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 (4 Viewers)

NightStalkers said:
Trump isn't the only one.  I remember Obama blaming the slow economy growth on how Bush left him economically wise.  And that was 6 years into his term. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I wouldn't call it the same because one was limited whereas Trump is....NOT! The bigger point is that generally speaking these guys act respectful of each other 99.9% of the time if one or the other is retired from public service. Trump has ignored these unspoken rules to a degree NEVER seen before, and so it shouldn't be surprising that he's received such back in kind.

This is just one additional example of how Trump has changed things (IMHO) for the (MUCH) worse.

 
renesauz said:
It makes sense in the case of the Presidency. Electoral votes are still allocated based on population. Except in one or two recently established cases, the state votes for ONE person based on the results in that state. So NY, California, etc. DO still carry far more weight...it just doesn't matter if a politician wins by 1 vote or 10 million votes within the specific state, they get the same electoral vote boost.

While I think it's fair to question the Senates role/power re. the Supreme court, I'm less convinced this is a bad thing re. the Presidency itself because it is NOT the same. Californis/NY DO CARRY (significantly) MORE WEIGHT then North Dakota in that election.
Click to expand...
i think that the original intention of the creation of a Senate was twofold.  

One is to keep the bigger states from ganging up on the smaller ones population wise.  Especially since the House is based soley on population.

Second i think it was intended to be less reactionary body than the house which elects every 2 years.  It is not only the Supreme Court but other appts and treaties.

In short I think the founders wanted to have a lot of checks and balances to power...

 
renesauz said:
Fair enough. I wouldn't call it the same because one was limited whereas Trump is....NOT! The bigger point is that generally speaking these guys act respectful of each other 99.9% of the time if one or the other is retired from public service. Trump has ignored these unspoken rules to a degree NEVER seen before, and so it shouldn't be surprising that he's received such back in kind.

This is just one additional example of how Trump has changed things (IMHO) for the (MUCH) worse.
Click to expand...
I agree Trump can act like a jerk.  However consider how Republican feel when they hear Obama say you Republicans that cling to your guns and your bibles....

Both of these are Directly in the Constitution.

 
NightStalkers said:
However how is the country leaning left?  No Dem president has won 53 percent of the popular vote in over 50 years..
Click to expand...
Obviously if you measured where everyone in the US lined up along a left-right one dimensional line the average would be pretty close to the center.   If you compare the US line to the line of the rest of the world I would think that the country was still pretty close to center.   To the right of some and to the left of other countries so one could probably pick a way to get a lean either way by what is counted.

But when you look at where the typical person lines up with who gets elected, I think the masses are to the left of the politicians.  This is because generally speaking republicans tend to get more people elected with fewer votes.  And republicans are more likely to be "right" while democrats are more likely to be "center".  Sure there are exceptions, but I think they prove the rule.  Finally along this same line of thinking.  While democrats that are elected tend to still be "moderate establish" there has been a shift in the past decade such that now for the first time in a long time more than 50% of democrats identify as "liberal".  Now maybe conservatives want to scoff and say that democrats are just now figuring out what you always knew about them, but I think that shift is only now starting to show up in who is elected and in party platforms.    And in polling on actual issues.  Still a long way to go but the county is certainly to the left of policy makers even if that isn't really all that far left on that one dimensional line.

 
It just seems we all are digging in supporting “our” side more than ever. Trump/Connell say fill the spot now. Schumer says if you do that and Dems win Senate and Potus they will screw the 60 vote threshold and pack the courts And increase the number of justices; all options are open next year. Hell, who needs a cold war with Russia or China. 
Your turn Trump....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers said:
i think that the original intention of the creation of a Senate was twofold.  

One is to keep the bigger states from ganging up on the smaller ones population wise.  Especially since the House is based soley on population.

Second i think it was intended to be less reactionary body than the house which elects every 2 years.  It is not only the Supreme Court but other appts and treaties.

In short I think the founders wanted to have a lot of checks and balances to power...
Click to expand...
absolutely, and it was brilliant. But we aren't the same today. Then, 80%+ of the population was still rural, and the biggest states didn't dwarf the smallest by anywhere close to the same numbers they do today. 

I think the idea is still sound, and we should keep it, but it's worth re-visiting some specific duties, such as this one. I'm not even certain there's a better answer.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Obviously if you measured where everyone in the US lined up along a left-right one dimensional line the average would be pretty close to the center.   If you compare the US line to the line of the rest of the world I would think that the country was still pretty close to center.   To the right of some and to the left of other countries so one could probably pick a way to get a lean either way by what is counted.

But when you look at where the typical person lines up with who gets elected, I think the masses are to the left of the politicians.  This is because generally speaking republicans tend to get more people elected with fewer votes.  And republicans are more likely to be "right" while democrats are more likely to be "center".  Sure there are exceptions, but I think they prove the rule.  Finally along this same line of thinking.  While democrats that are elected tend to still be "moderate establish" there has been a shift in the past decade such that now for the first time in a long time more than 50% of democrats identify as "liberal".  Now maybe conservatives want to scoff and say that democrats are just now figuring out what you always knew about them, but I think that shift is only now starting to show up in who is elected and in party platforms.    And in polling on actual issues.  Still a long way to go but the county is certainly to the left of policy makers even if that isn't really all that far left on that one dimensional line.
Click to expand...
Honestly i don't see that .  I don't see a big shift left.    The congress has shifted multiple times in the last 20 years.  Look at President Obama when he took over in 2008.  At that point everyone said the Republican party was dying.  8 years later he had lost over 1000 federal or local election seats to the Republicans, including both the House and the Senate.  It was the worst performance in the history of the country election wise statistically. ( and who knows Trump may beat him at that)

 
renesauz said:
absolutely, and it was brilliant. But we aren't the same today. Then, 80%+ of the population was still rural, and the biggest states didn't dwarf the smallest by anywhere close to the same numbers they do today. 

I think the idea is still sound, and we should keep it, but it's worth re-visiting some specific duties, such as this one. I'm not even certain there's a better answer.
Click to expand...
I think people look at things in too short of a time frame.  Look at California.  It has voted for a Republican more recently than Minnesota.

I saw a liberal professor post a tweet that all rural area people should be forced to live in city for a while just to experience how life is supposed to be.  He forgets the fact that the people in the Rural areas are the ones the feed his stupid butt.

 
The Commish said:
I'll believe it when i see it. Today I'd bet my life savings that there is a vote. 
Click to expand...
Honestly the reason i see it is they are all politicians.  The first idea is to get reelected.  The second idea is remember the first idea.  The third idea is to support your party so they can support your reelection.  The fourth idea is to do the peoples work.

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the people who thought Obama should be allowed to make the Supreme Court appointment in 2016, what do you think their non hypocritical position should be now?
Click to expand...
That Garland could have been the longest nomination period in the history of the Supreme Court and still been confirmed and whoever gets nominated now doesn’t even have time to hit the average number of days of vetting for a Supreme Court justice before the election.  We’re pushing through a nomination without being able to even vet a lifetime appointment. 

 
Sand said:
The thing that is always forgotten is that justices do not end up as they are initially thought to be.

This court is still a left leaning court if you look at recent cases.  And that is after three appointments from this POTUS.

Even if DJT gets another one I doubt this court leans right.
Click to expand...
Since the Nixon Administration 19 Supreme Court Justices were confirmed, 15 were appointed by GOP Presidents but somehow the Court leans left.

 
NightStalkers said:
All this hand wringing is going to be for nothing.  Collins, Romney and Murkowski have all said no to voting until after the election.  Grassley said in the past he wouldn't do it either before.  There isn't going to be a vote.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year

 
[scooter] said:
As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year
Click to expand...
i saw a tweet of his saying the same as Collins and Murkowski.  and i believe Grassley repeated his statement during the Kavanaugh hearings..

Collins did say until after jan 21 today.

 
NightStalkers said:
Honestly i don't see that .  I don't see a big shift left.    The congress has shifted multiple times in the last 20 years.  Look at President Obama when he took over in 2008.  At that point everyone said the Republican party was dying.  8 years later he had lost over 1000 federal or local election seats to the Republicans, including both the House and the Senate.  It was the worst performance in the history of the country election wise statistically. ( and who knows Trump may beat him at that)
Click to expand...
I didn't say a big shift.  But if the country is not shifting left then why is it so important to thwart the "liberal agenda" by making judicial appointments such a priority?  And I don't mean just this one?  I don't want to get too carried away but isn't the handwriting on the wall that some of what seems impossible today for the left is still inevitable?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers said:
[scooter] said:
As far as I know, Romney has not weighed in on this scenario. Can you provide a link to his quote please?

Also, the other 3 have said slightly different things:

Collins and Murkowski: no vote before election (but they did not say "no vote before inauguration")

Grassley (2016): no vote during election year
Click to expand...
i saw a tweet of his saying the same as Collins and Murkowski.  and i believe Grassley repeated his statement during the Kavanaugh hearings..

Collins did say until after jan 21 today.
Click to expand...
I just checked Romney's twitter account and his only tweet in the past week was a eulogy to RBG. It said nothing about voting.

Are you sure about your info?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I didn't say a big shift.  But if the country is not shifting left then why is it so important to thwart the "liberal agenda" by making judicial appointments such a priority?  And I don't mean just this one?  I don't want to get too carried away but isn't the handwriting in the wall that some of what seems impossible today for the left is still inevitable?
Click to expand...
No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.

 
Henry Ford said:
That Garland could have been the longest nomination period in the history of the Supreme Court and still been confirmed and whoever gets nominated now doesn’t even have time to hit the average number of days of vetting for a Supreme Court justice before the election.  We’re pushing through a nomination without being able to even vet a lifetime appointment. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, but there’s plenty of time to confirm before the inauguration. 

 
NightStalkers said:
[scooter] said:
I just checked Romney's twitter account and his only tweet in the past week was a eulogy to RBG. It said nothing about voting.

Are you sure about your info?
Click to expand...
Can't find it now for some reason. I think i saw it when he was trending  yesterday..
Click to expand...
Is it possible that you actually saw this tweet from a guy who claimed to have spoken to a "high level Romney insider"?

Because Romney's office denied that rumor last night.

 
NightStalkers said:
No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.
Click to expand...
And that doesn't count some of the media people who won't deal with the left.  Guys like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.  And Rubin used to work for The Young Turks (TYT).

I can see this election going either way a landslide for Biden or a landslide for Trump or anything in between.  I don't think the traditional polling companies know how to pick up Trump voters or if Trump voters will even cooperate with them.  One of the most accurate polls for Trump support maybe the Trafalgar group.  The forecasted the Trump wins in 2016 in Michigan and PA.  They also had the Florida 2018 Senate and Gov races correctly and nobody was showing any of these races that way, and they did.  And Trump may have pissed off enough people to lose big.  I have no idea.

 
NightStalkers said:
And that doesn't count some of the media people who won't deal with the left.  Guys like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.  And Rubin used to work for The Young Turks (TYT).

I can see this election going either way a landslide for Biden or a landslide for Trump or anything in between.  I don't think the traditional polling companies know how to pick up Trump voters or if Trump voters will even cooperate with them.  One of the most accurate polls for Trump support maybe the Trafalgar group.  The forecasted the Trump wins in 2016 in Michigan and PA.  They also had the Florida 2018 Senate and Gov races correctly and nobody was showing any of these races that way, and they did.  And Trump may have pissed off enough people to lose big.  I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Neither do the pollsters, they regularly prove that. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes, you made the point that democrats would do the same thing.  But you argued that it was it duty of the GOP Senate to block such a shift.  I might have been wrong about the election having anything to do with it.  Or at least I'm not going to try to prove it with more searches.

Fair enough?

