What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (7 Viewers)

One would think that Trump and his team has cleared this nomination with all the senate republicans especially Collins and Murkowski.

 
Opie said:
Law and Constitution.

Don't like a law?  Change it....then follow it.  They aren't "suggestions".
Click to expand...
I wish. The Constitution says that immigration and naturalization are solely the purview of Congress. I'm still scratching my noggin trying to figure out where they approved the military to build camps for mass incarceration of people seeking to immigrate here [eta], not to mention separating them from children in doing so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Just gonna hand-wave the part where a Supreme Court Justice engaged in secret negotiations with the President to exchange personal/political favors while the Justice was still on the bench and hearing cases involving the President's policies and actions?
Click to expand...
I contacted one of my Senator’s offices this morning with this question.  I asked his staff to encourage the Senator to delay any confirmation hearings because of this unresolved issue and the Mueller investigation.  Said we waited almost a year between Scalia’s death and the first hearing on his replacement, so certainly we have the patience to wait half that long to resolve whether any criminal and/or collusive behaviors have taken place.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
1) Gerrymandering has literally nothing to do with this.  Neither the presidency nor the senate are affected in the slightest by gerrymandered congressional districts.

2) There is nothing odd or unusual about what Trump is doing with SCOTUS.  Picking an ideologically-friendly replacement for a retiring justice is literally the single most normal thing Trump has done since taking office.  There are a ton of great reasons to be upset with this administration.  His supreme court picks aren't among them.
Click to expand...
Gerrymandering is a big reason Trump is President.   And you are correct, the President does have the right to nominate.  At this point I'm sure McConnell will apply the same logic as he used with Merrick Garland and wait until after the elections to begin hearings...right?   That's the problem for me.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Just gonna hand-wave the part where a Supreme Court Justice engaged in secret negotiations with the President to exchange personal/political favors while the Justice was still on the bench and hearing cases involving the President's policies and actions?
Click to expand...
Well, you’re putting a different light on it from what I considered. 

Mind you I’m no ethics specialist. If Kennedy was simply holding out on retiring until he received assurances that his replacement would be someone to his liking, I don’t see the problem there. (Though I don’t understand how he could be so naive as to trust Trump’s assurances.) 

On the other hand, if he traded his decision making for this result, that’s another matter entirely. But I have real trouble believing Kennedy would choose to stain his long career in such a manner. 

 
timschochet said:
Well, you’re putting a different light on it from what I considered. 

Mind you I’m no ethics specialist. If Kennedy was simply holding out on retiring until he received assurances that his replacement would be someone to his liking, I don’t see the problem there. (Though I don’t understand how he could be so naive as to trust Trump’s assurances.) 

On the other hand, if he traded his decision making for this result, that’s another matter entirely. But I have real trouble believing Kennedy would choose to stain his long career in such a manner. 
Click to expand...
I assume he didn't explicitly trade his decision-making for the appointment, but to even discuss it raises conflict of interest issues. 

Here's what an ethics specialist thinks of the report:
 

Norm Eisen @NormEisen

Norm Eisen Retweeted Geoff Bennett

If this is true, Kennedy had a major conflict of interest as to Trump while sitting in judgment on Trump’s actions including the Muslim ban. A judge cannot secretly negotiate a benefit he badly wants with a litigant who has other business before his court. Hearings must address.
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
Well, you’re putting a different light on it from what I considered. 

Mind you I’m no ethics specialist. If Kennedy was simply holding out on retiring until he received assurances that his replacement would be someone to his liking, I don’t see the problem there. (Though I don’t understand how he could be so naive as to trust Trump’s assurances.) 

On the other hand, if he traded his decision making for this result, that’s another matter entirely. But I have real trouble believing Kennedy would choose to stain his long career in such a manner. 
Click to expand...
The entire reason we have lifetime appointments for judges is to insulate them from political activity.  Kennedy was apparently secretly colluding with Trump about the most significant political decision of his career.  If this story is true, it's shockingly unethical in my opinion.

 
Righetti said:
Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett)

7/10/18, 7:16 AM

Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - ⁦‪@LACaldwellDC‬⁩ & ⁦‪@frankthorp‬⁩
Click to expand...
Leigh Ann Caldwell follows up, "Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source."

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Leigh Ann Caldwell follows up, "Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source."
Click to expand...
This really seems wildly out of character for Trump and the Trump Party. They're typically so honest and not corrupt in any way. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I assume he didn't explicitly trade his decision-making for the appointment, but to even discuss it raises conflict of interest issues. 

Here's what an ethics specialist thinks of the report:
 
Click to expand...
See, I think this really understates the conflict by several degrees of magnitude.  Kennedy's vote on the travel ban is dwarfed in significance by Kennedy's decision on when to retire.  Engaging in a quid pro quo with the President about that is an enormous abuse of power.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Gorsuch was impeccably qualified.  We'll see with Choice #2.  The Gorsuch nomination was the one and only thing that Trump actually handled in a competent manner like any other Republican president would have done.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Agreed on Gorsuch. With the 4 potential appointees this time around, and now the pick, it wasn't clear in their bios if these were truly the 4 most qualified choices, or if they had qualifications but also checked other boxes (i.e. were young). Most articles touched on a couple of highlights on their resumes. I admittedly was asking because I didn't know, and I do have a Google machine right here, so that's on me. 

 
Mario Kart said:
Don't know much about him but the process is rather irksome.

Kennedy announces his retirement a couple weeks ago, Trump announces he will name the next justice on July 9th, Senate will hear and confirm him within the next couple of months (most likely). This timeline is all a bunch of horse#### that Republicans are enamored with.

Justice Scalia passes away in February. Following the timeline above, Obama could have named a justice by the end of March (which he did), and probably could have been confirmed by Memorial Day of 2016.

McConnell whines like a child, #####es and moans, brings up some bull #### about the last year of a presidency, refuses to give any confirmation hearing, and Republicans hoot and holler about how this was the right thing to do. BULL $HIT! Garland could have been done six months, at least, before the election... using a similar timeline above.

Republicans are a bunch of horse#### artists who stole the Supreme Court... not just from the Democrats (if anyone can truly call it that) but from the American people. Republicans hoot and holler about the Constitution but twist it to fit their agenda/goals and fellow Republicans cheer them from twisting the rules or not even following the rules.

The phrase tossed around so much now is, "elections have consequences." Fine, but remember that when the political weights get thrown back the other way. McConnell not only hurt America but, hopefully, will be the cause of the downfall of Republicans as we know it for this short term gain. Fellow Americans, Republicans alike, should have been all over McConnell for not following the rules... the same rules that Republicans, supposedly, pride themselves on and cry about all the time.

Republicans on this board will see this post and laugh or say I'm #####ing. Fine. But, I'm the one following the rules set up and not just saying, "I will follow the rules." I'd like Republicans to admit that they willingly stole the court, willingly disobeyed the rules, and willingly did it knowing they were breaking the rules. Just admit it.

Elections have consequences. I don't want to hear anything from the Republicans next time Democrats hold any power. I hope the Democrats rush through anything that relates to social progress because all the Republicans do is ram through stuff that helps corporations. And, Republicans, people like you and me, are okay with it without a peep even though it hurts the people of this country. The world is laughing at us while we lose any kind of leadership ability we had before. And, McConnell, Ryan, and others are okay with this. Shame!
Click to expand...
Like the ACA for example.

Elections had a consequence.  The Dems overplayed their hand.  Ted Bleeping Kennedy lost “his” seat in that bastion of conservative politics the people’s republic of Massachusetts in a mid-mid-term election and the following full mid term the GOP took back the house for good.

When these mid terms happen the pendulum will likely shift and new consequences will take place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
C'mon...we can do better than this.  How about some money changing hands?  Hookers?  Kiddie porn blackmail?  

This is a big deal.  The left is going to have to step it up!!

Let's spitball some theories !
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly on board with the Kennedy family/Trump connection, but you understand that's actually what it's about at its core, right? Like, a billion dollars in loans?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Well, you’re putting a different light on it from what I considered. 

Mind you I’m no ethics specialist. If Kennedy was simply holding out on retiring until he received assurances that his replacement would be someone to his liking, I don’t see the problem there. (Though I don’t understand how he could be so naive as to trust Trump’s assurances.) 

