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 (2 Viewers)

If they really want to get to the bottom of whether we should be concerned, they should ask her questions pertaining to obedience and loyalty.  The "weird" part about all this is that this People of Praise group is NOT a Catholic group, yet she is a Catholic who is also a member.  How do you practice Catholicism yet also enter into this "covenant" with this nondenominational group?  Questions that get to divided loyalties, obedience to specific teachings and practices, and how and why the PoP exists independent of any church authority may yield answers that paint her as mainstream or kook.

If I were to counsel nonbelievers, I'd suggest you pay attention to these things, not get hung up on wives obey your husbands and other standard issue Christian teachings taken out of context, but look to trusted people of faith to discern whether she's crazy or just dedicated.

Based on things others have written about her experiences in the legal field, it sounds like she is able to pretty well differentiate personal creed and the role of a justice in interpreting law.  Addressing questions pertaining to the nuance in her faith practice would help clarify that impression.

 
Psychopav said:
Based on things others have written about her experiences in the legal field, it sounds like she is able to pretty well differentiate personal creed and the role of a justice in interpreting law.  Addressing questions pertaining to the nuance in her faith practice would help clarify that impression.
Click to expand...
Isn't one of the issues with ACB is her lack of rulings from the federal bench?  Sure, she's written law review articles, but in order to form an opinion on whether her religious practices make their way into her rulings, we need to look at the rulings themselves.

Can any legal scholars comment on this?

 
Henry Ford said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
There's an obvious (to me) difference between the following two questions:

1. Does capital punishment run afoul of the Eighth Amendment under a proper constitutional analysis?

2. Now that this defendant has been convicted by the jury, it is up to me to finally determine the appropriate sentence after weighing the various mitigating and aggravating circumstances -- should it be death or something else?

I don't know whether the second situation was the intended context for ACB's quotation above (and I'm aware it's now mooted by Hurst). But it is quite easy for me to imagine being able to put aside my personal views and decide issue #1 fairly while being unable to do so with issue #2.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to what circumstance you would be deciding #1 without considering whether a particular defendant will be put to death.
Click to expand...
None. The issue relevant to recusal isn't "whether a particular defendant will be put to death." The issue is whether I can be impartial. Do you not believe that #1 and #2 can be rather different in that regard?

 
Sinn Fein said:
This group extends beyond a parish or diocese.  Its not Knights of Columbus.

The notion of women deferring to their husbands is a bit of a fringe movement, imo.
Click to expand...
This really isn't fringe at all - but then again, it's not even really followed.  I've heard this phrase a million times in my life and very seldom does it play out the way people think.  I know very little about this group she belongs to but I would feel completely comfortable that the bolded won't impact her decision-making but I also have no issue with it at least being asked.  There's a reason we vet these folks.

 
AAABatteries said:
This really isn't fringe at all - but then again, it's not even really followed.  I've heard this phrase a million times in my life and very seldom does it play out the way people think.  I know very little about this group she belongs to but I would feel completely comfortable that the bolded won't impact her decision-making but I also have no issue with it at least being asked.  There's a reason we vet these folks.
Click to expand...
The notion of women deferring to their husbands is most certainly a fringe movement these days

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
None. The issue relevant to recusal isn't "whether a particular defendant will be put to death." The issue is whether I can be impartial. Do you not believe that #1 and #2 can be rather different in that regard?
Click to expand...
Let me elaborate on this a bit.

I think I can do a decent job of being impartial when it comes to constitutional analysis. I'm strongly pro-choice, but I think Roe v. Wade was probably decided incorrectly, and I'm not certain whether stare decisis should rescue it. I would repeal the 2nd Amendment if I had my druthers, but I think the majority opinion in Heller seems fairly persuasive. I'd love to reduce the influence of money in politics, but I believe the decision in Citizens United was sound. I hate hate hate what some states are doing to suppress the votes of minorities, but I believe the statutory provision struck down by Shelby County was constitutionally shaky.

