Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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. 

This is true.  I posted a long post on this a few weeks ago and I've seen the same line stated on TV since.  This is consistent info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s next to now chance the nomination is stopped. Best for the Democrats to just get it over without much potential backlash. Question her aggressively but avoid the theatrics and controversies. Then use the appointment politically. Hammer the hypocrisy, what changes might happen as a result and that this was their priority over the pandemic.

Stupid behavior now is equivalent to a getting a personal foul call the end of a blowout loss that gets you suspended for the first playoff game. You lost, it’s not fair but nothing you do will change the fact that you lost. Move on and live to fight another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best moment of the day:  Klobuchar asking if Roe was a Super Precedent and when asked what her definition of super precedent was--she more or less said she didn't know.  

Second best:  Booker trying to trick her into commenting on Masterpiece Cake shop v Colorado and her pointing out exactly what direction he was heading in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it’s all for show I haven’t really watched much of this but the snippets I have seen she seems calm, cool and forthright. Not offputting, clearly intelligent and from the backstory I’ve read she’s a good human being.  I may not agree with her on some core issues but then again she hasn’t ruled on any of those so that’s just a presumption. Seems qualified if I were a Dem senator I’d be happy she was put up. Considering the power position the right is in a real horror show could have been put up and passed through.  She’s clearly not that.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

As it’s all for show I haven’t really watched much of this but the snippets I have seen she seems calm, cool and forthright. Not offputting, clearly intelligent and from the backstory I’ve read she’s a good human being.  I may not agree with her on some core issues but then again she hasn’t ruled on any of those so that’s just a presumption. Seems qualified if I were a Dem senator I’d be happy she was put up. Considering the power position the right is in a real horror show could have been put up and passed through.  She’s clearly not that.  

It is hard to watch.  I've looked up sessions on youtube for the Senators I like/don't like.  

But it's a lot like impeachment.  Senators want to talk so the American people hear them.  They either throw soft ball questions or try to trip her up.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

But it's a lot like impeachment.  Senators want to talk so the American people hear them.  They either throw soft ball questions or try to trip her up.  

That’s all any of these hearings and the like are anymore, a performance. Everyone is fighting for their gotta quote or headline but no real substance is being sought. I could not be more disenchanted with both sides of the isle.  As the months/years go by I fear I’m turning into @ren hoek, lol.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dkp993 said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1316126029522575363
 

Found this interesting.  The same #### is going on in the left too without question but it should just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve tumbled.  SERIOUS reform is needed, and it’s clear we don’t have the will power to do it.  

Immediately thereafter, Ted Cruz confirmed that dark money spending favors the D by at least 3 to 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Obie Wan said:

Immediately thereafter, Ted Cruz confirmed that dark money spending favors the D by at least 3 to 1

It does.  Democratic Super PACs are getting massive funding.  Fund for Policy Reform ($45M), Democracy PAC ($35M), Carpenters and Joiners Union ($30M), 1630 Fund ($25M), Senate Majority PAC ($20M), League of Conservation Voters $20M), Everytown for Gun Safety ($15M).  The top Republican Super PACs are American Action Network ($20M) and America First Policies ($15M).  It's the pot calling the kettle black.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jm192 said:

Best moment of the day:  Klobuchar asking if Roe was a Super Precedent and when asked what her definition of super precedent was--she more or less said she didn't know. 

That was a great exchange but it went much further. Klobachar knew. She was just trying to catch Barrett, who didn't fall for it. Instead, Barrett explained that a super precedent was a case that no one disputes, no one even talks about anymore because it is settled law, like Brown vs. Bd. Ed. Klobachar then went on to ask why Roe isn't a super-precedent.  Barrett's answer was awesome, saying that considering how many questions she had been asked up until that point about Roe makes it clear that it is disputed and therefore isn't settled law and doesn't qualify as a super-precedent. :mic drop: 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anybody doubts that the "sexual preference" thing is something that was just made up yesterday, here's Websters on the subject:

https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1316223349719216128

Edit: To be clear, when I say that this issue was "made up yesterday," I really do mean literally yesterday.  48 hours ago this expression was completely uncontroversial.  My prediction is that it will go back to being uncontroversial the moment after Barrett is confirmed.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wildcat said:

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.

ACB is a high character person and judge.  Would be sad and politcal if she did not get a good portion of Dems voting for her.  We could have done much worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's The Advocate using the term "sexual preference" literally three weeks ago, without any controversy or disclaimers or anything:

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1316381852039622656/photo/1

I don't want to belabor this point too much because we all know it's going to evaporate as soon as the senate votes on Barrett's nomination.  But when people send a clear, unmistakable signal that they're arguing in bad faith, it's important to make a note of that for future reference.  Also, we should all push back when people try to gaslight others over stuff like this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Here's The Advocate using the term "sexual preference" literally three weeks ago, without any controversy or disclaimers or anything:

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1316381852039622656/photo/1

I don't want to belabor this point too much because we all know it's going to evaporate as soon as the senate votes on Barrett's nomination.  But when people send a clear, unmistakable signal that they're arguing in bad faith, it's important to make a note of that for future reference.  Also, we should all push back when people try to gaslight others over stuff like this.

You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dgreen said:

You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.

I live in this world.  I encountered the unfortunate term "Latinx" probably 3-4 years ago.  Lots of people in my little professional circle use the term "BIPOC" fluently, as do I.  I no longer get a nervous twitch when I see someone use the term "cisgender" unironically.  While I think the social justice cult is a little silly, I am pretty much 100% up to speed on the official terminology.

"Sexual preference" is completely fine.  There's nothing wrong with that term, it implies nothing about anyone's sexual preference being a choice, and anybody who claims to be offended over Barrett using this expression really needs to bring receipts of them objecting to that term previously because otherwise I am going to assume that they're lying.

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

23 minutes ago, dgreen said:

You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.

I think I was the first person to write about it and I thought it was a thing. If I'm wrong, ok. But I looked on some LGBQT+ sites and they had it as a thing. And, frankly, it makes sense to me. 

But again, if I'm wrong, I will freely admit that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dgreen said:

You've provided some good evidence. I'm waiting for the counter argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like a few posters in here seemed to think this was already a thing.

I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

It does.  Democratic Super PACs are getting massive funding.  Fund for Policy Reform ($45M), Democracy PAC ($35M), Carpenters and Joiners Union ($30M), 1630 Fund ($25M), Senate Majority PAC ($20M), League of Conservation Voters $20M), Everytown for Gun Safety ($15M).  The top Republican Super PACs are American Action Network ($20M) and America First Policies ($15M).  It's the pot calling the kettle black.  

Sure.  But the point is at this level the size of the problem or corruption is worthless.  They are both so massively corrupted and comprised its 6 of one or 1/2 a dozen the other.   Wether you rob 10 banks or 30 matters little, you’re a bank robber none the less.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.

People get way too caught up in "terms".     

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Sure.  But the point is at this level the size of the problem or corruption is worthless.  They are both so massively corrupted and comprised its 6 of one or 1/2 a dozen the other.   Wether you rob 10 banks or 30 matters little, you’re a bank robber none the less.  

But it's not really worthless.  If you have $300M in funds and your opponent has $100M in funds, you shouldn't complain that your opponent has $100M in funds.  The playing field isn't level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

But it's not really worthless.  If you have $300M in funds and your opponent has $100M in funds, you shouldn't complain that your opponent has $100M in funds.  The playing field isn't level.

Whitehouse is playing politics, as was ever single other person at that hearing.  I’m not agreeing with his position, just merely pointing out a massive problem that he happened to highlight. And if you think it’s 100m vs 300m you’re nuts, truth is it’s likely multiples of billions on both sides with lobbying added in.  We are all getting played, by all of them.   The money in politics, and rules that allow it, is what’s dividing and damaging this country  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

People get way too caught up in "terms".     

It's that way by design.  The cult changes its approved terminology every couple of years.  That serves the purpose of making it easy for members of the in-group to signal their in-group status while out-group members unmask themselves by using last year's terminology.  (Not a joke -- that's actually an important sociological reason behind why the approved nomenclature changes all the time).

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

11 hours ago, dkp993 said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1316126029522575363
 

Found this interesting.  The same #### is going on in the left too without question but it should just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve tumbled.  SERIOUS reform is needed, and it’s clear we don’t have the will power to do it.  

It may be interesting, but there's no reason for these speeches in the context of a confirmation hearing.  I heard one on the radio this morning from the other side.  What is the point of debating healthcare or abortion politics in this context?  I would be happy if we never had any public confirmation hearings, period.  But if they have to do it, the senators should be strictly limited to only asking relevant questions of the nominee, solely in connection with their advice and consent role. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

It may be interesting, but there's no reason for these speeches in the context of a confirmation hearing.  I heard one on the radio this morning from the other side.  What is the point of debating healthcare or abortion politics in this context?  I would be happy if we never had any public confirmation hearings, period.  But if they have to do it, the senators should be strictly limited to only asking relevant questions of the nominee, solely in connection with their advice and consent role. 

 

Yep, unfortunately grandstanding has become the standard expected norm for any of these public congressional events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

I googled "sexual preference" requesting hits over the last year and got 165,000 results.  I then googled "sexual orientation" and got 29,100,000 over the last year..  

When I first heard about it, I thought "sexual preference" is a term I used to hear but rarely any more.  

As far as ACB, she answered the follow up appropriately so I think this should be put to rest.  

It makes sense that "sexual orientation" is a more politically correct term and probably what we should all use going forward.