On the other hand, if he traded his decision making for this result, that’s another matter entirely. But I have real trouble believing Kennedy would choose to stain his long career in such a manner. 
Click to expand...
If you had a case in front of a judge while he was negotiating to buy your house, he'd have to recuse himself.  It's worth thinking about.

 
Tiny Dancer said:
The entire reason we have lifetime appointments for judges is to insulate them from political activity.  Kennedy was apparently secretly colluding with Trump about the most significant political decision of his career.  If this story is true, it's shockingly unethical in my opinion.
Click to expand...
"If this story is true"  seems to be the important part.   So no evidence of this & your going to run with it?  cripes.  I would think that a credible source would be needed but apparently not in this case.   

serious face palm

 
What's the security like on the justices?

Is Ginsburg in her Pilates class with two secret service guys next to her?

 
irishidiot said:
"If this story is true"  seems to be the important part.   So no evidence of this & your going to run with it?  cripes.  I would think that a credible source would be needed but apparently not in this case.   

serious face palm
Click to expand...
You're right I better wait for Gateway Pundit's investigation.

 
"In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. "

Trump must have busted a nut when he rea... er... someone read that to him.  

 
parrot said:
"In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. "

Trump must have busted a nut when he rea... er... someone read that to him.  
Click to expand...
That's not a very novel opinion fwiw. A lot of folks agree.

 
The Kennedy pushed to give Kavanaugh his seat is a little troubling, given the historical reverence normally attached to the Court.

The whole "OMG Kavanaugh doesn't think you can indict a sitting president@!@!#" thing is red meat. Buyer beware imo.

 
packersfan said:
How many of them just got nominated for the open SCOTUS seat while the President who nominated him is under criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
How many on the list of 25 hold the same view? I mean, Mueller himself holds this view, per reports. 

It wasn't the reason he was appointed. You don't have to look too far and wide to find a conservative judge who has this opinion. 

 
Ladies and gentlemen, from alter boy to supreme court justice Breeeeeett Kavanaaaagh.    Meh, at least it wasn't the super catholic chick with all the kids.

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
How many on the list of 25 hold the same view? I mean, Mueller himself holds this view, per reports. 

It wasn't the reason he was appointed. You don't have to look too far and wide to find a conservative judge who has this opinion. 
Click to expand...
Reports last night said it played a key role in Trump's decision. That seems rather obvious actually. You think Trump gives two real chits about any other view this guy may have beyond his thoughts on Presidents under investigation? 

 
parrot said:
Never said it was a novel view, just one that Trump had to loooooooooooooooooooooooooove.  A lot of people disagree too, btw.
Click to expand...
I have found that lot of people mostly lies outside the legal profession. And even more lie outside the realm of constitutional scholar. So, I like to take those folks and their opinions with a grain of salt. 

Again, this disagreeable proposition is literally DOJ standard operating procedure until Congress does something else with it.

 
parrot said:
"In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. "

Trump must have busted a nut when he rea... er... someone read that to him.  
Click to expand...
As the Constitution reads (as of now), a sitting president cannot be indicted.....he must first be removed from office.

So, no matter how much you THINK that the SCOTUS can protect the POTUS...they cannot.  Only Congress can remove the POTUS.  Once removed through impeachment and conviction, thereby removing him from office, he can be indicted and prosecuted..

HOWEVER...Mueller hasn't even found a crime to investigate.  He's investigating a person and everyone who's ever looked him in the eye so don't expect this to ever be an issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan said:
Reports last night said it played a key role in Trump's decision. That seems rather obvious actually. You think Trump gives two real chits about any other view this guy may have beyond his thoughts on Presidents under investigation? 
Click to expand...
Do you think it would be hard to find 24 other conservative judges who hold the same opinion? Again, Kavanaugh isn't a novelty in that regard. 

 
Opie said:
As the Constitution reads (as of now), a sitting president cannot be indicted.....he must first be removed from office.

So, no matter how much you THINK that the SCOTUS can protect the POTUS...they cannot.  Only Congress can remove the POTUS.  Once removed through impeachment and conviction, thereby removing him from office, he can be indicted and prosecuted..

