Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Political discussions
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55297
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:42 am
houndawg wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:09 am


I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14665
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:42 am


Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
I agree, it would be disastrous if he decided to pack the SCOTUS. And let's be honest, saying he won't pack the SCOTUS wouldn't just not mollify the right, it wouldn't mollify the left either, who are practically salivating at exactly how many justices will be needed to pack it properly. Once we decide that court packing is acceptable, every time the Presidency and Senate match up in terms of same party control we'll see the SCOTUS be packed yet again - it's a cycle that doesn't have an end. The whole "let the people decide" and "elections have consequences" disregards the reality that we have federal elections every two years and the electorate is fairly evenly divided and will be for the foreseeable future. If we pack the SCOTUS every time the electorate convulses and gives the other part of the duopoly control then we won't have to worry about an infrastructure bill, we'll have tons of jobs associated with a never-ending expansion of the SCOTUS building.

In addition, packing the SCOTUS before anything happens is even more shortsighted. What has the SCOTUS really ruled on, other than Citizens United, that has been so controversial and such a supposed swing to the right? We seem to be advocating a potential death-spiral change based upon things that haven't happened yet. If Roe would be overturned that would be different. If the ACA was overturned I'm not sure that would justify court packing - see why it failed and correct it. And really, Citizens United was decided in 2010 - where has the legislation or other congressional action been since then to try to use that as guidance for what can be done to put rules on campaign spending? Court cases are always templates for what isn't allowed and what is allowed to pass Constitutional muster. We've spent the last decade now whining about Citizens and doing nothing legislatively when we could have spent some of the past 10 years figuring out how to work in that reality.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11227
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by HI54UNI »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:42 am


Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
Joe saying he won't pack the court has nothing to do with trying to mollify the right. If he says it the leftists will go absolutely nuts on him.
All my posts are satire.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14665
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

Apparently Joe will call for a commission when elected to look at the judiciary as a whole. I like that there won't be a gut reaction to just throw two (or more) justices onto the court. Like I said, I don't see any coming back from that if we pack the court to satisfy a partisan agenda. And no, I don't consider how the past few seats were filled to be the same as court packing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-c ... dlines_hed
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55297
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

HI54UNI wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:39 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am


Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
Joe saying he won't pack the court has nothing to do with trying to mollify the right. If he says it the leftists will go absolutely nuts on him.
I do not disagree with that assessment.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 8492
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Baldy »

GannonFan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:34 am
Apparently Joe will call for a commission when elected to look at the judiciary as a whole. I like that there won't be a gut reaction to just throw two (or more) justices onto the court. Like I said, I don't see any coming back from that if we pack the court to satisfy a partisan agenda. And no, I don't consider how the past few seats were filled to be the same as court packing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-c ... dlines_hed
:lol:

This 'commission' will be used as shade to hide his gut reaction. If this 'commission' is ever formed its results will say exactly what Biden and his team want it to say. :nod:

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14665
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

Baldy wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:47 pm
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:34 am
Apparently Joe will call for a commission when elected to look at the judiciary as a whole. I like that there won't be a gut reaction to just throw two (or more) justices onto the court. Like I said, I don't see any coming back from that if we pack the court to satisfy a partisan agenda. And no, I don't consider how the past few seats were filled to be the same as court packing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-c ... dlines_hed
:lol:

This 'commission' will be used as shade to hide his gut reaction. If this 'commission' is ever formed its results will say exactly what Biden and his team want it to say. :nod:
We'll see, and I reserve the right to fiercely criticize him if it ends up being a partisan hack show that still ends up packing the court. But at least it sounds like he won't be submitting Garland (has ever a more average jurist garnered as much press?) and another person on Day 1. If Biden is going to be the President it's vital that it leads to a defusing of the vitriol and outright anger that is our political discourse today. I'm not optimistic that will be the case - the characters in the Senate and the House will still be there and that's what doomed Obama's first term - but there's no way we get that with a second Trump term.

As for the SCOTUS, I've heard things that maybe the Court should be on the size of an appellate court, but there is such a range of that I don't think there's a clear number to go with. The idea is that the death/retirement of one judge would be less contentious when it's 1 of 21 as opposed to 1 of 9. I could be convinced of the need to go bigger, but the issue would be how we go about that. I don't want term limits on the SCOTUS or even age requirements there - too much political calculations would come into play.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18670
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

GannonFan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:29 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am


Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
I agree, it would be disastrous if he decided to pack the SCOTUS. And let's be honest, saying he won't pack the SCOTUS wouldn't just not mollify the right, it wouldn't mollify the left either, who are practically salivating at exactly how many justices will be needed to pack it properly. Once we decide that court packing is acceptable, every time the Presidency and Senate match up in terms of same party control we'll see the SCOTUS be packed yet again - it's a cycle that doesn't have an end. The whole "let the people decide" and "elections have consequences" disregards the reality that we have federal elections every two years and the electorate is fairly evenly divided and will be for the foreseeable future. If we pack the SCOTUS every time the electorate convulses and gives the other part of the duopoly control then we won't have to worry about an infrastructure bill, we'll have tons of jobs associated with a never-ending expansion of the SCOTUS building.