Returning to abortion, I can also easily imagine my opposite: someone who is strongly pro-life but who accepts that the right to privacy described in Griswold is on solid footing and its extension in Roe to cover abortion is natural enough. It shouldn't be that hard to avoid conflating the constitutional issue with the object-level policy issue. If I were strongly pro-life to the point of believing that abortion is morally similar to murder, I would not necessarily feel the need to judicially recuse myself from a case about whether there's a constitutionally protected right to abortion. But if I were strongly pro-life to the point of believing that abortion is morally similar to murder and I worked as a guidance counselor, I would not be comfortable counseling a teen who was unsure about what to do with her unwanted pregnancy. My personal views would prevent me from giving competent, objective advice in that situation, and I wouldn't be the right person for the job.

In that case, I could be impartial regarding the existence of a legal right to choose abortion even if I couldn't be impartial regarding the wisdom or rectitude of actually choosing it in some particular circumstance.

Similarly, I'd guess that plenty of judges who morally oppose the death penalty could be impartial regarding the legality of capital punishment even if they couldn't be impartial regarding whether a particular defendant deserves it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
None. The issue relevant to recusal isn't "whether a particular defendant will be put to death." The issue is whether I can be impartial. Do you not believe that #1 and #2 can be rather different in that regard?
Click to expand...
The question is whether a Supreme Court Justice can be impartial. And I’m asking you when you can decide #1 without deciding whether a particular person can be put to death as a Supreme Court Justice. Because it is relevant to recusal if you’d be deciding whether or not someone can be put to death. That’s my point from the beginning of this conversation in bringing up the “case or controversy” requirement.  

 
dawgtrails said:
These questions about faith and the law need to be asked. Because they sure as #### would be if there was an atheist or a muslim up for a seat
Click to expand...
Could you expand on this a little?  It sounds like you're saying that its a good thing to probe nominees' religious views.  

Let's run with your example of a Muslim nominee.  Imagine somebody comparable to Amy Barrett -- solid educational pedigree, prestigious clerkship, by all accounts a good, distinguished law professor, etc. -- but who happens to be a devout Muslim.  This hypothetical nominee has never decided any cases that raise odd religious issues, has never written any law review articles about injecting religion into the law or anything like that.  He's just a Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, abstains from alcohol and caffeine (legitimately disqualifying IMO but let's set that aside for now), took a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.  Are you saying that it would be reasonable and proper for folks to worry that this person wants to impose Sharia law?  Or would you think that people who wring their hands over that issue were being a little xenophobic and weird?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Could you expand on this a little?  It sounds like you're saying that its a good thing to probe nominees' religious views.  

Let's run with your example of a Muslim nominee.  Imagine somebody comparable to Amy Barrett -- solid educational pedigree, prestigious clerkship, by all accounts a good, distinguished law professor, etc. -- but who happens to be a devout Muslim.  This hypothetical nominee has never decided any cases that raise odd religious issues, has never written any law review articles about injecting religion into the law or anything like that.  He's just a Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, abstains from alcohol and caffeine (legitimately disqualifying IMO but let's set that aside for now), took a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.  Are you saying that it would be reasonable and proper for folks to worry that this person wants to impose Sharia law?  Or would you think that people who wring their hands over that issue were being a little xenophobic and weird?
Click to expand...
Seems obvious to me that he’s saying Republicans would probe nominees' religious views (to use your phrase) so might as well do it to their nominee.  I don’t read from his post he thinks it’s a good idea per se.

I, for what it’s worth, do think it’s a good idea to probe all personal views that these nominees have (religious or otherwise) to see if they would be influenced in an improper way.  I have no problem holding anybody to that standard, especially when you consider they are getting a lifetime appointment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Could you expand on this a little?  It sounds like you're saying that its a good thing to probe nominees' religious views.  

Let's run with your example of a Muslim nominee.  Imagine somebody comparable to Amy Barrett -- solid educational pedigree, prestigious clerkship, by all accounts a good, distinguished law professor, etc. -- but who happens to be a devout Muslim.  This hypothetical nominee has never decided any cases that raise odd religious issues, has never written any law review articles about injecting religion into the law or anything like that.  He's just a Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, abstains from alcohol and caffeine (legitimately disqualifying IMO but let's set that aside for now), took a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.  Are you saying that it would be reasonable and proper for folks to worry that this person wants to impose Sharia law?  Or would you think that people who wring their hands over that issue were being a little xenophobic and weird?
Click to expand...
I would suggest there is a reason why there is not a muslim SC justice, and it has nothing to do with their legal qualifications.

We ask normal jurors about their willingness to impose a death penalty, and strike any juror who says their beliefs would prohibit them from applying the death penalty.  I don't think its asking too much of a SC Justice to explore whether any beliefs, religious or otherwise, would prevent them from applying the existing law - or in shaping new interpretations.

I think you have to ask the question, and evaluate the answer and any surrounding evidence.

Exploring how beliefs shape the decisions of a judge is not attacking her/his religion, or in any way preventing them from practicing their religion.  Its about assuring that the government is not imposing religious beliefs on others under the guise of legal analysis.

 
AAABatteries said:
Seems obvious to me that he’s saying Republicans would probe nominees' religious views (to use your phrase) so might as well do it to their nominee.  I don’t read from his post he thinks it’s a good idea per se.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it seems kind of odd for somebody to say "In my imagination, Republicans were jerks to my hypothetical Muslim nominee.  Therefore, in real life I'm going to be a jerk to this actual flesh-and-blood nominee.:

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think its asking too much of a SC Justice to explore whether any beliefs, religious or otherwise, would prevent them from applying the existing law - or in shaping new interpretations.

I think you have to ask the question, and evaluate the answer and any surrounding evidence.
Click to expand...
"Ms. Barrett, can you rule impartially and keep your religious views separate from your legal reasoning?"

"Sure."

"Thanks -- just checking."

What more are you expecting?  

Edit: Actually, what I really want to see is more like the following:

"Ms. Barrett, if you're confirmed, will your husband write your opinions for you?"

[hysterical laugher]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean, if a nominee wrote an article arguing that justices should interpret the first amendment through the prism of Levitical law, then yeah sure I can see where that would be a really big deal.  Right now, though, this sounds like a handful of guys on a message board trying really hard to talk themselves into a position that they would never adopt in any other situation.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
What more are you expecting?  
Click to expand...
Something like this-

Whoever: Ms. Barrett you are reportedly a member of a group of "People of Praise"
Barrett: Yes, I have seen some of those reports
W: So do you care to comment on whether you are a member
B: I do not
W: On their, the People of Praise say they admire how early Christians created a community ...
B: Yes
W: ... of believers that,  whats the quote, oh,   "put their lives and their possessions in common".
B: Uh-huh
W: Would care to comment on whether you share that belief
B: I would not
W: Would not care to share, or would not agree with that
B: Yes
W: Don't understand your response
B:  Sorry
W: Okay, but the American people deserve to know that you would protect their property rights.  We are not dirty communist you know!
B: Okay
W: I yield my time back to ....
 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe, but it seems kind of odd for somebody to say "In my imagination, Republicans were jerks to my hypothetical Muslim nominee.  Therefore, in real life I'm going to be a jerk to this actual flesh-and-blood nominee.:
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the GOP is saying about the Democrats regarding this nomination.  "We are nominating a replacement justice a few weeks before an election for President because the Democrats would hypothetically do the same thing."

 
The Z Machine said:
That's exactly what the GOP is saying about the Democrats regarding this nomination.  "We are nominating a replacement justice a few weeks before an election for President because the Democrats would hypothetically do the same thing."
Click to expand...
Well, that's actually not hypothetical.  Democrats did actually nominate a justice shortly before an election, and people like me argued that they were right to do so and that their justice should have been confirmed.

It's a mystery to me how you go from that, to "we should grill nominees about their religious beliefs."  Nominating justices when your part holds the presidency is good and a normal part of how the system is supposed to work.  Imposing religious litmus tests for nominees is bad.  These two things are not comparable, and we treat them very differently because they're ethically very different.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Could you expand on this a little?  It sounds like you're saying that its a good thing to probe nominees' religious views.  

Let's run with your example of a Muslim nominee.  Imagine somebody comparable to Amy Barrett -- solid educational pedigree, prestigious clerkship, by all accounts a good, distinguished law professor, etc. -- but who happens to be a devout Muslim.  This hypothetical nominee has never decided any cases that raise odd religious issues, has never written any law review articles about injecting religion into the law or anything like that.  He's just a Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, abstains from alcohol and caffeine (legitimately disqualifying IMO but let's set that aside for now), took a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.  Are you saying that it would be reasonable and proper for folks to worry that this person wants to impose Sharia law?  Or would you think that people who wring their hands over that issue were being a little xenophobic and weird?
Click to expand...
Id guess there would be a question about Sharia law and yes the public would be saying it (possibly even people on this board).  They would look into every Mosque that person ever attended and bring up any radical ever caught that had attended that mosque.  Obama was painted as a Muslim as a negative without any such reason to think he was either Muslim or a radical.  You don't think a lifetime appointment would get such scrutiny from the current batch of GOP senators?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Well, that's actually not hypothetical.  Democrats did actually nominate a justice shortly before an election, and people like me argued that they were right to do so and that their justice should have been confirmed.

It's a mystery to me how you go from that, to "we should grill nominees about their religious beliefs."  Nominating justices when your part holds the presidency is good and a normal part of how the system is supposed to work.  Imposing religious litmus tests for nominees is bad.  These two things are not comparable, and we treat them very differently because they're ethically very different.  
Click to expand...
7 and a half months is shortly before an election?

 
sho nuff said:
Id guess there would be a question about Sharia law and yes the public would be saying it (possibly even people on this board).  They would look into every Mosque that person ever attended and bring up any radical ever caught that had attended that mosque.  Obama was painted as a Muslim as a negative without any such reason to think he was either Muslim or a radical.  You don't think a lifetime appointment would get such scrutiny from the current batch of GOP senators?
Click to expand...
Do you think the thing about Obama being a secret Muslim was reasonable, or do you think that folks who peddled in that sort of thing were a little crazy?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Do you think the thing about Obama being a secret Muslim was reasonable, or do you think that folks who peddled in that sort of thing were a little crazy?
Click to expand...
Of course not...because he wasn't actually a Muslim.

Is ACB a member of this group?  If so, the questions are more reasonable...I think the hypocthetical muslim nominee is a good one.  And ACB will get a miniscule amount of critique that a Muslim would get.

 
sho nuff said:
Of course not...because he wasn't actually a Muslim.

Is ACB a member of this group?  If so, the questions are more reasonable...I think the hypocthetical muslim nominee is a good one.  And ACB will get a miniscule amount of critique that a Muslim would get.
Click to expand...
Do you think that a muslim nominee should get that kind of extra critique?

 
sho nuff said:
Do you think she is getting extra critique?  Seems reasonable questions...if a muslim nominee gets reasonable questions, that is fine.  
Click to expand...
Do you think it would be reasonable to ask a muslim nominee if he would impose sharia law on the United States?

Or, more generally, can you give some examples of questions that you consider reasonable, and some examples of questions that cross the line? 

Edit: On the topic of "extra critique," there are people in this thread seriously raising the issue of whether Barrett's husband would be writing her opinions for her.  I think that's insane.  It's on the same level as worrying about whether she's accepting bribes from drug cartels.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Do you think it would be reasonable to ask a muslim nominee if he would impose sharia law on the United States?

Or, more generally, can you give some examples of questions that you consider reasonable, and some examples of questions that cross the line? 

Edit: On the topic of "extra critique," there are people in this thread seriously raising the issue of whether Barrett's husband would be writing her opinions for her.  I think that's insane.  It's on the same level as worrying about whether she's accepting bribes from drug cartels.
Click to expand...
IF the person had never showed one single notion of imposing sharia law?  Had not been a part of some fringe group that pushes or supports it?  No...I would not find that reasonable.

