Author Topic: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed  (Read 20056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #510 on: October 27, 2020, 01:08:20 AM »

Online Ogaju

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13598
  • Tommy Points: 1408
Once the die was cast and ACB was going to be pushed through in a reversal of Republicans own self-righteously established precedent, it was clear to me that the only fair thing to do would be to provide a fair hearing and honor the remainder of the process.   ACB seems qualified and I think she should have received overwhelming support for nomination.   Government  by tit-for-tat is unhealthy and unsustainable and Dems  should also graciously give up on packing the court.   Bravo to McConnell, the most influential legislator perhaps in the nationís history.  He got it done for his side.  Time will turn the tables, it will happen.  Possibly sooner than people think.

My view is that the only true threat to America and to democracy in our present day is not McConnell, not a republican House, republican Senate, or a conservative Supreme Court.  The threat is Donald Trump. And it is a profound threat.   I would gladly  trade House and senate and SCOTUS majorities for the ending of this presidency.  There is nothing more important - not even close.  Our master liar and bully needs to be kicked out of our  lives.  Iíd gladly  take 9 ACBs if it meant no more Trump.  Sounds like an exaggeration? it isnít.  I believe Trump threatens this country in a way weíve never been threatened before.  Heís got an aggressive pack of supporters that heís managed to con and who are feeling great power in his wake.  A Trump victory next week means we begin a 4 year fight for the country.  Yes, he needs to lose badly so that Joe Biden can change the current trajectory and the Republican Party can regroup and regain some semblance of the identity theyíve lost over the last 5 years.   

If Trump loses, relief...  all else will be OK.

do you really think it is that easy? What Trump illuminated has existed before him. Think back to Obama's election and the resistance to his presidency by some groups and by the Senate Republicans led by McConnell.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #511 on: October 27, 2020, 01:10:27 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7899
  • Tommy Points: 1319
So bizzare that the US doesn't have age limits for judges...

Yet it's becoming possible that we have either extreme -- age limits or court packing -- within the next decade.
You don't need a pack of wild horses to learn how to make a sandwich.

-Dr. Phil

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #512 on: October 27, 2020, 01:21:49 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7899
  • Tommy Points: 1319
Once the die was cast and ACB was going to be pushed through in a reversal of Republicans own self-righteously established precedent, it was clear to me that the only fair thing to do would be to provide a fair hearing and honor the remainder of the process.   ACB seems qualified and I think she should have received overwhelming support for nomination.   Government  by tit-for-tat is unhealthy and unsustainable and Dems  should also graciously give up on packing the court.   Bravo to McConnell, the most influential legislator perhaps in the nationís history.  He got it done for his side.  Time will turn the tables, it will happen.  Possibly sooner than people think.

My view is that the only true threat to America and to democracy in our present day is not McConnell, not a republican House, republican Senate, or a conservative Supreme Court.  The threat is Donald Trump. And it is a profound threat.   I would gladly  trade House and senate and SCOTUS majorities for the ending of this presidency.  There is nothing more important - not even close.  Our master liar and bully needs to be kicked out of our  lives.  Iíd gladly  take 9 ACBs if it meant no more Trump.  Sounds like an exaggeration? it isnít.  I believe Trump threatens this country in a way weíve never been threatened before.  Heís got an aggressive pack of supporters that heís managed to con and who are feeling great power in his wake.  A Trump victory next week means we begin a 4 year fight for the country.  Yes, he needs to lose badly so that Joe Biden can change the current trajectory and the Republican Party can regroup and regain some semblance of the identity theyíve lost over the last 5 years.   

If Trump loses, relief...  all else will be OK.

Always appreciate your thoughtful and well-written posts.  I'm curious to know why you believe Trump is the biggest threat to America and our democracy? 
You don't need a pack of wild horses to learn how to make a sandwich.

-Dr. Phil

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #513 on: October 27, 2020, 05:59:25 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Tommy Points: 186
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #514 on: October 27, 2020, 07:01:24 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17005
  • Tommy Points: 1880
Once the die was cast and ACB was going to be pushed through in a reversal of Republicans own self-righteously established precedent, it was clear to me that the only fair thing to do would be to provide a fair hearing and honor the remainder of the process.   ACB seems qualified and I think she should have received overwhelming support for nomination.   Government  by tit-for-tat is unhealthy and unsustainable and Dems  should also graciously give up on packing the court.   Bravo to McConnell, the most influential legislator perhaps in the nationís history.  He got it done for his side.  Time will turn the tables, it will happen.  Possibly sooner than people think.

