Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

Very impressive nominee...impeccable credentials and a Mother of seven with two adopted children from Haiti...excellent speech that did a good job weaving between personal and professional while showing reverance to RBG...tough to picture a better introduction then what just happened.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Boston said:

Very impressive nominee...impeccable credentials and a Mother of seven with two adopted children from Haiti...excellent speech that did a good job weaving between personal and professional while showing reverance to RBG...tough to picture a better introduction then what just happened.

yea but, but, something.  I'm going to predict some sort of racism attack.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours 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
1 hour ago, Boston said:

Very impressive nominee...impeccable credentials and a Mother of seven with two adopted children from Haiti...excellent speech that did a good job weaving between personal and professional while showing reverance to RBG...tough to picture a better introduction then what just happened.

Watched some interviews today and it seems ACB is very well respected and her past is cleaner than a hounds tooth.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


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

 

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.

Before I get into this, did you follow the events in the BK hearing at all?

Share this post


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

Before I get into this, did you follow the events in the BK hearing at all?

yep.

Share this post


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

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

Likely the best you'll get is something like "that was a lame duck president and a Senate controlled by the opposite party"...I'm pretty confident you'll be left wanting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And you have never heard of Mark Judge? Have no idea who he is?

all I asked was this following below.  I guess I don't remember him testifying or being central to , well anything.   a link or if too much trouble it's okay.  have a good one.

 

1 hour ago, shadrap said:

 

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.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

yea but, but, something.  I'm going to predict some sort of racism attack.  

So far the attacks have been against her religion. I thought this country didn’t do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to hearing the GOP convince their followers that the party that nominated a Catholic to be President hates Catholics.

Edited by McBokonon
actually more than one
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So far the attacks have been against her religion. I thought this country didn’t do that.

Who is attacking?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, shadrap said:
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

all I asked was this following below.  I guess I don't remember him testifying or being central to , well anything.   a link or if too much trouble it's okay.  have a good one.

Long story short, Mark Judge was BK’s best friend in HS, and it was claimed he was the sole witness to the events at issue described by Ford. He wrote a very brief letter in his friend’s defense but he refused to testify. But previous to all that Judge had written a book describing the insane, alcohol fueled party life he led in high school, and in that book he described his friend “Bart” as having partook. Turns out in 1983 BK wrote a letter describing a similar milieu and signing it “Bart.”

There’s a lot around all that but BK not even being willing to testify that “Bart” was his nom de guerre and pointing back at his friend whom he knew would never rat him out was the bottom of lack of candor. Point being even a simple background research team would’ve and likely did realize this would pose problems for the nomination. But set it on fire Trump did, as he always does.

No, I don’t want to talk about BK, this is a pretty basic point. I apologize if my response sounded rude. Really I was saying in my OP that Barrett comes from nothing like that background.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

Who is attacking?

The guy mentioning her religion and number of kids?  Can you try to ask an intelligent question and stop crapping in every thread with this nonsense zinger stuff?

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Who is attacking?

Democratic Senators named Dianne Feinstein, for one.

Anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Barrett confirmation hearings

In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/anti-catholic-bigotry-has-no-place-barrett-confirmation-hearings/

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Democratic Senators named Dianne Feinstein, for one.

Anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Barrett confirmation hearings

In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/anti-catholic-bigotry-has-no-place-barrett-confirmation-hearings/

So 2017 attacked her religion?  Or in 2017 someone  pointes out how that may affect her legal rulings?  (And I say this as a Catholic)

Share this post


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

Democratic Senators named Dianne Feinstein, for one.

Anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Barrett confirmation hearings

In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/anti-catholic-bigotry-has-no-place-barrett-confirmation-hearings/

Trump called the Pope “disgraceful.” How do you feel about that?

Share this post


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

Trump called the Pope “disgraceful.” How do you feel about that?


I think Trump says stupid things.  Don't know that I feel it changes Feinstein's comments nor is it the standard we should judge others by.  

"Is this worse than anything Trump said?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

Lol. Wrong as usual. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jerseydevil20 said:

Lol. Wrong as usual. 

Whixh was wrong...be specific rather than making blanket and unsubstantiated statements.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Trump called the Pope “disgraceful.” How do you feel about that?

He feels too busy answer.

Share this post


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

Whixh was wrong...be specific rather than making blanket and unsubstantiated statements.

Pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill?  No time to read it?  Gymnastics to avoid Scott Brown’s involvement. Off the top of my head. 

Share this post


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


I think Trump says stupid things.  Don't know that I feel it changes Feinstein's comments nor is it the standard we should judge others by.  

"Is this worse than anything Trump said?"

Feinstein’s reaction is the same as that to Sotomayor’s ‘Latina’ statement. Yes as Catholic Barrett will bring her background into her reasoning, just as Sotomayor. What’s bothersome is posing offense.

Share this post


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

Pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill?  No time to read it?  Gymnastics to avoid Scott Brown’s involvement. Off the top of my head. 

Yeah, you should read the whole quote about passing to find out whats in it...none of this also actually addresses what I stated about the amount of discussions on the actual bill.

 

Share this post


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

Trump called the Pope “disgraceful.” How do you feel about that?

Sorry. My feelings aren't relevant. A question was asked and I answered it.

Share this post


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

Sorry. My feelings aren't relevant. A question was asked and I answered it.

The question asked was who is attacking (her religion)...and you answered by quoting something from 2017.  In addition, that wasn’t attacking against her religion, but how her religion could affect her legal decisions.  Which are fair questions given the Catholic Church’s views on abortion.

Share this post


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

Sorry. My feelings aren't relevant. A question was asked and I answered it.

