squistion
Footballguy
BLM protested the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and half of the six officers originally charged were African American.
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 (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Because the public reads all the bills? Laws aren't really made like that. They are debated and amended in congress...that is what we elect them to do.
jerseydevil20
Footballguy
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
Not sure the intent here - but not a good look.
Her kids are not up for nomination, nor are they in any way relevant to how she might rule as a SC justice.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
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!
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
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.
Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd.
"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."
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
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?Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd.
"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."
Stoneworker
Footballguy
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
"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
Zegras11
Footballguy
It's not odd at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.eoMMan said:Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd.
"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."
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."
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
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.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Was this an issue for the John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and/or Brett Kavanaugh confirmations?
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).
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
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.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
“7” is an odd number. “5” is also.
The Commish
Footballguy
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.
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.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question. So nope!
Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations. (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between). Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem. But Barrett isn't just a Catholic.
Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.") But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett. But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.
For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon. Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things. But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It wasn't. Much like you totally misunderstood what was being said originally, you also are now totally misunderstanding what was being said.
Edit: I guess the only answer I could give to that question is because Republicans were lying about what was in the bill to their constituents. Things like "Death Panels" for instance. What Pelosi was saying was "this huge bill has a lot of great things, and you're being lied to about what's in it by partisan hacks protecting the insurance industry. We have to get it passed and let the Republicans stop lying so that you can understand what's in it when the story on the news isn't about whatever idiocy they're making up out of thin air this week." Transparency isn't just about releasing the bill (and they did) it's also about how much chaff gets shot out between the viewer and the thing being viewed. The Republican Party is masterful at firing gigantic cannons of chaff between what is being proposed and the voters. Like they did with the ACA and a thousand other things since the Equal Rights Amendment.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.
Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.
The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship? Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?
And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.
Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.
The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship? Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?
And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.
quick-hands
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone
There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct?
Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?
There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct?
Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If it would, it dies anyway unless some existing Supreme Court justices change their minds. A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court ruling, and the appeal is of a ruling against the ACA.
And no, there's no hope here.
There is very little hope.
I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare. That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.
The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The case is scheduled to be conveniently heard right after the election and then I'd assume a decision announced near the end of the term. So ObamaCare should be good until the spring from this non legal guesstimate.
To the extent there is hope - its this:
The Dems can hope to control the House, Senate and White House - for at least two years, if not longer.
Within that, it is within their power to enact legislation that complies with SC rulings, but also moves toward democratic supported solutions to issues like healthcare, or gun control, or abortion (though I think this last one could be difficult to do on the federal level).
The Dems can hope to control the House, Senate and White House - for at least two years, if not longer.
Within that, it is within their power to enact legislation that complies with SC rulings, but also moves toward democratic supported solutions to issues like healthcare, or gun control, or abortion (though I think this last one could be difficult to do on the federal level).
If Democrats sweep everything in November, they can pass legislation early next year that restores access to health care a bit.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
I agree that the People of Praise membership should be carefully explored further to ensure there wouldn't be anything that would prevent Barrett from separating church and state.
IMO the reference to other nominees was not relevant since it seemed to imply that since the others weren't unfairly attacked, then neither would she. When it is obvious this is not the case. No worries and apologies if this was not the case.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise. If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop? If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it? She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.
This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse. Plus, the Pope doesn't often give commentary on specific cases before the court, but I don't know about the leader of the People of Praise.
As I said before, my friend's family was a member of this organization in the late 70s / early 80s in South Bend. The family left when it became obvious that the leaders were abusing the followers (his words, I don't have details).
Stoneworker
Footballguy
The critical questions you are asking are subjective and almost rhetorical in nature.
Any Democratic Senator could easily justify (rationalize?) their No vote simply by saying Barrett didn't answer those questions "to their own personal satisfaction blah blah blah"...thus giving them an easy out...when to anyone with half a brain it would clearly be partisan politics.
Is this where we are headed? A confirmation vote along party lines...even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*
*Assuming nothing blatant turns up in the confirmation process.
Trey
Footballguy
The vote to confirm is going to be 51 Rs in favor versus 47 D/I and 2 R against. Already a done deal. Don’t know why we need the theatrics.
Edit: If I was a D Senator I wouldn’t vote at all. It’s the process and the politics at issue here. I’d let it be a 51-0 vote if I was Dem leadership.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Not that it matters to me personally, but there's been a lot of discussion about how she's being "attacked" for being Catholic. Attacks which I haven't seen, but I have seen the accusations of attacks.
From the website linked above:
"Jesus desires unity for all people. We live out this unity the best we can, in spite of the divisions within Christianity. We are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians."
So, how does it follow that she's Catholic? None of the Catholic churches I've attended state that they are also "Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians".
Seems straightforward enough, until it isn't at all.
