Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

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. 

They could easily fight on the grounds of workers rights and corporate power if they wanted to. The problem is Senate Democrats largely agree with her on those issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

At least it is a female so the women in the country should be pleased.    They needed a female to replace a female.

I am at a loss for words here.

 

I assume this is simply trolling - given the complete lack of context.  But, I can never be sure, what is trolling, and what is simply poor reasoning.

 

Yes - some women will be very happy with Barrett.  Some women will be very unhappy with Barrett. 

I don't understand how anyone could think all women would be happy simply because it is a woman nominee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am at a loss for words here.

 

I assume this is simply trolling - given the complete lack of context.  But, I can never be sure, what is trolling, and what is simply poor reasoning.

 

Yes - some women will be very happy with Barrett.  Some women will be very unhappy with Barrett. 

I don't understand how anyone could think all women would be happy simply because it is a woman nominee.

Just saying it is better than another old man. A woman needed to replace a woman.  No matter who gets to take the seat not everyone will be pleased.

Edited by Summer Wheat

Share this post


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

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. 

IMO they won't be able to keep their disgust with her religion out of the fray.  As far as Obamacare-abortion,  nominees will not admit how they will rule on a case.

 

54 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. 

the "picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend".  What did his best friend write?  I seemed to have missed this.

Share this post


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

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. 

I don`t think it will be an issue.  Chuck Shumar has twice in the last week said "God Willing" talking about the coming elections so he must be a believer.

Share this post


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

Will be interesting to hear her response when asked about this statement. 

Same as we have been hearing from Republicans since Ginsburg's death: "That was then and this is now".

Share this post


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

Same as we have been hearing from Republicans since Ginsburg's death: "That was then and this is now".

I expect a more well-reasoned response from a future Supreme Court Justice. 

Share this post


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

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

Cares Act?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I expect a more well-reasoned response from a future Supreme Court Justice. 

That won't be her exact words, of course, but essentially the bottom line will be that we now have a different set of rules for a Republican president.

Share this post


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

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

And if they do bring it, it will be 30+ days of concentrated ads for Republicans. 

And if they don’t, it will turn off their base. Great strategic move. 

Edited by jerseydevil20
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

I mentioned this yesterday, but Twitter is a cesspool.  I feel like I have a fairly well-manicured selection of folks who I follow, and I make it a point to follow a good chunk of people who I disagree with most of the time, which helps temper the "echo chamber" effect of the platform.  But there's really no denying that that site poisons people's brains just like Facebook and cable news.  It's a site that amplifies outrage, bad-faith takes, and dunking on dumb people.  You can use it as a tool for finding smart, long-form arguments, but that takes a lot of work.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bigbottom said:
47 minutes ago, squistion said:

Same as we have been hearing from Republicans since Ginsburg's death: "That was then and this is now".

I expect a more well-reasoned response from a future Supreme Court Justice. 

Wonder how many hours of staff time is going to be dedicated to threading this needle

Share this post


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

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

I don't know IK. Clearly part of her argument is the shifting of balance in the court. Yes, she talks at length about the senate and president being from different parties and it being an election year, but she does rely on the "replacing a staunch conservative with a liberal" angle as well

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Just saying it is better than another old man. A woman needed to replace a woman.  No matter who gets to take the seat not everyone will be pleased.

It would have never been an old man...courts will always be packed with as young as they can to ensure they serve for many many years.

Share this post


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

I don't know IK. Clearly part of her argument is the shifting of balance in the court. Yes, she talks at length about the senate and president being from different parties and it being an election year, but she does rely on the "replacing a staunch conservative with a liberal" angle as well

At the end of the interview, she says explicitly that nobody can really claim that there's a rule one way or the other on how nominations play out.  That's good because 1) it's undeniably true as a simple matter of fact and 2) that's literally the exact opposite of saying that she was defending the "McConnell rule."

It's worth noting that they cut that part out of the little clip.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

I mentioned this yesterday, but Twitter is a cesspool.  I feel like I have a fairly well-manicured selection of folks who I follow, and I make it a point to follow a good chunk of people who I disagree with most of the time, which helps temper the "echo chamber" effect of the platform.  But there's really no denying that that site poisons people's brains just like Facebook and cable news.  It's a site that amplifies outrage, bad-faith takes, and dunking on dumb people.  You can use it as a tool for finding smart, long-form arguments, but that takes a lot of work.

Watch the documentary Social Dilemma on Netflix.  The people who created the software for Twitter and FB are now sickened at how they operate.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When’s the last time a single term PotUS had 3 SCotUS appointments?

Share this post


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

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

I mentioned this yesterday, but Twitter is a cesspool.  I feel like I have a fairly well-manicured selection of folks who I follow, and I make it a point to follow a good chunk of people who I disagree with most of the time, which helps temper the "echo chamber" effect of the platform.  But there's really no denying that that site poisons people's brains just like Facebook and cable news.  It's a site that amplifies outrage, bad-faith takes, and dunking on dumb people.  You can use it as a tool for finding smart, long-form arguments, but that takes a lot of work.

Thank you for posting this. She clearly states that precedent doesn’t establish a rule one way or the other, but she does spend a fair amount of time setting out the arguments on why the Senate was justified in delaying. But she certainly did not own the position as her own, so not as much of an issue for her to address during the hearings. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her character and legal intellect can't be reasonably challenged, unlike past nominees such as Kavanaugh. She's also well spoken (interview from 2016) and has a good personal story, which includes 2 adopted children from Haiti.  It's a done deal that she'Il replace RBG. It's not good strategy for the dems to try to delay the vote or give the Trump campaign ad material during her questioning . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

Thanks for posting, this whole interview is good but for any so interested the piece about her commenting on the precedent is at 3:15, and she was asked about Rubio raising the idea that the Senate should not confirm a SC justice in an election year. While it was 2018, it was an election year. I think the point about Gorsuch is inescapable. At 4:09 she points out that the precedents for confirming Justices in an election year are 1. 1912 Taft/Pitney, 2. 1916 Wilson/Brandeis, 3. Wilson/Clarke (WW had 2!), 4. Hoover/Cardozo, 5. Reagan/Kennedy, and 6. one in the 1880s. - She also points out that Kennedy was an exception (as was the one in the 1880s) because they were done in divided WH/Senate government, and then she goes on to explain why there are reasons why Kennedy was himself an exception (it took 8 months for his nomination to make the floor, and, yes, the idea that Kennedy was replacing Powell so a moderate-to-a-moderate made it justifiable). I think at this point she is just laying out the circumstances around Rubio's point. At 5:30 she makes the observation that times have changed, and that presidents have the power to nominate and that Senate has the power to confirm or not confirm and she says it's not clear that either side can hold the claim to be right on the issue. - Actually I have to tell you IMO that snip is somewhat fairly representative. She certainly did not state that Rubio was wrong. Tbqh from a constitutional POV I find it fairly bothersome and weak when viewing the constitutional roles of the 3 branches. Now is it fair to say that it should be a gotcha in the sense that she was making some point in declaring Rubio and the Republicans "right" but by the same token she was certainly not taking a position that they were wrong when she plain well knew she was on tap to be nominated at any time.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope she is treated with utmost respect.

I also hope she is confirmed during the next GOP President's term (or wish that she were replacing Kavanaugh, and not Ginsburg).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

To quote President Obama, "Elections have consequences..."

This is one of them.

 

Exactly. Hopefully the Democrats learned that lesson. 

Share this post


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

Exactly. Hopefully the Democrats learned that lesson. 

IIRC Obama was a Democrat. Since he made the initial quote clearly the lesson was learned well prior to 2020.

Edited by Stoneworker

Share this post


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

To quote President Obama, "Elections have consequences..."

This is one of them.

There weren't in 2016 when the Merrick Garland seat was stolen.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

There weren't in 2016 when the Merrick Garland seat was stolen.

Didn't count.  Might makes right. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Didn't count.  Might makes right. 

In other words, "the ends justify the means" - even if I believed that I would never admit it on an anonymous message board.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

In other words, "the ends justify the means" - even if I believed that I would never admit on an anonymous message board.

Suuuuuuuuuure.  Not a chance in hell you'll be trolling if the Dems stack the SCOTUS.

Share this post


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

In other words, "the ends justify the means" - even if I believed that I would never admit on an anonymous message board.

Also, if might makes right in US politics, this grand experiment is over.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Suuuuuuuuuure.  Not a chance in hell you'll be trolling if the Dems stack the SCOTUS.

If it's not expressly disallowed in the constitution or existing law, then how can one be aggrieved when things go against them.  As I said, might makes right.  If you got the power, use it.  That's the rules of the game now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Z Machine said:

Also, if might makes right in US politics, this grand experiment is over.

If you mean our grand experiment in Democracy, that is a sad and cynical viewpoint IMO.

Share this post


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

If you mean our grand experiment in Democracy, that is a sad and cynical viewpoint IMO.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Z Machine said:

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. 

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

Definitely not worth cheering.  Democracy has left the building and the world is laughing at us.

Share this post


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

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

What makes you think I'm cheering? I'm pretty upset about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

You're badly misreading Z Machine here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

Who's doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

What makes you think I'm cheering? I'm pretty upset about it. 

Sure looked that way to me after you agreed with the statement that "the ends justifies the means" following it with "if might makes right" :shrug:

If I mischaracterized your viewpoint I stand corrected.

Share this post


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

Sure looked that way to me after you agreed with the statement that "the ends justifies the means" following it with "if might makes right" :shrug:

If I mischaracterized your viewpoint I stand corrected 

My statement wasn't quite sarcasm as much as it is resigned cynicism to the reality at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jerseydevil20 said:

And if they do bring it, it will be 30+ days of concentrated ads for Republicans. 

And if they don’t, it will turn off their base. Great strategic move. 

Agreed, she’s a great pic for many reasons. Try to treat her the way the did Kavanaugh, won’t be good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There weren't in 2016 when the Merrick Garland seat was stolen.

Dems failed to take control of the Senate in the previous mid term. Pretty big consequences, and that was back when Obama made the statement.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure looked that way to me after you agreed with the statement that "the ends justifies the means" following it with "if might makes right" :shrug:

If I mischaracterized your viewpoint I stand corrected.

You missed his whole tone, but that's the problem with the written word at times. His tone was indeed "resigned cyncicism,"  as he said. Virtually nobody calls American democracy a "grand experiment," praises its nobility, then cheers its demise. They don't use those words to describe it in the first place. You're likely to get an aristocratic, Marxist, anarchist, or fascist jibe about American democracy before cheering its demise. And that's when knowing the other side's code words helps tremendously.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Dems failed to take control of the Senate in the previous mid term. Pretty big consequences, and that was back when Obama made the statement.   

Exactly. The people of the great State of Kentucky elected a Senator who was willing to disregard his obligations under the U.S. Constitution. Doing so had consequences. Thanks Kentucky!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Exactly. The people of the great State of Kentucky elected a Senator who was willing to disregard his obligations under the U.S. Constitution. Doing so had consequences. Thanks Kentucky!

:hifive:

 

:oldunsure:

Share this post


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

I never thought I would live to see the day in this forum that someone would cheer the end of democracy and the adoption of authoritarian rule in this country, but I was wrong.  :(

Hyperbole much 

Share this post


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

Exactly. The people of the great State of Kentucky elected a Senator who was willing to disregard his obligations under the U.S. Constitution. Doing so had consequences. Thanks Kentucky!

The sentiment that led up to that started with the ACA ramrod. It was a group effort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseydevil20 said:

The sentiment that led up to that started with the ACA ramrod. It was a group effort. 

You mean the bill that went though a ton of actual discussion in congress?  Rather than a nominee not even getting the courtesy of hearings and a vote?  Thats a pretty poor comp and seems like childish partisan games by the GOP.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

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.