|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
Starter [354]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 342
Joined: 6/27/10
|
Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate
Oct 9, 2020, 5:59 PM
|
|
Amy Coney Barrett failed to disclose talks on Roe v. Wade hosted by anti-abortion groups on Senate paperwork
Judge Amy Coney Barrett failed to disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing to become the next Supreme Court justice.
Barrett's failure to disclose the two events also raises questions about whether the questionnaire is complete or whether there will be any consequences from the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees her confirmation hearing. Past chairmen of the powerful committee have halted the nomination process after judicial nominees omitted information in their Senate paperwork but under committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that scenario is unlikely.
Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department this week that said Barrett did omit materials concerning Roe v. Wade and asked if Barrett omitted any more materials after the National Review reported that Barrett signed a letter on a "right to life" ad in 2006 that called for the end of the landmark legal decision.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate
Oct 9, 2020, 6:12 PM
|
|
They're absolutely going to ignore it.
The bigger problem is going to be what else she might have "omitted". Because significant omissions are grounds for impeachment, and you know a Democratic-led Senate would cheerfully vote to impeach, though because of rank partisanship they'd be highly unlikely to get the 2/3's majority needed to convict and remove. But that bit of political theatre would be more than enough pretext to show that the integrity of the court has been completely invalidated, giving the Dems more than ample ammunition needed to pack the court...which is now politically poisonous. Especially if among Barrett's first acts she nukes the ACA and overturns Roe v. Wade.
I really do not think the GOP has thought this through all the way. The GOP is already underwater among young people and women voters as it is. The metaphor I've heard is: "the GOP is the dog that actually caught the car."
They may really wish they hadn't. Political gains are always short-term but these are the sort of consequences that could literally lose the Republicans multiple generations. The Millennials and Gen Z don't like the GOP already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate
Oct 9, 2020, 10:40 PM
|
|
Its a done deal please move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate
Oct 10, 2020, 5:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate ] |
|
Q,
I am sorry, but I am afraid that the American people do NOT have the kind of attention span that would create ongoing problems for Republicans. They will have control of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years, while most voters will have forgotten their corruption by 2024.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41407
Joined: 4/20/01
|
You'll have to confirm her to find out what she's for.***
Oct 9, 2020, 6:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: You'll have to confirm her to find out what she's for.***
Oct 9, 2020, 6:29 PM
|
|
Because yeah, just roll the dice with the highest court in the land.
Great idea.
The court derives its authority from the notion that its judgments are fair and impartial...which is the reason meddling with it politically is such a bad idea. When you get a court whose judgments are massively out of sync with the electorate sentiment will turn on it overnight.
Roberts is fully aware of that...which is why as conservative as he is, he's always served as the swing vote. He knows exactly what happens if the court starts thundering down wildly unpopular judgments from on high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:31 PM
|
|
of the electorate. The electorate always changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:47 PM
|
|
The tweak that will likely happen is actually pretty simple, IMHO:
I don't think there's going to be a lot of will to do big structural changes to the court, though that could change if the conservatives just whip out a saw and start hacking away at the last fifty years of precedent. That isn't "strict-constructionism" or "originalism" anymore, that's trying to wind back the clock.
What will happen is that the Dems - if they take the Senate, and I think they're going to - are going to institute a single, easily passable tweak: allowing each president to appoint two new justices a term. So Biden will definitely get his two in 2020-2024, which would be Clarence Thomas's seat (he's served 28 years) and Stephen Breyer (26 years). That would (briefly) keep the court at 6-3, and wipe out the most conservative voice on the court and a moderate; Breyer's no kind of liberal.
Then the bleeding starts...because in 2024-2028, the next two up would be Samuel Alito and John Roberts. There might have been a sea shift in politics by 2024 but I have a suspicion the damage Trump has done to the GOP is going to linger for awhile. So by 2028 even without doing much of anything the Dems will retake the Court.
