Supreme court nomination

[Phil1111 1,077]

31 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

...

Not that it even matters, the majority of citizens want her confirmed. (The same could not be said of Justice Kagan)

 

25 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What do you base that statement on?

Wendy P.

Too much FOX and lazy thinking. Most major US news services have already published polls stating that the majority of Americans think there should be no confirmations of USSC justices this close to a election. He knows better but is indifferent to the facts.

[brenthutch 419]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

What do you base that statement on?

Wendy P.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/141329/americans-favor-confirming-kagan-high-court.aspx
“Would be first recent nominee to win approval with less than majority public support”

[wmw999 2,311]

Well, goodness me. An inconsistency! Off with their heads!

The percentage in favor of confirming Merrick Garland, without the power play, was similar. Fuck the American people, just dig up whatever statistics you can that support your point of view, and shove it down the throats.

As I've said, she seems fairly qualified. The breathtaking hypocrisy around the failure to consider Garland under considerably less rushed circumstances make me want anyone else. I might even take Harriet Miers , and she was not particularly qualified. 

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,340]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/141329/americans-favor-confirming-kagan-high-court.aspx
“Would be first recent nominee to win approval with less than majority public support”

So Coney Barrett is by a huge margin the most opposed candidate since polling began. Cool.

[yoink 321]

On 10/20/2020 at 6:39 PM, Coreece said:

Fine, but if Clinton didn't win the popular vote I doubt we'd even be talking about this right now.  If the dems think it's better, it's only because they think it'll be easier to win - it's "fairness" is only a selling point.

I think most voters don't understand the electoral college.

I'm reasonably certain that if you went to any voter from either side and said 'Yes or No - Do you think it's fair if you only get 1 vote for President while that guy over there gets 4?' every single one of them would say that it's not.

 

[yoink 321]

On 10/21/2020 at 5:57 AM, Coreece said:

It would change how many people vote.  If suddenly one felt that their vote would actually count they'd likely be more inclined to vote, especially if candidates were actively seeking and asking for their votes in states that they would've typically avoided under the EC.

The question I'm asking is which way do these new potential voters lean?  Let's say that there are a million people in the mountains of Cali that never vote but identify with conservative ideology.  A popular vote would then incentivize republicans to mine them out.  In addition to that, let's say millions more conservatives came out of the woodwork (similar to white supremacists when Obama was president) and dominated the elections for the next 50 years?  Would you still be ok with it?  Would the dems still be ok with it's "fairness" and graciously accept defeat - maybe chalk it up as just another "unintended consequence?" 

I agree that it would probably increase voter turnout and put additional pressure on politicians to engage with voters. And I'd absolutely I'd be OK with it. Because it's the FAIR way of doing it.

[brenthutch 419]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

So Coney Barrett is by a huge margin the most opposed candidate since polling began. Cool.

She has a majority, unlike Kagan.

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

Edited October 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:26 PM, brenthutch said:

She has a majority, unlike Kagan.

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

Try not to mess up the feels.

It's unkind.

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:49 PM, billvon said:

So no, I don't buy that premise.  It's not a case of "well, they didn't think about that, and so of course they did what the other side did."  They DID think about that, and made a promise to not be hypocrites.  And then, of course, they went back on their promise.

So, are you upset that they did it first?

Rather - will do it first?

I am sure you would find some way to justify it if the tables were turned.

Edited October 25, 2020 by turtlespeed

[wmw999 2,311]

The thing is, Turtle, is that the tables aren't turned; there hasn't been this kind of powermongering history in the Democratic party in a long time (think Tammany Hall, and the Dixiecrats vs. African-American voters), and those were far more regional. It's hypocritical, and just because it suits you and pisses liberals off doesn't make it right. Political power isn't supposed to serve the politicians, it's supposed to serve the people.

Are the people of the US served by Project Red State? Are the people of the US served by the shutdowns? Are the people of the US served by this judicial appointment?

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,340]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So, are you upset that they did it?

Rather - will do it?

Fixed it for you.

Quote

I am sure you would find some way to justify it if the tables were turned.

Again - the tables aren't turned.

Again, the tables are never turned.

Again, don't you realise how pathetic and feeble your worldview appears when the only way you can ever defend it is by describing an imaginary world where the people you hate are doing what the people you love are actually doing in reality?

[brenthutch 419]

Hold on to your boots my progressive friends, we are only minutes away from outlawing gay marriage, abortion and voting rights for minorities and women.  Every right thinking white male will be able to have their own personal cruise missile and the waterways of the US will be turned into toxic waste dumps.  (According to MSNBC anyway). I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[billeisele 130]

Well, it's done. How sad it was to watch 48 Senators behave politically. They would have opposed the nominee regardless of the situation just like with the last two nominees. The end of term nomination discussion was just an excuse.

Bottom line is the Constitution was followed. Yes it was unusually fast. Yes the Garland thing was bad and should not have happened. 

Let's hope that the SC returns to what it's supposed to do, and stop making law. That's the job for Congress and they should get to work. 

If the ACA is found to be unconstitutional then it should be halted. If that happens then complain to your Congressperson about writing defective legislation. 

[jakee 1,340]

58 minutes ago, billeisele said:

If the ACA is found to be unconstitutional then it should be halted. If that happens then complain to your Congressperson about writing defective legislation. 

The ACA has been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly upheld. If it is now struck down by this most one sided court for decades you think that would be because it's defective?

[Guest]

Barrett confirmed 52-48 (I'm surprised it was that close). VP Pence wasn't there in his ex officio Senate role; I guess this could be seen one of two ways: First, he was asked not to attend due to COVID-19 (AP News this morning), but this could have been a last desperate gambit to have him absent in case of a tie. The other is that VP Pence and the Senate majority were so confident about Barrett's confirmation they decided that a tie-breaking vote would not be needed. Classy.

[jakee 1,340]

1 hour ago, markharju said:

Barrett confirmed 52-48 (I'm surprised it was that close). VP Pence wasn't there in his ex officio Senate role; I guess this could be seen one of two ways: First, he was asked not to attend due to COVID-19 (AP News this morning), but this could have been a last desperate gambit to have him absent in case of a tie.

???

The republicans are in charge of senate business right now. Why would they have desperately wanted him absent in case of a tie?

Edited October 27, 2020 by jakee

[brenthutch 419]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

The ACA has been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly upheld. If it is now struck down by this most one sided court for decades you think that would be because it's defective?

Roberts rewrote the ACA to make it constitutional.  It never would have passed in the first place had it gone through regular order. 

 “Nancy Pelosi said Monday that she supported a Rules Committee scheme to "deem" the healthcare bill as having passed the House without being voted on”

See? Both sides do it, at least the Republicans held a vote.
 

 

 

[billeisele 130]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

The ACA has been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly upheld. If it is now struck down by this most one sided court for decades you think that would be because it's defective?

The job of the SC is to rule on constitutionality and should not be political. Barrett has said she will rule based on the law. If they take it up we'll get to see. I sure hope the court gets back to ruling based on the Constitution and not making law. 

[gowlerk 2,096]

6 hours ago, markharju said:

The other is that VP Pence and the Senate majority were so confident about Barrett's confirmation they decided that a tie-breaking vote would not be needed.

That was clearly the case and was announced a couple days ago. The court is supposed to be free of politics, but it clearly is not and can never be. This R victory will cost them at the polls most likely. But I am certain that if the positions were reversed the other party would have done the same.

[wmw999 2,311]

32 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But I am certain that if the positions were reversed the other party would have done the same.

Well, I don't think they would have balked had the situation been reversed in 2016. They might have voted the justice down, slowly, but there wouldn't have been all the posturing about "letting the people decide via the election" just to set themselves up for confirmation of utter power-mongering hypocrisy

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,340]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Roberts rewrote the ACA to make it constitutional.  It never would have passed in the first place had it gone through regular order. 

