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 (6 Viewers)

dgreen said:
You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.
Click to expand...
I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.

 
Snotbubbles said:
It does.  Democratic Super PACs are getting massive funding.  Fund for Policy Reform ($45M), Democracy PAC ($35M), Carpenters and Joiners Union ($30M), 1630 Fund ($25M), Senate Majority PAC ($20M), League of Conservation Voters $20M), Everytown for Gun Safety ($15M).  The top Republican Super PACs are American Action Network ($20M) and America First Policies ($15M).  It's the pot calling the kettle black.  
Click to expand...
Sure.  But the point is at this level the size of the problem or corruption is worthless.  They are both so massively corrupted and comprised its 6 of one or 1/2 a dozen the other.   Wether you rob 10 banks or 30 matters little, you’re a bank robber none the less.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.
Click to expand...
People get way too caught up in "terms".     

 
dkp993 said:
Sure.  But the point is at this level the size of the problem or corruption is worthless.  They are both so massively corrupted and comprised its 6 of one or 1/2 a dozen the other.   Wether you rob 10 banks or 30 matters little, you’re a bank robber none the less.  
Click to expand...
But it's not really worthless.  If you have $300M in funds and your opponent has $100M in funds, you shouldn't complain that your opponent has $100M in funds.  The playing field isn't level.

 
Snotbubbles said:
But it's not really worthless.  If you have $300M in funds and your opponent has $100M in funds, you shouldn't complain that your opponent has $100M in funds.  The playing field isn't level.
Click to expand...
Whitehouse is playing politics, as was ever single other person at that hearing.  I’m not agreeing with his position, just merely pointing out a massive problem that he happened to highlight. And if you think it’s 100m vs 300m you’re nuts, truth is it’s likely multiples of billions on both sides with lobbying added in.  We are all getting played, by all of them.   The money in politics, and rules that allow it, is what’s dividing and damaging this country  

 
Da Guru said:
People get way too caught up in "terms".     
Click to expand...
It's that way by design.  The cult changes its approved terminology every couple of years.  That serves the purpose of making it easy for members of the in-group to signal their in-group status while out-group members unmask themselves by using last year's terminology.  (Not a joke -- that's actually an important sociological reason behind why the approved nomenclature changes all the time).

 
dkp993 said:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1316126029522575363
 

Found this interesting.  The same #### is going on in the left too without question but it should just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve tumbled.  SERIOUS reform is needed, and it’s clear we don’t have the will power to do it.  
Click to expand...
It may be interesting, but there's no reason for these speeches in the context of a confirmation hearing.  I heard one on the radio this morning from the other side.  What is the point of debating healthcare or abortion politics in this context?  I would be happy if we never had any public confirmation hearings, period.  But if they have to do it, the senators should be strictly limited to only asking relevant questions of the nominee, solely in connection with their advice and consent role. 

 
CletiusMaximus said:
It may be interesting, but there's no reason for these speeches in the context of a confirmation hearing.  I heard one on the radio this morning from the other side.  What is the point of debating healthcare or abortion politics in this context?  I would be happy if we never had any public confirmation hearings, period.  But if they have to do it, the senators should be strictly limited to only asking relevant questions of the nominee, solely in connection with their advice and consent role. 
Click to expand...
Yep, unfortunately grandstanding has become the standard expected norm for any of these public congressional events. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.
Click to expand...
This is a good post. 

 
She had to have left off the right to protest on purpose. Total signal to the base. Otherwise convince me a SC nominee doesn't know the rights guaranteed in the First, c'mon. I was born at night but not last night.  

 
wikkidpissah said:
hmmm
Click to expand...
What does the catechism say about lying?

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
Click to expand...
More available here

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
She had to have left off the right to protest on purpose. Total signal to the base. Otherwise convince me a SC nominee doesn't know the rights guaranteed in the First, c'mon. I was born at night but not last night.  
Click to expand...
A law professor to boot.

I am a lowly teacher certified to teach Social Studies from grade 5 through adult ed and I know the Bill of Rights by heart. The other 17 take a little head scratching, but I know them.

 
Stoneworker said:
This thread beginning to reek of liberal desperation...
Click to expand...
This is the person who I wanted nominated instead of Kavanaugh, and I posted as much at the time.  I also would have liked to have seen Kavanaugh's nomination pulled and replaced with Barrett.

It's not often that I get strong confirmation that I was right when it comes to this sort of historical counter-factual, but the substantive arguments against this nominee are so humorously weak and made in such obviously bad faith that I feel even better about this nominee than I did before.

Edit: The president sending up a highly-qualified nominee who is then confirmed by the senate = "the fix is in."  A source of "dismay" even.  You just can't make this stuff up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
I would imagine that there would be decisions involving climate change and the environment (either directly or indirectly) that would come before her.
Click to expand...
A justice can be atheist and still appropriately analyze the First Amendment and apply stare decisis and critical thinking when confronted with an issue of the establishment clause and, conversely, a person's right to practice a particular religion that does believe in God/god. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is the person who I wanted nominated instead of Kavanaugh, and I posted as much at the time.  I also would have liked to have seen Kavanaugh's nomination pulled and replaced with Barrett.

It's not often that I get strong confirmation that I was right when it comes to this sort of historical counter-factual, but the substantive arguments against this nominee are so humorously weak and made in such obviously bad faith that I feel even better about this nominee than I did before.

Edit: The president sending up a highly-qualified nominee who is then confirmed by the senate = "the fix is in."  You just can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
She's probably better than Kavanaugh. Frankly though, her views and background seem a bit extreme. Do you think she knew the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, or did she just happen to forget a specific one coincidentally? I'm sure that's not substantive enough of course, not saying it is.

Look we all know the confirmation is a done deal. It seems to me that she represents a small sliver of America, from her religion (hint: not Catholicism) to her inability to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. She's a Trumper, IMO. All the issues he wants, she was asked about and refused to answer. Can he pardon himself? Can he move the election date? Is voter intimidation illegal? Because he wants her there when he declares himself the winner of the election and takes it to court. And she will vote to his liking.

Feel free to pretend this is anything but that though. 20 days before the election with 10 million votes already cast and counting, and Garland couldn't get a hearing 6 months from election day. C'mon, we all know what's going on here. 

 
Zow said:
A justice can be atheist and still appropriately analyze the First Amendment and apply stare decisis and critical thinking when confronted with an issue of the establishment clause and, conversely, a person's right to practice a particular religion that does believe in God/god. 
Click to expand...
In theory but I doubt she will be objective after reading this and I imagine that we will have to agree to disagree.

https://twitter.com/Hegemommy/status/1316452405345579008

Blumenthal pivots to corruption and then climate change and Barrett won't offer up if she thinks climate change is real

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
She's probably better than Kavanaugh. Frankly though, her views and background seem a bit extreme. Do you think she knew the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, or did she just happen to forget a specific one coincidentally? I'm sure that's not substantive enough of course, not saying it is.

Look we all know the confirmation is a done deal. It seems to me that she represents a small sliver of America, from her religion (hint: not Catholicism) to her inability to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. She's a Trumper, IMO. All the issues he wants, she was asked about and refused to answer. Can he pardon himself? Can he move the election date? Is voter intimidation illegal? Because he wants her there when he declares himself the winner of the election and takes it to court. And she will vote to his liking.

Feel free to pretend this is anything but that though. 20 days before the election with 10 million votes already cast and counting, and Garland couldn't get a hearing 6 months from election day. C'mon, we all know what's going on here. 
Click to expand...
1.  Trump has the constitutional right to nominate her. 

2.  She is overwhelmingly qualified for the position. 

The rest of this is supposition and conjecture.  She should be and will be confirmed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Desperation?  No, it is dismay as her confirmation is a fait accompli. 
Click to expand...
The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.

 
Stoneworker said:
The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.
Click to expand...
Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).

 
Everyone should understand why the Republicans are doing what they are doing.

Everyone should understand why the Democrats are doing what they are doing.

 
squistion said:
Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).
Click to expand...
Ah. Now I see. Rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to advise and consent, Democrats are spitefully protesting losing a political battle. So much for any moral high ground.

 
unckeyherb said:
This seat is not being stolen.  There is a vacancy, Trump has every right to nominate a replacement.  Full stop. 

Terrible actions by Mconnell notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Agreed Herb but statements like the bolded below are laughably partisan in context to what happened with Garland

Stoneworker said:
The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.
Click to expand...

 
Even if what happened to Garland 4 years ago never took place, I think there is a valid argument that we are too close to the election to rush this through. Especially in the midst of a pandemic.

I believe a firm deadline should be set for the future to avoid these arguments.

If Trump is elected, he can put her up and the elected Senate can confirm. But votes are already cast. Again, ignoring Garland, this shouldn't be rushed through at this hour.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but what's the closest to an election (or lame duck period) that a justice has been appointed?

 
unckeyherb said:
squistion said:
Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).
Click to expand...
This seat is not being stolen.  There is a vacancy, Trump has every right to nominate a replacement.  Full stop. 

Terrible actions by Mconnell notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
The rules keep being changed to whatever benefits the republicans in the moment. Fact. I'm sure you know that though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2Squirrels1Nut said:
The rules keep being changed to whatever benefits the republicans in the moment. Fact. I'm sure you know that though.
Click to expand...
False. The rules are being applied as they always have.  29 times a seat has come up during an election, 29 times the sitting president, regardless of party has made a nomination. Unsurprisingly, if the senate and president are politically aligned, it usually confirms and if not then it usually doesn't  This is how it always has been for more than 200 years.  

The rules are consistent.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
She had to have left off the right to protest on purpose. Total signal to the base. Otherwise convince me a SC nominee doesn't know the rights guaranteed in the First, c'mon. I was born at night but not last night.  
Click to expand...
She is the smartest person in the room. It says people have the right to  peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That, in itself, is not a protest and therefore she does not call it that. 

 
I know one thing. I would NEVER play poker with this woman. No matter what they say, her eyebrow doesn't even raise.  

 
Is Roe v. Wade cooked when Barrett gets in.....or would/could she find herself (or any of the other Judges) in a situation where although she might not personally believe in abortion.... Roe v. Wade doesn't go against the Constitution?

Smarter people, please answer.

 
Thunderlips said:
Is Roe v. Wade cooked when Barrett gets in.....or would/could she find herself (or any of the other Judges) in a situation where although she might not personally believe in abortion.... Roe v. Wade doesn't go against the Constitution?

Smarter people, please answer.
Click to expand...
Just by how it would really work, it certainly wouldn't be cooked.  After all, its not like someone just knocks on her door and says "Abortion! you for or again' it? Go!

There would have to be case...a case so compelling that it work through local and circuit courts and then up to the supreme court. And then you would have the entire court hearing the case and she, to me, seems to be a person who will hear the particulars of a case and decide it as it turns on its own merits. 

 
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
7K
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: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top