What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)

Weebs210 said:
Just because someone makes a false allegation doesn't make it truly controversial. HTH.
Click to expand...
A controversy exists regardless of how you or I or anyone thinks of the right answer is.

However he was controversial before the Ford issue came up. The judge he clerked with, his work on nominations, his view of domestic surveillance, work on torture policy, and his receipt of stolen data at the DOJ were all controversies that could arise with his nomination.

Do you have any theories why he wasn’t on the original list?

eta - Also thanks for responding.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It could definitely take some unexpected turns. I have to say the Roberts' opinion in the ACA case where he put limits on the Commerce Clause (cheers, groundbreaking conservative moment) only to open the door wide in almost unlimited fashion via the tax amendment was pretty unexpected. It would also be unexpected for conservatives if BK thoroughly backs Trump's imperial presidency only to see that power taken later by liberal courts to exact all sorts of regulation via executive orders. Who knows, it's true. Like Kavanaugh said, what goes around comes around. Probably too much hubris for the Republicans' own good here, we'll see.
Click to expand...
You don't see the possibility of the conservative majority coming up with Constitutional justifications that allow GOP presidents to use executive power arbitrarily, but also come up with justifications to strike down anything they politically disagree with when the Democrats are in control? Anybody bright enough to get the Supreme Court ought to have a high skill in sophistry.

 
Sinn Fein said:
"innocent until proven guilty" only applies to white males - that is how the founding fathers meant it.
Click to expand...
German/Irish heritage so I am more than white, I am translucent.  Hell, I sun burn under 40 watt soft white bulbs.  Also male, or at least I was before marrying and becoming a father.  Still, I wonder, would our founders be O.K. with me, you know, because of the Irish blood?  I mean it is pretty shameful except that it can lead to lasses like the one in my avatar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
German/Irish heritage so I am more than white, I am translucent.  hell, I sun burn under 40 watt soft white bulbs.  Also male, or at least I was before marrying and becoming a father.  Still, I wonder, would our founders be O.K. with me, you know, because of the Irish blood?  I mean it is pretty shameful except that it can lead to lasses like the one in my avatar.
Click to expand...
Given the likelihood of such progeny, I'll allow it.

 
Jackstraw said:
Come on Mitch at least stop pretendung there is some kind of precedent or principal you are operating under. Pure naked power grab. All the way. 
Click to expand...
So you are suspicious that this represents growth on his part, that he listened to reasoned arguments from others and changed his view based upon principals and reason.

Me too.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
German/Irish heritage so I am more than white, I am translucent.  hell, I sun burn under 40 watt soft white bulbs.  Also male, or at least I was before marrying and becoming a father.  Still, I wonder, would our founders be O.K. with me, you know, because of the Irish blood?  I mean it is pretty shameful except that it can lead to lasses like the one in my avatar.
Click to expand...
Irish Need Not Apply

 
Henry Ford said:
I didn't until his hearings started.
Click to expand...
That's because you allow your reason to control your emotion.  If you could just get over that you could get on one band wagon or the other, but no, you, you silly, you insist upon reason and principals guiding you.  Sure, passion can color in the edges of your works, but only after laid down by reason. You are an anachronism, a dinosaur in an age of mammals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
That's because you allow your reason to control your emotion.  If you could just get over that you could get on one band wagon or the other, but no, you, you silly, you insist upon reason and principals guiding you.  Sure, passion can color in the edges of your works, but only after laid down by reason. You are an anachronism, a dinosaur in an age of mammals.
Click to expand...
Can I be one of the cool dinosaurs?

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
So you are suspicious that this represents growth on his part, that he listened to reasoned arguments from others and changed his view based upon principals and reason.

Me too.
Click to expand...
It's a ballsy take.  The "no confirmation in an election year" approach only applies when the President and Senate are from different political parties.  He really should just state that the rule only applies if the Republicans control the Senate to avoid having to backtrack in the off-chance the Dems gain control of the Senate at some point.

 
bigbottom said:
It's a ballsy take.  The "no confirmation in an election year" approach only applies when the President and Senate are from different political parties.  He really should just state that the rule only applies if the Republicans control the Senate to avoid having to backtrack in the off-chance the Dems gain control of the Senate at some point.
Click to expand...
Foresight may not be his strength.

