Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/22/2020 at 6:01 PM, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

This process -- focused on partisan political gain, needless theatre, and where a nominee isn't really being critically or impartially nominated or reviewed -- is inexorably broken.

This is farce and has nothing to do with ensuring that the very best serve on the highest court of the land.

I think she seems suited for the bench...no problem there.

I agree about the process and it should be a part of every democratic campaign.  How the GOP Senate, led by McConnell, thought this was more important than actual stimulus packages for Americans in need during a pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murkowski reverses course and gives GOP 52 of 53 potential yea votes...Collins only nay at this point.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced Saturday that she will ultimately vote yes on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"I will be a yes," Murkowski said Saturday in a floor speech. "I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job -- and to do it well."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/politics/murkowski-yes-vote-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-rare-saturday-session-debate-amy-coney-barrett-nomination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 6:42 PM, Stoneworker said:

Murkowski reverses course and gives GOP 52 of 53 potential yea votes...Collins only nay at this point.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced Saturday that she will ultimately vote yes on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"I will be a yes," Murkowski said Saturday in a floor speech. "I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job -- and to do it well."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/politics/murkowski-yes-vote-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-rare-saturday-session-debate-amy-coney-barrett-nomination

She stated that she was strongly opposed to filling the seat.   It shouldn't matter whether the candidate is qualified or not.  She was perfectly happy to let Garland fall by the wayside (although there as well she originally came out saying he should at least get a hearing and then reversed course).

She and Collins are cut from the same cloth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So in a nutshell what is the justification for all Democrats voting against ACB?  What disqualified her in their minds?

It had less to do with whether she was qualified and more to do with whether the seat should be getting filled with an election already underway.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Quote

“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.

“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.

2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)

Quote

“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016

Quote

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Quote

“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.

During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”

2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

What you won't find in 2016 is anyone saying Garland wasn't qualified.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Bring on 13 justices. 

Yeah, unfortunately that may be the result.   Politicizing the SC more isn't going to create more confidence.  Just more divisiveness.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What you won't find in 2016 is anyone saying Garland wasn't qualified.   

So do you guys want a return to normalcy (best line you guys have to support Biden) or do you want to one up Trump?  Yeah, those guys are hypocrites.  So is your side.  Decide what you want to be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What you won't find in 2016 is anyone saying Garland wasn't qualified.   

What you also won't find in 2016 is anyone saying the same thing they are saying in 2020.

Share this post


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

What you also won't find in 2016 is anyone saying the same thing they are saying in 2020.

Susan Collins is still very concerned.

Share this post


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

Donald got it done where Obama couldn’t 

I still think it's a miscalculation for Trump.  He should have waited until after the election.  The GOP is spineless and would have voted her in either way but he could have used the boost from folks worried that they wouldn't.

I don't think things will be close enough where having a definitive conservative court will help his reelection.

Share this post


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

Donald got it done where Obama couldn’t 

Great to see she was approved, as she should have been as a stellar option for our country. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Donald got it done where Obama couldn’t 

You mean McConnell...this (like Garland) has zero to do with Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Donald got it done where Obama couldn’t 

How so?

Share this post


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

Bring on 13 justices. 

Things didn't go my way......change the rules!:lmao:

Wait a second, you don't have 50 posts in the Shark Pool?

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Greedo said:

Bring on 13 justices. 

It's certainly not in the Constitution that there should only be 9 Judges......  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 52 GOP senators who voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett represent 17 million fewer people than the 47 Dems & 1 R who voted no.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

:lmao:

love this schtick

What schtick? It's not schtick. I genuinely do not understand what you mean here. Both Obama and Trump nominated a viable candidate. The former McConnell didn't break for a vote and the latter he did - but neither was due to Trump doing somethat better than Obama. 

So, what are you talking about?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Things didn't go my way......change the rules!:lmao:

 

While I disagree with and would criticize the Biden admin for increasing the number of justices, it wouldn't be against and/or a changing of the rules for them to do it. 

I put it on par with McConnell not bringing Garland up for a vote. Both are very dirty and against the spirit of tradition and fundamental fairness, but neither is technically against the rules or a changing of the rules. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why stop at 13? Why not 25? Why not 2 per state? 

The problem with ‘expanding’ the court is that it will never end. Each time a party has a majority they’ll expand it as well. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What you also won't find in 2016 is anyone saying the same thing they are saying in 2020.

Not true, there were a few here who said it should be brought for a vote just as this was who also say that now.  I don't recall anyone saying no to both, but there were a few who wanted Garland to at least get a hearing.  Now confirmation is something different and I suspect we are in for a period of if your party's President doesn't do the nominating, respective senators won't be voting for them anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why stop at 13? Why not 25? Why not 2 per state? 

The problem with ‘expanding’ the court is that it will never end. Each time a party has a majority they’ll expand it as well. 

Great. 

Share this post


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

Why stop at 13? Why not 25? Why not 2 per state? 

