Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, squistion said:

Desperation?  No, it is dismay as her confirmation is a fait accompli. 

The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stoneworker said:

The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.

Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

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.

Merrick Garland is on the line. He has a few questions about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).

Ah. Now I see. Rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to advise and consent, Democrats are spitefully protesting losing a political battle. So much for any moral high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Merrick Garland is on the line. He has a few questions about this.

What happened to him was wrong, I'm sure you'd agree.  For punitive purposes you'd prefer to continue this wrong action and set it firmly as precedent?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).

This seat is not being stolen.  There is a vacancy, Trump has every right to nominate a replacement.  Full stop. 

Terrible actions by Mconnell notwithstanding.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

This seat is not being stolen.  There is a vacancy, Trump has every right to nominate a replacement.  Full stop. 

Terrible actions by Mconnell notwithstanding.

Agreed Herb but statements like the bolded below are laughably partisan in context to what happened with Garland

23 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

The liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. Among those who didn't confuse policy with the law and voted "Yea" was a certain conservative named Mitch McConnell. 

Why wouldn't a well-qualified nominee of sound character be confirmed by members of both parties? 

Democratic Senators are wrongfully looking for this SC justice to advance their policy objectives vs. enforce the Constitution. 

The fait accompli is that the Democrats' confirmation votes for ACB are certain to reflect this.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if what happened to Garland 4 years ago never took place, I think there is a valid argument that we are too close to the election to rush this through. Especially in the midst of a pandemic.

I believe a firm deadline should be set for the future to avoid these arguments.

If Trump is elected, he can put her up and the elected Senate can confirm. But votes are already cast. Again, ignoring Garland, this shouldn't be rushed through at this hour.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but what's the closest to an election (or lame duck period) that a justice has been appointed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
32 minutes ago, squistion said:

Something to do with the Merrick Garland seat being stolen and now this one too (if we are to expect consistency from the GOP).

This seat is not being stolen.  There is a vacancy, Trump has every right to nominate a replacement.  Full stop. 

Terrible actions by Mconnell notwithstanding.

The rules keep being changed to whatever benefits the republicans in the moment. Fact. I'm sure you know that though.

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

The rules keep being changed to whatever benefits the republicans in the moment. Fact. I'm sure you know that though.

False. The rules are being applied as they always have.  29 times a seat has come up during an election, 29 times the sitting president, regardless of party has made a nomination. Unsurprisingly, if the senate and president are politically aligned, it usually confirms and if not then it usually doesn't  This is how it always has been for more than 200 years.  

The rules are consistent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.  

She is the smartest person in the room. It says people have the right to  peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That, in itself, is not a protest and therefore she does not call it that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Is Roe v. Wade cooked when Barrett gets in.....or would/could she find herself (or any of the other Judges) in a situation where although she might not personally believe in abortion.... Roe v. Wade doesn't go against the Constitution?

Smarter people, please answer.

Just by how it would really work, it certainly wouldn't be cooked.  After all, its not like someone just knocks on her door and says "Abortion! you for or again' it? Go!

There would have to be case...a case so compelling that it work through local and circuit courts and then up to the supreme court. And then you would have the entire court hearing the case and she, to me, seems to be a person who will hear the particulars of a case and decide it as it turns on its own merits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

The rules keep being changed to whatever benefits the republicans in the moment. Fact. I'm sure you know that though.

no.  What is happening is what is supposed to happen.  Anyone that decries the tearing down of norms should be in support of this-from the nomination to the hearing.  Its all being done correctly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat irked that Barrett is using the same invention that Kavanaugh did to avoid answering questions about her legal opinions relating to cases decided by the Supreme Court.  She even went beyond his "nominee precedent" and claimed that stating her opinion would violate canons of judicial ethics.   As Scalia once said, this is pure applesauce.  She claimed it would be unethical?  Then the Chief Justice and every other justice except Kavanaugh, who also refused to disclose his positions on specific cases, are unethical.  

"Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing that “there is a right to privacy protected as part of the liberty guarantee in the Due Process Clause” and he was explicit that he agreed with the court’s decision in Griswold, stating unequivocally, “I agree with the Griswold Court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that.”

In his confirmation hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas likewise expressed his agreement with Griswold. He explained that “my bottom line was that I felt that there was a right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the marital right to privacy, of course, is at the core of that.” Justice Samuel Alito offered similar testimony when his nomination was considered."   link

Barrett not only refused to state whether she thought Griswold was wrongly decided; she claimed she was prevented from doing so.   That's absolute BS.