HOWEVER...Mueller hasn't even found a crime to investigate.  He's investigating a person and everyone who's ever looked him in the eye so don't expect this to ever be an issue.
Click to expand...
Wow, he's sure got a lot of indictments and guilty pleas for a guy who "hasn't even found a crime to investigate".  

 
If you could poll all federal judges, I would venture a guess we would learn that a sizable majority agree with the notion that you can't indict a sitting president (based on the current state of federal law).

 
parrot said:
Wow, he's sure got a lot of indictments and guilty pleas for a guy who "hasn't even found a crime to investigate".  
Click to expand...
Yeah...really BIG deals...none of which had anything to do with President Trump!

Yet the TARGET of the witch hunt remains intact and untouched...still hoping for an overdue library book or unpaid parking ticket though!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JerseyToughGuys said:
Do you think it would be hard to find 24 other conservative judges who hold the same opinion? Again, Kavanaugh isn't a novelty in that regard. 
Click to expand...
Probably not but they weren't the pick. This guy was. Trump apparently hates the elder Bush. This guy worked for Bush so why would Trump consider him? I can think of two possible reasons, one would be his thoughts on Presidents under investigation and now the other could be the Kennedy factor (assuming its validity of course). 

 
packersfan said:
Probably not but they weren't the pick. This guy was. Trump apparently hates the elder Bush. This guy worked for Bush so why would Trump consider him? I can think of two possible reasons, one would be his thoughts on Presidents under investigation and now the other could be the Kennedy factor (assuming its validity of course). 
Click to expand...
I can totally see Trump finding out about that Law Review article and instantly liking the guy. 

But it's not the nefarious thing some are making it out to be, since that opinion his widely held by conservative federal judges. It's literally part of the fabric of judicial conservatism

There's plenty of stuff to worry about and challenge. No need for more red meat imo. Buyer beware.

 
Opie said:
Yeah...really BIG deals!

Yet the TARGET of the witch hunt remains intact and untouched.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really BIG deals, like the former campaign manager who is currently sitting in jail.  

A lot of shady crap went down, that much is pretty obvious.  How directly it ties back to Trump still remains to be seen.  But guys like you calling this a "witch hunt" with the results they have already gotten tells anyone all they need to know about you.  

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
I can totally see Trump finding out about that Law Review article and instantly liking the guy. 

But it's not the nefarious thing some are making it out to be, since that opinion his widely held by conservative federal judges. It's literally part of the fabric of judicial conservatism

There's plenty of stuff to worry about and challenge. No need for more red meat imo. Buyer beware.
Click to expand...
I don't think his thoughts on Presidential criminal investigations are nefarious. I think they just happen to line up exactly what the current President under criminal investigation wants and I find that highly troubling. It's the Kennedy report that's nefarious if accurate. 

 
parrot said:
Yeah, really BIG deals, like the former campaign manager who is currently sitting in jail.  

A lot of shady crap went down, that much is pretty obvious.  How directly it ties back to Trump still remains to be seen.  But guys like you calling this a "witch hunt" with the results they have already gotten tells anyone all they need to know about you.  
Click to expand...
:lol:   The left pointing at "shady crap" going down and actually showing outrage.

Since when is losing an election considered "shady crap"?  That is, after all, the reason for the "investigation".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan said:
They actually just need one Republican to vote no.

Which probably means they have nothing but stranger things have happened in our country lately. 
Click to expand...
The Democrats could join up with Sanders and King and refuse to take the floor.  With McCain in the hospital, 50 Senators isn't enough to have quorum.  Seems shady and childish, but so was the way McConnell ####ted on Garland's nomination.  

Could also slow down the hearings by wanting to examine everything on Kavanaugh's record.  There's a shutdown deadline at the end of September where at some point the Senate would have to abandon Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings to pass a spending bill to keep the government running.  And then the Democrats could hold the government shutdown hostage as a negotiation piece over Kavanaugh.  

And with this news that Kennedy/Kavanaugh was a quid pro quo, some public pressure could get hearings to clear the circumstances around Kavanaugh's nomination before proceeding.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top