Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes.  If MT believes he was wrong to be angry at someone's stupidity, that's fine.  But I think he could reasonably be angry instead at someone's callousness and lack of empathy. I've been extrem

I’ve hinted at this before, but I’m not sure I’ve been explicit about it... I was molested when I was a child. The preparator was an older person in my neighborhood.  My parents were friends

So it is early.  But for those of us who did not sleep, it is late. And survivors and their family members have told their tales in here, and rent the hearts from our very chests, and opened eyes that

1 minute ago, Sabertooth said:

You think people are just going to roll over? That's not very sporting.  

Sure you guys can stomp your feet and hold up signs. That's about the extent you can do. Have fun with putting on a show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Sure you guys can stomp your feet and hold up signs. That's about the extent you can do. Have fun with putting on a show.

You sound an awful lot like Democrats discussing the right's Obamacare freakout circa 2010.  Sure we still got Obamacare, but the anger behind the foot-stomping and sign-holding ended up fundamentally shifting American politics over the next decade.

And just in case you haven't noticed there's a lot more signs and foot-stomping now than there was back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't remember was there this much controversy when Obama nominated Sotomayor and Kagan?  I get that Garland should have been appointed.  So I understand the hard feelings there, but in politics usually what goes around comes around.  At some point the Dems will even the score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets play what if Hillary had won and she appointed 2 liberal SCJ tipping the balance left for decades.  What would be the reaction from Reps and the right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stlrams said:

What would be the reaction from Reps and the right? 

As long as they had strong judicial records (like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh do) they'd pass muster by 75%+ of the Senate vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Lets play what if Hillary had won and she appointed 2 liberal SCJ tipping the balance left for decades.  What would be the reaction from Reps and the right? 

If recent behavior of Republican leadership in the Senate and House is any indicator... I’d guess McConnell would refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court justice nominee, and sell the idea by saying there’s no rule saying the Supreme Court has to have nine justices.  Then Ryan would bring impeachment charges against Clinton over her private email server, giving more cover for people who are comfortable claiming a President facing impeachment charges shouldn’t be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

But that’s just speculation based on McConnell refusing to hold hearings on Garland and blocking a bunch of other judicial nominations to lower courts, and several years of Benghazi hearings.  So it’s a guess.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

If recent behavior of Republican leadership in the Senate and House is any indicator... I’d guess McConnell would refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court justice nominee, and sell the idea by saying there’s no rule saying the Supreme Court has to have nine justices.  Then Ryan would bring impeachment charges against Clinton over her private email server, giving more cover for people who are comfortable claiming a President facing impeachment charges shouldn’t be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

But that’s just speculation based on McConnell refusing to hold hearings on Garland and blocking a bunch of other judicial nominations to lower courts, and several years of Benghazi hearings.  So it’s a guess.

So you believe the senate would block both nominees for the next 4 years assuming R's hold the senate majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stlrams said:
9 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

If recent behavior of Republican leadership in the Senate and House is any indicator... I’d guess McConnell would refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court justice nominee, and sell the idea by saying there’s no rule saying the Supreme Court has to have nine justices.  Then Ryan would bring impeachment charges against Clinton over her private email server, giving more cover for people who are comfortable claiming a President facing impeachment charges shouldn’t be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

But that’s just speculation based on McConnell refusing to hold hearings on Garland and blocking a bunch of other judicial nominations to lower courts, and several years of Benghazi hearings.  So it’s a guess.

So you believe the senate would block both nominees for the next 4 years assuming R's hold the senate majority.

He's making an educated guess based on pretty recent behavior.  I don't think it's out of the question (or even that much of a stretch) to assume McConnell would refuse to hold hearings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So you believe the senate would block both nominees for the next 4 years assuming R's hold the senate majority.

Several senators came right out and say that's exactly what they planned to do in the runup to the 2016 election.  And not just the usual suspects, either.  Here's famed maverick and patriot John McCain in October 2016: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."

Ted Cruz (who sits on the Judiciary Committee),threatening an indefinite hold on nominees forcing the Court to operate with fewer justices for long periods, October 2016: “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue ... There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have,"

Richard Burr, in private remarks in October 2016: “If Hillary becomes president, I’m going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we’re still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court."

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, proninja said:

Republicans voted for Donald ####### Trump for president, and the only way many justified it was the court. You really think they'd do anything but block democratic judicial nominees, given their recent history of doing exactly that?

Americans voted for DJT.... They have to hold hearings at some point..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So you believe the senate would block both nominees for the next 4 years assuming R's hold the senate majority.

Not exactly.  If Clinton had carried the Electoral College in 2016, Anthony Kennedy wouldn’t have retired last month.  So there would be only one nominee to block.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, proninja said:

Republicans: Block Obama's nominee
Republicans: Say they'd spend 4 years blocking Hillary's nominee

stlrams: There's no way they would have blocked her nominees!

I never said they would not block nominees.  The most realistic outcome IMHO is a compromise - shocking I know.  Either 2 middle of the road SCJ or one left and one right type of deal.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stlrams said:

I never said they would not block nominees.  The most realistic outcome IMHO is a compromise - shocking I know.  Either 2 middle of the road SCJ or one left and one right type of deal.    

Why do you think that's the most realistic outcome? I think it is a possible outcome, but far from the most likely or realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stlrams said:

I never said they would not block nominees.  The most realistic outcome IMHO is a compromise - shocking I know.  Either 2 middle of the road SCJ or one left and one right type of deal.    

Current Republican leadership in the House and Senate have spent the entire session literally writing legislation behind closed doors so the opposition party couldn’t even read the bills before voting on them, and to confirm the SCOTUS nominee they wanted they decided to change the rules of confirmation instead of working with the opposition party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

Lets play what if Hillary had won and she appointed 2 liberal SCJ tipping the balance left for decades.  What would be the reaction from Reps and the right? 

McConnell would stonewall the picks just like he did with Garland.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stlrams said:

Lets play what if Hillary had won and she appointed 2 liberal SCJ tipping the balance left for decades.  What would be the reaction from Reps and the right? 

They would have gone nuts if they would have even let a Justice come to a vote and every supporter here would be cheering the obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

I get it. If I had no argument and knew there was nothing I could do in a situation I hated I would probably attack a typo as well. I understand. 

It was a funny typo.  Also...your argument appears to be claiming outrage where none exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sand said:

As long as they had strong judicial records (like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh do) they'd pass muster by 75%+ of the Senate vote.

If the Senate/Congress was made up the same way it is now....there wouldn't be a vote.  Republican politicans and punditry would be holding up the process until we REALLY CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF BENGHAZI AND THE E-MAILS!....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Current Republican leadership in the House and Senate have spent the entire session literally writing legislation behind closed doors so the opposition party couldn’t even read the bills before voting on them, and to confirm the SCOTUS nominee they wanted they decided to change the rules of confirmation instead of working with the opposition party.

Both parties have played that game so its not germane to just the Republicans,   I believe the rule of confirmation was changed by Reid and Biden.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stlrams said:

I never said they would not block nominees.  The most realistic outcome IMHO is a compromise - shocking I know.  Either 2 middle of the road SCJ or one left and one right type of deal.    

Garland was a compromise.....to the point that some think Obama sunk his own ship (and the 16 election) by not nominating a real Progressive....thus  giving the base someone they'd really want to fight for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Garland was a compromise.....to the point that some think Obama sunk his own ship (and the 16 election) by not nominating a real Progressive....thus  giving the base someone they'd really want to fight for. 

That’s a very interesting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Both parties have played that game so its not germane to just the Republicans,   I believe the rule of confirmation was changed by Reid and Biden.  

Your second sentence is incorrect.  When Reid lowered the threshold from 60 to 51 for lower court justices, he explicitly said the Supreme Court should stay at 60 because the stakes at that level were too high to allow confirmation with a simple majority.  

Biden wasn’t in government when McConnell changed the rule on Supreme Court justices from 60 to 51.

This isn’t the first time you’ve expressed this belief, and it’s not the first time it’s been explained to you that your belief is incorrect.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Your second sentence is incorrect.  When Reid lowered the threshold from 60 to 51 for lower court justices, he explicitly said the Supreme Court should stay at 60 because the stakes at that level were too high to allow confirmation with a simple majority.  

Biden wasn’t in government when McConnell changed the rule on Supreme Court justices from 60 to 51.

This isn’t the first time you’ve expressed this belief, and it’s not the first time it’s been explained to you that your belief is incorrect.  

You're right on the second point...  My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Thunderlips said:

Garland was a compromise.....to the point that some think Obama sunk his own ship (and the 16 election) by not nominating a real Progressive....thus  giving the base someone they'd really want to fight for. 

Right. Orrin Hatch literally named him in a press conference as an example of someone Obama wouldn’t nominate, which was why they wouldn’t consider the person who was nominated. 

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Right. Orrin Hatch literally named him in a press conference as an example of someone Obama wouldn’t nominate, which was why they wouldn’t consider the person who was nominated. 

Obama could have nominated Neil Gorsuch and they'd have stonewalled him.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

FINALLY, a subject I can discuss with actual expertise instead of just faking it- running a Nationals season ticket account on a government salary. Today is my greatest day as a contributor to the FFA Politics board. All downhill from here.

So anyway, Kavanaugh's story actually seems mostly reasonable to me. When the Nats looks like they're heading for the playoffs, they send out an invoice in August to all their season ticket holders.  You can buy "ticket strips" for your season ticket seats, which obviously everyone does. Thing is, they charge you for every possible game no matter where the Nats are in the standings- tiebreaker, wild card, division series, NLCS and World Series, for a total of 12-13 games. And playoff tickets are expensive- our seats, which are $50 per in the regular season, are maybe $200 for the NLCS games the Nats will obviously never play and $300ish for the World Series :lmao: games. So it adds up quickly. Even if he's only got two seats similar to ours you're talking about maybe $4,000 right there, and obviously more if he's got really good seats.

But wait, there's more!  They also offer you a second playoff ticket strip if you renew your season tickets for the following season and make the initial payment on them. This is before they offer any playoff tix to anyone else, so obviously you'd be insane not to do it because all your friends always want playoff tickets and worst case scenario they can always be sold at a substantial profit on the secondary market.  So of course you do it. And there's another $4K or more, plus the first payment on the following season's tickets which is probably another grand or two.  Suddenly you're in five figures! And that's assuming there's only two season tickets; if they have four you can double that.

So what you obviously do is put it all on a credit card, because when the games aren't actually played the card will be refunded and also because government employees don't have that kind of cash lying around. And you also don't collect the money from your friends until October or later, because that would just create more work for you paying everyone back when the games aren't actually played. Next thing you know you're carrying a ####ton of credit card debt in the last couple months of the year even if you're a semi-responsible person. I usually get everyone to pay me for any tickets they actually use in October, but someone letting their friends slide on it for a couple months seems semi-reasonable.

 

ETA:  Just remembered they actually don't necessarily refund your money for unplayed games, they credit the money towards next year's season tickets (which you've already committed to) instead.  So even more reason for him to carry a large balance at the end of a year and maybe into the following year before collecting from his friends.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

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...