 
Henry Ford said:
Agreed.  

I can see "I don't believe her."  I don't agree with it, I think it indicates that the person saying it is working hard to avoid believing her, but I can see it.

I don't understand "I believe her, but she's wrong."
Click to expand...
It seems polite society decided that certain ideas can't be directly expressed in public but as long as a person uses the right code words and dog whistles it's equally frowned upon to call them out for it.

So saying "I believe Dr Ford but she's misidentifying her assailant" is the approved code words for the far right in this case. A Senator voting for BK that said publicly "I think she completely made this story up and is doing it for partisan purposes." would be crucified. Saying " I don't care if it's true or not I just want another far right Justice on the court." or "I love the taste of liberal tears." would probably be received poorly as well. 

 
Mike Damone said:
The Commish said:
I think as long as the GOP and Trump supports continue to bring up this nonsense about "playing by the rules" and "not awarding obstruction" Garland is a completely legitimate example of the hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" culture prevalent among the GOP and Trump supporters :shrug:  
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don’t make a right. 
Click to expand...
Agreed....that's exactly why I said it a perfectly legit example of hypocrisy and stayed away as a means to justify.  The GOP and trump supporters don't have the moral high ground they think they have.  There was plenty of crap to be owned by both parties in this latest fiasco.

 
Snotbubbles said:
They were slimy because they could have kept the whole thing confidential (which is what Ford wanted).  Instead Feinstein leaked this to the press violating Ford's wishes.  This act as Feinstein wanted had Kavanaugh tried in the court of public opinion.  Even with an FBI investigation finding no corroborating evidence Kavanaugh will still be viewed as a rapist/assaulter and anyone who is pro-Kavanaugh will be viewed as pro-sexual assualt.  That's pretty slimy.     
Click to expand...
 I want to make sure I understand you.  Are you saying "an anonymous source has come forward and provided information that is detrimental to Kavanaugh's reputation" would have passed the sniff test with you?  Do you genuinely believe that this would have passed the sniff test with the GOPers on the committee too?

 
Mike Damone said:
Two wrongs don’t make a right. 
Click to expand...
I agree but there is nothing wrong with pointing out the wrong- especially a wrong that comes with a lifetime position. The fair thing would be for the GOP to be passed over next time they get a chance to nominate. Ofcourse that will not happen because it's not about right or wrong, or fairness. It's just about winning the game. 

 
Insomniac said:
It seems polite society decided that certain ideas can't be directly expressed in public but as long as a person uses the right code words and dog whistles it's equally frowned upon to call them out for it.

So saying "I believe Dr Ford but she's misidentifying her assailant" is the approved code words for the far right in this case. A Senator voting for BK that said publicly "I think she completely made this story up and is doing it for partisan purposes." would be crucified. Saying " I don't care if it's true or not I just want another far right Justice on the court." or "I love the taste of liberal tears." would probably be received poorly as well. 
Click to expand...
Now that he’s confirmed, it’s ok to follow Trump’s lead and call it a hoax.

 
Sorry I just can't get outraged by this. I was outraged when there was an open seat before the 2016 election that the Republicans pretty much dared the Democratic voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home. A day late and a dollar short now.  I expect Trump to get two more. Elections have consequences so the Democratic voters get what they deserve. 

 
Weebs210 said:
Your side would have disgreed with any Trump nomination. 
Click to expand...
I'm so sick of this argument.   The righteousness of the one side acting like they wouldn't act like the other side is insane.  The lack of self awareness when making a statement like this is nuts.  The Republicans wouldn't even let a process to start on the last D nominated appointee.   Both side are acting incredibly bad and only out to "win".   No one is thinking of the people they represent.   It's disgusting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
I'm so sick of this argument.   The righteousness of the one side acting like they wouldn't act like the other side is insane.  The lack of self awareness when making a statement like this is nuts.  The Republicans would even let a process to start on the last D nominated appointee.   Both side are acting incredibly bad and only out to "win".   No one is thinking of the people they represent.   It's disgusting. 
Click to expand...
So we agree?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think this was actually a fair point. What RBG said was inappropriate. But it is different in the sense that BK expressed that he was the victim of political partisanship. RBG would have never been confirmed if she had engaged in the behavior BK showed or if she had made a comment about a presidential nominee like that when she was nominated. But again for BK it was personal. I think this was the concern that he would take personal animus to the Court, not just some hidden internal political bias.
Click to expand...
RBG also apologized and said she regretted she said it. She said that a judge should not be political and she will do better in the future.

