Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Things didn't go my way......change the rules!:lmao:

 

While I disagree with and would criticize the Biden admin for increasing the number of justices, it wouldn't be against and/or a changing of the rules for them to do it. 

I put it on par with McConnell not bringing Garland up for a vote. Both are very dirty and against the spirit of tradition and fundamental fairness, but neither is technically against the rules or a changing of the rules. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

What you also won't find in 2016 is anyone saying the same thing they are saying in 2020.

Not true, there were a few here who said it should be brought for a vote just as this was who also say that now.  I don't recall anyone saying no to both, but there were a few who wanted Garland to at least get a hearing.  Now confirmation is something different and I suspect we are in for a period of if your party's President doesn't do the nominating, respective senators won't be voting for them anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

This is always going to be the case.  The pendulum always swings back.

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

Edited by beef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gianmarco said:

The 52 GOP senators who voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett represent 17 million fewer people than the 47 Dems & 1 R who voted no.

It's almost like the Senate gives the smaller states equal footing to New York and California. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said....had they just given garland hearings and a vote (theoretically giving him a chance to win over some GOP senators, even though that was obviously an incredible long shot) they could have pushed Barrett through and most wouldn't have complained. 

The Republicans 100 percent had the right to vote against him. I think its lame to vote against a qualified candidate for political reasons but they had that right. But not even allowing hearings was garbage and very short sighted. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all these quotes from Republican Senators in 2016 were before the Kavanaugh hearings. Can we assume the Democrats turning those hearings into a partisan witch hunt may have been a game changer?  Stooping to he said she said from a high school kegger was new ground.  
 

The Republicans probably wouldn’t get a Democrat vote if they nominated Jesus with a Harvard Law Degree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, beef said:

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

And that seems to be what will happen to pack the courts...the Democrats will win the votes (this is assuming they take control), and set the policy and call the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 

I think there's gonna be a lot of Scalia style "because I SAID SO" logic in the near future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So do you guys want a return to normalcy (best line you guys have to support Biden) or do you want to one up Trump?  Yeah, those guys are hypocrites.  So is your side.  Decide what you want to be.

Lol...so the Democrats just have to take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

Not true, there were a few here who said it should be brought for a vote just as this was who also say that now.  I don't recall anyone saying no to both, but there were a few who wanted Garland to at least get a hearing.  Now confirmation is something different and I suspect we are in for a period of if your party's President doesn't do the nominating, respective senators won't be voting for them anymore.

This is the answer,  Garland deserved to have a hearing.. If the GOP voted no for x reason then that would be on them to tell the American public.

 

But to not take up the Garland nomination, and then to rush ACB through is/was wrong.   And its why I am ok with the Dems expanding the court since, what was done by McConnell was dirty politics.   ACB is qualified no doubt about that.. just like Garland was qualified.  This process is not about the nominee's but about the process done by the GOP and McConnell.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, beef said:

That's my biggest concern with all this.  Dems gotta suck it up and not act or retaliate by packing the bench.   I really don't like pushing through this confirmation.  But the GOP won the votes to have control and call the shots. 

Disagree.. its not a retaliation its about doing what's right.   And there is nothing that say the Supreme Court is best at 9.  Personally for me having the Court at 15 or so would be better and would reduce the influence that this process has..    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, greenroom said:

Disagree.. its not a retaliation its about doing what's right.   And there is nothing that say the Supreme Court is best at 9.  Personally for me having the Court at 15 or so would be better and would reduce the influence that this process has..    

Packing it with 6 will reduce the influence?  :lmao:

Sure, let's go with that.  So you're good with Trump naming 6 more before January?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You want normalcy or do you want to act like what you've complained about for 4 years?

Elections have consequences or so I've been told.  And yes I want a return to the normal non-radical ring wing court where Supreme Court justices don't parrot right wing talking points and know how state's decide elections in their opinions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Elections have consequences or so I've been told.  And yes I want a return to the normal non-radical ring wing court where Supreme Court justices don't parrot right wing talking points and know how state's decide elections in their opinions.  

You want the SCOTUS to favor your politics and since you lost the last election you want to change the SCOTUS rules so it's balanced in your favor?  Yeah, nothing dangerous about that kind of behavior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You want the SCOTUS to favor your politics and since you lost the last election you want to change the SCOTUS rules so it's balanced in your favor?  Yeah, nothing dangerous about that kind of behavior

Yeah nothing dangerous with what McConnell pull the past 5 years to get a SC to favor his politics.  Nothing at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Witz said:

Why stop at 13? Why not 25? Why not 2 per state? 

The problem with ‘expanding’ the court is that it will never end. Each time a party has a majority they’ll expand it as well. 

If there's concern about the court being packed......Congress has the ability to remedy that.  I don't really hear much in regards to legislation being brought up to solidify 9.  All I hear is about "tradition".

I'd have a lot more respect for the concerns about "packing the court" if politicians in Congress would push to settle it.  

 

ETA: And I'm not one who really thinks there's a need to "pack a court".  

Edited by Thunderlips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

If there's concern about the court being packed......Congress has the ability to remedy that.  I don't really hear much in regards to legislation being brought up to solidify 9.  All I hear is about "tradition".

I'd have a lot more respect for the concerns about "packing the court" if politicians in Congress would push to settle it.  

 

ETA: And I'm not one who really thinks there's a need to "pack a court".  

You don't? The entire progressive wing is shouting about it. It only takes one to sponsor a  bill.

“Expand the court," tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Ocasio-Cortez was also joined by her fellow first-term congresswomen Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. 

"We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for," Tlaib said.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/aoc-ilhan-omar-tweet-expand-the-court-after-barrett-confirmation/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whoknew said:

Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 

The Wisconsin statute is clear-cut, its meaning is not in dispute.  There's no question it requires absentee ballots to be received on election day ("The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. ... Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.")  The SCOTUS didn't rule on the meaning of the statue.  The (short version) background is that, about a month ago, a federal judge in Wisconsin declared that additional emergency election accommodations were appropriate due to COVID - including extending the deadline by which ballots must be received by 6 days (provided they are postmarked by Nov. 3). That order was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the implementation of the order pending appeal.  By "staying" the order, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially guts the decision, as they won't decide the appeal until well after the Nov. 3 election.  That ruling was in turn appealed - meaning the SCOTUS was asked to rule on the propriety of the stay order.  In its ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS declined to overturn the 7th Circuit's stay order, leaving the election status quo intact, with no special accommodations as ordered by the district court judge in Madison.  The longer version of the background on all this goes back to our Spring primary and implicates several other legislative actions and court rulings.

I don't really have a problem with Kavanaugh's concurrence, other than its just too damn long.  Roberts covered it in half a page, and Gorsuch did a more than adequate job in about 3 pages.

 

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

As the court has basically now evolved into a political weapon,(sadly)  I have no issue with making changes to reflect the times and limit the ability of one party/administration to take action that will affect our country for 30 years (which basically what happened here between no Garland and ACB replacing Ginsberg)

But if the Democrats steamroll this election (winning the Presidency and Senate) and pack the SC to swing things the other way, they're just going to contribute more to the overall problem (division in the country)

I think something needs to be done to limit the potential impact of one election. Whether that's SC term limits or increasing the # of judges or some sort of combination of the 2, I'm not sure. But clearly, leaving something so important up to basically pure luck (when someone dies and who happens to be president and Senate Majority leader when they do) is just not ideal.

