Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

 

6 hours ago, Sand said:

Indignation doesn't supplant truth.  If you take out obvious (and fairly rare) exceptions the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are "whoopses".  In this day and age there are birth control methods that are damn near 100% effective.

Let's say for the sake of argument that they're 99.9% effective (the pill generally is, but condoms aren't.)

How many times do you think people (total, among the entire population) have sex every year?

Are you aware that over 50% of women getting abortions report having used birth control for the month they got pregnant?  That 13% report being on the pill at the time they got pregnant?

38 million women use contraception every month.  Let's say they have sex 4 times per month.  That's 152,000 failures per month just of oral contraception

 

Not to mention many forms of birth control aren't healthy.  Personally I'd rather pull the plug on a fetus or two than end up with cancer.  Then again, I'm a dude so my opinion doesn't matter that much.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Kavanaugh looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet.  

It doesn’t matter.  The confirmation  hearing is purely for show.  US is officially headed backwards for the foreseeable future.  

And it needs to continue until the DCCC gets their collective heads out of their ###es

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Kavanaugh looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet.  

It doesn’t matter.  The confirmation  hearing is purely for show.  US is officially headed backwards for the foreseeable future.  

Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, one of the more racist overarching strategies in modern history was put in motion by the Republican Party and Nixon took over as President.

Things moved pretty quickly the last eight years in areas lots of people don’t want freedoms to be allowed to go.  This isn’t unprecedented. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qanon said:

Do you guys finally agree that Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court in October?

 

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, proninja said:

I was agreeing with you and suggesting that Garland isn't as qualified, he's more qualified

It is just so ridiculous what the GOP did.  I honestly can’t believe it.  Then they have the gall to call out Dems for being partisan through this process.  American politics is the twilight zone.  Probably the worst and most disfunctional of any liberal democracy.   

Edited by zoonation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zoonation said:

It is just so ridiculous what the GOP did.  I honestly can’t believe it.  Then they have the gall to call out Dems for being partisan through this process.  American politics is the twilight zone.  Probably the worst and most disfunctional of any liberal democracy.   

They are not dysfunctional they are bought.  Big difference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And it’s not their job to land blows any more than it is the Republicans’ to deflect them.  Their job is to vett his experience, explore his character and ethics, and examine his judicial views, and they’ve been doing that.

Well, about 10% of it.  90% of his career is being hidden from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

A guy who thinks that contraception is abortion is way too extreme to be sitting on the Supreme Court.  But yes, he'll probably get there - until Trump is impeached and, if found guilty of treason, the Dems push to annul everything he did while in office.  Illegitimate POTUS = 2 illegitimate SCOTUS appointees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CowboysFromHell said:

A guy who thinks that contraception is abortion is way too extreme to be sitting on the Supreme Court.  But yes, he'll probably get there - until Trump is impeached and, if found guilty of treason, the Dems push to annul everything he did while in office.  Illegitimate POTUS = 2 illegitimate SCOTUS appointees.

That simply isn't going to happen.  First, there isn't crap on Trump as in the way of proof and there probably won't be.  Second, even if he was removed from office his SCOTUS appontees wouldn't be removed as well.  That I do know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Qualified yes...do you believe he lied under oath?

I asked @Qanon the other day and he never answered.

Haven't paid a huge amount of attention to that - pretty inside baseball.  Even Vox, which is super left wing, says no on perjury there.  If they say that on that side of the political spectrum that's good enough for me.

 

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

And some who aren’t.  Like Merrick Garland. 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impeaching Gorsuch will be a thing at some point IMO.  Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Impeaching Gorsuch will be a thing at some point IMO.  Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

On what grounds?  I haven't read anything in your post that constitutes legal grounds to remove Gorsuch.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnnyU said:

On what grounds?

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

...and my response to that is there is nothing in that statement that would remove a SCOTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it is.  Gorsuch was put on the Bench by either a) an illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment, or b) through the legitimate exercise of pure political power.

If it's a) Dems are ethically/morally justified in removing him.  If it's b) then removing him is justified at whatever point they have the pure political power to do it.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

How is removing him more Constitutionally offensive than the means by which he was appointed?

I don't recall any Republicans being voted out.

 

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

9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

Glad at least you agree he will be. :thumbup:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorsuch was appointed exactly how he was supposed to be appointed: the President nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. There was nothing at all wrong with that.

(The Merrick Garland thing was a fiasco, but it is constitutionally separate from Gorsuch's perfectly valid appointment, and anyway it didn't involve 2/3 of the Senate.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Qanon said:
9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

"Should" questions don't matter to you at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity.

I don't recall any Republicans being voted out.

I don't recall the electorate being sane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Qanon said:

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

Glad at least you agree he will be. :thumbup:

 

And the next question you should ask is, will the sun will rise tomorrow.  Asking questions with only one answer isn’t intellectually honest and not something you should feel proud we agree on.  And before you ask yes the sun will rise tomorrow.  Glad we agree on something else ?.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Gorsuch was appointed exactly how he was supposed to be appointed: the President nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. There was nothing at all wrong with that.

(The Merrick Garland thing was a fiasco, but it is constitutionally separate from Gorsuch's perfectly valid appointment, and anyway it didn't involve 2/3 of the Senate.)

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference -- one can't happen without the other.  For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.  So I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.

First, I didn't claim that removing Gorsuch would be worse than blocking Garland. I claimed that removing Gorsuch would be worse than appointing Gorsuch, and I explained why those things are different.

Second, is "no worse than blocking Garland" the appropriate standard by which to judge all political conduct? If so, I think you and I both must retract most of our criticisms of President Trump. He's generally been a very good President inasmuch as the great majority of his presidential actions have been no worse than blocking Garland. :thumbup:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned none of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer should be on the court. Means absolutely nothing because they are.

Did you hear that  Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded to Cory Booker. She said "I knew Spartacus and you Mr. Booker are no Spartacus". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason the Democrats did not fight that hard for Garland is because they expected Hillary to win and she would nominate him, then Ginsberg would retire and HRC would replace her with another liberal and the SC would be 5-4 liberal. second term. 

So much for those plans huh. 

You all can blame RBG for not retiring early in Obama's.  

But they all thought she would win. :no:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Qanon said:

The main reason the Democrats did not fight that hard for Garland is because they expected Hillary to win and she would nominate him, then Ginsberg would retire and HRC would replace her with another liberal and the SC would be 5-4 liberal. second term. 

So much for those plans huh. 

You all can blame RBG for not retiring early in Obama's.  

But they all thought she would win. :no:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry".

Gosh.  What a fresh original take.  Using news from the current day to talk trash about the 2016 election like it was a sporting event.  Does Q command you to make posts like these to lure us into thinking you’re a standard-issue Trump supporter who gets all their news and beliefs from Fox and Trump’s Twitter account?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.

I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.

Using laws to redress such grievances is much preferable to using vigilantism.

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exactly appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against sane and orderly government. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should also feel free to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.

Using laws to redress such grievances rather than vigilantism is much preferable.

If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it does not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.

When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.

If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.

If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.

If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exact appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it's not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against our Constitution. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is to prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should feel free as well to require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.

I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

What difference are you asking about? It makes a difference with respect to whether I think everything is going swimmingly right now. It doesn't make a difference with respect to whether I support the rule of law over political vigilantism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What difference are you asking about? It makes a difference with respect to whether I think everything is going swimmingly right now. It doesn't make a difference with respect to whether I support the rule of law over political vigilantism.

But if Trump was elected illegitimately, his appointments should become null & void.  When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in this country, choices that can change this country dramatically over the next 30-40 years, no way should they be allowed to stay on the court!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

One party is not playing the game legally.  That makes no difference to you?

History is littered with civilizations that were pacifists. There are thousands of these cultures that we've never heard of, nor will because they were swallowed up and/or destroyed by those that fight. It's not just MT, but many others that don't want the Democrats to fight. Well, I think they should and it sounds like you think they should too, for the same reason as those long dead civilizations should have. Those that are fighting for positive change in the universe tend to break the rules, because it is those that fight for positive change are without power. Those that support status quo and following rules in the context of fighting for positive change tend to be for those that are in power and that oppress people. It's always been like this and will be for a long time after we are all dead.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference -- one can't happen without the other.  For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.  So I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Leave it to the left to open Pandora's box and then whine about it when the tables are turned.  This is the type of shortsightedness that made Cavanaugh a slam dunk confirmation.

Link to comment
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...