Yes, dogmatically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The question asked was who is attacking (her religion)...and you answered by quoting something from 2017.  In addition, that wasn’t attacking against her religion, but how her religion could affect her legal decisions.  Which are fair questions given the Catholic Church’s views on abortion.

If you really want to get grammatically anal, the original post was...So far the attacks have been against her religion.

So you asking who is attacking (present tense) in response shows lack of reading comprehension. A more proper question would have been, "Who has so far attacked her religious beliefs?"

Please just stop trolling.

Share this post


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

If you really want to get grammatically anal, the original post was...So far the attacks have been against her religion.

So you asking who is attacking (present tense) in response shows lack of reading comprehension. A more proper question would have been, "Who has so far attacked her religious beliefs?"

Please just stop trolling.

So far would indicate now...not in a 3 year old confirmation hearing.  It isn't trolling to ask that, nor is it trolling to point out how your response had nothing to do with the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President proposed banning every Muslim from entering the country (in several forms, being stopped by the courts each time.) He recently sent his daugher in law to campaign for a GOP congressional nominee who says Muslims should not be able to hold public office.

But noting someone’s dogmatic views may affect her impartiality in ruling cases is somehow anti-Catholic?

 

Seems a little rich, no?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So far the attacks have been against her religion. I thought this country didn’t do that.

Religion-based attacks have been a pretty small minority of the criticisms of ACB. Pretty much every elected Dem is going after her on the ACA/Roe, while as far as I can tell, the high-profile attacks against her Catholicism have been limited to:

-A dumb Feinstein comment from 2017
-An incorrect Newsweek article
-A monologue from Bill Maher

Edited by caustic
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sho nuff said:

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.

Yes, the 7,000 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass to find out what's in it.

That bill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

Yes, the 7,000 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass to find out what's in it.

That bill.

Your link does not say what you think it says.  

She did not say "they" had to learn what was in it, she said "you" did.   

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Yes, the 7,000 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass to find out what's in it.

That bill.

Much like with what feels like every other topic that gets debated in this forum and in our current political climate, I feel compelled to simply respond with “no, that’s not what any of that means.”

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Long story short, Mark Judge was BK’s best friend in HS, and it was claimed he was the sole witness to the events at issue described by Ford. He wrote a very brief letter in his friend’s defense but he refused to testify. But previous to all that Judge had written a book describing the insane, alcohol fueled party life he led in high school, and in that book he described his friend “Bart” as having partook. Turns out in 1983 BK wrote a letter describing a similar milieu and signing it “Bart.”

There’s a lot around all that but BK not even being willing to testify that “Bart” was his nom de guerre and pointing back at his friend whom he knew would never rat him out was the bottom of lack of candor. Point being even a simple background research team would’ve and likely did realize this would pose problems for the nomination. But set it on fire Trump did, as he always does.

No, I don’t want to talk about BK, this is a pretty basic point. I apologize if my response sounded rude. Really I was saying in my OP that Barrett comes from nothing like that background.

0ther than to say I'd hate to be a defendant in a murder case with you on the jury I too will let the Blasey Ford idiotic, baseless, witness absent, partison testimony slide into history also.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Much like with what feels like every other topic that gets debated in this forum and in our current political climate, I feel compelled to simply respond with “no, that’s not what any of that means.”

Of course its not...which has been explained so many times on this board over the years.  Nor does even her comments out of context ever mean that the bill wasn't debated over and over among democrats and republicans.  It was.  A month long markup...over 100 republican amendments...yeah, totally the same as not even bringing a Supreme Court Justice for discussion or vote.  Exactly...

 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, McBokonon said:

Looking forward to hearing the GOP convince their followers that the party that nominated a Catholic to be President hates Catholics.

Libs have held their noses so much already with Joe Biden, what's one more?

Edited by Mr Anonymous

Share this post


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

JFK and also John Kerry but ok

It's only a problem when the person has or is assumed to have an "R" in front of their name. That should be obvious by now. #MeToo unless you accuse a Democrat. #BLM unless you're a black cop, #BreakTheCeiling unless you're in line to be a Conservative Supreme Court Justice, etc.

Share this post


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

Much like with what feels like every other topic that gets debated in this forum and in our current political climate, I feel compelled to simply respond with “no, that’s not what any of that means.”

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your link does not say what you think it says.  

She did not say "they" had to learn what was in it, she said "you" did.   

And this is good policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

It's only a problem when the person has or is assumed to have an "R" in front of their name. That should be obvious by now. #MeToo unless you accuse a Democrat. #BLM unless you're a black cop, #BreakTheCeiling unless you're in line to be a Conservative Supreme Court Justice, etc.

BLM  protested the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and half of the six officers originally charged were African American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

 

6 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

And this is good policy?

:crickets:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

 

:crickets:

Because the public reads all the bills?   Laws aren't really made like that.  They are debated and amended in congress...that is what we elect them to do.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

It was definitely not a transparent process. Facts, and all.   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/lets-recall-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-so-messed-up/%3foutputType=amp

Share this post


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

So the 7 kids thing is true?

Yikes.

Not sure the intent here - but not a good look.

Her kids are not up for nomination, nor are they in any way relevant to how she might rule as a SC justice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

Are you suggesting that I could not go read the bill that passed the senate more than two months prior to passing the house?  Or go to places like the Kaiser foundation and read summaries of the legislation that allowed me to be reasonably informed?

Sure the changes the House made that passed in reconciliation were a bit hurried.  But in any case just like your point about what Nancy Pelosi said you are wrong!

  • 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.