What are you talking about? It did go through in regular order.

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 “Nancy Pelosi said Monday that she supported a Rules Committee scheme to "deem" the healthcare bill as having passed the House without being voted on”

See? Both sides do it, at least the Republicans held a vote.

Both sides do what? The Democrats did hold a vote - the ACA did pass the House.

What are you talking about?

Even if the lowest common denominator of simply holding a vote has become the way to judge acceptable government practice then you are still arguing against the behaviour of the Republicans for refusing to vote on Garland.

Edited October 27, 2020 by jakee

[JoeWeber 2,561]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The job of the SC is to rule on constitutionality and should not be political. Barrett has said she will rule based on the law. If they take it up we'll get to see. I sure hope the court gets back to ruling based on the Constitution and not making law. 

As interpreted by whom? A originalist? A textualist? A pragmatist? An intentionalist? A definitionalist? A grammacist? A natural law theorist?  If so, which ones? Should we stop the clock with today's group and have them go through the Constitiution word by word and settle everything here and now?  William Randoph, one of the drafters, wrote on July 26, 1787:

In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention: 1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and 2.

The next sentence he wrote was:

To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states. (For the construction of a constitution necessarily differs from that of law)

If you are an originalist or a textualist, or any of the other -ist's, I don't read where Randolph anticipated a need for your craft someday. Principles first, accommodated to times and events, and grammar second if at all. The Constitution was meant to be interpreted by open minded thinkers not picked apart by word and comma. Chief Justice Roberts said his job was to call balls and strikes. That's only a part of the job. Justices were also intended to tell right from wrong as it applies to here and now. The unavoidable consequence of that is the making of law.

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by JoeWeber

[jakee 1,340]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

The job of the SC is to rule on constitutionality and should not be political.

But it is. As someone else pointed out, the issues that reach the Supreme Court are by their nature not black and white readings of clear and obvious law. They are complex issues that ther courts have already disagreed on and the rulings will involve an individual interpretation of the text. How you expect her or any other Justice to find a way to turn off their own opinions when faced with cases that are judgement calls I have no idea.

Quote

Barrett has said she will rule based on the law. If they take it up we'll get to see.

First, that's what people are supposed to say in their confirmation hearings. That's what everyone says in their confirmation hearings. If you think they're all telling the truth, what possible reason did the Republicans have to block Garland for over a year and hamstrin the functioning of the court? You must be mad as hell at McConnell, right? 

Second, she's already an appeals court judge. She already promised in her confirmation for that job to be apolitical, and independant analysis of her rulings shows her to be within the most conservative group of appeals court judges. Why do you think she will now change?

Quote

I sure hope the court gets back to ruling based on the Constitution and not making law. 

So you think the current court does not rule on the Constitution but makes law based on their own ideals? So why are you arguing that Coney Barrett's personal poilitcs are irrelevant? Do you think she will be unique among even existing Justices in her ability to interpret the Constitution? Is she some kind of unicorn?

[JoeWeber 2,561]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Hold on to your boots my progressive friends, we are only minutes away from outlawing gay marriage, abortion and voting rights for minorities and women.  Every right thinking white male will be able to have their own personal cruise missile and the waterways of the US will be turned into toxic waste dumps.  (According to MSNBC anyway). I guess we will just have to wait and see.

I'm not waiting. It's over. The forces of good have lost irretrievably. Further resistance is futile. It's time to erase my online presence, buy an AR-15 and join your gun club, stop voting for taxes and social justice issues, change my name to Bernie Carboni, and generally try to be a complete downer to anyone cheeky enough to show up with a positive progressive attitude. When in Rome....

[airdvr 201]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

 This R victory will cost them at the polls most likely. But I am certain that if the positions were reversed the other party would have done the same.

Not really.  I think the same voters who hate Trump also hate Barrett and vice versa.  Awful hard to believe there is an undecided voter as of this morning.

Edited October 27, 2020 by airdvr