This is a good post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

What does the catechism say about lying?

Quote

 

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

 

More available here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, squistion said:

So if she thinks that man-made climate change is a hoax, fake news, or junk science, that would not impact any decision she makes on SCOTUS?

Why would it?  

I think climate change is real and we should do something about it.  I can't come up with a hypothetical example in which that affects my understanding of the constitution.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

She had to have left off the right to protest on purpose. Total signal to the base. Otherwise convince me a SC nominee doesn't know the rights guaranteed in the First, c'mon. I was born at night but not last night.  

A law professor to boot.

I am a lowly teacher certified to teach Social Studies from grade 5 through adult ed and I know the Bill of Rights by heart. The other 17 take a little head scratching, but I know them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

This thread beginning to reek of liberal desperation...

This is the person who I wanted nominated instead of Kavanaugh, and I posted as much at the time.  I also would have liked to have seen Kavanaugh's nomination pulled and replaced with Barrett.

It's not often that I get strong confirmation that I was right when it comes to this sort of historical counter-factual, but the substantive arguments against this nominee are so humorously weak and made in such obviously bad faith that I feel even better about this nominee than I did before.

Edit: The president sending up a highly-qualified nominee who is then confirmed by the senate = "the fix is in."  A source of "dismay" even.  You just can't make this stuff up.

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

28 minutes ago, squistion said:

:(

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1316452732044144640

Under questioning from Sen. Blumenthal, Judge Barrett says that she does not believe her views on climate change are relevant to the work she would do as a judge.

Why would it be?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

She had to have left off the right to protest on purpose. Total signal to the base. Otherwise convince me a SC nominee doesn't know the rights guaranteed in the First, c'mon. I was born at night but not last night.  

What's this now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

I would imagine that there would be decisions involving climate change and the environment (either directly or indirectly) that would come before her.

A justice can be atheist and still appropriately analyze the First Amendment and apply stare decisis and critical thinking when confronted with an issue of the establishment clause and, conversely, a person's right to practice a particular religion that does believe in God/god. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is the person who I wanted nominated instead of Kavanaugh, and I posted as much at the time.  I also would have liked to have seen Kavanaugh's nomination pulled and replaced with Barrett.

It's not often that I get strong confirmation that I was right when it comes to this sort of historical counter-factual, but the substantive arguments against this nominee are so humorously weak and made in such obviously bad faith that I feel even better about this nominee than I did before.

Edit: The president sending up a highly-qualified nominee who is then confirmed by the senate = "the fix is in."  You just can't make this stuff up.

She's probably better than Kavanaugh. Frankly though, her views and background seem a bit extreme. Do you think she knew the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, or did she just happen to forget a specific one coincidentally? I'm sure that's not substantive enough of course, not saying it is.

Look we all know the confirmation is a done deal. It seems to me that she represents a small sliver of America, from her religion (hint: not Catholicism) to her inability to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. She's a Trumper, IMO. All the issues he wants, she was asked about and refused to answer. Can he pardon himself? Can he move the election date? Is voter intimidation illegal? Because he wants her there when he declares himself the winner of the election and takes it to court. And she will vote to his liking.

Feel free to pretend this is anything but that though. 20 days before the election with 10 million votes already cast and counting, and Garland couldn't get a hearing 6 months from election day. C'mon, we all know what's going on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zow said:

A justice can be atheist and still appropriately analyze the First Amendment and apply stare decisis and critical thinking when confronted with an issue of the establishment clause and, conversely, a person's right to practice a particular religion that does believe in God/god. 

In theory but I doubt she will be objective after reading this and I imagine that we will have to agree to disagree.

https://twitter.com/Hegemommy/status/1316452405345579008

Blumenthal pivots to corruption and then climate change and Barrett won't offer up if she thinks climate change is real

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

She's probably better than Kavanaugh. Frankly though, her views and background seem a bit extreme. Do you think she knew the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, or did she just happen to forget a specific one coincidentally? I'm sure that's not substantive enough of course, not saying it is.

Look we all know the confirmation is a done deal. It seems to me that she represents a small sliver of America, from her religion (hint: not Catholicism) to her inability to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. She's a Trumper, IMO. All the issues he wants, she was asked about and refused to answer. Can he pardon himself? Can he move the election date? Is voter intimidation illegal? Because he wants her there when he declares himself the winner of the election and takes it to court. And she will vote to his liking.

Feel free to pretend this is anything but that though. 20 days before the election with 10 million votes already cast and counting, and Garland couldn't get a hearing 6 months from election day. C'mon, we all know what's going on here. 

1.  Trump has the constitutional right to nominate her. 

2.  She is overwhelmingly qualified for the position. 

 

The rest of this is supposition and conjecture.  She should be and will be confirmed.

Edited by unckeyherb
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...