Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

Barr I am kind of ok with him.  He is consistent on Flynn and McCabe.  Both he saying shouldn't be charged.  Both lied to FBI agents.  The Media doesn't look at McCabe in fact CNN hired him.  Both are guilty of the same thing.  That was why McCabe was fired and if i remember right Barr wasn't AG yet so the FBI itself found that he lied.  The Durham investigation Barr has not said much other than it was ongoing and that there was something there.  On other things i think Barr has been too much on TV.  

Trump is an idiot.  Plainly said

As for Interference Holder came out and plainly said he was Obama's wingman.

Eh I think you're quite wrong about Barr not saying about the Durham investigation, he has said quite a lot as has the DOJ spokesperson. In fact most recently Barr went on Hannity, the most watched network cable show on tv, to announce (promote) the forthcoming indictment of Clinesmith. He has had multiple other statements about it as well. Nobody is paying attention but in substance it has blown away what Comey did.

Share this post


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

Biden wasn't the Senate Majority leader in '92 so I can say without any question he would not have done exactly the same as McConnell. (Because he wasn't in a position to do so.)   And while I know he also made a speech a few days after this quote, I really find it hard to argue with what he actually says here.

Most certainly Garland was a victim in 2016.  There weren't any hearings but it seems like there were "no bounds of propriety".   Will Trump's nominee also be a victim.  I think in some ways they most certainly will.  I also think the "environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted."  Now all of this reasoning was of course self serving, but I don't think it was wrong either.  Not that it matters.

Are you sure about the 1992 part?  Biden's wiki said he was chairman of the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 so unless he dropped out of the chairman spot in 1992 he would have been in charge and the Dems would have had the majority for him to be chairman in the first place. I said Biden was judiciary chairman not Majority leader i think if i did i apologize.  Garland should have got a vote.  Would he have been trashed?  Possibly.  Kavanaugh was.  Thomas was.(and maybe both are guilty of rape but nothing has ever been proved in any way)  so the process has produced victims on both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh I think you're quite wrong about Barr not saying about the Durham investigation, he has said quite a lot as has the DOJ spokesperson. In fact most recently Barr went on Hannity, the most watched network cable show on tv, to announce (promote) the forthcoming indictment of Clinesmith. He has had multiple other statements about it as well. Nobody is paying attention but in substance it has blown away what Comey did.

it's possible you are right in somethings about Barr but Holder came out and admitted his bias.  And Comey directly affected an election with lots of errors in both directions that he didn't have to be make at all.

Share this post


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

Are you sure about the 1992 part?  Biden's wiki said he was chairman of the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 so unless he dropped out of the chairman spot in 1992 he would have been in charge and the Dems would have had the majority for him to be chairman in the first place. I said Biden was judiciary chairman not Majority leader i think if i did i apologize.  Garland should have got a vote.  Would he have been trashed?  Possibly.  Kavanaugh was.  Thomas was.(and maybe both are guilty of rape but nothing has ever been proved in any way)  so the process has produced victims on both sides. 

Being in Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee from '87 to '95  which means he is running the confirmation hearings doesn't make him Senate Majority Leader. It does give him some influence and power on the process (and schedule) but he could not do what McConnell did (at least on his own).   

And yes I am sure...

  • Congress Majority Leader
  • 93rd Congress (1973–1975)Mike Mansfield (D-MT)  <== Biden's first Term
  • 94th Congress (1975–1977)Mike Mansfield (D-MT)
  • 95th Congress (1977–1979)Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)
  • 96th Congress (1979–1981)Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)
  • 97th Congress (1981–1983)Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN)
  • 98th Congress (1983–1985)Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN)
  • 99th Congress (1985–1987)Robert J. Dole (R-KS) 
  • 100th Congress (1987–1989)Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) 
  • 101st Congress (1989–1991)George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 
  • 102nd Congress (1991–1993)George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 
  • 103rd Congress (1993–1995)George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 
  • 104th Congress (1995–1997)Robert J. Dole (R-KS)
  • 105th Congress (1997–1999)Trent Lott (R-MS)
  • 106th Congress (1999–2001)Trent Lott (R-MS)
  • 107th Congress (2001–2003)Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)
  • 108th Congress (2003–2005)William H. Frist (R-TN)
  • 109th Congress (2005–2007)William H. Frist (R-TN) 
  • 110th Congress (2007–2009)Harry Reid (D-NV)
  •  
  • 111th Congress (2009–2011)Harry Reid (D-NV)
  • 112th Congress (2011–2013)Harry Reid (D-NV)
  • 113th Congress (2013–2015)Harry Reid (D-NV)
  • 114th Congress (2015–2017)Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
  • 115th Congress (2017–2019)Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 
  • 116th Congress (2019–2021)Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 

Share this post


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

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for McCain over Obama - I despised that Obama voted against the appointment of Roberts. This issue is whether a prospective justice is qualified. Roberts was perhaps the most qualified nominee ever. Obama even acknowledges this in the opening of his written reasoning why he didn't vote to appoint. 

Let's suppose Obama knew that Roberts was going to preside over and be the decisive vote in the Shelby County vs Holder case. Anybody who was paying attention knew that Roberts wanted to overturn the Voting Rights Act. Was there any doubt this would result in voter suppression laws, aimed at black people, that would favor the GOP?  That seems to be more than enough reason for a black Democrat to vote against Roberts or anybody who agreed with him on the issue.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

This is  what we have come to.

The SC is now a completely partisan institution. Why would you expect anybody on the other team to vote for any nominee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zow said:

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for McCain over Obama - I despised that Obama voted against the appointment of Roberts. This issue is whether a prospective justice is qualified. Roberts was perhaps the most qualified nominee ever. Obama even acknowledges this in the opening of his written reasoning why he didn't vote to appoint. 

I just read Obama's statement about this. Here it is. I think it's a reasonably thought out explanation as to why he decided to vote the way he did.

 

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

Let's suppose Obama knew that Roberts was going to preside over and be the decisive vote in the Shelby County vs Holder case. Anybody who was paying attention knew that Roberts wanted to overturn the Voting Rights Act. Was there any doubt this would result in voter suppression laws, aimed at black people, that would favor the GOP?  That seems to be more than enough reason for a black Democrat to vote against Roberts or anybody who agreed with him on the issue.

Blame the Constitution, not the messenger. Or blame Congress. Any law that allows Wisconsin free rein to do its crazy voter-suppression shenanigans without special scrutiny but requires Virginia to get preclearance for the smallest of voting changes does not seem rationally related to life in the year of our lord, 2013. In any case, thinking you might possibly end up disagreeing with a judge on a very close call (as 5-4 decisions tend to be) is a terrible reason to oppose his confirmation, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I just read Obama's statement about this. Here it is. I think it's a reasonably thought out explanation as to why he decided to vote the way he did.

 

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. . . .

It's an incredibly elegant way of saying "He's more than qualified, but I won't vote for him because he's a conservative. "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jm192 said:

It's an incredibly elegant way of saying "He's more than qualified, but I won't vote for him because he's a conservative. "

1000%

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jm192 said:

But it’s not a WTF argument.  It’s “we’ve decided your 2016 position is the way it should be done after 4 years of criticizing it.”

Sorry....they have no power to "decide" anything here.  That's the rub.  They can hem and haw all they want.  The actual ACTION is being taken by the GOP in this and the Dems have zero say in it.  We can't avoid that reality and expect to have honest discussion about the subject.  

Share this post


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

I just read Obama's statement about this. Here it is. I think it's a reasonably thought out explanation as to why he decided to vote the way he did.

 

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. . . .

The bold is the standard and where the analysis should stop. The rest may sound all well and good, but it's not the standard and it's pure politics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

It's an incredibly elegant way of saying "He's more than qualified, but I won't vote for him because he's a conservative. "

Yep. 

Share this post


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

Let's suppose Obama knew that Roberts was going to preside over and be the decisive vote in the Shelby County vs Holder case. Anybody who was paying attention knew that Roberts wanted to overturn the Voting Rights Act. Was there any doubt this would result in voter suppression laws, aimed at black people, that would favor the GOP?  That seems to be more than enough reason for a black Democrat to vote against Roberts or anybody who agreed with him on the issue.

Not the standard. 

Share this post


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

Blame the Constitution, not the messenger. Or blame Congress. Any law that allows Wisconsin free rein to do its crazy voter-suppression shenanigans without special scrutiny but requires Virginia to get preclearance for the smallest of voting changes does not seem rationally related to life in the year of our lord, 2013. In any case, thinking you might possibly end up disagreeing with a judge on a very close call (as 5-4 decisions tend to be) is a terrible reason to oppose his confirmation, IMO.

Well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this correct?

Fun fact: The last time that a majority-Republican Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic President was in 1895, when the Senate confirmed the Grover Cleveland nomination of Rufus Peckham.

(Of course, the parties were quite different than they are now for most of the period since then.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Blame the Constitution, not the messenger. Or blame Congress. Any law that allows Wisconsin free rein to do its crazy voter-suppression shenanigans without special scrutiny but requires Virginia to get preclearance for the smallest of voting changes does not seem rationally related to life in the year of our lord, 2013. In any case, thinking you might possibly end up disagreeing with a judge on a very close call (as 5-4 decisions tend to be) is a terrible reason to oppose his confirmation, IMO.

IMO striking down the VRA was purely based on the  right wing Justices desire to help the GOP win elections. I don't really care if some  guys from Harvard and Yale Law  schools can make dlever arguments that pretend it was for some other reason. results are what  matter. The fact that the states immediately passed laws to suppress minority votes was completely predictable. That seems very well related to life in 2013 and after.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're okay with Obama voting against Roberts, what grounds can you possibly have to complain about Republicans refusing to seat Garland?  (Other than "I don't like how this guy might vote but I like how this other guy would vote" which is the exact same reasoning that McConnell is using).

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


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

If you're okay with Obama voting against Roberts, what grounds can you possibly have to complain about Republicans refusing to seat Garland?  (Other than "I don't like how this guy might vote but I like how this other guy would vote" which is the exact same reasoning that McConnell is using).

To be clear, I didn't care for Obama's vote.  I suppose this depends on whether you think there's a material difference between voting no and refusing to allow a vote to be held.  One could perhaps make the argument that McConnell refused to allow the vote because he expected that N members of his party would actually vote Yes.  I think there's something to be said for transparency (i.e. get each Senator's vote on record) versus actively preventing transparency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I suppose this depends on whether you think there's a material difference between voting no and refusing to allow a vote to be held.  

Literally nobody actually thinks this.

If that isn't obvious, just ask yourself this: suppose McConnell allowed Garland's nomination to come up for a vote, and he got shot down along party lines.  Would the people who are now freaking about Trump nominating RBG's replacement be all like "Well, they gave Obama's guy a fair hearing so I guess it's totally okay for them to move forward with their guy now?"  Of course not.  The talking points would even be the same -- something something stolen seat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add, I'm clearly not a lawyer and know very little about this stuff. I was interested in seeing/reading what happened and then posted it here. Thanks for teaching me as I learned something and understand now why that shouldn't have happened by Obama.

I wasn't "ok with it" as I didn't know about it. It seems it was well written political fluff based on the responses here. 

Share this post


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

Literally nobody actually thinks this.

If that isn't obvious, just ask yourself this: suppose McConnell allowed Garland's nomination to come up for a vote, and he got shot down along party lines.  Would the people who are now freaking about Trump nominating RBG's replacement be all like "Well, they gave Obama's guy a fair hearing so I guess it's totally okay for them to move forward with their guy now?"  Of course not.  The talking points would even be the same -- something something stolen seat.  

I think there's a material difference between the two.  That's not to say that had the GOP Senators voted "no" I would have agreed with that.  Obviously I wouldn't, as I also didn't agree with Obama voting "no" on Roberts.  In simple terms, there's no practical difference between not holding a vote and voting along party lines, but there is a difference.

Consider that my hypothesis was correct.  For sake of argument, let's pretend that there were just enough GOP Senators willing to vote Yes, based on honesty, integrity, or whatever you want to call it.  Does McConnell refusing to schedule a vote (because he knows it would pass) matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if I were advising the Dems (inadvisable from the start...) I would offer up only token resistance to any nominee.

Throw some procedural monkey wrenches:

1. Invoking 2-hour rule
2. Requiring a quorum present, with no Dems. (Meaning (nearly) all Trump Party members would have to be physically present on the floor to conduct business).

 

I would then boycott the committee confirmation hearings completely - to give the appearance that the process is a sham.  And then, offer up any oppo research outside the hearing for public consumption.

Then let the vote happen.  That part is inevitable.

This is largely out of the hands of the Dems in the Senate itself.  The best they can do is muster public opposition - to the point that it has real consequences to the Trump Party and the Senators themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, gianmarco said:

I'm going to list 5 things and I'd like to see if you can remember them in the next few minutes.

Person.  Woman.  Man.  Camera.  TV.

You should have gone with 

Nica...Atl...Seattle, I think

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Thomas @AlexThomas · 6m

this just seems like a bizarrely stupid way to show your hand — it places a new spin on the nomination. it's no longer about appointing a conservative justice because of policy issues, now it's because Trump wants a justice that's loyal to him in a contested election.

