Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.

No, they're looking for "payback" re: what happened with Merrick Garland. While it's a sentiment I don't agree with, it's certainly one I understand and can empathize with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

There isn't one. 

Just like there wasn't a merit-based reason for McConnell not even giving Garland a chance. 

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

2 hours ago, 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."  

Which is dumb because, like Coney Barrett, he is/was very qualified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's like playing poker and you lay down a flush while some other guys lays down a straight and claims to have won the pot.  You protest but he's a lot bigger than you.  Later you lay down a straight and he lays down a flush and he says he won again. You protest again and he says but you said before a flush beats a straight.  Why are you so angry?

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

5 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

To me it's like playing poker and you lay down a flush while some other guys lays down a straight and claims to have won the pot.  You protest but he's a lot bigger than you.  Later you lay down a straight and he lays down a flush and he says he won again. You protest again and he says but you said before a flush beats a straight.  Why are you so angry?

This is a pretty fair analogy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, -fish- said:

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.   

So she committed perjury? Gotcha. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
1 hour ago, TakiToki said:

There sure are a lot of boomers using two spaces after a period in this thread. It's 2020, boys.

This is what the report button is for.

Old habits die hard.  Even for us Gen X’ers.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Zow said:

There isn't one. 

Just like there wasn't a merit-based reason for McConnell not even giving Garland a chance. 

You're confusing politics in the nomination process with the Senate's Constitutional duty to advise and consent during the confirmation process.

What McConnell did was dirty politics.

The Democrats lost to McConnell at politics...and so now they are (highly likely) abdicate their sworn duty by childishly voting No without any merit-based reason to do so.

Two completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
1 hour ago, TakiToki said:

There sure are a lot of boomers using two spaces after a period in this thread. It's 2020, boys.

This is what the report button is for.

Old habits die hard.  Even for us Gen X’ers.  

:goodposting:  I learned to type on a typewriter and the high tech correction ribbon hadn't even been invented yet. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

You're confusing politics in the nomination process with the Senate's Constitutional duty to advise and consent during the confirmation process.

What McConnell did was dirty politics.

The Democrats lost to McConnell at politics...and so now they are (highly likely) abdicate their sworn duty by childishly voting No without any merit-based reason to do so.

Two completely different things.

Thats politics too ...they aren't under any duty to vote yes and rubber stamp everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Zow said:
44 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

To me it's like playing poker and you lay down a flush while some other guys lays down a straight and claims to have won the pot.  You protest but he's a lot bigger than you.  Later you lay down a straight and he lays down a flush and he says he won again. You protest again and he says but you said before a flush beats a straight.  Why are you so angry?

This is a pretty fair analogy. 

Unfortunately the second hand doesn’t get seen by me as I’m either nursing my wounds ( most likely) or he is ( less likely).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.  

We’re watching different people speak I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

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

If you want I guess you can ignore the absolute fact that if she were to agree to what they are asking, it would violate her standing as a urgent sitting judge and you ignore that they know that but do what makes you feel like you know.  It's only been stated twenty times on TV today but I guess if you never get off CNN you may have missed it.  Spin it how you want but I'm going to have to go with the former judges and legal constitutional attorneys on this one over you.  

The reality is it is all a dog and pony show that means nothing,. They look foolish when they waste time doing nothing at all that actually contributes to the purpose of the hearing.  With every one of their bitter phrases they just show us all how petty they are.  There is absolutely nobody that can be honest with themselves and review her and and say they have an issue with her. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dkp993 said:
56 minutes ago, Zow said:
1 hour ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

To me it's like playing poker and you lay down a flush while some other guys lays down a straight and claims to have won the pot.  You protest but he's a lot bigger than you.  Later you lay down a straight and he lays down a flush and he says he won again. You protest again and he says but you said before a flush beats a straight.  Why are you so angry?

This is a pretty fair analogy. 

Unfortunately the second hand doesn’t get seen by me as I’m either nursing my wounds ( most likely) or he is ( less likely).  

I think it was a Twilight Zone episode.

 

 

Sorry, I'll stop messing up the thread.  I do like reading almost all the posts in here though.  Whether I agree with you or not, you're some smart people.  :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

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.  

As I said, the result in the case was exactly as it has been with the other 29 times previous times, which included Democratic and Republicans. 

As your link said in the very first paragraph, the president had the ability to make the nomination. The other party which was not Democrats, had the right to check that and say no.  We can mince the words or talk about when it was and where and what suit they wore that day but the result is exactly the same in what happens when the parties align versus when they weren't. 

Don't miss the forest for the trees. Don't be that guy that says "well...technically periwinkle isn't lavender so mypointless statement now has merit.". This is what happened and this is absolutely what happens every single time the parties are not the same in this situation.  

And guess what? It will happen again,..to both parties...and some will like it and some won't.  You don't lie it right now.  It is okay.  You can feel that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

What rubber stamp? She's filled out lengthy questionnaires and undergone three days of grilling. During which nothing remotely disqualifying has turned up.

But voting no is just as political as what McConnell did...thats the point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yes, of course.  Occam's razor.

In my first and only ever real job interview I forgot the 8th Amendment. Just outright blanked on it. Felt so, so dumb. 

So, yeah, it happens. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

But voting no is just as political as what McConnell did...thats the point.

So when McConnell voted to confirm RBG that was somehow politically-driven...and not performing his advise and consent duty when he otherwise couldn't find anything merit-based wrong with her? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stoneworker said:

So when McConnell voted to confirm RBG that was somehow politically-driven...and not performing his advise and consent duty when he otherwise couldn't find anything merit-based wrong with her? 

Huh?  Yeah, that isnt what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -fish- said:

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.

 You are way overreaching here. What exactly do you want her to say? “I will vote to overturn Roe V Wade. I intend to get rid of ACA”. That’s asinine if you expect her to answer questions like that. I can’t imagine a justice nominee would ever answer these questions - regardless who they may have been appointed by - left or right. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

So when McConnell voted to confirm RBG that was somehow politically-driven...and not performing his advise and consent duty when he otherwise couldn't find anything merit-based wrong with her? 

It is interesting that even when you see the Republicans on the losing side of these, they may play small ball with the silly questions and such but at the end of the day these nominees get 90 votes or so and get confirmation support. But when it's a republican nominee, you'll see the Democrats take their ball and go home.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stoneworker said:

Fine. If Democrats are going to openly use their confirmation vote as political theater...then please just drop all the moral high ground BS regarding McConnell.

Its already political theater...why is it only bad when Democrats play a part in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Fine. If Democrats are going to openly use their confirmation vote as political theater...then please just drop all the moral high ground BS regarding McConnell.

No I agree.  That was my point.  If they all vote no, then I never want to hear the name Merrick Garland again.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, unckeyherb said:

No I agree.  That was my point.  If they all vote no, then I never want to hear the name Merrick Garland again.  

Why?  Voting no isn't nearly the same.  She actually got a hearing a vote.  The problem people have always had with Garland is he got nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Its already political theater...why is it only bad when Democrats play a part in it?

It’s not.  It was bad when mconnell did it.  To repeat it now, after three years of decrying it as an atrocity, is in a word...absurd. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sho nuff said:

Sure...again, she is getting the vote.  Destroy any who vote no for politics but don’t dare think that ends just how bad and pathetic Mitch was with Garland.

Again, you and I agree that garland was atrocious.  It’s got nothing to do with the current situation

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

It’s not.  It was bad when mconnell did it.  To repeat it now, after three years of decrying it as an atrocity, is in a word...absurd. 

Not only that....at least there was an end game when McConnell did it.  And it worked.  Dems gain nothing here but looking like fools. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

"Elections have consequences." -Barack Obama.

Now there's some partisanship for you.

It really amazes me that the GOP and supporters have made such a big deal out of this basic statement. 

Trump calls Democrats, other Americans, the press evil, traitors, the enemy, the enemy of the people. That's all totally fine.

Obama makes a pretty innocuous statement about him having some power because he won an election and the y'all go ape ####. For 8 years. And counting.

