Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Insomniac said:

Let's suppose Obama knew that Roberts was going to preside over and be the decisive vote in the Shelby County vs Holder case. Anybody who was paying attention knew that Roberts wanted to overturn the Voting Rights Act. Was there any doubt this would result in voter suppression laws, aimed at black people, that would favor the GOP?  That seems to be more than enough reason for a black Democrat to vote against Roberts or anybody who agreed with him on the issue.

Not the standard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’ve hinted at this before, but I’m not sure I’ve been explicit about it... I was molested when I was a child. The preparator was an older person in my neighborhood.  My parents were friends

Yes.  If MT believes he was wrong to be angry at someone's stupidity, that's fine.  But I think he could reasonably be angry instead at someone's callousness and lack of empathy. I've been extrem

I know people hate when lawyers tell non lawyers what do or how to look at something. I get it, I really do. But this guy is being interviewed to be given a job where we, in our profession, are requir

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Blame the Constitution, not the messenger. Or blame Congress. Any law that allows Wisconsin free rein to do its crazy voter-suppression shenanigans without special scrutiny but requires Virginia to get preclearance for the smallest of voting changes does not seem rationally related to life in the year of our lord, 2013. In any case, thinking you might possibly end up disagreeing with a judge on a very close call (as 5-4 decisions tend to be) is a terrible reason to oppose his confirmation, IMO.

Well said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this correct?

Fun fact: The last time that a majority-Republican Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic President was in 1895, when the Senate confirmed the Grover Cleveland nomination of Rufus Peckham.

(Of course, the parties were quite different than they are now for most of the period since then.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Blame the Constitution, not the messenger. Or blame Congress. Any law that allows Wisconsin free rein to do its crazy voter-suppression shenanigans without special scrutiny but requires Virginia to get preclearance for the smallest of voting changes does not seem rationally related to life in the year of our lord, 2013. In any case, thinking you might possibly end up disagreeing with a judge on a very close call (as 5-4 decisions tend to be) is a terrible reason to oppose his confirmation, IMO.

IMO striking down the VRA was purely based on the  right wing Justices desire to help the GOP win elections. I don't really care if some  guys from Harvard and Yale Law  schools can make dlever arguments that pretend it was for some other reason. results are what  matter. The fact that the states immediately passed laws to suppress minority votes was completely predictable. That seems very well related to life in 2013 and after.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're okay with Obama voting against Roberts, what grounds can you possibly have to complain about Republicans refusing to seat Garland?  (Other than "I don't like how this guy might vote but I like how this other guy would vote" which is the exact same reasoning that McConnell is using).

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If you're okay with Obama voting against Roberts, what grounds can you possibly have to complain about Republicans refusing to seat Garland?  (Other than "I don't like how this guy might vote but I like how this other guy would vote" which is the exact same reasoning that McConnell is using).

To be clear, I didn't care for Obama's vote.  I suppose this depends on whether you think there's a material difference between voting no and refusing to allow a vote to be held.  One could perhaps make the argument that McConnell refused to allow the vote because he expected that N members of his party would actually vote Yes.  I think there's something to be said for transparency (i.e. get each Senator's vote on record) versus actively preventing transparency.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I suppose this depends on whether you think there's a material difference between voting no and refusing to allow a vote to be held.  

Literally nobody actually thinks this.

If that isn't obvious, just ask yourself this: suppose McConnell allowed Garland's nomination to come up for a vote, and he got shot down along party lines.  Would the people who are now freaking about Trump nominating RBG's replacement be all like "Well, they gave Obama's guy a fair hearing so I guess it's totally okay for them to move forward with their guy now?"  Of course not.  The talking points would even be the same -- something something stolen seat.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add, I'm clearly not a lawyer and know very little about this stuff. I was interested in seeing/reading what happened and then posted it here. Thanks for teaching me as I learned something and understand now why that shouldn't have happened by Obama.

I wasn't "ok with it" as I didn't know about it. It seems it was well written political fluff based on the responses here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Literally nobody actually thinks this.

If that isn't obvious, just ask yourself this: suppose McConnell allowed Garland's nomination to come up for a vote, and he got shot down along party lines.  Would the people who are now freaking about Trump nominating RBG's replacement be all like "Well, they gave Obama's guy a fair hearing so I guess it's totally okay for them to move forward with their guy now?"  Of course not.  The talking points would even be the same -- something something stolen seat.  

I think there's a material difference between the two.  That's not to say that had the GOP Senators voted "no" I would have agreed with that.  Obviously I wouldn't, as I also didn't agree with Obama voting "no" on Roberts.  In simple terms, there's no practical difference between not holding a vote and voting along party lines, but there is a difference.

Consider that my hypothesis was correct.  For sake of argument, let's pretend that there were just enough GOP Senators willing to vote Yes, based on honesty, integrity, or whatever you want to call it.  Does McConnell refusing to schedule a vote (because he knows it would pass) matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if I were advising the Dems (inadvisable from the start...) I would offer up only token resistance to any nominee.

Throw some procedural monkey wrenches:

1. Invoking 2-hour rule
2. Requiring a quorum present, with no Dems. (Meaning (nearly) all Trump Party members would have to be physically present on the floor to conduct business).

 

I would then boycott the committee confirmation hearings completely - to give the appearance that the process is a sham.  And then, offer up any oppo research outside the hearing for public consumption.

Then let the vote happen.  That part is inevitable.

This is largely out of the hands of the Dems in the Senate itself.  The best they can do is muster public opposition - to the point that it has real consequences to the Trump Party and the Senators themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Thomas @AlexThomas · 6m

this just seems like a bizarrely stupid way to show your hand — it places a new spin on the nomination. it's no longer about appointing a conservative justice because of policy issues, now it's because Trump wants a justice that's loyal to him in a contested election.

Quote Tweet

CSPAN@cspan· 11m

.@POTUS: "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. & I think it's very important that we have 9 Justices. & I think the system is going to go very quickly. I'll be submitting at 5 o'clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of positions."

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Alex Thomas @AlexThomas · 6m

this just seems like a bizarrely stupid way to show your hand — it places a new spin on the nomination. it's no longer about appointing a conservative justice because of policy issues, now it's because Trump wants a justice that's loyal to him in a contested election.

Quote Tweet

CSPAN@cspan· 11m

.@POTUS: "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. & I think it's very important that we have 9 Justices. & I think the system is going to go very quickly. I'll be submitting at 5 o'clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of positions."

But it won't matter.  Nothing matters except naked power grabs. 

The electorate doesn't punish anyone for seizing power through whatever means necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand the Republicans’ argument from 2016, or people that are making it now.  That ‘the country should have a say’ in the SC pick with the forthcoming election.

The country already had a say- we elected Barack Obama in 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016.  I don’t understand how the ‘popular will’ argument doesn’t already apply to that.  

Ginsburg had a chance to retire 10 years ago and be replaced by an administration she agreed with.  

Instead, she kept holding on.  She foresaw a story book ending where she would retire under Hillary Clinton.  She mused about the next president replacing her, “whoever she might be.”  Then reality happened.  

If her interest was retaining a Supreme Court justice with her views, or finishing out her tenure to the very end, that was her choice.  But she doesn’t get to change the course of history when her gamble doesn’t pan out.  She doesn’t get to use moral blackmail to rewrite how the President/Senate works.  It was a hubristic decision that cost liberal presence on the Supreme Court dearly.  

It’s like she said- “That’s their job,” she told the New York Times. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t understand the Republicans’ argument from 2016, or people that are making it now.  That ‘the country should have a say’ in the SC pick with the forthcoming election.

The country already had a say- we elected Barack Obama in 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016.  I don’t understand how the ‘popular will’ argument doesn’t already apply to that.  

Ginsburg had a chance to retire 10 years ago and be replaced by an administration she agreed with.  

"She loved her job," said Totenberg. "She had planned, in fact, to retire and be replaced by a nominee of the first woman president because she really thought Hillary Clinton would be elected."

"Fate dealt her... the cards not that way and she just soldiered on," Totenberg added. 

Totenberg went on to report that Ginsberg had expressed that wish in a dictated statement her granddaughter, Clara Spera, just days before her death.

"My most fervent wish is, that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg said in the statement, according to Totenberg.

Instead, she kept holding on.  She foresaw a story book ending where she would retire under Hillary Clinton.  She mused about the next president replacing her, “whoever she might be.”  Then reality happened.  

If her interest was retaining a Supreme Court justice with her views, or finishing out her tenure to the very end, that was her choice.  But she doesn’t get to change the course of history when her gamble doesn’t pan out.  She doesn’t get to use moral blackmail to rewrite how the President/Senate works.  It was a hubristic decision that cost liberal presence on the Supreme Court dearly.  