Quote Tweet

CSPAN@cspan· 11m

.@POTUS: "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. & I think it's very important that we have 9 Justices. & I think the system is going to go very quickly. I'll be submitting at 5 o'clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of positions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Alex Thomas @AlexThomas · 6m

this just seems like a bizarrely stupid way to show your hand — it places a new spin on the nomination. it's no longer about appointing a conservative justice because of policy issues, now it's because Trump wants a justice that's loyal to him in a contested election.

Quote Tweet

CSPAN@cspan· 11m

.@POTUS: "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. & I think it's very important that we have 9 Justices. & I think the system is going to go very quickly. I'll be submitting at 5 o'clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of positions."

But it won't matter.  Nothing matters except naked power grabs. 

The electorate doesn't punish anyone for seizing power through whatever means necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand the Republicans’ argument from 2016, or people that are making it now.  That ‘the country should have a say’ in the SC pick with the forthcoming election.

The country already had a say- we elected Barack Obama in 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016.  I don’t understand how the ‘popular will’ argument doesn’t already apply to that.  

Ginsburg had a chance to retire 10 years ago and be replaced by an administration she agreed with.  

Instead, she kept holding on.  She foresaw a story book ending where she would retire under Hillary Clinton.  She mused about the next president replacing her, “whoever she might be.”  Then reality happened.  

If her interest was retaining a Supreme Court justice with her views, or finishing out her tenure to the very end, that was her choice.  But she doesn’t get to change the course of history when her gamble doesn’t pan out.  She doesn’t get to use moral blackmail to rewrite how the President/Senate works.  It was a hubristic decision that cost liberal presence on the Supreme Court dearly.  

It’s like she said- “That’s their job,” she told the New York Times. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t understand the Republicans’ argument from 2016, or people that are making it now.  That ‘the country should have a say’ in the SC pick with the forthcoming election.

The country already had a say- we elected Barack Obama in 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016.  I don’t understand how the ‘popular will’ argument doesn’t already apply to that.  

Ginsburg had a chance to retire 10 years ago and be replaced by an administration she agreed with.  

"She loved her job," said Totenberg. "She had planned, in fact, to retire and be replaced by a nominee of the first woman president because she really thought Hillary Clinton would be elected."

"Fate dealt her... the cards not that way and she just soldiered on," Totenberg added. 

Totenberg went on to report that Ginsberg had expressed that wish in a dictated statement her granddaughter, Clara Spera, just days before her death.

"My most fervent wish is, that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg said in the statement, according to Totenberg.

Instead, she kept holding on.  She foresaw a story book ending where she would retire under Hillary Clinton.  She mused about the next president replacing her, “whoever she might be.”  Then reality happened.  

If her interest was retaining a Supreme Court justice with her views, or finishing out her tenure to the very end, that was her choice.  But she doesn’t get to change the course of history when her gamble doesn’t pan out.  She doesn’t get to use moral blackmail to rewrite how the President/Senate works.  It was a hubristic decision that cost liberal presence on the Supreme Court dearly.  

It’s like she said- “That’s their job,” she told the New York Times. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

It's pretty simple. The argument is about the precedent that was set by the original 2016 argument. They're not arguing the merits of the Republicans precedent but that the precedent was set. The 'popular will' argument was reset and now they want to reset/twist that decision. What Ginsburg wanted is/shouldn't be a part of this straight forward hypocritical about face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I’d expect nothing other than this from the right.  They’ve shown long ago they will not be playing with any sense of tradition or honor.  They play to win, period.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Murph said:

Politico: Democrats worry Feinstein can't handle Supreme Court battle

If anything good can come out of our current political mess, perhaps people will start to understand that when older generations cling to power and refuse to let the next generation rise through the ranks it creates problems for society.

More like it shows how clueless the next generation is and the chaos their tantrums will cause down the road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

there goes Roe v Wade if and when that comes to the court if she's on the bench.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

CNN trying to psyche Trump into proving them wrong and picking someone else, just to prove that their "sources" aren't reliable.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She seems like an OK person. I'll let the pros weigh in on her decisions and legal writing.  Hopefully she doesn't have the same temperament as the last guy to go through confirmation hearings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

It's been almost 40 years since the pubic hair on a can of Coke has been used...could be time to give this one a try again.

