»
Topic: an inconvenient truth for Senate Democrats
Replies: 28   Last Post: Oct 21, 2020 8:10 PM by: Tropical
[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 28  

an inconvenient truth for Senate Democrats


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 1:47 PM
    Reply

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/21/amy-coney-barrett-poll-430632

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg


Meh....confirm her unanimously.

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 1:49 PM
    Reply

Then add 4 more judges next year.

We aren't going to let this ignorant blimp in history aka Trump and his cult delay the progress so many have fought for over the last century.

2020 white level member

Re: Meh....confirm her unanimously.

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:06 PM
    Reply

Then add 5 more in 2024 and 6 more in 2028 and so on until the Court has no credibility whatsoever. Great idea.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

19B

Why would, say, 17 judges, have less credibility than 9?

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:14 PM
    Reply

I'm not advocating for that, I'm just curious what's so magical about 9 and the credibility it supposedly conveys, moreso than other numbers.

badge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg

Re: Why would, say, 17 judges, have less credibility than 9?

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:18 PM
    Reply

Because they'd obviously be added to gain majorities in political ideology, and if one side did it, so would the other. Judge Judy would end up with more credibility.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

But gaming and cheating the system to accomplish that

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:28 PM
    Reply

exact same outcome is okay? The GOP has begun this process already it seems.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

gaming and cheating the system. you've clearly been

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:31 PM
    Reply

listening to too many penumbras and emanations. Earl Warren called, he wants his Court back!

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg


Re: But gaming and cheating the system to accomplish that

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:37 PM
    Reply

Filling a newly vacated seat is 'gaming and cheating'? Who knew?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: But gaming and cheating the system to accomplish that

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 3:18 PM
    Reply

Not taking a hearing in 2016 due to "election year" then in 2020 about-facing and rushing a pick in after voting is already underway in an election year is gaming and cheating the system, yes.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

that's called politics, bro***

[3]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 3:21 PM
    Reply



badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg


Re: that's called politics, bro***


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 3:25 PM
    Reply

and gaming and cheating, cuz.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: that's called politics, bro***

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 3:32 PM
    Reply

Well, the GOP should not be surprised when the Donkeys "politics" back.

I personally thought it was stupid of McConnell and showed incredibly short-term thinking and no concept that it was going to start an endless wave of reprisals.

I really don't understand why McConnell felt so compelled to do it. Any kind of advantage you get that way just gets wiped out when the other side takes over...and they always do, in our system. The guy is going to go down in history as another Joe McCarthy, a blight on the institution...and probably even more reviled for the damage he did to it. Even his fellow Republicans secretly despise McConnell and especially the way he sort of hijacked the entire old dealmaking/collaborative "we're the adults here" tenor the Senate used to have. Historically the Senate always saved the histrionics and BS for the House and very much considered themselves the senior statesmen of Washington.

Only time will really tell if that spirit ever returns. America surely needs it to.


Re: But gaming and cheating the system to accomplish that

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 4:12 PM
    Reply

It's worked that way for decades. If the Senate is held by the same party as the Prez, election year confirmations proceed. If not, they don't.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: But gaming and cheating the system to accomplish that


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 5:57 PM
    Reply

You are just pulling that out of your (or McConnell's) butt. The historical records do not show that at all.


Romans would try cases to hundreds of judges

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:19 PM
    Reply

that's the logical outcome of court packing.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg


19B

Didn't they have the greatest empire in the history of the


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:21 PM
    Reply

planet? Or was their downfall attributed to court packing?

badge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg

their system would work but only if

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:23 PM
    Reply

we could enslave the nations we conquer.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg


Re: an inconvenient truth for Senate Democrats

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 1:51 PM
    Reply

I'm part of that majority. Getting her on the Court removes the situation as an issue from the 2020 election.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


Chuck Schumer wears a onesie and sucks


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 2:29 PM
    Reply

On a pacifier?

Everyone knows that. No biggie

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 3:34 PM
    Reply

I think she's a horrible judge, but I also think she should be confirmed because that's the way it's supposed to work. By going along with the confirmation, they make it easier to point out GOP's hypocrisy.

military_donation.jpg

Re: Why?

[2]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 4:53 PM
    Reply

Do you know Judge Barrett? Virtually all her fellow SCOTUS clerks, students and the entire Notre Dame law school faculty support her nomination. These people are not all textualists by any means. How is she terrible? Is it because she is unfair and has a history of not respectfully considering both sides? Or is it because she is a textualist and you support judges who divine the law themselves without adhering to the actual law? The law then is somewhat whimsical and grounded in what a judge thinks the law should be rather than what it is. Who are some legal experts who think Barrett would be a terrible judge based on her demeanor, intelligence and decency? Is she terrible because she doesn't fit your bill of being an activist judge advancing causes that have no legislation behind them? If so, fine-but on her character, intelligence and demeanor I fail to see how she would be terrible. I thought it was especially rich that two white women were hectoring Lindsey Graham in Reagan Airport for supporting Barrett this week. One then made the statement that Barrett was a racist. So, someone who takes 2 black children out of the hellish country of Haiti and gives them a loving home is a racist. If that's so, we need more racists. Personally, I think Barrett will surprise some folks with some of her decisions. I would personally feel very comfortable being before this judge. I respect your opinion, but am curious exactly what would make her such a disaster.

2020 orange level member

you made a coherent post and laid out

[1]
Posted: Oct 21, 2020 4:56 PM
    Reply

a great position.

You will never get a true response. Sorry man, welcome to P&R

2020 orange level member


Re: Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 5:09 PM
    Reply

First off, it's true that I do not generally agree with textualists, but that is because I think they're all hypocrites. They seem to have no trouble interpreting the intentions of laws when it comes to things like the 2nd amendment: this means we have to look at HOW they interpret the law to really draw any conclusions. When I look at Judge Barrett's history of ruling that the n-word doesn't create a hostile work environment or that a prison is not responsible for a guard that rapes an inmate, I can't help but think that she may not be out to protect the most vulnerable. And no, she is not universally respected by her peers:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2020/10/14/hundreds-of-notre-dame-faculty-sign-letters-opposing-amy-coney-barrett-nomination/#23b9b9ab6d8f


military_donation.jpg

Re: Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 5:50 PM
    Reply

Well, I doubt all textualists are hypocrites. I looked through the Forbes list of ND profs opposing Barrett. I take it as ? fact that there are Law School professors on record as opposing Barrett, but the list seems to show these are undergraduate and grad school professors. I may have missed one, but I do not see a ND Law School professor's name on the letter. I am certainly not shocked that a large group of primarily liberal arts professors would oppose Barrett. If indeed there are several ND law professors who signed onto the letter opposing Barrett, they would be her peers. The individuals I see listed are not her peers. I respect your opinion, but feel the country would be better served to have Congress legislate to protect those that need protecting. If they fail to do so, I personally am against judges essentially making law or worse yet the President making executive decisions(making law) regardless of how noble the cause may be.

2020 orange level member

Re: Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 6:13 PM
    Reply

Ah yes, the old legal maxim of "gee golly I wish you guys were protected by the law, if only I had the ability to help you, but I don't so go #### yourselves." This is the kind of cowardly hypocritical bs I was talking about.

military_donation.jpg

Re: Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 7:04 PM
    Reply

cac2011® said:

Ah yes, the old legal maxim of "gee golly I wish you guys were protected by the law, if only I had the ability to help you, but I don't so go #### yourselves." This is the kind of cowardly hypocritical bs I was talking about.


Well, just have to disagree with you. I guess we don’t really need legislators if we have judges ready to right all the wrongs of the country. I think Congress is cowardly not to assert their power.

2020 orange level member

Re: Why?


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 5:58 PM
    Reply

Do you still think the GOP cares about their own hypocrisy ??


Re: an inconvenient truth for Senate Democrats


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 5:53 PM
    Reply

Alex,

If you are going to pay attention to polls:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-want-to-wait-until-after-the-election-to-fill-the-supreme-court-vacancy/



Why not make every registered voter a Supreme Court Justice


Posted: Oct 21, 2020 8:10 PM
    Reply

and every case subject to a national referendum?

The existing Supreme Court is nothing but a assembly of political hacks feigning legal knowledge and objectivity.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Replies: 28  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: SEASON TICKETS FOR 2021 Lower Deck Section T, row 18, seats 5 & 7, plus a parking pass. $1900

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
383 people have read this post