Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

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.

We are already starting to see these type of candidates in federal elections. Look at the Delaware Senate race. We have QANON cultists running in Oregon and Georgia.

This election needs to be a blowout. The GOP needs to lose in red states. I want Kansas and Montana in play.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Amy just crushing all the talking points thrown at her by Dianne Feinstein.  There has to be at least 50 points difference in IQ between the two.  

According to twitter, she used the term "sexual preference." I reckon she did that on purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whoknew said:

According to twitter, she used the term "sexual preference." I reckon she did that on purpose. 

I must have missed that part.  I listened to abortion, guns and then ACA.  Nothing was sticking. 

Dianne showed her incompetence when they were talking about guns and she referenced back to Roe v saying how many people die because of guns.  Then she had a long drawn out question about ACA lifetime payouts limits that Amy nicely pointed out has nothing to do with the case coming up in a couple of weeks, saying something like "the court is going to rule on the constitutionality of ACA, it's up to congress to determine the specific benefits it does or doesn't provide".  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I must have missed that part.  I listened to abortion, guns and then ACA.  Nothing was sticking. 

Dianne showed her incompetence when they were talking about guns and she referenced back to Roe v saying how many people die because of guns.  Then she had a long drawn out question about ACA lifetime payouts limits that Amy nicely pointed out has nothing to do with the case coming up in a couple of weeks, saying something like "the court is going to rule on the constitutionality of ACA, it's up to congress to determine the specific benefits it does or doesn't provide".  :lol:

I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself - 

 

@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whoknew said:

I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself - 

 

@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

Didn't hear that part either, I guess they each have 30 minutes and my commute is only half that.

For most answers I think she's doing a great job of sticking with "rule by law in consultation with the court" instead of giving answers to future hypothetical gotchas. I think that's smart.  She has the votes, all she has to do is avoid the scandal.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:

I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself - 

 

@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

I think "punting" on hypothetical questions is how every nominee has handled all such questions for as long as I can remember.  So I would take the answer with a grain of salt, even though it seems her likely prepared reply managed to punt in a way which seems a bit dishonest to the specific question asked.   (Note- I am not saying she was being dishonest just that it seems she kind of outsmarted herself as I doubt she would "need" to consult those particular sources for this particular question.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Amy just crushing all the talking points thrown at her by Dianne Feinstein.  There has to be at least 50 points difference in IQ between the two.  

and the trendlines are likely running in directions that will continue to widen that gap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I think "punting" on hypothetical questions is how every nominee has handled all such questions for as long as I can remember.  So I would take the answer with a grain of salt, even though it seems her likely prepared reply managed to punt in a way which seems a bit dishonest to the specific question asked.   (Note- I am not saying she was being dishonest just that it seems she kind of outsmarted herself as I doubt she would "need" to consult those particular sources for this particular question.)

 

They may punt on some hypotheticals - I understand the case in controversy point. But the timing of the election is right there in the constitution. 

If she gets asked, "State A passes a law that requires abortion providers to get certified by the State. Would that be constitutional?" That's not something she likely could or should answer. 

But this question? Its pretty easy - ESPECIALLY for an originalist. "The date is prescribed in the constitution. Maybe there is some scenario that I'm not thinking of that would allow the President to move it but I can't think of it off the top of my head."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:

 

They may punt on some hypotheticals - I understand the case in controversy point. But the timing of the election is right there in the constitution. 

If she gets asked, "State A passes a law that requires abortion providers to get certified by the State. Would that be constitutional?" That's not something she likely could or should answer. 

But this question? Its pretty easy - ESPECIALLY for an originalist. "The date is prescribed in the constitution. Maybe there is some scenario that I'm not thinking of that would allow the President to move it but I can't think of it off the top of my head."

 

I just don't think nominees ever answer these types of questions.   Maybe there are examples that prove the rule,  Now I most certainly don't listen to much of these hearings so this is second hand opinion, but I don't think those asking these questions even expect an answer.   Heck, maybe a nominee should take one such as this and shock them all into silence with a real answer for a change.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Really? Been viewed that way since at least the 1990s in the queer community.
 

I mean, I can now see how that community might think that's how "sexual preference" is being used by those who believe it is a choice. They've had to fight against the idea of choice for a while. But, I can easily use "preference" in many other statements without someone assuming it suggests choice.

I prefer pizza to kale.

I prefer the Football Team to the Cowboys.

I prefer warm weather to cold weather.

I prefer Breaking Bad to Full House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dgreen said:

I mean, I can now see how that community might think that's how "sexual preference" is being used by those who believe it is a choice. They've had to fight against the idea of choice for a while. But, I can easily use "preference" in many other statements without someone assuming it suggests choice.

I prefer pizza to kale.

I prefer the Football Team to the Cowboys.

I prefer warm weather to cold weather.

I prefer Breaking Bad to Full House.

Assuming one acts on those preferences, how are they not implying a choice?  Arguing that you might prefer something but choose something else is probably not a good argument to make in this case.  Neither would be that those are my preferences, but I'm not given that choice. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself - 

 

@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

 

11 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

They may punt on some hypotheticals - I understand the case in controversy point. But the timing of the election is right there in the constitution. 

If she gets asked, "State A passes a law that requires abortion providers to get certified by the State. Would that be constitutional?" That's not something she likely could or should answer. 

But this question? Its pretty easy - ESPECIALLY for an originalist. "The date is prescribed in the constitution. Maybe there is some scenario that I'm not thinking of that would allow the President to move it but I can't think of it off the top of my head."

