Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

I am kind of annoyed though. I often use the "if I were the king of the world I would [let whatever it is client wants happen], but I'm not so I have to advise you that [insert how law applies to the facts and the client's desired outcome isn't likely]" way of breaking bad news. Now I'm going to be thought of as having stolen it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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’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

So it is early.  But for those of us who did not sleep, it is late. And survivors and their family members have told their tales in here, and rent the hearts from our very chests, and opened eyes that

2 hours ago, cap'n grunge said:

Amy doing well...Amy Klobuchar that is.

I thought it was the opposite of well when she asked ACB if Roe v Wade was a Super Precedent and when asked her definition more or less couldn't answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Not sure if you're being serious or facetious.  I can't imagine Republicans flipping their votes over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Did Hirono just ask ACB if she's ever been accused of sexual harrassment?

You did, also if she committed any. Sounds like the Democrats laying the groundwork here for another Blassey Ford debacle-


Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB "since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"

https://twitter.com/dailycaller/status/1316118474222075904?s=21

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

She said she asks that question of everyone (in scope of some context related to appointments/hiring/positions/etc).

Without any supporting context?  

How about, "are you no longer beating your wife?"  Good lord.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Without any supporting context?  

How about, "are you no longer beating your wife?"  Good lord.

I don't think its nearly the same as your "how about" question.  Seems a legitimate question if she does, in fact, ask it of anyone if they have done so.  Especially in today's climate.

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

I don't think its nearly the same as your "how about" question.  Seems a legitimate question if she does, in fact, ask it of anyone if they have done so.  Especially in today's climate.

You think it was a legitimate question to ask?  Because Hirono says she asks everyone that question, it makes it ok?  My example was tongue in cheek, but the point is that it is not only a baseless question, but its also pretty offensive.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You think it was a legitimate question to ask?  Because Hirono says she asks everyone that question, it makes it ok?  My example was tongue in cheek, but the point is that it is not only a baseless question, but its also pretty offensive.  

To me, asking everyone removes any assumed offensiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You think it was a legitimate question to ask?  Because Hirono says she asks everyone that question, it makes it ok?  My example was tongue in cheek, but the point is that it is not only a baseless question, but its also pretty offensive.  

I think for a lifetime appointment...and even some other long term things...yes, it is legitimate to ask if the person has ever been accused of such things.  I don't find it offensive to be asked such  thing at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sparticus-Booker going all in on bashing Trump at a hearing for scotus.  he likes hearing himself talk more than he likes listening to answers.  it's a common affectation of most politicians but he is in the top 5.

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

sparticus-Booker going all in on bashing Trump at a hearing for scotus.  he likes hearing himself talk more than he likes listening to answers.  it's a common affectation of most politicians but he is in the top 5.

He’s letting her talk more than any others I’ve seen the last hour or so. He’s actually asking questions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shadrap said:

sparticus-Booker going all in on bashing Trump at a hearing for scotus.  he likes hearing himself talk more than he likes listening to answers.  it's a common affectation of most politicians but he is in the top 5.

He does like to hear himself speak. But he's actually a really great listener. If I was going to have a conversation about my issues with a Senator, he'd be high on my list of Senators to talk to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I think for a lifetime appointment...and even some other long term things...yes, it is legitimate to ask if the person has ever been accused of such things.  I don't find it offensive to be asked such  thing at all.

Insisting on using the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" is far more offensive, especially for a Supreme Court nominee, but what do I know. :shrug:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don’t get is that the Senate makes the law. Pass a GD law that passes constitutional muster. Harris actually asks a question, a loaded one for sure.

 

The ACA sucks. Get M4A and push it through.

Edited by Gawain
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, General Malaise said:

Insisting on using the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" is far more offensive, especially for a Supreme Court nominee, but what do I know. :shrug:

 

Not sure most people find it as offensive as you, but you’ll be glad to hear that she admitted to not being aware of such offense and apologized for it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whoknew said:

But does she like beer?

I grew up Catholic and "we" love booze, gambling and sex.  Of course the sex has to be monogamous and in a heterosexual marriage.  Still, I think it beats most religions in those categories.


ETA I couldn't disagree more with the bolded.

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  

Edited by beef
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beef said:

I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  

Agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a stat thrown that there had been 29 SC nominees during an election year. 19 of those were when Senate and President were same party and 17 were confirmed. 10 were when the parties differed and only 1 of 10 were confirmed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beef said:

I haven't been paying much attention to these hearings.  From what I have, ACB seems like a good, honest person and an expert at law.  Really all I need to know or care about.

I can not like the process of pushing a SCJ through, but I certainly won't hold that against her.  

Yeah this is fair. And she's pretty reasonably qualified (which is the metric). Frankly, I'd venture to say that most nominated to SCOTUS have been very qualified and should have been affirmed without issue. Off the top of my head Harriet Myers is the only nominee that I can recall that didn't objectively fit the profile. I do believe Kavanaugh's demeanor and behavior in his nomination process should have disqualified him. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I grew up Catholic and "we" love booze, gambling and sex.  Of course the sex has to be monogamous and in a heterosexual marriage.  Still, I think it beats most religions in those categories.


ETA I couldn't disagree more with the bolded.

Notebook updated. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gawain said:

There was a stat thrown that there had been 29 SC nominees during an election year. 19 of those were when Senate and President were same party and 17 were confirmed. 10 were when the parties differed and only 1 of 10 were confirmed. 

The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.

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

The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.

I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

Good post.  She is qualified but timing off and kavanaugh definitely at the bottom.  While I believe most would consider her conservative just as much rbg was liberal but she was confirmed 92-8 I believe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

Same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

That's totally fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The 1 in 10 part is the takeaway here.  What's happening with Barrett is what's supposed to happen, and the Garland episode was a farce.  The US would do well to reset the norm back to pre-Bork days and just agree that the senate confirms any reasonable nominee put up by the president, regardless of which party controls what.

Except only one of the ten was confirmed. It has been politics since Jefferson split from Adams.

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

I guess the debate is what does reasonable mean. I don't think it should be a rubber stamp (not saying you are saying that). 

If I were a Dem Senator, I would vote for ACB and would have voted for Gorsuch. I would not have voted for Kavanaugh.

Yup

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dgreen said:

To me, asking everyone removes any assumed offensiveness.

So as long as your neighbor is inclusive to all and asks your wife AND you mother and daughters if they cheat on their men then it's not offensive?  

The point is, it's baseless, especially considering she has already been vetted to the max.  She is confirmed on a lower court for crying out loud.  This is truly an insulting waste of time in this setting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:

So as long as your neighbor is inclusive to all and asks your wife AND you mother and daughters if they cheat on their men then it's not offensive?  

The point is, it's baseless, especially considering she has already been vetted to the max.  She is confirmed on a lower court for crying out loud.  This is truly an insulting waste of time in this setting.  

Why would my neighbor be questioning them?

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...