Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Affordable Care Act (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    I think a lot of the backlash against ACB was the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP ramming her through right before the election

    If RBG had passed in Sept 2019 and Barrett was nominated I don't think the venom would have been nearly as intense

    Agreed. That was probably the bigger issue than ACB herself. That part of it has to be fixed.
     
    I think a lot of the backlash against ACB was the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP ramming her through right before the election

    If RBG had passed in Sept 2019 and Barrett was nominated I don't think the venom would have been nearly as intense

    The venom against her wasn't intense. The venom against the GOP was.

    I saw some pretty liberal folks in the media saying kind things about her and actually saying she was qualified but that wasn't the point. She was challenged on certain things like all SCOTUS nominees are, but her hearings were incredibly respectful. Many Democrat Senators started her questioning by complimenting her and ending it by telling her the problem wasn't her it was the process.

    There's always a few yahoos, but the general tone toward ACB from both the media and politicians was pretty respectful.
     
    Yea the little bit I watched of her confirmation didn’t make her appear to be a poor pick, but she’s forever going to have the albatross of the circumstances.
     
    I think a lot of the backlash against ACB was the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP ramming her through right before the election

    If RBG had passed in Sept 2019 and Barrett was nominated I don't think the venom would have been nearly as intense

    I think resistance to ACB among the institutionalists was that ACB was terribly under-qualified and under-experienced, and her nomination owes entirely to the Heritage Foundation and the evangelical effort to fill the bench with judges they expect will apply reliably Christian doctrine to American law.

    While her nomination didn't have the controversy that Kavanaugh's did, no one could ever say that Kavanaugh lacked a Supreme Court pedigree. ACB has virtually none of boxes you expect to be ticked in a confirmed nominee . . . but it didn't matter.
     
    I think resistance to ACB among the institutionalists was that ACB was terribly under-qualified and under-experienced, and her nomination owes entirely to the Heritage Foundation and the evangelical effort to fill the bench with judges they expect will apply reliably Christian doctrine to American law.

    While her nomination didn't have the controversy that Kavanaugh's did, no one could ever say that Kavanaugh lacked a Supreme Court pedigree. ACB has virtually none of boxes you expect to be ticked in a confirmed nominee . . . but it didn't matter.
    Brett Kavanaugh's credentials as a Supreme Court justice might be better then ACB, but then again, so were Robert Bork's. Bork served as Nixon's AG, and controversy aside, had a strong, respected legal mind and yet rightfully, he was castigated and his legal and judicial opinions were openly scewered by a hostile, unconvinced Senate confirmation SCOTUS committee. Kavanaugh simply had the benefit of being in the right place and having GOP in full control of both House and Senate, whereas Bork had neither. Kavanaugh and ACB would not be serving currently on the Supreme Court if the current power configuration existed 3-4 years ago.

    Merrick Garlands chances depend heavily on whether Stephen Breyer heads the call or pressure from progressive Dems to retire and nominate a moderate or liberal federal judge just in case GOP retakes the House or Senate in 2022 midterms.
     

    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.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom