Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett) (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Thomas will likely die on the bench. Breyer might retire in late 2021-22 if Biden is elected. Everyone else is “young enough” for 4+ more years.
Sure, but things do happen, so you never know. If Breyer and Thomas are done during Biden's term, the breakdown goes back to 5-4, and of course we might see Roberts back to being the swing vote on some cases. All isn't lost though, because the court issues unanimous or near unanimous rulings more often than not. The controversial cases will continue to be controversial whatever the breakdown is. I'm curious to see if there's this dramatic shift that people are claiming will happen if Barrett gets confirmed. The SC is usually pretty deliberate in it's decision making, so I'm not convinced there will be a seismic shift. We'll see I guess.
 

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
462
Reaction score
822
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
Well, not all 9 justices are going to live 39 more years. And certainly the breakdown won't be 6-3 for all that long if Biden wins the election and the Senate flips, which at this point has a decent chance of happening. There have been rumors of a couple of justices looking for an off ramp to retire. So I think a 6-3 court isn't going to last more than a year or two. Could be wrong, but that what it seems to me from where I sit.
I think that is critical. If some of the "conservative" justices retire with confidence that Biden will pick qualified replacements and not ultra-liberal sycophants, then the court could be levelled without needing to add additional judges.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
487
Reaction score
593
Age
120
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
Thomas will likely die on the bench. Breyer might retire in late 2021-22 if Biden is elected. Everyone else is “young enough” for 4+ more years.
they'll stick around long enough to tear down everything, then dust their hands on a job well done, mission accomplished, then retire and/or die and leave a legacy of crap for the younger generations. Lets be honest, them overturning most of what is in place won't effect them at all.

meanwhile, Barrett can't say or won't say if voter intimidation is illegal, can't or won't say if climate change is real, can't or won't say trump appointed her to tear down RVW and ACA (she acted ignorant and like she never heard of such a thing before). There was also something about she could not or would not say if Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power.


republicans must be as happy as pigs in slop
 

B4YOU

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
187
Reaction score
298
Age
40
Location
DC
Offline


I don’t know how you can be an originalist and not know the 5 rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Maybe this is on the spot forgetfulness, but her follow up response is just odd.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline


I don’t know how you can be an originalist and not know the 5 rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Maybe this is on the spot forgetfulness, but her follow up response is just odd.
That doesn't bother me tbh. It happens. I'm not reading much into it. I think her more robust answers to say, jurisprudence are more important.
 

superchuck500

magnificently brilliant
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,468
Reaction score
3,011
Location
Charleston, SC
Online
This guy is such a fraud. He has no leadership qualities at all - zero. I’m surprised his businesses haven’t all gone bankrupts. Oh wait.

 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Midwest
Offline
There are evidently about seven more talks given by Barrett that weren’t included in her nomination paperwork. I believe this is a function of the whole process being pushed so hard. Republicans are pushing the limits with this, they are holding votes when they shouldn’t be. They really, really shouldn’t move this quickly. It’s a disservice to the American people and Barrett herself. Her tenure will be starting out as tainted by this shoddy process.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
There are evidently about seven more talks given by Barrett that weren’t included in her nomination paperwork. I believe this is a function of the whole process being pushed so hard. Republicans are pushing the limits with this, they are holding votes when they shouldn’t be. They really, really shouldn’t move this quickly. It’s a disservice to the American people and Barrett herself. Her tenure will be starting out as tainted by this shoddy process.
Source or link?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Midwest
Offline
I didn’t bother to keep it dave, because it won’t make any difference. The writer says it wasn’t hard to find them by searching Notre Dame’s archives. Just speaks to a general haste or sloppiness, imo. If I see it again today I’ll copy the link.
 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
272
Reaction score
790
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
I didn’t bother to keep it dave, because it won’t make any difference. The writer says it wasn’t hard to find them by searching Notre Dame’s archives. Just speaks to a general haste or sloppiness, imo. If I see it again today I’ll copy the link.
I got you @MT15 :

 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
That's true, but they are going to look to theories and ideas from other cases based on the arguments made by both sides. They aren't going to simply say "is it legal for the president to pardon himself," and start digging through old caselaw. They are going to look at the arguments and say "this side says that the law says this...." and they are going to go through caselaw to see if that argument is supported.
That's true, but the question was raised over a year ago by Trump himself when he speculated on pardoning himself. I have no doubt that every judge, especially those with Supreme Court ambitions like Barrett, have given thought to the legal justifications for and against it, including case laws that they know.

Bottom line. Barrett and Ginsburg publicly shared their legal opinions in interviews before being nominated for the Supreme Court. While being interviewed during confirmation hearings they both said they couldn't publicly share their legal opinions during that interview. After Ginsburg was on the Supreme Court and after Barrett will be, they again both publicly share their legal opinions in interviews.

That's inconsistent, irrational, illogical and evasive all in the guise of being non-partisan, apolitical, and objective. It's actually the emperor's new clothes that allows partisan, political and subjective judges on to the Supreme Court. It's the excuse that has been carefully woven into our political zeitgeist to undermine the actual check and balance that the Senate is supposed to provide to prevent corruption of the Supreme Court.
That's 100% true. But, the thing to remember is "this is what I think based on this thing" is going to become "they said they would rule this way" if things don't go a certain way.
So what?

She'll have a lifetime appointment, so what would it matter to her what people say or think after she's appointed?

I firmly believe that anyone who is truly apolitical and non-partisan would be more concerned about offering full disclosure to us, than they would be about public perception of their rulings.

I also firmly believe anyone that is being evasive has something they feel they need to hide from others. I don't care how much of a "decent" person someone appears to be on the surface, if they feel like they have something to hide, they don't belong on the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
706
Reaction score
1,061
Age
44
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
More on Barrett
=============
Amy Coney Barrett is a right-wing extremist.

She does not believe George Floyd had a right to breathe. She doesn’t believe that screaming the n-word is necessarily “hostile.”

She does believe in Jesus, though.

While Judge Barrett has displayed a Mitch McConnell-like ability to evade direct questions about her legal opinions on a woman’s right to control her own body, whether or not poor people deserve to die if they can’t afford healthcare, or if Social Security is constitutional, we already know Barrett’s judicial positions in one important area of the law.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeal’s Seventh Circuit, the right-wing star of the literal handmaid’s tale has repeatedly joined her fellow conservative bench mates in asserting the right of police to do whatever they want—the Constitution be damned........

This is not even the tip of the Amy Coney Barrett iceberg.

She has also written that being called a “stupid-arse (N-word)”, by one’s work supervisor doesn’t necessarily constitute a hostile work environment.

She also voted to deny employees of Autozone a rehearing after her colleagues ruled that the auto parts giant didn’t violate the civil rights of its Black employees by forcing them to work exclusively in Black neighborhoods. She wrote that gun rights are as important as voting rights......

 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
487
Reaction score
593
Age
120
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
There was also this

oh but nothing to see here. I mean there couldn't possibly have been anyone MORE qualified than her to be chosen. Nope. no ulterior motive with this republican nominee
 

EmBeeFiveOhFour

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
342
Reaction score
951
Location
Near a River's Bend
Offline

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom