Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, massraider said:

If you were Mitch McConnell, would you be reminding GOP senators to get tested regularly? 

Might it not be in the best interests of the party and SC nomination for the regular testing to slow down for a couple weeks?

Obviously it makes a lot more sense to encourage regular testing and bend on in-person voting.  That proposal should have been uncontroversial a month ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Obviously it makes a lot more sense to encourage regular testing and bend on in-person voting.  That proposal should have been uncontroversial a month ago.

I am assuming that option is done. McConnell on record against it. The rules are clear about being in person. I don't think it's possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.

Alliance Defending Freedom wiki

Wasn’t sure if it is typical for lawyers to associate with groups like this, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center comes to mind, but I don’t know enough to know if this is common or not.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.

Alliance Defending Freedom wiki

Wasn’t sure if it is typical for lawyers to associate with groups like this, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center comes to mind, but I don’t know enough to know if this is common or not.


 

 

These are the people that want to make homosexuality a criminal offense and forced sterilization for trans people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

I don’t know a lot of lawyers, so not sure if it is typical to be associated with these type of religious law groups. Apparently Barrett is backed by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, they state their mission is “advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family.” She has given 5 speeches to their organization and accepted donations from them, although I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something that happens regularly with lawyers.

Federal judges can't accept "donations." (I think that probably means speaking fees? Judges can't accept those either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, massraider said:

I am assuming that option is done. McConnell on record against it. The rules are clear about being in person. I don't think it's possible.

McConnell will have them come of the Senate floor for the vote even if they are COVID positive. He’s getting one more win and he doesn’t care how bad it looks or how much backlash he takes. He knows that he’s likely to lose the presidency and the Senate and it’s his last chance to get anything accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2020 at 9:45 AM, massraider said:

I am assuming that option is done. McConnell on record against it. The rules are clear about being in person. I don't think it's possible.

If you don't think he won't simply change the rules, you're fooling yourself.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction.

Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 

Plurality Now Back ASAP Vote on Trump's High Court Pick

Forty-three percent said the Senate should vote on Barrett’s confirmation as soon as possible, regardless of the 2020 election’s winner, up 4 points since after Trump’s announcement, while 37 percent said the chamber should only vote if Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, down 3 points. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-polling/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2020 at 8:00 PM, squistion said:

Mitch will try to force it through, but with 2 members of the Judiciary Committee testing positive to COVID and being under quarantine, it makes it less likely.

So do you disagree with Pelosi’s proxy vote rules too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2020 at 5:23 PM, Stoneworker said:

Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction.

Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 

Plurality Now Back ASAP Vote on Trump's High Court Pick

Forty-three percent said the Senate should vote on Barrett’s confirmation as soon as possible, regardless of the 2020 election’s winner, up 4 points since after Trump’s announcement, while 37 percent said the chamber should only vote if Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, down 3 points. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-polling/

Not disputing the results but that question doesn't really make sense.  The options were "vote on her confirmation ASAP" or "vote only if Trump wins the election".  Those aren't exhaustive.  I don't even know what I'd pick if I was given those choices.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

Not disputing the results but that question doesn't really make sense.  The options were "vote on her confirmation ASAP" or "vote only if Trump wins the election".  Those aren't exhaustive.  I don't even know what I'd pick if I was given those choices.  

I can see your point. The "asap" is the confusing aspect, since the current timeline will likely be before the election.

I think they used "asap" to keep it a binary question, capturing both "before the election" and "regardless of who wins" in one choice. Trump winning being the other choice.

But I agree it's confusing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).

Im not saying it should...but its not just some nothing here.

Of course the liberal-biased media is going to use words like "omission" and "failed to disclose" to imply she is nefariously hiding something. When in fact there could be a thousand benign reasons why those events weren't included (e.g. standard of materiality, deemed relevance, etc.)

If the Committee feels they need additional information not included in the original submission, they'll ask for an update. Or bring it up during the hearings.

A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN "it is a very normal practice" for Supreme Court nominees to update their questionnaire, noting that several current Supreme Court justices also supplied updated copies.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Its the type of thing that has sunk other people (lower positions for sure).

Im not saying it should...but its not just some nothing here.

I mean seriously though.  Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago?  Of course you don't.  

The devout Catholic is pro-life.  People are going to act surprised she gave talks on pro-life things?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I mean seriously though.  Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago?  Of course you don't.  

The devout Catholic is pro-life.  People are going to act surprised she gave talks on pro-life things?

 

She could just go back and look at her professional calendar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Of course the liberal-biased media is going to use words like "omission" and "failed to disclose" to imply she is nefariously hiding something. When in fact there could be a thousand benign reasons why those events weren't included (e.g. standard of materiality, deemed relevance, etc.)

If the Committee feels they need additional information not included in the original submission, they'll ask for an update. Or bring it up during the hearings.

A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN "it is a very normal practice" for Supreme Court nominees to update their questionnaire, noting that several current Supreme Court justices also supplied updated copies.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html

Yes...its the liberal media's fault.  Of course...always easy to use that as an excuse for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I mean seriously though.  Do you think she remembers every talk she gave 7 years ago?  Of course you don't.  

The devout Catholic is pro-life.  People are going to act surprised she gave talks on pro-life things?

 

Ummm...yeah, I think applying for such a position you would remember if you gave such speeches.  When you are on track to such positions, yeah, you keep records and keep stuff updated.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a fellow academic, I can promise you that a) I didn't have a "calendar" seven years ago that I can go back and check today and b) if I did, an entry labeled "College Democrats" (or whatever) probably wouldn't jog my memory about what that meeting was about or what I said.  