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, apalmer said:

CNN trying to psyche Trump into proving them wrong and picking someone else, just to prove that their "sources" aren't reliable.

meta

Share this post


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

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

Great news if true IMO.  This is the person I wanted Trump to nominate instead of Kavanaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its going to be interesting to see just how quickly they can move here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, johnnycakes said:

there goes Roe v Wade if and when that comes to the court if she's on the bench.  

Stop it.   Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere.   That's nothing more than fear mongering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, perbach said:

Stop it.   Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere.   That's nothing more than fear mongering.

What about the continued erosion of the ability of women to get an abortion?  Like putting up requirements on the clinics or physicians such that all the clinics in an entire state close? 

ACB may be instrumental is allowing such barriers to exist or expand.

What if an entire bloc of southern states put up such barriers such that women would have to travel 700 miles to get an abortion?  Is that in the spirit of the Roe decision and the "settled" nature of the right to an abortion?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

its going to be interesting to see just how quickly they can move here.

Agreed. Do you have a prediction on the timeline and chances of things happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

It will be interesting, she seems like a fine choice but you know something is coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 4:29 PM, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

I come from where she comes from. Dominican HS isn't/wasn't Georgetown Prep. There won't be a Kavanaugh. It's pure Trump that he went ahead and picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend. The flaws were known, but Trump went with it anyway.

Now the issues with Roe and Barrett's beliefs, those will be front and center and I'm sure there will be some ugliness on that front. But Barrett will not have any personal scandals like Kavanaugh, just as Gorsuch did not. My guess is Trump really did not want Barrett anyway but basically Senate and party types hornwrangeld him into it. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed. Do you have a prediction on the timeline and chances of things happening?

I think I saw that Graham wants hearing in Mid-October - I expect those to happen.

In terms of votes - its not a foregone conclusion that she is going to be confirmed.  Its very likely she will - but there are two pretty big issues where Coney is expected to be in the minority position in the country - Abortion and Healthcare.

I think the healthcare concerns will be at the forefront of Dems approaches to sway public opinion - "She will invalidate Obamacare!"  And, that may be why Trump put out his executive order about it being the policy of the government to protect existing conditions (while at the same time fighting in court to invalidate those protections).  I think this could cause a few GOP senators to withhold support - but perhaps not enough.

 

Everything I have read about her is that she is eminently qualified for the position.  It will cause angst for the dramatic shift in the court's make-up*, but she appears to be a fine legal scholar.

 

*she has offered her own opinions on nominations that shift power

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I come from where she comes from. Dominican HS isn't/wasn't Georgetown Prep. There won't be a Kavanaugh. It's pure Trump that he went ahead and picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend. The flaws were known, but Trump went with it anyway.

Now the issues with Roe and Barnett's beliefs, those will be front and center and I'm sure there will be some ugliness on that front. But Barnett will not have any personal scandals like Kavanaugh, just as Gorsuch did not. My guess is Trump really did not want Barnett anyway but basically Senate and party types hornwrangeld him into it. 

Agreed.  And I think it’s very dangerous for Democrats that ABC’s vulnerabilities are tied to her religion.  Dems need to tread very, very carefully here. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think I saw that Graham wants hearing in Mid-October - I expect those to happen.

In terms of votes - its not a foregone conclusion that she is going to be confirmed.  Its very likely she will - but there are two pretty big issues where Coney is expected to be in the minority position in the country - Abortion and Healthcare.

I think the healthcare concerns will be at the forefront of Dems approaches to sway public opinion - "She will invalidate Obamacare!"  And, that may be why Trump put out his executive order about it being the policy of the government to protect existing conditions (while at the same time fighting in court to invalidate those protections).  I think this could cause a few GOP senators to withhold support - but perhaps not enough.

 

Everything I have read about her is that she is eminently qualified for the position.  It will cause angst for the dramatic shift in the court's make-up*, but she appears to be a fine legal scholar.

 

*she has offered her own opinions on nominations that shift power

There is an excellent Bulwark podcast from last week where Conservative Amanda Carpenter talks about how Conservatives have essentially stop legislating, and that is why judges and Justices are of paramount importance to the party.  She asks, what is McConnell’s signature piece of legislation?  There is none.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is an excellent Bulwark podcast from last week where Conservative Amanda Carpenter talks about how Conservatives have essentially stop legislating, and that is why judges and Justices are of paramount importance to the party.  She asks, what is McConnell’s signature piece of legislation?  There is none.  

Appointing judges and EOs have been pretty much all of our elected officials have given us in the last year or so.

Edited by Mile High

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.