Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

And this is good policy?

Of course "we the people" would do better being less lazy and less proud of our ignorance.  But if "we the people" were required to understand all of the positive impacts that a major piece of legislation contained before it could be voted on then Congress might as well be dissolved.   It is ten years later and there are still many (though less and less each year) that don't grasp what was in the bill (as evident by its components routinely polling better than the name).

But even more simplistic than this, the entire purpose of representative government is to represent the interest of the people without the need for the people to actually understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

What is the issue with having 7 kids?

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eoMMan said:

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

It may be more than most adults have but what is odd about it?  Does it prevent her from doing her job or alter her resume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Props to former Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman for recently calling out Feinstein...obviously he thinks what occurred in 2017 is still relevant and at risk of happening again.

 

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

"I thought Sen. Feinstein's question in that case," Lieberman said, "was really improper, and was biased really. Everybody brings to the Senate, to the Congress, to [the] Supreme Court experiences and beliefs that they have.

"There's no reason why a religiously observant person should be accused more of dogma than somebody who is particularly ideological in a secular way."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Props to former Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman for recently calling out Feinstein...obviously he thinks what occurred in 2017 is still relevant and at risk of happening again.

 

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

"I thought Sen. Feinstein's question in that case," Lieberman said, "was really improper, and was biased really. Everybody brings to the Senate, to the Congress, to [the] Supreme Court experiences and beliefs that they have.

"There's no reason why a religiously observant person should be accused more of dogma than somebody who is particularly ideological in a secular way."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

 

This is why I voted for Lieberman numerous times.  An independent thinker...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eoMMan said:

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Ideal?    From what I saw at her speech, those seven kids looked ideal to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Getzlaf15 said:

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Ideal?    From what I saw at her speech, those seven kids looked ideal to me. 

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, 7 kids is odd in the sense that it is unusual. But it doesn't have any bearing on her qualifications for bring a supreme court justice. I'm going to read eoMan charitably and assume that's what he meant. ETA: to be fair to him, he didn't say anything bad about Barret in that post, just "yikes", which I took to mean that's a lot of kids and would be a lot of work. 

This coming from somebody who will 100% vote Biden and doesn't want Barret confirmed simply because the "precedent" McConnell set a mere 4 years ago with the BS about letting the people decide since it is an election year after all. 

Edited by FBG26
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

She had 5 kids and adooted two kids from Haiti.  Seems like she is qualified for sainthood.

She also chose to keep a child who was diagnosed with Downs syndrome during prenatal testing. Her character and scholarliness are not in question. The final vote for approval is a done deal. If the dems wanna get PR points they should focus on ACA and executive power issues. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Getzlaf15 said:

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

I'm not among this group, nor do I recall exactly who has expressed this sentiment in the past, but there are numerous posters who have historically posted that having lots of children is wrong in the context of the global population an the ability for the earth to sustain such numbers.  So if someone were to disagree with you it could be that they are finding reason to argue against this nominee but they could also be asserting this opinion which has been rather common.  To give context it has not been uncommon in guaranteed income (BIG or UBI) threads for those to argue against any funds being allocated to parents based on the number of children.  Again I'm not among this group of posters, but do know they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

Was this an issue for the John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and/or Brett Kavanaugh confirmations?   

10 hours ago, stlrams said:

This is why I voted for Lieberman numerous times.  An independent thinker...

Seems pretty disingenuous to pretend that the concerns (fair or not) about Barrett are about what she has in common with millions of Americans (Roman Catholicism) as opposed to what makes her standout (People of Praise).

 

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eoMMan said:

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

You're the one that is odd for thinking having 7 kids is odd.  My mother came from a family of 8 kids.  Hell, I'll be willing to bet that in the state of Utah it is common.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with more than 3 kids is weird...period, end of story...this includes my brother with 5 kids.  

Mark me down as one who doesn't care if she's Catholic or not.  My concern with potential justices, not just her, is always whether they can put their personal views to the side and make decisions based on the law.  I think she's a better choice than Kavanaugh and I thought that before he threw his tantrums.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.
×
  • Create New...