The problem with ‘expanding’ the court is that it will never end. Each time a party has a majority they’ll expand it as well. 

This is always going to be the case.  The pendulum always swings back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The 52 GOP senators who voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett represent 17 million fewer people than the 47 Dems & 1 R who voted no.

They’ve all never been in your kitchen either. 

Share this post


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

LMAO. That poll was from three weeks ago. Before Americans saw her testify in the confirmation hearings.

So this is what desperation looks like...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

This is always going to be the case.  The pendulum always swings back.

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

Edited by beef

Share this post


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

The 52 GOP senators who voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett represent 17 million fewer people than the 47 Dems & 1 R who voted no.

It's almost like the Senate gives the smaller states equal footing to New York and California. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said....had they just given garland hearings and a vote (theoretically giving him a chance to win over some GOP senators, even though that was obviously an incredible long shot) they could have pushed Barrett through and most wouldn't have complained. 

The Republicans 100 percent had the right to vote against him. I think its lame to vote against a qualified candidate for political reasons but they had that right. But not even allowing hearings was garbage and very short sighted. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all these quotes from Republican Senators in 2016 were before the Kavanaugh hearings. Can we assume the Democrats turning those hearings into a partisan witch hunt may have been a game changer?  Stooping to he said she said from a high school kegger was new ground.  
 

The Republicans probably wouldn’t get a Democrat vote if they nominated Jesus with a Harvard Law Degree.  

Share this post


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

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

And that seems to be what will happen to pack the courts...the Democrats will win the votes (this is assuming they take control), and set the policy and call the shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's startling that the seating of a new Supreme Court justice literally instills fear in a good portion of the nation. 

And that fear is totally warranted. 

 

Share this post


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

Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 

I think there's gonna be a lot of Scalia style "because I SAID SO" logic in the near future. 

Share this post


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

So do you guys want a return to normalcy (best line you guys have to support Biden) or do you want to one up Trump?  Yeah, those guys are hypocrites.  So is your side.  Decide what you want to be.

Lol...so the Democrats just have to take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

Not true, there were a few here who said it should be brought for a vote just as this was who also say that now.  I don't recall anyone saying no to both, but there were a few who wanted Garland to at least get a hearing.  Now confirmation is something different and I suspect we are in for a period of if your party's President doesn't do the nominating, respective senators won't be voting for them anymore.

This is the answer,  Garland deserved to have a hearing.. If the GOP voted no for x reason then that would be on them to tell the American public.

 

But to not take up the Garland nomination, and then to rush ACB through is/was wrong.   And its why I am ok with the Dems expanding the court since, what was done by McConnell was dirty politics.   ACB is qualified no doubt about that.. just like Garland was qualified.  This process is not about the nominee's but about the process done by the GOP and McConnell.  

Share this post


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

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

Disagree.. its not a retaliation its about doing what's right.   And there is nothing that say the Supreme Court is best at 9.  Personally for me having the Court at 15 or so would be better and would reduce the influence that this process has..    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Lol...so the Democrats just have to take it?

You want normalcy or do you want to act like what you've complained about for 4 years?

Share this post


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

Disagree.. its not a retaliation its about doing what's right.   And there is nothing that say the Supreme Court is best at 9.  Personally for me having the Court at 15 or so would be better and would reduce the influence that this process has..    

Packing it with 6 will reduce the influence?  :lmao:

Sure, let's go with that.  So you're good with Trump naming 6 more before January?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You want normalcy or do you want to act like what you've complained about for 4 years?

Elections have consequences or so I've been told.  And yes I want a return to the normal non-radical ring wing court where Supreme Court justices don't parrot right wing talking points and know how state's decide elections in their opinions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Elections have consequences or so I've been told.  And yes I want a return to the normal non-radical ring wing court where Supreme Court justices don't parrot right wing talking points and know how state's decide elections in their opinions.  

You want the SCOTUS to favor your politics and since you lost the last election you want to change the SCOTUS rules so it's balanced in your favor?  Yeah, nothing dangerous about that kind of behavior

Share this post


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

You want the SCOTUS to favor your politics and since you lost the last election you want to change the SCOTUS rules so it's balanced in your favor?  Yeah, nothing dangerous about that kind of behavior

Yeah nothing dangerous with what McConnell pull the past 5 years to get a SC to favor his politics.  Nothing at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Witz said:

Why stop at 13? Why not 25? Why not 2 per state? 

The problem with ‘expanding’ the court is that it will never end. Each time a party has a majority they’ll expand it as well. 

If there's concern about the court being packed......Congress has the ability to remedy that.  I don't really hear much in regards to legislation being brought up to solidify 9.  All I hear is about "tradition".

I'd have a lot more respect for the concerns about "packing the court" if politicians in Congress would push to settle it.  

 

ETA: And I'm not one who really thinks there's a need to "pack a court".  

Edited by Thunderlips

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.