My view is that the only true threat to America and to democracy in our present day is not McConnell, not a republican House, republican Senate, or a conservative Supreme Court.  The threat is Donald Trump. And it is a profound threat.   I would gladly  trade House and senate and SCOTUS majorities for the ending of this presidency.  There is nothing more important - not even close.  Our master liar and bully needs to be kicked out of our  lives.  Iíd gladly  take 9 ACBs if it meant no more Trump.  Sounds like an exaggeration? it isnít.  I believe Trump threatens this country in a way weíve never been threatened before.  Heís got an aggressive pack of supporters that heís managed to con and who are feeling great power in his wake.  A Trump victory next week means we begin a 4 year fight for the country.  Yes, he needs to lose badly so that Joe Biden can change the current trajectory and the Republican Party can regroup and regain some semblance of the identity theyíve lost over the last 5 years.   

If Trump loses, relief...  all else will be OK.

Always appreciate your thoughtful and well-written posts.  I'm curious to know why you believe Trump is the biggest threat to America and our democracy?

Some of this is of course my opinion that has to do with Trump being an untrustworthy con man who will buy into any idea or manufacture one regardless of the consequences as long as one of the consequences is his own aggrandizement.  Is this different from other politicians who donít always act or think ethically? - well yes, I think so - because he appears (to me) to have no moral compass, he has 40% of the country riled up and worshiping him, and most importantly, he actually IS the president of the United States.  Heís used this position and his gift of persuasion to brand any media that disagrees with or challenges him as ďfakeĒ and has, with regard to Covid and the climate, determined that he knows better than science about whatís really happening out there.  I donít believe a word from his mouth, yet he has the power (and will have more in a week if he wins) to act upon his self-serving conclusions and bring his whims to fruition.  I also have no faith whatsoever in his ability to manage his relationships with Russia and China.  I believe he is way over his head and Putin is able to get whatever he wants from him.  Dangerous.

But perhaps the most poignant reason I consider him the biggest threat to America and democracy is his repeated claim that the only way he loses this election is if it is rigged. With no viable evidence, Trump is basically notifying the American people that democracy in America is a fraud.  That is of course if he loses. He has a fired up portion of the electorate ready to aggressively stand by him.  He has been using the better part of his campaign to set up this great con - casting doubt upon our election and finding a way to sustain power regardless of the numbers.  This is the threat heís making and heís been very clear about making it  - he may not be successful, but the threat is clear, itís bold, itís unmistakable and it emanates directly from him.  By making this threat he breaks a covenant between every single voter and a trustworthy democratic process.  It would be one thing if there was credible evidence that our country's democracy was built on quicksand, but there isn't.  He simply feels that by seeding this false sense of discomfort it will allow him to capitalize on any crack (real or conjured) in the system.  It will allow him to lie (which there is no doubt he'll do) or to take anecdotal information (e.g., someone threw away a Trump ballot) and exaggerate.  Deplorable doesn't do him justice.  And yes, Trump as president is undoubtedly the biggest threat to America and democracy in my lifetime.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 05:18:13 PM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #515 on: October 27, 2020, 09:45:35 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12719
  • Tommy Points: 1539
Part of me wonders how much longer our union can be held together. It feels like we're on the precipice of an irreconcilable fracturing of the nation.

Republicans refusing to hold a vote on Garland was a foolhardy move. They should have just voted, and voted 'not to confirm'. Had they done that I think maybe they could have salvaged the ruse of 'fair play'. Now, they just look guilty of playing dirty pool. Sure, nothing they have done goes against the law, but it sure does go against the spirit of it. Republicans cannot possibly expect Democrats to behave any differently going forward. Maybe they already felt like Democrats were playing dirty pool themselves, but clearly the stakes have been elevated here.

So, now we stand at a point where the Democrats are talking about radically changing the makeup of the court if they win, and subtlety hinting they'll also probably try to enact other laws that will make it more difficult for Republicans to win future elections. It's a bold gambit, though, because if Trump holds the Presidency, and Republicans hold the Senate, they now have no reason not to do all the things Democrats are currently threatening.

I'm not sure how any of this is sustainable. Someone needs to be the first to extend the olive branch. Someone needs to be the first to take the 'L' and work with the opposition instead of working to thwart them. Mostly, we needs someone who can get people to stop seeing their fellow countrymen as opposition, regardless of their political or social views.

Or maybe it's time to just split up the states into separate countries.   IDK...I'm just rambling this morning. I enjoyed my long weekend anyways...and now back to the reality that our country is probably screwed regardless of who wins the upcoming elections.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #516 on: October 27, 2020, 10:45:55 AM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3180
  • Tommy Points: 495
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.
the beautiful thing is that if the democrats win and want to expand the court, it is actually constitutional.

So I guess that means republicans canít complain about it if it happens...
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #517 on: October 27, 2020, 10:52:13 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42524
  • Tommy Points: 2745
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Part of me wonders how much longer our union can be held together. It feels like we're on the precipice of an irreconcilable fracturing of the nation.

Republicans refusing to hold a vote on Garland was a foolhardy move. They should have just voted, and voted 'not to confirm'. Had they done that I think maybe they could have salvaged the ruse of 'fair play'. Now, they just look guilty of playing dirty pool. Sure, nothing they have done goes against the law, but it sure does go against the spirit of it. Republicans cannot possibly expect Democrats to behave any differently going forward. Maybe they already felt like Democrats were playing dirty pool themselves, but clearly the stakes have been elevated here.

So, now we stand at a point where the Democrats are talking about radically changing the makeup of the court if they win, and subtlety hinting they'll also probably try to enact other laws that will make it more difficult for Republicans to win future elections. It's a bold gambit, though, because if Trump holds the Presidency, and Republicans hold the Senate, they now have no reason not to do all the things Democrats are currently threatening.

I'm not sure how any of this is sustainable. Someone needs to be the first to extend the olive branch. Someone needs to be the first to take the 'L' and work with the opposition instead of working to thwart them. Mostly, we needs someone who can get people to stop seeing their fellow countrymen as opposition, regardless of their political or social views.

Or maybe it's time to just split up the states into separate countries.   IDK...I'm just rambling this morning. I enjoyed my long weekend anyways...and now back to the reality that our country is probably screwed regardless of who wins the upcoming elections.

You're not just rambling I think about this all the time. It's maybe not going to be the end of the United States but it will be the end of the constitution. The Republicans currently hold power solely because of the unequal representation granted by the constitution to rural areas, and the rampant gerrymandering especially in the southern and midwestern states. And with that power they've abused the spirit of the constitution and unfairly (if legally) manipulated their way into a supreme court majority.

Why in the world would the democrats not engage in similar tactics? Especially now that they know if the republicans get into power again, this is how they'll behave?

But the truth is, if someone doesn't put this political arms race on hold and put the country first our political structure as we once knew it will be ripped to shreds.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #518 on: October 27, 2020, 10:53:21 AM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 687
  • Tommy Points: 113
GreatfulC's thank you for making that point. Furthermore, the constitution doesn't explicitly say whether or not a Senate can choose to not hold a vote. If republicans wanted to be constitutional purists they would've held a vote and voted down Merrick Garland. However, they could not in good conscience vote down Garland with his judicial experience. 

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #519 on: October 27, 2020, 10:57:00 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Tommy Points: 186
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.
the beautiful thing is that if the democrats win and want to expand the court, it is actually constitutional.

So I guess that means republicans canít complain about it if it happens...
Well for me it is all disappointing. We need a balanced and civil congress and senate. We need politics out of the courts. The packing and other moves should never have been necessary. Republicans need to be better but for them it's a losing war and they will do anything to stay alive, party over country.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #520 on: October 27, 2020, 11:35:02 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43230
  • Tommy Points: -27056
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.
the beautiful thing is that if the democrats win and want to expand the court, it is actually constitutional.

So I guess that means republicans canít complain about it if it happens...
Well for me it is all disappointing. We need a balanced and civil congress and senate. We need politics out of the courts. The packing and other moves should never have been necessary. Republicans need to be better but for them it's a losing war and they will do anything to stay alive, party over country.

You realize that youíre contributing to the things youíre critical of, right?  Youíve pointed fingers at Republicans repeatedly, but donít seem to have the same issues with Democrats.  Thatís pretty much the same position 100 million people on each side have.  ďIf only Party X would stop doing bad things, the country wouldnít have so many problemsĒ.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #521 on: October 27, 2020, 11:45:59 AM »

Online Ogaju

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13598
  • Tommy Points: 1408
The Supreme Court processes demonstrates the divide between the parties. The Republicans fight hard because they have a system to preserve which in some sense serves the interest of even the Democratic leaders. The Democrats on the other hand are fine with rationing a little here and there for minorities.

ACB says she loves the Constitution, really? Does she realize what the document provided for women? If she is an orignaist she should leave her seat today.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #522 on: October 27, 2020, 12:15:17 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13598
  • Tommy Points: 1408
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.
the beautiful thing is that if the democrats win and want to expand the court, it is actually constitutional.