The same generic questions about putting faith above the law that we are discussing for ACB is what I am getting at.  I think people are raising the issue because of the group she is associated with.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
dawgtrails said:
These questions about faith and the law need to be asked. Because they sure as #### would be if there was an atheist or a muslim up for a seat
Click to expand...
Could you expand on this a little?  It sounds like you're saying that its a good thing to probe nominees' religious views.  

Let's run with your example of a Muslim nominee.  Imagine somebody comparable to Amy Barrett -- solid educational pedigree, prestigious clerkship, by all accounts a good, distinguished law professor, etc. -- but who happens to be a devout Muslim.  This hypothetical nominee has never decided any cases that raise odd religious issues, has never written any law review articles about injecting religion into the law or anything like that.  He's just a Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, abstains from alcohol and caffeine (legitimately disqualifying IMO but let's set that aside for now), took a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.  Are you saying that it would be reasonable and proper for folks to worry that this person wants to impose Sharia law?  Or would you think that people who wring their hands over that issue were being a little xenophobic and weird?
Click to expand...
Sharia law? No that is not reasonable at all. If they are a devout anything though, I think it is certainyl reasonable to ask them how their faith guides them in decision making in regards to the law.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe, but it seems kind of odd for somebody to say "In my imagination, Republicans were jerks to my hypothetical Muslim nominee.  Therefore, in real life I'm going to be a jerk to this actual flesh-and-blood nominee.:
Click to expand...
Given where we currently are I don't agree that it's odd.  I'd label it unfortunate or maybe misguided.  We've collectively allowed ourselves to get to this point and we will collectively have to get ourselves out of it (if we can).

 
All nominees are nominated shortly before an election, but some are nominated more shortly than others. :animalfarm:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
"Ms. Barrett, can you rule impartially and keep your religious views separate from your legal reasoning?"

"Sure."

What more are you expecting? 
Click to expand...
The only thing I would add would be to maybe give examples where it could be an issue.  Beyond that I'm willing to take her at her word but I see zero problem with asking it.  I mean what's the point in vetting at all if every question gets reduced to "will you be a good judge?"  I guess we could stop vetting altogether but until we do I think personal held views (religious or otherwise) are fair game to ask about to ensure a nominee can be impartial. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Well, that's actually not hypothetical.  Democrats did actually nominate a justice shortly before an election, and people like me argued that they were right to do so and that their justice should have been confirmed.

It's a mystery to me how you go from that, to "we should grill nominees about their religious beliefs."  Nominating justices when your part holds the presidency is good and a normal part of how the system is supposed to work.  Imposing religious litmus tests for nominees is bad.  These two things are not comparable, and we treat them very differently because they're ethically very different.  
Click to expand...
This has always been my view, the President's term is not over until Inauguration Day.  Constitutionally Obama was doing his duty to nominate Garland.  I said it four plus years ago and stand by it now.  It's also Trump's to be able to nominate a choice.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
It's become standard: yes, we're being horrible, but as long as we project our own horribleness onto the other side as well, our horribleness is warranted as a matter of preemptive retaliation.
Click to expand...
I think there is an interesting discussion/debate to be had about at what point does "turn the other cheek" (my words) become counterproductive.  Probably best for another thread though.

 
Shula-holic said:
This has always been my view, the President's term is not over until Inauguration Day.  Constitutionally Obama was doing his duty to nominate Garland.  I said it four plus years ago and stand by it now.  It's also Trump's to be able to nominate a choice.  
Click to expand...
Same here.  I'm open to arguments in favor of treating post-election lame duck sessions differently, but not some arbitrary period before an election.

 
Shula-holic said:
This has always been my view, the President's term is not over until Inauguration Day.  Constitutionally Obama was doing his duty to nominate Garland.  I said it four plus years ago and stand by it now.  It's also Trump's to be able to nominate a choice.  
Click to expand...
There's a tweet for everything, so I'd wager Trump was vocal four years ago about how a new Justice should not be confirmed within 8 months of an election.