She made a mistake and apologized for it.

 
whoknew said:
RBG also apologized and said she regretted she said it. She said that a judge should not be political and she will do better in the future.

She made a mistake and apologized for it.
Click to expand...
Admitted to a mistake and apologized for it?  She’s lucky John Kelly hasn’t told Trump that Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.

 
squistion said:
"I made my decision based on facts":

Facing criticism, Manchin tries to explain his Kavanaugh vote to constituents:

https://www.apnews.com/26dec8bced1146a9af04f7882ca5d671/Manchin-scorched-from-both-sides-after-Kavanaugh-vote?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

And if you believe that, I got some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.
Click to expand...
A prime example right here of what’s wrong with politics today 

 
Mile High said:
Sorry I just can't get outraged by this. I was outraged when there was an open seat before the 2016 election that the Republicans pretty much dared the Democratic voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home. A day late and a dollar short now.  I expect Trump to get two more. Elections have consequences so the Democratic voters get what they deserve. 
Click to expand...
This is an interesting mindset. Is your outrage completely dependent upon the inaction of a political party? As long as something is decided by an election, you're okay with it?

"I can't get outraged by Obamacare because Obama pretty much dared the Republican voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home"

"I can't get outraged by abortion because the liberals pretty much dared the Republican voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home"

 
Mr. Ham said:
Look past your nose at her point.  Trump has been stacking the Federal court system with unqualified partisan cronies.
Click to expand...
Reid specifically got rid of the filibuster rule so that Obama could do the exact same thing.  And he did in much larger measure than what DJT has managed, including simply expanding the DC court to widen the gulf there.  

 
Sand said:
Reid specifically got rid of the filibuster rule so that Obama could do the exact same thing.  And he did in much larger measure than what DJT has managed, including simply expanding the DC court to widen the gulf there.  
Click to expand...
I believe this is untrue, though I'm open to correction. As I understand this, the Republicans-"The Party of No" and "number one priority is to make Obama a one term President"-refused to confirm essentially any (?) of Obama's lower court judges. They were paralyzing the system for pure partisanship. Reid's action was in response to this, and if I recall was only taken after months of inaction by the Repubs.

I don't know whether Obama was stacking liberal judges-it wouldn't surprise me-or more moderate judges along the lines of Garland. Regardless, Republicans actively sabotaged his Presidency.

Obviously, it gave the Repubs pretext for their SCOTUS confirmation rule change, even though there's a good argument that there's a significant difference in confirming for lower courts vs confirming for the SCOTUS.

I think your insinuation that Reid's rule change was done specifically so Obama could stack the lower courts to be disingenuous and essentially untrue.

As I said, I'm open to correction. I don't believe that Reid's rule change and McConnells rule change are remotely qualitatively the same, either regarding impetus or outcome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
Reid specifically got rid of the filibuster rule so that Obama could do the exact same thing.  And he did in much larger measure than what DJT has managed, including simply expanding the DC court to widen the gulf there.  
Click to expand...
You got some bad info here.  Reid did not expand the DC Circuit, unless confirming judges to fill vacancies counts as “expanding.” 

 
[scooter] said:
This is an interesting mindset. Is your outrage completely dependent upon the inaction of a political party? As long as something is decided by an election, you're okay with it?

"I can't get outraged by Obamacare because Obama pretty much dared the Republican voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home"

"I can't get outraged by abortion because the liberals pretty much dared the Republican voters to put up or shut up and they decided to stay home"
Click to expand...
I think I was pretty clear. Democratic voters had the chance to determine the leanings of the Supreme Court for the next 20 plus years with a open seat and two setting justices in their 80s and they blew it. Now the Republicans get to decide. Elections have consequences 

 
Sand said:
Maybe the Senate can repurpose some of their security, seeing as their leak started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Oh?  Were they found guilty of that leak, or are we again just throwing out "innocent until proven guilty" for Senators, but not for people being interviewed by Senators?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
8K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top