I've had guest appearances in seminars and student groups before, and they're mostly hazy memories because they're just an everyday part of the job.  They're not exciting or novel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only two exceptions that I can think of were times when I was asked to speak about marijuana legalization and Obamacare in my role as an economist.  Those were memorable because they involved getting up in front of a large public audience in the evening as part of a panel of speakers.  Sitting around and conversing with a student group is a lot more pleasant, involves way less work and preparation, and isn't at all memorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The only two exceptions that I can think of were times when I was asked to speak about marijuana legalization and Obamacare in my role as an economist.  Those were memorable because they involved getting up in front of a large public audience in the evening as part of a panel of speakers.  Sitting around and conversing with a student group is a lot more pleasant, involves way less work and preparation, and isn't at all memorable.

Look at Mr. Fancy, big timing us. 😜

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

On a related note, Lindsey Graham refused to get a COVID test before his debate tonight. He doesn't want to get the nomination delayed.

BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.

Either he is afraid of the test or he has Covid.

There is no other conclusion.

He’s in a tossup race and just jumped on top of a grenade.

(incredibly enough, people sometimes survive that #truestory)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.

Either he is afraid of the test or he has Covid.

There is no other conclusion.

He’s in a tossup race and just jumped on top of a grenade.

(incredibly enough, people sometimes survive that #truestory)

He doesn’t want anything to risk the SCOTUS hearing, including contracting covid or a false positive screening test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

BREAKING: The South Carolina Senate debate is been cancelled because Lindsey Graham refused to take a COVID test.

Either he is afraid of the test or he has Covid.

There is no other conclusion.

He’s in a tossup race and just jumped on top of a grenade.

(incredibly enough, people sometimes survive that #truestory)

I mean maybe the Republicans think avoiding debates is a winning strategy.  After Election Day if they win, then maybe it is.  
 

Seems like political suicide and your thought regarding the rationale behind it can be the only possible outcomes.

Fascinating for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hearings this week should be fun. Which Democrat is going to try to one up Olbermann?

Quote

Liberal pundit Keith Olbermann referred to President Trump as a “terrorist” and called for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and others to be “prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society” in a lengthy rant on his personal YouTube channel on Thursday.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-amy-coney-barrett-trump-prosecuted-removed-society

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris setting a respectful tone for Democrats...doubtful of anything other than a vote along party lines...but hopefully at least no more Feinstein BS.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said Amy Coney Barrett should "absolutely not" be questioned about her religious beliefs during confirmation hearings for the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. 

“But any questions that are about bias, any questions that are about perspective on adhering to jurisprudence and precedent — of course,” the senator from California said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-amy-coney-barrett-faith-off-the-table-during-confirmation

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Much like confirming a nominee right before an election, court-packing can be good or bad depending on which party is doing it.

Republicans have been the ones doing it lately -- at the state level.

https://www.governing.com/now/Court-Packing-Its-Already-Happening-at-the-State-Level.html

It will turn out to be the worst influence Trump has had on this country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tolstoy said:

It will turn out to be the worst influence Trump has had on this country

This isn't a Trump thing.  It's much worse than that.

I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house.  He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to.  Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.

For state-level Republicans, however, it's all cool.  These governors and state legislators decided to take this banana republic step that even Trump wouldn't take.  First of all, these folks are at least as and probably more representative of red-state Republicans than Trump, so the fact that they're willing to do stuff like this suggests that it's less a Trump thing and more of a Republican thing.  Second, these people who are state legislators today will be tomorrow's senators and presidential candidates.  That bodes very poorly for the party's future.

In other words, I would not be optimistic about the GOP returning to normalcy after Trump.  This is going to continue until the party starts paying a price for tearing down norms.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house.  He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to.  Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.

 

I could be wrong in saying this. I have no memory of Trump’s comments on court packing from the 2016-2018 era. But I’m very skeptical that Trump would have been ethically against court packing if the votes were there. McCain, Collins, Murkowski and Flake would have been against it, I’m sure. Probably others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I could be wrong in saying this. I have no memory of Trump’s comments on court packing from the 2016-2018 era. But I’m very skeptical that Trump would have been ethically against court packing if the votes were there. McCain, Collins, Murkowski and Flake would have been against it, I’m sure. Probably others.

It would have required legislation subject to filibustering.

Also, a bunch of people in the House would have opposed it -- e.g., Amash. The House seems to be harder to round up and herd in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This isn't a Trump thing.  It's much worse than that.

I mean, Trump had a Republican senate and Republican house.  He could have packed the supreme court if he really wanted to, but he chose not to.  Donald Trump had the option of court packing and decided that it was a bridge too far.

For state-level Republicans, however, it's all cool.  These governors and state legislators decided to take this banana republic step that even Trump wouldn't take.  First of all, these folks are at least as and probably more representative of red-state Republicans than Trump, so the fact that they're willing to do stuff like this suggests that it's less a Trump thing and more of a Republican thing.  Second, these people who are state legislators today will be tomorrow's senators and presidential candidates.  That bodes very poorly for the party's future.

In other words, I would not be optimistic about the GOP returning to normalcy after Trump.  This is going to continue until the party starts paying a price for tearing down norms.

I think that's giving him, McConnell really, too much credit. 

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...