Political gains are transient. Losing two generations of voters hurts a lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:50 PM
|
|
Have you not been watching the news? Neither Biden or Harris will answer about packing the court. Get a grip man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:59 PM
|
|
They won't answer because they know public sentiment is strongly against it. Which is exactly why I doubt they actually will pack the court. But if you think they'll just passively sit on their hands I'll have some of whatever you're smoking; the obvious move is to just cycle the court through a little faster and it'll be theirs by 2024...actually by 2022 if they rotate one justice every every two years, which is what I suspect will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111524]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 7:55 PM
|
|
The only way to answer this question is to say it is dependent on what the GOP does wth Barrett and that a balanced court holding a diversity of ideas is critical for our Judicial System to fairly represent the will of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 8:06 PM
|
|
Not a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
but that's actually not true...
Oct 9, 2020, 9:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood... ] |
|
it sounds very noble, but it's not the case. It may even play well politically.
You can say the Republicans are being hypocrites for not confirming Garland and I wouldn't argue, but our government shouldn't be making up the rules as we go along AND you never do the right thing ONLY if the opponent does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I thought you meant the part about the SC representing
Oct 9, 2020, 10:56 PM
[ in reply to but that's actually not true... ] |
|
the "will of the people", because that's not true either.
As you already mentioned---they make judgements based on constitutionality, period. The will of the people is irrelevant and only comes into play when the will of the people is strong enough to amend the Constitution, which then affects the measuring stick that (should) be used in SC decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
exactly***
Oct 9, 2020, 11:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 10, 2020, 5:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood... ] |
|
Q,
I am pretty sure that the Constitution says that Justices serve for life (and good behavior), so this plan of yours to rotate them out of office would require a Constitutional Amendment.
OTOH, if the Dems would add just one seat to the SC (to make up for the seat stolen from Obama), we would have 10 members of the Court. This would impel the court to seek compromises on their ideological positions to avoid a tie. Ties would empower the lower courts - to which more judgeships could be added without the public backlash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 10, 2020, 8:34 PM
|
|
Constitution doesn't say judges serve for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood... ] |
|
Whoops...my count is off. That tweak would take it to 5-4, not 6-3, by the end of 2024...and it'd switch completely the other way to 6-3 Democrat by the end of 2028.
Again, political tides shift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
maybe so...
Oct 9, 2020, 6:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: I’m more concerned with the Constitution than the mood... ] |
|
my main point is I think Barrett is qualified, but I also think Garland was qualified.
But I also don't think Trump has alienated two generations of voters. Young people don't watch the news that we do. My kids get their info from social media. They text me links all the time...stuff that I don't necessarily agree with.
I think the death of the Republican party, again, is greatly exaggerated. I am concerned, as I stated in another thread, about what's going to happen and it's not that the Democrats might win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: maybe so...
Oct 9, 2020, 7:01 PM
|
|
The GOP is toast, franc. The younger demo is terrifying for GOP pollsters.
Stuff does shift eventually, but there's going to be a long bleed before this wound is healed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: maybe so...
Oct 9, 2020, 7:13 PM
|
|
You know what they say. It you are in your 20s and not a DEM. you have no heart. If you are in your 40s and not a REP. you have no brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: maybe so...
Oct 9, 2020, 7:21 PM
|
|
In the past that was true, though I've always been a Republican except for my very first election; I voted Perot in '92. But there's a raftload of us who have fled the GOP during Trump's term because of the sudden turn it took.
I'm an independent now - I find it hard to believe I would ever call myself a "Democrat", the idea kinda gives me hives - and I would certainly come back to the GOP...if it rediscovers its actual guiding principles of common sense and fiscal responsibility again. At which point I think the GOP wouldn't just be getting my smallish George Will-type cohort back, they'd make a legit go at Millennials and Gen Z as they age up again. But right now the gulf between where those two generations are and the GOP is, is just far too wide.
I hope the GOP rediscovers itself, I really do, because I fear a hard leftist turn every bit as much as I fear a right-leaning one. But centrists and rationalists are in short supply in the GOP right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I recall the same sentiment in 2008.
Oct 9, 2020, 8:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: maybe so... ] |
|
You know the jive about learning history and repeating it and whatnot.
I’m sure the hippies of the 60’s never saw the yuppie youth of the 80’s ever happening again.
It’s all cyclical because young people consistently turn against what they’re force fed, which is why ideologies consistently flip flop. The offspring of the uberwoke millennials and Gen Z will rebel against the current hyper-leftist tendencies of their parents. It’s been rinse and repeat since the beginning of time.
No party and no ideology is “toast”. They’re temporarily passé.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: I recall the same sentiment in 2008.
Oct 9, 2020, 9:10 PM
|
|
Ok then, You know what they say. It you are in your 20s and not a DEM. you have no heart. If you are in your 40s and not a REP. you have no brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
You said what I was trying to say...
Oct 9, 2020, 9:35 PM
[ in reply to I recall the same sentiment in 2008. ] |
|
I know in my lifetime I’ve heard about the death of the Republican Party numerous times.
If your are of the mindset that Trump did incredible harm to this country, I can understand why one might think this.
However, one thing I have learned throughout the years, Republicans listening the liberal suggestions for improving the party never works. Republicans lose every time they put up a “moderate” candidate. One might argue Dubya, but Dubya, looking to Reagan, saw the mistakes his father made and purposefully ran a different campaign than his father did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: maybe so...
Oct 10, 2020, 5:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: maybe so... ] |
|
Q,
At the state level, Repugs are using gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep their power. And soon they will have the SC to help them keep keep their grasp on that power despite representing a minority of Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41407
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
What did he say that was contrary to the Constitution?***
Oct 9, 2020, 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
crickets***
Oct 9, 2020, 9:50 PM
|
|
null
Message was edited by: spooneye® because brackets in the subject line make Tnet posts explode
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: [crickets]***
Oct 9, 2020, 9:54 PM
|
|
Don't really see Crash as a Constitutional scholar, spoon.
Perhaps I am in error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: [crickets]***
Oct 9, 2020, 9:54 PM
[ in reply to crickets*** ] |
|
Don't really see Crash as a Constitutional scholar, spoon.
Perhaps I am in error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41407
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Constitution doesn't say that, sorry.***
Oct 10, 2020, 8:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41407
Joined: 4/20/01
|
So the HoR is going to start impeaching judges every two
Oct 11, 2020, 2:18 PM
|
|
yrs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11682
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: So the HoR is going to start impeaching judges every two
Oct 11, 2020, 6:16 PM
|
|
Nope.
Yes, Federal judges appointed under Article Three of the Constitution are indeed appointed for life. All of them. But that just means they will be a Federal judge for life, it doesn't mean they're on the Supreme Court until they die.
So no, the Dems don't have to "impeach" every two years. They can just vote to rotate the justices off the Supreme Court and back to a regular circuit-court judgeship, or in fact any post under Article Three.
Also, the size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution either. It's varied in size many times over the years. So there would be nothing except tradition and common sense from stopping the Dems from, say, setting the number at 100 and then "packing" the court with enough of their own appointees to ensure they always get the verdict they want.
But then, how would a conservative ever be expected to accept that Court's judgements? Which is the reason politicizing it and trying to stack the court in their favor has always been a fool's game on the part of McConnell. Politicizing a judiciary is for fools because it invalidates the court itself...and it invites exactly the kind of court-packing a lot of Dems are now proposing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30413
Joined: 11/15/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: You'll have to confirm her to find out what she's for.***
Oct 10, 2020, 5:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: You'll have to confirm her to find out what she's for.*** ] |
|
Q,
I do not trust John Roberts to be the voice of fairness and impartiality. He only SEEMS that way because of the contrast with Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas. He is much more concerned with the perception of the Court than with the reality of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well, she lost my vote for President***
Oct 9, 2020, 7:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5672]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12148
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Amy Coney Barrett Lies By Omission to Senate
Oct 10, 2020, 9:19 AM
|
|
SCOTUS BACKGROUND FORM
Name: ____________________________________
Please list all relevant life events that might impact any decisions you may make in the next 60 years: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
note: omitting information will end your candidacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