It’s like she said- “That’s their job,” she told the New York Times. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

It's pretty simple. The argument is about the precedent that was set by the original 2016 argument. They're not arguing the merits of the Republicans precedent but that the precedent was set. The 'popular will' argument was reset and now they want to reset/twist that decision. What Ginsburg wanted is/shouldn't be a part of this straight forward hypocritical about face. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Murph said:

Politico: Democrats worry Feinstein can't handle Supreme Court battle

If anything good can come out of our current political mess, perhaps people will start to understand that when older generations cling to power and refuse to let the next generation rise through the ranks it creates problems for society.

More like it shows how clueless the next generation is and the chaos their tantrums will cause down the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

there goes Roe v Wade if and when that comes to the court if she's on the bench.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sand said:

CNN says the pick is ACB.  She seemed to be at the top of lists for a while now, so this isn't a big surprise.

CNN trying to psyche Trump into proving them wrong and picking someone else, just to prove that their "sources" aren't reliable.

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

It's been almost 40 years since the pubic hair on a can of Coke has been used...could be time to give this one a try again.

  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, perbach said:

Stop it.   Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere.   That's nothing more than fear mongering.

What about the continued erosion of the ability of women to get an abortion?  Like putting up requirements on the clinics or physicians such that all the clinics in an entire state close? 

ACB may be instrumental is allowing such barriers to exist or expand.

What if an entire bloc of southern states put up such barriers such that women would have to travel 700 miles to get an abortion?  Is that in the spirit of the Roe decision and the "settled" nature of the right to an abortion?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

It will be interesting, she seems like a fine choice but you know something is coming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 4:29 PM, shadrap said:

I'll be curious whether the Senate Dems try to paint her as a racist,  homophobe,  or religious nut.  maybe an old classmate from high school shows up who remembers some bad behavior at a party, but she can't remember who's house it was in, when exactly it took place, who was there, how she got there &  how she got home.

I come from where she comes from. Dominican HS isn't/wasn't Georgetown Prep. There won't be a Kavanaugh. It's pure Trump that he went ahead and picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend. The flaws were known, but Trump went with it anyway.

Now the issues with Roe and Barrett's beliefs, those will be front and center and I'm sure there will be some ugliness on that front. But Barrett will not have any personal scandals like Kavanaugh, just as Gorsuch did not. My guess is Trump really did not want Barrett anyway but basically Senate and party types hornwrangeld him into it. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed. Do you have a prediction on the timeline and chances of things happening?

I think I saw that Graham wants hearing in Mid-October - I expect those to happen.

In terms of votes - its not a foregone conclusion that she is going to be confirmed.  Its very likely she will - but there are two pretty big issues where Coney is expected to be in the minority position in the country - Abortion and Healthcare.

I think the healthcare concerns will be at the forefront of Dems approaches to sway public opinion - "She will invalidate Obamacare!"  And, that may be why Trump put out his executive order about it being the policy of the government to protect existing conditions (while at the same time fighting in court to invalidate those protections).  I think this could cause a few GOP senators to withhold support - but perhaps not enough.

 

Everything I have read about her is that she is eminently qualified for the position.  It will cause angst for the dramatic shift in the court's make-up*, but she appears to be a fine legal scholar.

 

*she has offered her own opinions on nominations that shift power

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I come from where she comes from. Dominican HS isn't/wasn't Georgetown Prep. There won't be a Kavanaugh. It's pure Trump that he went ahead and picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend. The flaws were known, but Trump went with it anyway.

Now the issues with Roe and Barnett's beliefs, those will be front and center and I'm sure there will be some ugliness on that front. But Barnett will not have any personal scandals like Kavanaugh, just as Gorsuch did not. My guess is Trump really did not want Barnett anyway but basically Senate and party types hornwrangeld him into it. 

Agreed.  And I think it’s very dangerous for Democrats that ABC’s vulnerabilities are tied to her religion.  Dems need to tread very, very carefully here. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think I saw that Graham wants hearing in Mid-October - I expect those to happen.

In terms of votes - its not a foregone conclusion that she is going to be confirmed.  Its very likely she will - but there are two pretty big issues where Coney is expected to be in the minority position in the country - Abortion and Healthcare.

I think the healthcare concerns will be at the forefront of Dems approaches to sway public opinion - "She will invalidate Obamacare!"  And, that may be why Trump put out his executive order about it being the policy of the government to protect existing conditions (while at the same time fighting in court to invalidate those protections).  I think this could cause a few GOP senators to withhold support - but perhaps not enough.

 

Everything I have read about her is that she is eminently qualified for the position.  It will cause angst for the dramatic shift in the court's make-up*, but she appears to be a fine legal scholar.

 

*she has offered her own opinions on nominations that shift power

There is an excellent Bulwark podcast from last week where Conservative Amanda Carpenter talks about how Conservatives have essentially stop legislating, and that is why judges and Justices are of paramount importance to the party.  She asks, what is McConnell’s signature piece of legislation?  There is none.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

There is an excellent Bulwark podcast from last week where Conservative Amanda Carpenter talks about how Conservatives have essentially stop legislating, and that is why judges and Justices are of paramount importance to the party.  She asks, what is McConnell’s signature piece of legislation?  There is none.  

Appointing judges and EOs have been pretty much all of our elected officials have given us in the last year or so.

Edited by Mile High
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Agreed.  And I think it’s very dangerous for Democrats that ABC’s vulnerabilities are tied to her religion.  Dems need to tread very, very carefully here. 

They could easily fight on the grounds of workers rights and corporate power if they wanted to. The problem is Senate Democrats largely agree with her on those issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

At least it is a female so the women in the country should be pleased.    They needed a female to replace a female.

I am at a loss for words here.

 

I assume this is simply trolling - given the complete lack of context.  But, I can never be sure, what is trolling, and what is simply poor reasoning.

 

Yes - some women will be very happy with Barrett.  Some women will be very unhappy with Barrett. 

I don't understand how anyone could think all women would be happy simply because it is a woman nominee.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am at a loss for words here.

 

I assume this is simply trolling - given the complete lack of context.  But, I can never be sure, what is trolling, and what is simply poor reasoning.

 

Yes - some women will be very happy with Barrett.  Some women will be very unhappy with Barrett. 

I don't understand how anyone could think all women would be happy simply because it is a woman nominee.

Just saying it is better than another old man. A woman needed to replace a woman.  No matter who gets to take the seat not everyone will be pleased.

Edited by Summer Wheat
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Agreed.  And I think it’s very dangerous for Democrats that ABC’s vulnerabilities are tied to her religion.  Dems need to tread very, very carefully here. 

IMO they won't be able to keep their disgust with her religion out of the fray.  As far as Obamacare-abortion,  nominees will not admit how they will rule on a case.

 

54 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I come from where she comes from. Dominican HS isn't/wasn't Georgetown Prep. There won't be a Kavanaugh. It's pure Trump that he went ahead and picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend. The flaws were known, but Trump went with it anyway.

Now the issues with Roe and Barnett's beliefs, those will be front and center and I'm sure there will be some ugliness on that front. But Barnett will not have any personal scandals like Kavanaugh, just as Gorsuch did not. My guess is Trump really did not want Barnett anyway but basically Senate and party types hornwrangeld him into it. 

the "picked a guy that had been written about by his high school best friend".  What did his best friend write?  I seemed to have missed this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Agreed.  And I think it’s very dangerous for Democrats that ABC’s vulnerabilities are tied to her religion.  Dems need to tread very, very carefully here. 

I don`t think it will be an issue.  Chuck Shumar has twice in the last week said "God Willing" talking about the coming elections so he must be a believer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I expect a more well-reasoned response from a future Supreme Court Justice. 

That won't be her exact words, of course, but essentially the bottom line will be that we now have a different set of rules for a Republican president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

It will be interesting, she seems like a fine choice but you know something is coming. 

And if they do bring it, it will be 30+ days of concentrated ads for Republicans. 

And if they don’t, it will turn off their base. Great strategic move. 

Edited by jerseydevil20
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I know it's weird and shocking that people would share a deceptively-edited video Twitter of all places, but that seems to be what happened here.  Here's a link to the full interview.  It should be blindingly obvious that she's wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the Garland nomination, which makes sense because why on earth would she.

I mentioned this yesterday, but Twitter is a cesspool.  I feel like I have a fairly well-manicured selection of folks who I follow, and I make it a point to follow a good chunk of people who I disagree with most of the time, which helps temper the "echo chamber" effect of the platform.  But there's really no denying that that site poisons people's brains just like Facebook and cable news.  It's a site that amplifies outrage, bad-faith takes, and dunking on dumb people.  You can use it as a tool for finding smart, long-form arguments, but that takes a lot of work.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
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...