Election date is set by statute, not the Constitution. I think it's reasonable that a judge would say they can't answer that question without further analysis. I guess it's possible that there is a provision that allows the executive to move that date in case of national emergency or something. Seems unlikely, but unless you've already done the analysis, I don't think it's wise for a judge to offer an opinion on that legal question. 

Edited by FBG26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I mean, I can now see how that community might think that's how "sexual preference" is being used by those who believe it is a choice. They've had to fight against the idea of choice for a while. But, I can easily use "preference" in many other statements without someone assuming it suggests choice.

I prefer pizza to kale.

I prefer the Football Team to the Cowboys.

I prefer warm weather to cold weather.

I prefer Breaking Bad to Full House.

> Insert Almond Joy slogan here <

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Assuming one acts on those preferences, how are they not implying a choice?  Arguing that you might prefer something but choose something else is probably not a good argument to make in this case.  Neither would be that those are my preferences, but I'm not given that choice. 

The action is a choice. The preference isn't. Just because you prefer something, doesn't mean you've made a choice yet. Our choices are driven by our preferences.

I can prefer X over Y for reason A but I might prefer Y over X for reason B. For example, I said I prefer pizza to kale. However, it's probably more accurate to say that I prefer the taste of pizza to the taste of kale. Therefore, if I was choosing what to have for dinner based on taste, I'd show that preference by choosing pizza. However, I might prefer losing weight to gaining weight. If so, I might then prefer kale to pizza and choose to eat kale.

Definition of preference: a greater liking for one alternative over another or others. I don't see choice there. 

Anyway, interesting discussion, but probably off topic unless this becomes an issue in Judge Barrett's confirmation. I am now aware that "sexual preference" isn't preferred by queer community and if I'm in a scenario where I'm going to use that terminology, hopefully I'll use "sexual orientation" instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a person who is not voting for Trump, she is knocking this out of the park.  To be against her confirmation would be 100% partisan politics by the Dems.  No way around it.  Even CNN is struggling to find something bad to hang their hat on.

Edited by Wildcat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant...

"I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning, that I'm hostile to the ACA, and that because I'm hostile to the ACA, that I would decide a case a particular way — and I assure you that I'm not," Barrett told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

"I'm not hostile to the ACA. I'm not hostile to any statute that you pass," she added.

"I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy."

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whoknew said:

I'm not watching so take twitter with a grain of salt, but if this is accurate, it seems concerning to punt this question. Especially for a textualist or originalist or whatever she calls herself - 

 

@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

What she is doing is actually very smart. she is reinforcing the notion that she, by herself, is not going to make a unilateral decision or opine the proposed question. Instead, she is reiterating in almost every response she is giving that -

-someone is going to make a policy, rule, law, etc

-when needed, she is going to interpret the case as it stands on its own merit WITH the input of peers and facts. 

 

Actually, this is brilliant and the textbook way it should be done. She has said nothing that someone can say "she WILL go this way". She is a textbook "we will look at the facts of the matter and decide as a group as it should be" candidate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, shadrap said:

The appearance of impartiality by most dems in the senate is moot as I doubt a one of them votes for Barrett.  it is their right though.

Its all semantics and time-drag at this point. The Democrats on the committee have already stated point blank they will not vote for her confirmation. 

They have even went as far as to say they won't show up to form a quorum but that won't change anything either. 

Even Schumur is saying "she needs to recuse herself from this and that, etc".  The cake is baked. Everyone is decided. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I dunno.  She used the term "sexual preference" which is deeply problematic as of about 5 minutes ago.  That might be a game-changer, folks.

Yikes!

 

Quote

 

Barrett’s use of “sexual preference” on Tuesday brought Scalia’s words to mind. It indicates that she might share the position of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that opposes LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws and supports the criminalization of homosexuality, and consistency rejects the validity of LGBTQ identities. (Barrett has given paid speeches to the organization on five occasions. When she was questioned about whether she supports the organization’s full agenda, she said she did not look at all of the materials it gave students attending her speeches.) ADF regularly asks the Supreme Court to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people and roll back their constitutional equality. The group is currently urging the Supreme Court to rule that Philadelphia must provide public funding to a foster care agency that refuses to work with same-sex parents. SCOTUS will hear the case in November—shortly after Barrett is confirmed, if Republicans’ current timeline holds.

In light of Barrett’s long affiliation with anti-gay organizations, her coded language on Tuesday should not be dismissed as a poor choice of words. Republicans have selected her, in part, to reward the Christian right for its loyalty to Donald Trump. Eroding constitutional equality for LGBTQ people is a key priority for this bloc. Barrett has given us every reason to expect that she will shore up a conservative majority that is ready and willing to condemn gay Americans to second-class citizenship once again.

 

:mellow:

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Shutout said:

What she is doing is actually very smart. she is reinforcing the notion that she, by herself, is not going to make a unilateral decision or opine the proposed question. Instead, she is reiterating in almost every response she is giving that -

-someone is going to make a policy, rule, law, etc

-when needed, she is going to interpret the case as it stands on its own merit WITH the input of peers and facts. 

 

Actually, this is brilliant and the textbook way it should be done. She has said nothing that someone can say "she WILL go this way". She is a textbook "we will look at the facts of the matter and decide as a group as it should be" candidate.  

I agree in the bit I listened to she is saying many of the correct things. She carries herself well as well. Much better than Kavanaugh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Yikes!

 

:mellow:

 

That attitude in a modern society is absolutely unacceptable and a disqualifier for the highest court in the land. She should be called out vigorously and repeatedly.

  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zow said:

I agree in the bit I listened to she is saying many of the correct things. She carries herself well as well. Much better than Kavanaugh. 

Kavanaugh might agree with you but he got black out drunk and can't remember.

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...