 

Edited by TLEF316
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The Wisconsin statute is clear-cut, its meaning is not in dispute.  There's no question it requires absentee ballots to be received on election day ("The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. ... Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.")  The SCOTUS didn't rule on the meaning of the statue.  The (short version) background is that, about a month ago, a federal judge in Wisconsin declared that additional emergency election accommodations were appropriate due to COVID - including extending the deadline by which ballots must be received by 6 days (provided they are postmarked by Nov. 3). That order was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the implementation of the order pending appeal.  By "staying" the order, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially guts the decision, as they won't decide the appeal until well after the Nov. 3 election.  That ruling was in turn appealed - meaning the SCOTUS was asked to rule on the propriety of the stay order.  In its ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS declined to overturn the 7th Circuit's stay order, leaving the election status quo intact, with no special accommodations as ordered by the district court judge in Madison.  The longer version of the background on all this goes back to our Spring primary and implicates several other legislative actions and court rulings.

I don't really have a problem with Kavanaugh's concurrence, other than its just too damn long.  Roberts covered it in half a page, and Gorsuch did a more than adequate job in about 3 pages.

 

Thank you. Facts and reason are kind of boring sometimes. But thank you. 

 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TLEF316 said:

I think something needs to be done to limit the potential impact of one election. Whether that's SC term limits or increasing the # of judges or some sort of combination of the 2, I'm not sure. But clearly, leaving something so important up to basically pure luck (when someone dies and who happens to be president and Senate Majority leader when they do) is just not ideal.

Increasing the number of judges is just another partisan land-grab unless we phase things in under future administrations.  For example, the winner of the 2028 election gets to add two justices, and the winner of the 2036 election gets to add two more.  That's far enough out that we don't know which party will be making those appointments, so there's a semblance of fairness there.  People who are asking for four new justices appointed specifically by the Biden administration are just being tools.  

I really like the idea of justices being term-limited.  That would need to be grandfathered in, but it would hugely help out with the luck and ghoulishness involved in the current system.  Unlike court-packing, term limits make the process predictable and turns down the volume on the whining. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

You don't? The entire progressive wing is shouting about it. It only takes one to sponsor a  bill.

“Expand the court," tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Ocasio-Cortez was also joined by her fellow first-term congresswomen Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. 

"We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for," Tlaib said.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/aoc-ilhan-omar-tweet-expand-the-court-after-barrett-confirmation/

 

Where's the push from The Right in Congress to sponsor a bill limiting the SCJs to 9? Do they not want to do that in case they need/want to exploit the vagueness of it in the future?

I'm not particularly for it....I mainly like to point out the lack of clarification in regards to the number in the Constitution to those who use the idea of "if its not in the Constitution"....... in other arguments. 

ACB, Kavanaugh/Gorsuch;  it's not like Trump nominated Jr./Kayne and The Mooch.  The sanctity of the court hasn't been tarnished* by these three.  Those three are qualified.  Do they have ideological opinions on how/why something should be ruled on? Sure. That's how it's always been. If you want to have SCJs on the court that are more prone to listen particular ideology....win elections.

I guess a case could be made for the "will of the people" in regards to trying to manipulate the court to gain a more favorable slate of judges, but it would have to be on par with a Reagan/FDR level shift AND; I think that would even have to be combined with the idea that sitting SCJs are unabashedly legislating from the bench in an almost corrupt way.

 

 

* That being said, I think if this election breaks bad it could put the court in a position in which they will be viewed as "tarnished" by many.  I think it's a mistake ACB doesn't look like she wants to recuse herself from this.  

Edited by Thunderlips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Can you elaborate on that please and why you think it? Specifically how it's used as a weapon and how it's changed? Thanks. 

So despite being a history major, I must admit that I'm not very well versed on the history of the court.

But when the party in charge refuses to even allow an outgoing president's nominee a hearing (when the outgoing justice passed away in Feb. of an election year)  and then pushes "their" nominee through in less than a month 4+ years later (when an election has already started and "their man" seems likely, but certainly not guaranteed to lose) .....its pretty obvious that they see the court (and their decisions) as a weapon that they "won" the right to wield.

And to be fair, many democrats are NOW foaming at the mouth to try and find a way to "retaliate" by packing the courts. (assuming they win the 2020 election)

I'm sure that the idea of the "court split" has been around since the beginning. The issues have obviously changed, but justices have always had beliefs and opinions on important issues and I'm sure the presidents picking them have always taken those views (rather than just their pure "qualifications" as judges) into account when selecting them. But in 2020, with our country so divided (and so many people being basically one issue voters) it just seems more obvious and dangerous than ever.

 

edit- NOW, not "not"

 

Edited by TLEF316
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TLEF316 said:

So despite being a history major, I must admit that I'm not very well versed on the history of the court.

But when the party in charge refuses to even allow an outgoing president's nominee a hearing (when the outgoing justice passed away in Feb. of an election year)  and then pushes "their" nominee through in less than a month 4+ years later (when an election has already started and "their man" seems likely, but certainly not guaranteed to lose) .....its pretty obvious that they see the court (and their decisions) as a weapon that they "won" the right to wield.

And to be fair, many democrats are not foaming at the mouth to try and find a way to "retaliate" by packing the courts. (assuming they win the 2020 election)

I'm sure that the idea of the "court split" has been around since the beginning. The issues have obviously changed, but justices have always had beliefs and opinions on important issues and I'm sure the presidents picking them have always taken those views (rather than just their pure "qualifications" as judges) into account when selecting them. But in 2020, with our country so divided (and so many people being basically one issue voters) it just seems more obvious and dangerous than ever.

 

Thanks. I think you're exactly right in that it feels to me like Presidents have always leaned toward appointing justices they felt were most in line with their "side". That feels like it's always bene the case and doesn't feel new at all. I have noticed though that the Trump voters I talk to have long seemed to put a much higher value on Supreme Court appointees than the Democrats do. At least in the last few years. For the people I'd talk to in 2016 that were voting Trump, almost all of them put appointing supreme court justices as a top 3 reason they were voting for him. Not sure if that means more but that was something I heard a lot from them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:
14 minutes ago, TLEF316 said:

I think something needs to be done to limit the potential impact of one election. Whether that's SC term limits or increasing the # of judges or some sort of combination of the 2, I'm not sure. But clearly, leaving something so important up to basically pure luck (when someone dies and who happens to be president and Senate Majority leader when they do) is just not ideal.

Increasing the number of judges is just another partisan land-grab unless we phase things in under future administrations.  For example, the winner of the 2028 election gets to add two justices, and the winner of the 2036 election gets to add two more.  That's far enough out that we don't know which party will be making those appointments, so there's a semblance of fairness there.  People who are asking for four new justices appointed specifically by the Biden administration are just being tools.  

I really like the idea of justices being term-limited.  That would need to be grandfathered in, but it would hugely help out with the luck and ghoulishness involved in the current system.  Unlike court-packing, term limits make the process predictable and turns down the volume on the whining. 

Interestingly, individual states occasionally change the size of their highest courts (I don't say Supreme Court because NY is weird and the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court). For example, in 2016, Republicans in AZ and GA changed their state laws to add seats on their Supreme Courts, which allowed each of their Republican governors to appoint two more people. Link

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. I think you're exactly right in that it feels to me like Presidents have always leaned toward appointing justices they felt were most in line with their "side". That feels like it's always bene the case and doesn't feel new at all. I have noticed though that the Trump voters I talk to have long seemed to put a much higher value on Supreme Court appointees than the Democrats do. At least in the last few years. For the people I'd talk to in 2016 that were voting Trump, almost all of them put appointing supreme court justices as a top 3 reason they were voting for him. Not sure if that means more but that was something I heard a lot from them. 

I suspect it is something you heard a lot from them because it is one of the prevalent reasons they could find to support the President while excusing his personality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hagmania said:

I suspect it is something you heard a lot from them because it is one of the prevalent reasons they could find to support the President while excusing his personality.

Probably so. But I see a lot of value in that reasoning for legit purposes. I know lots of Trump voters who even if he loses will feel like they got a significant and long lasting boost for their conservative side with the Justices Trump appointed in his first term. 

They have to weigh out for themselves of course if the negatives were worth the positives. But I absolutely see and understand the postiives for them on this. They see it very much as a "long game" thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The Wisconsin statute is clear-cut, its meaning is not in dispute.  There's no question it requires absentee ballots to be received on election day ("The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. ... Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.")  The SCOTUS didn't rule on the meaning of the statue.  The (short version) background is that, about a month ago, a federal judge in Wisconsin declared that additional emergency election accommodations were appropriate due to COVID - including extending the deadline by which ballots must be received by 6 days (provided they are postmarked by Nov. 3). That order was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the implementation of the order pending appeal.  By "staying" the order, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially guts the decision, as they won't decide the appeal until well after the Nov. 3 election.  That ruling was in turn appealed - meaning the SCOTUS was asked to rule on the propriety of the stay order.  In its ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS declined to overturn the 7th Circuit's stay order, leaving the election status quo intact, with no special accommodations as ordered by the district court judge in Madison.  The longer version of the background on all this goes back to our Spring primary and implicates several other legislative actions and court rulings.

I don't really have a problem with Kavanaugh's concurrence, other than its just too damn long.  Roberts covered it in half a page, and Gorsuch did a more than adequate job in about 3 pages.

 

Thank you for the procedural history. I appreciate it.

Yea - I saw everyone up in arms on twitter about the decision. But if the statute says that, I think its dumb but that's the statute. I don't see why a federal district court judge should be unilaterally granting an amendment to the statute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Increasing the number of judges is just another partisan land-grab unless we phase things in under future administrations.  For example, the winner of the 2028 election gets to add two justices, and the winner of the 2036 election gets to add two more.  That's far enough out that we don't know which party will be making those appointments, so there's a semblance of fairness there.  People who are asking for four new justices appointed specifically by the Biden administration are just being tools.  

I really like the idea of justices being term-limited.  That would need to be grandfathered in, but it would hugely help out with the luck and ghoulishness involved in the current system.  Unlike court-packing, term limits make the process predictable and turns down the volume on the whining. 

I also don't support increasing the number of judges as it has no end.  Term limits (10 years? 15?) make sense as does a mandatory retirement age.  More generally, we need to better define and decrease the Senate's role in the confirmation process as it has become overly politicized and, in my view, abused by the Republicans in control - There is simply no way to reconcile the Garland and Barret confirmation processes.  I have no faith in Congress getting any meaningful judicial reforms done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Probably so. But I see a lot of value in that reasoning for legit purposes. I know lots of Trump voters who even if he loses will feel like they got a significant and long lasting boost for their conservative side with the Justices Trump appointed in his first term. 

They have to weigh out for themselves of course if the negatives were worth the positives. But I absolutely see and understand the postiives for them on this. They see it very much as a "long game" thing. 

 

I mean....not to put words in anyone's mouth or oversimplify....but it SEEMS like there are a ton of people out there who are cool with A LOT of nonsense as long as Roe is one day overturned.

Trump putting 3 judges under 60 years old on the bench COULD go a long way to MAYBE making that happen one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TLEF316 said:

 

I mean....not to put words in anyone's mouth or oversimplify....but it SEEMS like there are a ton of people out there who are cool with A LOT of nonsense as long as Roe is one day overturned.

Trump putting 3 judges under 60 years old on the bench COULD go a long way to MAYBE making that happen one day.

Again, this is just me talking about personal friends so that's a ridiculously small (and useless) sample size, but I don't think I've ever heard one of those people so interested in the Supreme Count appointees ever mention Roe v Wade. :shrug: 

They are much more interested in just generally how they rule. I think all of them see it just like you here: "Trump putting 3 judges under 60 years old on the bench COULD go a long way to MAYBE making that happen one day."

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...