But it was an unprecedented action.  I mean I guess 135 years earlier a lame duck president nominated someone that the Senate choose not to consider until the new president renominated him so there was some precedent.  And there were other nominees where the congressional session ended, but none were ignored for such a period of time as Garland's.  
Click to expand...
But there have been 8 times in history where the Senate took no action on a Supreme Court and another dozen plus times the nomination was officially withdrawn in many cases because it was obvious no action or a rejection was going to occur.  Being towards the end of a term does not make it anymore remarkable.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
Really?

I don't know the inner workings on this.

What does it take to have a vote? And would they have a vote if they didn't know if they had enough votes to confirm? How does that usually work?

Some info here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html
Click to expand...
Mcconnell brings it to the floor.....nothing special has to happen. If those in a close race win reelection,  they'll bring it forward as soon as that is confirmed..... sometime in nov is my guess

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why?  I thought Barrett should have been the nominee the last time.  I would vastly prefer her over Kavanaugh, and that was even before all the rapey stuff came out.
Click to expand...


There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.

 
NightStalkers said:
No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.
Click to expand...
Really? She lives in the UK and you say she is a Democrat?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.
Click to expand...
I am not a big Trump guy one way or another.  But if Biden is only considering women that isn't necessarily a good thing.  He should appoint the best judge and if that happens to be a woman that is fine.

 
whoknew said:
There were a lot of posts on this board from Trump fans who said it was absurd that Biden limited his VP pool to only women. That he should choose the most qualified person. 

I assume that same reasoning applies here.
Click to expand...
Oh.  I'm okay with Kamala Harris and I expect that I'll probably be okay with Trump's pick.

 
renesauz said:
Similarly, current Presidents generally didn't continue to hammer at retired Presidents and other formerly prominent politicians who had retired from public service/life.
Click to expand...
Trump has done so in a much more vulgar and undignified manner but the revisionist history that Obama didn't blame George W Bush for pretty much all eight years is quite funny to see

 
NightStalkers said:
I know that but she supports mostly Democrats in the US.   Her political leanings match the liberal philosophy.  But she is being attacked by the far left in the UK and the US due to cancel culture.
Click to expand...
Which is the way it should be after her appalling comments regarding transgender folks. When she preaches hate like this, no one should be surprised that people sympathetic to LGBT+ rights will stop buying her Harry Potter books.

 
renesauz said:
Similarly, current Presidents generally didn't continue to hammer at retired Presidents and other formerly prominent politicians who had retired from public service/life.
Click to expand...
Your bias for you team is shining though.  Obama beat the crap out of Bush at every turn for years and Bush kept his mouth shut.  The only difference between their behavior is that Trump permanently resides in the sewer and Obama occasionally takes a vacation from the sewer.

 
squistion said:
Which is the way it should be after her appalling comments regarding transgender folks. When she preaches hate like this, no one should be surprised that people sympathetic to LGBT+ rights will stop buying her Harry Potter books.
Click to expand...
Look i don't care what people do with their lives . If a person want to identify as transgender more power too them.  But that is a decision that the person makes later in life.  But you can only be born either a male or female.  How you choose to identify later is up to you and you shouldn't be discriminated against for that choice.  But there are some things that are affected by that choice.  Like what happens if hospitals have to go by your gender choice despite being physically the opposite sex.  There have been stories on the net of a person saying they were a transgender male in a hospital and the doctor could clearly see that the person was pregnant.  And like i said how you want to live your life more power to you...

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Your side did that with Obamacare.  Don't act like this is some new thing
Click to expand...
No. They/Rs stopped it. Then they/Rs will have done it.

They/Ds forced medical care. Lots if things get forced. But this was refusing to allow, changing the rule set, then forcing in the very thing you refused.

This will no longer be governance.  No more negotiations... no more care. They will be enemies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Endowed said:
No. They/Rs stopped it. Then they/Rs will have done it.

They/Ds forced medical care. Lots if things get forced. But this was refusing to allow, changing the rule set, then forcing in the very thing you refused.

This will no longer be governance.  No more negotiations... no more care. They will be enemies.
Click to expand...
I sense a peaceful protest..... errrrr riot on the horizon

 
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: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top