Those that think it's just abortion are missing the point of a long line of cases that are in jeopardy from Kavanaugh and Barrett.   It's the potential for an erosion of civil liberties, including privacy from government interference in your personal life.   That she can get away with refusing to provide her legal stance (not her moral or religious opinions) on critical cases and still be confirmed is shameful.  I don't care what side of the aisle you sit on.  No nominee, regardless of political leaning or who appointed him or her, should be confirmed when they refuse to answer relevant and important questions about how they intend to serve on the bench.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Just by how it would really work, it certainly wouldn't be cooked.  After all, its not like someone just knocks on her door and says "Abortion! you for or again' it? Go!

There would have to be case...a case so compelling that it work through local and circuit courts and then up to the supreme court. And then you would have the entire court hearing the case and she, to me, seems to be a person who will hear the particulars of a case and decide it as it turns on its own merits. 

Every year several states pass legislation that is intended to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court.  If a majority wants to revisit the issue, they don't need to look far to find a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Every year several states pass legislation that is intended to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court.  If a majority wants to revisit the issue, they don't need to look far to find a case.

But it has to be Supreme Court worthy case that would have some "something" in it that would be significant to pull the most important case we have seen in a century.  

And just because states posture many cases for the SC, it is obvious very few of them ever get there.  This would be akin to sinking an Eagle on a par 3. It happens but don't hold your breath. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shutout said:

But it has to be Supreme Court worthy case that would have some "something" in it that would be significant to pull the most important case we have seen in a century.  

And just because states posture many cases for the SC, it is obvious very few of them ever get there.  This would be akin to sinking an Eagle on a par 3. It happens but don't hold your breath. 

It hasn't happened because we haven't had a Court interested in reversing the implied right of privacy.   It appears that we will.    There are no shortage of cases that would provide the platform.  It's a matter of whether the Court wants to accept review.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I don't care what side of the aisle you sit on.  No nominee, regardless of political leaning or who appointed him or her, should be confirmed when they refuse to answer relevant and important questions about how they intend to serve on the bench.

I actually agree with you on this one.  I get why nominees do this, but I would rather that they provide candid answers to at least some of these sorts of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Shutout said:

False. The rules are being applied as they always have.  29 times a seat has come up during an election, 29 times the sitting president, regardless of party has made a nomination. Unsurprisingly, if the senate and president are politically aligned, it usually confirms and if not then it usually doesn't  This is how it always has been for more than 200 years.  

The rules are consistent.

This time. They were not for Garland as a vote wasn’t even allowed, so your argument falls apart. Had they voted on Garland THEN it would have been consistent.   

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

It hasn't happened because we haven't had a Court interested in reversing the implied right of privacy.   It appears that we will.    There are no shortage of cases that would provide the platform.  It's a matter of whether the Court wants to accept review.

I don't know how you have watched Judge Barrett if you have and have concluded as steadfastly as you seem to have already that she is interested in reversing this.  

This lady is about as impressive and straight down the middle as anyone we have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This time. They were not for Garland as a vote wasn’t even allowed, so your argument falls apart. Had they voted in Garland THEN it would have been consistent.   

Well, if you remember correctly, McConnell sent our correspondence  to everyone saying 'as you know we have opposed parties on this. We are NOT going to confirm him so we aren't going to waste his time and yours and everyone else's going through this unless you really want to. And nobody stepped up and said "no, lets waste our time, please."  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shutout said:

I don't know how you have watched Judge Barrett if you have and have concluded as steadfastly as you seem to have already that she is interested in reversing this.  

This lady is about as impressive and straight down the middle as anyone we have seen.

She's really good at saying absolutely nothing.  Every question is either a hypothetical and she won't address it or it's something that could come before her court, so she won't address it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Except when Mitch is running Congress.....

Earlier I posted that McConnell voted to confirm RBG...even though he is clearly polar opposite from her political views.

Please provide a merit-based, non-political reason why Democratic Senators will (highly likely) vote No for the ACB confirmation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, johnnycakes said:

She's really good at saying absolutely nothing.  Every question is either a hypothetical and she won't address it or it's something that could come before her court, so she won't address it.  

Very smart way to play the gotcha game.  :thumbup:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I don't know how you have watched Judge Barrett if you have and have concluded as steadfastly as you seem to have already that she is interested in reversing this.  

This lady is about as impressive and straight down the middle as anyone we have seen.

She answered zero questions about whether the line of cases establishing an implied right of privacy were correctly decided, and flat-out lied about being prevented by canons of judicial ethics from doing so.   She also claimed it would be an "advisory opinion."   That's nonsense.  

All we have is her writings and her previous statements.   If a judge isn't willing to state that they support decisions that establish the implied right of privacy (and lie to avoid answering the question)  I'm willing to assume that they don't.   

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shutout said:

Well, if you remember correctly, McConnell sent our correspondence  to everyone saying 'as you know we have opposed parties on this. We are NOT going to confirm him so we aren't going to waste his time and yours and everyone else's going through this unless you really want to. And nobody stepped up and said "no, lets waste our time, please."  

So him issuing 3 lines of crap some how supports your “ how it’s been done for 200 years” argument?  You don’t think at some point in the previous 200 years they felt the same way.  You can’t bend the rules when you want to and then use the rules as precedent when you want.  No two ways about it him not allowing a vote on Garland was absolute bull####, regardless of the outcome and shoots your precedent argument in the foot going forward. Mitch broke the precedent, Mitch alone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Earlier I posted that McConnell voted to confirm RBG...even though he is clearly polar opposite from her political views.

Please provide a merit-based, non-political reason why Democratic Senators will (highly likely) vote No for the ACB confirmation.

I won’t as I feel they shouldn’t.  She seems qualified and should be confirmed. That’s not the point I was making

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, johnnycakes said:

She's really good at saying absolutely nothing.  Every question is either a hypothetical and she won't address it or it's something that could come before her court, so she won't address it.  

Check the confirms for the past 30 years.  no liberal judge or conservative ever commits to that because if they do they cut their own throat on doing their job and sitting a case. It is a dog and pony show always used by the opposition and has no bearing as a question...like 99% of the confirm.  It just makes the opposing side look cheap and petty and not very smart every time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Even if what happened to Garland 4 years ago never took place, I think there is a valid argument that we are too close to the election to rush this through. Especially in the midst of a pandemic.

I believe a firm deadline should be set for the future to avoid these arguments.

If Trump is elected, he can put her up and the elected Senate can confirm. But votes are already cast. Again, ignoring Garland, this shouldn't be rushed through at this hour.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but what's the closest to an election (or lame duck period) that a justice has been appointed?

Rather than create more problems by stacking the courts, the Democrats should work to fix the problems and prevent future ones. What I’d start with:

1. Establish a fixed time frame for the confirmation hearing and vote. Set time from formal nomination to confirmation hearing to committee vote to full Senate vote. Remove the ability of the majority leader to restrict or stop the process.

2. Establish a deadline for nominations during election years. My preference would be very late in the year. No confirmations during the lame duck period.

If any restructuring is done, it should be done in effort to take partisanship out of the court rather than making up for ‘stolen’ seats.

Under the current rules both Garland and ACB should have been allowed to go through the entire confirmation process. It’s a horrible look for Republicans in both cases but they’re allowed to do it. I think the worst part of it is that McConnell had the votes and could have gone through the whole process and just voted Garland down. We wouldn’t be having this conversation of hypocrisy right now. Or they could have used the President and Senate being different parties argument but instead they just said it’s too close the election.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squistion said:

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

You should probably try watching this on television instead of twitter and form your own opinion.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Rather than create more problems by stacking the courts, the Democrats should work to fix the problems and prevent future ones. What I’d start with:

1. Establish a fixed time frame for the confirmation hearing and vote. Set time from formal nomination to confirmation hearing to committee vote to full Senate vote. Remove the ability of the majority leader to restrict or stop the process.

2. Establish a deadline for nominations during election years. My preference would be very late in the year. No confirmations during the lame duck period.

If any restructuring is done, it should be done in effort to take partisanship out of the court rather than making up for ‘stolen’ seats.

Under the current rules both Garland and ACB should have been allowed to go through the entire confirmation process. It’s a horrible look for Republicans in both cases but they’re allowed to do it. I think the worst part of it is that McConnell had the votes and could have gone through the whole process and just voted Garland down. We wouldn’t be having this conversation of hypocrisy right now. Or they could have used the President and Senate being different parties argument but instead they just said it’s too close the election.  

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

So him issuing 3 lines of crap some how supports your “ how it’s been done for 200 years” argument?  You don’t think at some point in the previous 200 years they felt the same way.  You can’t bend the rules when you want to and then use the rules as precedent when you want.  No two ways about it him not allowing a vote on Garland was absolute bull####, regardless of the outcome and shoots your precedent argument in the foot going forward. Mitch broke the precedent, Mitch alone.  

He left the door open and the left knew it was pointless. Why did they know it was pointless? because they had 200 years of precedent.  Mitch didn't break any precedent other than to suggest they skip the dog and pony show, which they chose to do. The outcome was exactly the same as always. 

The bottom line is this happened not even 3 years after he stood right there on the floor and told Harry Reid "you will rue the day you employed the nuclear option on the filibuster" and then a few years later, it happened. Nobody but the semantics, emotional cryers want to wring their hands and clutch their pearls over draconian pomp and circumstance except the people that think it matters one iota.  it does not. The result was the same except 50 people didn't wast tax dollars and countless hours getting to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shutout said:

He left the door open and the left knew it was pointless. Why did they know it was pointless? because they had 200 years of precedent.  Mitch didn't break any precedent other than to suggest they skip the dog and pony show, which they chose to do. The outcome was exactly the same as always. 

The bottom line is this happened not even 3 years after he stood right there on the floor and told Harry Reid "you will rue the day you employed the nuclear option on the filibuster" and then a few years later, it happened. Nobody but the semantics, emotional cryers want to wring their hands and clutch their pearls over draconian pomp and circumstance except the people that think it matters one iota.  it does not. The result was the same except 50 people didn't wast tax dollars and countless hours getting to it. 

Wow, revisionist history is strong with you.  https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

But no doubt the left is paying the price for Reid’s actions.  No argument there.  
And your line about it being to save tax dollars literally made be spit out my beer laughing so thank you.  

Again this isn’t about ACB, she should be confirmed, I’m in no way saying she shouldn’t.  This is about you trying to defend Mitch not breaking precedent when he 100% did.  Not bring the vote, no matter the justification or reason, did exactly that.  Plain and simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Check the confirms for the past 30 years.  no liberal judge or conservative ever commits to that because if they do they cut their own throat on doing their job and sitting a case. It is a dog and pony show always used by the opposition and has no bearing as a question...like 99% of the confirm.  It just makes the opposing side look cheap and petty and not very smart every time. 

This is just wrong.  Both conservative and liberal judges have historically answered these types of questions, and I’ve provided quotes and links above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours 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'm a bunch of pages behind. A few comments:

1. I don't see how "preference" and "orientation" are different. Neither one implies a choice. But if one does, the other does too. ("I'm oriented towards pepperoni, but sometimes I choose Hawaiian.")

2. I'd like to make judicial nominations and confirmations apolitical within reason. Presidents are never going to choose nominees based strictly on competence, without regard to whether the nominees' judicial philosophies are likely to result in decisions conservatives like versus decisions liberals like. That's fine. Democrats can nominate Merrick Garland and Republicans can nominate Neil Gorsuch instead randomly doing it the other way around half the time. Nominations don't have to be ideologically blind. But confirmations should be pretty close to ideologically blind. They should be based on competence, integrity, etc. The process shouldn't be so politicized.

3. The current confirmation process is highly politicized. You can tell from the timing. "No, we don't have time to work on an economic stimulus given that several Senators should be quarantining, but LET'S CONFIRM THIS CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE IMMEDIATELY RIGHT NOW COME ON HURRY UP I SAID RIGHT NOW!" If we were to return to sensible, depoliticized norms, we'd do the confirmation the normal way according to a normal timeline. It wouldn't be a desperate race against the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

1. I don't see how "preference" and "orientation" are different. Neither one implies a choice. But if one does, the other does too. ("I'm oriented towards pepperoni, but sometimes I choose Hawaiian.")

All preferences are orientations.

Not all orientations are preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thunderlips said:

Is Roe v. Wade cooked when Barrett gets in.....or would/could she find herself (or any of the other Judges) in a situation where although she might not personally believe in abortion.... Roe v. Wade doesn't go against the Constitution?

I can't think of any pro-life lawyers who believe that Roe was correctly decided. I'm sure there are some, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

The reverse is a lot more common, I think.

(There are plenty of pro-life lawyers who believe that Roe was wrongly decided in 1973 but should be upheld now as a matter of stare decisis.)

  • Thanks 1
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...