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zow said:
6 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Hint: It's between the 7th and the 9th.

Stop being so cruel. 

:lmao: I'm sorry but this happened moments ago.  I'm talking to a friend who needs to see a G.I. doctor and asked me for a recommendation. Now, I have a G.I. doctor and he has examined me on multiple occasions. Hell, I've been to his annual picnic half a dozen times.  But I can't remember his name. 

So I understand. :bag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whoknew said:

It really amazes me that the GOP and supporters have made such a big deal out of this basic statement. 

Trump calls Democrats, other Americans, the press evil, traitors, the enemy, the enemy of the people. That's all totally fine.

Obama makes a pretty innocuous statement about him having some power because he won an election and the y'all go ape ####. For 8 years. And counting.

Close to 12 years now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shutout said:

As I said, the result in the case was exactly as it has been with the other 29 times previous times, which included Democratic and Republicans. 

As your link said in the very first paragraph, the president had the ability to make the nomination. The other party which was not Democrats, had the right to check that and say no.  We can mince the words or talk about when it was and where and what suit they wore that day but the result is exactly the same in what happens when the parties align versus when they weren't. 

Don't miss the forest for the trees. Don't be that guy that says "well...technically periwinkle isn't lavender so mypointless statement now has merit.". This is what happened and this is absolutely what happens every single time the parties are not the same in this situation.  

And guess what? It will happen again,..to both parties...and some will like it and some won't.  You don't lie it right now.  It is okay.  You can feel that way.  

No one is arguing the what the results would have been.  I’m under no illusion that Garland would have been confirmed (partisan as things are right now, though he was certainly qualified).   But you my friend are the one missing the forest for the trees.  You’re the one trying to justify the actions of the breaking of the precedents you were touting on about.  Being neither a D or R my eyes are wide open to the hypocrisy in both sides as well as the self righteous actions.  When you don’t feel the need to defend a side it’s easy to see.  

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Indy....I would have liked to see McConnell give Garland a vote....even if he was voted down.....and I think the speed in moving on Barrett is very hypocritical... BUT I do think they Trump and Co. made a mistake.  I would have slow rolled it....made it an election issue and forced R's to come out and vote.  Even if he lost, he could have lame-ducked her in.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 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?

I can't think of any scenario where her opinion of climate change would interfere with her ability to interpret the Constitution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.  

No changes are necessary.  Win elections.  Control the process.  If Americans are upset with Republicans for the way they are controlling the process, then vote them out.  They weren't upset in 2016 about Garland.  They were upset in 2018 with Kavanaugh adding seats for the Republicans.  Maybe they'll be upset in 2020 with ACB.  We'll see.  

Prior to hearings, Senators are polled.  If you don't have enough votes why go through the hearings.  If ACB didn't have enough votes, we wouldn't be here right now.  

  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

I can't think of any scenario where her opinion of climate change would interfere with her ability to interpret the Constitution.  


Judges aren’t nearly that perfect. And the law isn’t that black and white.
 

She brings her own biases when interpreting a law. So, for example, if she thinks climate change is a hoax, that’s going to be with her when she analyzed whether the EPA has the power to make certain rules. 
 

Does that mean she won’t be able to put aside her biases and come to a decision that gives the EPA the power? Of course not. But to pretend that she doesn’t bring her biases with her and they won’t interfere with her decision making is incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:


Judges aren’t nearly that perfect. And the law isn’t that black and white.
 

She brings her own biases when interpreting a law. So, for example, if she thinks climate change is a hoax, that’s going to be with her when she analyzed whether the EPA has the power to make certain rules. 
 

Does that mean she won’t be able to put aside her biases and come to a decision that gives the EPA the power? Of course not. But to pretend that she doesn’t bring her biases with her and they won’t interfere with her decision making is incorrect. 

But her biases don't interfere with her ability to interpret the Constitution.  In your hypothetical, even if she believes climate change is a hoax, she might think the rules are unnecessary, but it doesn't interfere with her ability to determine whether the EPA has the Constitutional authority to make those rules.  .

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...