So I guess that means republicans canít complain about it if it happens...
Well for me it is all disappointing. We need a balanced and civil congress and senate. We need politics out of the courts. The packing and other moves should never have been necessary. Republicans need to be better but for them it's a losing war and they will do anything to stay alive, party over country.

You realize that youíre contributing to the things youíre critical of, right?  Youíve pointed fingers at Republicans repeatedly, but donít seem to have the same issues with Democrats.  Thatís pretty much the same position 100 million people on each side have.  ďIf only Party X would stop doing bad things, the country wouldnít have so many problemsĒ.

false equivalence, and I doubt that there are equal numbers on both sides. There are vastly more Democrats than Republicans do not get taken by the anti-democratic electoral college system. The issue that divides both parties is that one party wants to move forward and embrace everyone with civil rights and equal rights - you know be PROGRESSIVE, while the other party wants to go back to the days of discrimination, division, and unequal treatment - you know CONSERVATIVE. So please do not preach equivalence here.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #523 on: October 27, 2020, 01:20:17 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43230
  • Tommy Points: -27056
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Congrats to the newly confirmed Justice Barrett.

Lol - this post makes me want to puke. I guess if the Rs were going to go the super-hypocrisy route, they might as well have gone all the way with the most conservative judge they could find. How many hundreds of qualified judges were out there that would have better represented Americans and they had to go with her? Hopefully there will be several R Senators starting to pack their bags after the election on Tuesday. The way this whole thing went down is a disgrace.
They won't care. The sooner they are out the sooner they can cash their real checks. Insurances and pharma will be delivering them soon.

The odd thing is that these nominees are all touted for their integrity and their fidelity to the law, but not ONE of them displayed enough integrity to turn down the job given the circumstances of their nomination. They will rather benefit from a process that tears the country about than make a principled stand. So much for integrity. The sooner we all admit we are political the better. Pack that Court!!!

Why should she turn the position down?  The President nominates, the Senate votes (or doesnít vote, if it desires).  The Constitution was followed.


Itís funny that Merrick Garland is the martyr here.  If Republicans had given him the Robert Bork treatment, would you feel better?
It's because you turn it down for integrity of fairness. In that when it was a Democratic president the Constitution wasn't followed. You put justice in front of party. That's the whole point of a Supreme Court judge to not play politics but judge fairly. Anyone who goes along with the hypocrisy isn't a good person let alone fit to be judge on the highest court.

Where was the Constitution not followed?

Like it or not, the Senate has the right to withhold consent for a nominee.  Similarly, they can provide consent for a different nominee, even if otherwise the circumstances were similar.
Problem arises when the reason for denial they give are not followed when their party is involved. To go back on their own standards proves they were never truly following the process as the reasons given before were not legitimate. It was a sham.
the beautiful thing is that if the democrats win and want to expand the court, it is actually constitutional.

So I guess that means republicans canít complain about it if it happens...
Well for me it is all disappointing. We need a balanced and civil congress and senate. We need politics out of the courts. The packing and other moves should never have been necessary. Republicans need to be better but for them it's a losing war and they will do anything to stay alive, party over country.

You realize that youíre contributing to the things youíre critical of, right?  Youíve pointed fingers at Republicans repeatedly, but donít seem to have the same issues with Democrats.  Thatís pretty much the same position 100 million people on each side have.  ďIf only Party X would stop doing bad things, the country wouldnít have so many problemsĒ.

false equivalence, and I doubt that there are equal numbers on both sides. There are vastly more Democrats than Republicans do not get taken by the anti-democratic electoral college system. The issue that divides both parties is that one party wants to move forward and embrace everyone with civil rights and equal rights - you know be PROGRESSIVE, while the other party wants to go back to the days of discrimination, division, and unequal treatment - you know CONSERVATIVE. So please do not preach equivalence here.

Please donít caricature and misrepresent the views of tens of millions of people.  Among other reasons, itís against our rules.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed
« Reply #524 on: October 27, 2020, 01:28:07 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43230
  • Tommy Points: -27056
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
GreatfulC's thank you for making that point. Furthermore, the constitution doesn't explicitly say whether or not a Senate can choose to not hold a vote. If republicans wanted to be constitutional purists they would've held a vote and voted down Merrick Garland. However, they could not in good conscience vote down Garland with his judicial experience.

I think that you are misunderstanding how conservative judges view the constitution.  If the constitution is silent, that means there is no rule on the subject.  Therefore, not acting on a nomination is in fact constitutional.  Thereís nothing remotely impure about that.

It may or may not be good politics, but the constitution allows that for the Senate to decide.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.