You and I may have been consistent on this point, but if Trump hasn't been, he should rightly be called out for his hypocrisy. McConnell too. And Graham. And basically all Republican politicians, really.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Same here.  I'm open to arguments in favor of treating post-election lame duck sessions differently, but not some arbitrary period before an election.
Click to expand...
I think ultimately what folks are wanting (beyond their "team" "winning") is for things to be fair.  We all should know by now things in life aren't fair and we encounter hypocrisy all over the place.  I know I can be hypocritical about things.  When it's this blatant it can be offensive - it's especially offensive to somebody who is on the other side.  But none of that makes it incorrect/wrong - it just makes the one side #######s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
None. The issue relevant to recusal isn't "whether a particular defendant will be put to death." The issue is whether I can be impartial. Do you not believe that #1 and #2 can be rather different in that regard?
Click to expand...
Yes, it actually is the issue.  That's the whole point of the law review article I posted the abstract from that started the conversation.  The issue is that deciding someone will be put to death is, she argues, against the Catholic religion and she argues that it is something a Catholic judge should recuse herself from.  So, no, I don't believe they can be rather different in that regard.  I'm not sure why you think you think they can.

 

While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Affirming what? Affirming that capital punishment is constitutional, or affirming that the district court exercised its discretion properly in sentencing? I can't tell what the context is from the quoted abstract. Do you take issue with what I wrote here?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Affirming what? Affirming that capital punishment is constitutional, or affirming that the district court exercised its discretion properly in sentencing? I can't tell what the context is from the quoted abstract. Do you take issue with what I wrote here?
Click to expand...
I take issue with the entire suggestion that an appellate judge or Supreme Court Justice in this country makes a determination about an abstract concept unrelated to a particular case.  There is no ivory tower in which the Supreme Court sits and decides on these issues as simple abstractions.  They're applied to cases.  

Yes, in a purely academic context I agree that for some people one question is easier than the other.  But not for everyone.  And it's a completely irrelevant point because there is no purely academic context in which a judge or justice will sit. If a judge affirms the lower court decision of capital punishment, a person is killed by the state.  That's the moral issue she has weighed in on.  Affirmation at all is an affirmation of a sentence of death.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There's a tweet for everything, so I'd wager Trump was vocal four years ago about how a new Justice should not be confirmed within 8 months of an election.

You and I may have been consistent on this point, but if Trump hasn't been, he should rightly be called out for his hypocrisy. McConnell too. And Graham. And basically all Republican politicians, really.
Click to expand...
From my recollection McConnell said then that it hadn’t happened with the Senate being controlled in an election year by the opposing party. But we all know he would say whatever he needed to.
 

I don’t necessarily love Mitch McConnell. I personally wish he had handled that differently. I understand people being upset over it. But, do I think Chuck Schumer would have done the same if given the chance?  Absolutely.  
 

After all, McConnell’s current move is made possible from a rule change in the Senate pushed through for partisan reasons by former majority leader Harry Reid. The hyper partisan environment we are in may be worse today than before, but it has been building for quite some time. It hasn’t just appeared out of nowhere. It’s not a good thing but it’s where we are. Whether McConnell maintains control or Schumer takes over, its going to continue on. 

 
Shula-holic said:
From my recollection McConnell said then that it hadn’t happened with the Senate being controlled in an election year by the opposing party. But we all know he would say whatever he needed to.
 

I don’t necessarily love Mitch McConnell. I personally wish he had handled that differently. I understand people being upset over it. But, do I think Chuck Schumer would have done the same if given the chance?  Absolutely.  
 

After all, McConnell’s current move is made possible from a rule change in the Senate pushed through for partisan reasons by former majority leader Harry Reid. The hyper partisan environment we are in may be worse today than before, but it has been building for quite some time. It hasn’t just appeared out of nowhere. It’s not a good thing but it’s where we are. Whether McConnell maintains control or Schumer takes over, its going to continue on. 
Click to expand...
No it isn't.  McConnell and the Republicans are the ones who changed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees, in 2017, for Gorsuch.

 
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top