is literally exactly what I did too.  It went right into the "this is stupid but there's no reason for me to care about it either" folder for me.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Marianne LeVine@marianne_levine · 38s

Dems are signaling Senate will be out until 10/19, per aides

That certainly shortens the time frame to get a nominee done before the election.  Obviously not impossible, by any stretch, but not leaving much margin for error.
Click to expand...
The Judiciary was suppose to start hearing on the 12th and I think vote her out of committee on the 19th (I think that was the timeline).  If the Republicans still think they need a week, that basically gives them a week for a full Senate vote.  That seems tenuous at best, but McConnell will certainly try.

 
Sammy3469 said:
The Judiciary was suppose to start hearing on the 12th and I think vote her out of committee on the 19th (I think that was the timeline).  If the Republicans still think they need a week, that basically gives them a week for a full Senate vote.  That seems tenuous at best, but McConnell will certainly try.
Click to expand...
Rs would have to change another informal rule - that allows anyone on the committee to hold over any nominee for one-week - i.e. it will take 2 weeks in committee.

I don't know the answer - but can committees work if the Senate is not in session?  Also at least two Rs are on the Judiciary Committee, and if they have to quarantine - they would not get a quorum in the committee.

This is going to be a very tight schedule - even if nothing else crops up.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think in this case, they are trying to prevent the GOP from having a quorum - which would delay everything.
Click to expand...
Fine...say that.  Don't pretend that it's some high and mighty nobel cause and/or some crappy "OMG, you're such hypocrites".  We're tired of it.  We can see exactly what's going on and we will vote accordingly.  

 
If you were Mitch McConnell, would you be reminding GOP senators to get tested regularly? 

Might it not be in the best interests of the party and SC nomination for the regular testing to slow down for a couple weeks?

 
massraider said:
If you were Mitch McConnell, would you be reminding GOP senators to get tested regularly? 

Might it not be in the best interests of the party and SC nomination for the regular testing to slow down for a couple weeks?
Click to expand...
Obviously it makes a lot more sense to encourage regular testing and bend on in-person voting.  That proposal should have been uncontroversial a month ago.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Obviously it makes a lot more sense to encourage regular testing and bend on in-person voting.  That proposal should have been uncontroversial a month ago.
Click to expand...
I am assuming that option is done. McConnell on record against it. The rules are clear about being in person. I don't think it's possible.

 
I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.

Alliance Defending Freedom wiki

Wasn’t sure if it is typical for lawyers to associate with groups like this, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center comes to mind, but I don’t know enough to know if this is common or not.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.

Alliance Defending Freedom wiki

Wasn’t sure if it is typical for lawyers to associate with groups like this, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center comes to mind, but I don’t know enough to know if this is common or not.
Click to expand...
These are the people that want to make homosexuality a criminal offense and forced sterilization for trans people. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.
Click to expand...
Federal judges can't accept "donations." (I think that probably means speaking fees? Judges can't accept those either.)

 
massraider said:
I am assuming that option is done. McConnell on record against it. The rules are clear about being in person. I don't think it's possible.
Click to expand...
McConnell will have them come of the Senate floor for the vote even if they are COVID positive. He’s getting one more win and he doesn’t care how bad it looks or how much backlash he takes. He knows that he’s likely to lose the presidency and the Senate and it’s his last chance to get anything accomplished.

 
Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction.

Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 

Plurality Now Back ASAP Vote on Trump's High Court Pick

Forty-three percent said the Senate should vote on Barrett’s confirmation as soon as possible, regardless of the 2020 election’s winner, up 4 points since after Trump’s announcement, while 37 percent said the chamber should only vote if Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, down 3 points. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-polling/

 
With apologies in advance, surely this was discussed but I missed it...

Wouldn’t expanding SCOTUS to 13 or 15 or heck go big go home make it 21 over the next 20 years help to depoliticize the court for generations to come?

 
Stoneworker said:
Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction.

Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 

Plurality Now Back ASAP Vote on Trump's High Court Pick

Forty-three percent said the Senate should vote on Barrett’s confirmation as soon as possible, regardless of the 2020 election’s winner, up 4 points since after Trump’s announcement, while 37 percent said the chamber should only vote if Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, down 3 points. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-polling/
Click to expand...
Not disputing the results but that question doesn't really make sense.  The options were "vote on her confirmation ASAP" or "vote only if Trump wins the election".  Those aren't exhaustive.  I don't even know what I'd pick if I was given those choices.  

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Not disputing the results but that question doesn't really make sense.  The options were "vote on her confirmation ASAP" or "vote only if Trump wins the election".  Those aren't exhaustive.  I don't even know what I'd pick if I was given those choices.  
Click to expand...
I can see your point. The "asap" is the confusing aspect, since the current timeline will likely be before the election.

I think they used "asap" to keep it a binary question, capturing both "before the election" and "regardless of who wins" in one choice. Trump winning being the other choice.

But I agree it's confusing.

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top