In addition, packing the SCOTUS before anything happens is even more shortsighted. What has the SCOTUS really ruled on, other than Citizens United, that has been so controversial and such a supposed swing to the right? We seem to be advocating a potential death-spiral change based upon things that haven't happened yet. If Roe would be overturned that would be different. If the ACA was overturned I'm not sure that would justify court packing - see why it failed and correct it. And really, Citizens United was decided in 2010 - where has the legislation or other congressional action been since then to try to use that as guidance for what can be done to put rules on campaign spending? Court cases are always templates for what isn't allowed and what is allowed to pass Constitutional muster. We've spent the last decade now whining about Citizens and doing nothing legislatively when we could have spent some of the past 10 years figuring out how to work in that reality.
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:29 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am


Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
I agree, it would be disastrous if he decided to pack the SCOTUS. And let's be honest, saying he won't pack the SCOTUS wouldn't just not mollify the right, it wouldn't mollify the left either, who are practically salivating at exactly how many justices will be needed to pack it properly. Once we decide that court packing is acceptable, every time the Presidency and Senate match up in terms of same party control we'll see the SCOTUS be packed yet again - it's a cycle that doesn't have an end. The whole "let the people decide" and "elections have consequences" disregards the reality that we have federal elections every two years and the electorate is fairly evenly divided and will be for the foreseeable future. If we pack the SCOTUS every time the electorate convulses and gives the other part of the duopoly control then we won't have to worry about an infrastructure bill, we'll have tons of jobs associated with a never-ending expansion of the SCOTUS building.

In addition, packing the SCOTUS before anything happens is even more shortsighted. What has the SCOTUS really ruled on, other than Citizens United, that has been so controversial and such a supposed swing to the right? We seem to be advocating a potential death-spiral change based upon things that haven't happened yet. If Roe would be overturned that would be different. If the ACA was overturned I'm not sure that would justify court packing - see why it failed and correct it. And really, Citizens United was decided in 2010 - where has the legislation or other congressional action been since then to try to use that as guidance for what can be done to put rules on campaign spending? Court cases are always templates for what isn't allowed and what is allowed to pass Constitutional muster. We've spent the last decade now whining about Citizens and doing nothing legislatively when we could have spent some of the past 10 years figuring out how to work in that reality.
With Barrett in SCOTUS becomes 5-3 conservative, with Robert as the swing vote (he's voted with the libs on 5-4 decisions several times already. Ages of remaining. 6 of the justices (including ACB) are 48-66. Breyer is 82, Thomas is 72, and Alito is 70. If Biden wins he'd be appointing probably 1-2 justices, and it would remain conservative 5-3-1, or even go to 4-4-1, or even conceivably liberal 5-3-1 (If both Thomas and Alito retired (or died)).

If Biden wins, and the donks win the Senate, he'll need more than just 50 or 51 to pack it, as there will be obviously zero conks, and a couple donk senators who won't go along (Manchin, Tester?). He'll need 52 or 53 in the Senate. Last over/under I saw was donks going from their 47 to 51.

For the SCOTUS to be packed 3 things have to happen IMHOP:
1. Biden wins.
2. Donks pick up 5-6 senate seats.
3. They decide to go through with packing (I think Harris would).
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17791
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:42 am
houndawg wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:09 am


I'm a surprised that the committee isn't asking more questions about her husbands position on the issues likely to come before her, given that the cult she belongs to is one that says the man calls the shots in a relationship. Of course there is no religious test for high government officials but I would like to hear her say that her decisions will be her decisions and not her husband's. :coffee:
Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
You never know I guess. She might turn around and recuse herself after her appointment goes through in an attempt to salvage some miniscule amount of what is left of SCOTUS' and her own credibility.
Subvert the dominant paradigm

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17791
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:29 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am


Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
I agree, it would be disastrous if he decided to pack the SCOTUS. And let's be honest, saying he won't pack the SCOTUS wouldn't just not mollify the right, it wouldn't mollify the left either, who are practically salivating at exactly how many justices will be needed to pack it properly. Once we decide that court packing is acceptable, every time the Presidency and Senate match up in terms of same party control we'll see the SCOTUS be packed yet again - it's a cycle that doesn't have an end. The whole "let the people decide" and "elections have consequences" disregards the reality that we have federal elections every two years and the electorate is fairly evenly divided and will be for the foreseeable future. If we pack the SCOTUS every time the electorate convulses and gives the other part of the duopoly control then we won't have to worry about an infrastructure bill, we'll have tons of jobs associated with a never-ending expansion of the SCOTUS building.

In addition, packing the SCOTUS before anything happens is even more shortsighted. What has the SCOTUS really ruled on, other than Citizens United, that has been so controversial and such a supposed swing to the right? We seem to be advocating a potential death-spiral change based upon things that haven't happened yet. If Roe would be overturned that would be different. If the ACA was overturned I'm not sure that would justify court packing - see why it failed and correct it. And really, Citizens United was decided in 2010 - where has the legislation or other congressional action been since then to try to use that as guidance for what can be done to put rules on campaign spending? Court cases are always templates for what isn't allowed and what is allowed to pass Constitutional muster. We've spent the last decade now whining about Citizens and doing nothing legislatively when we could have spent some of the past 10 years figuring out how to work in that reality.
Disagree. What has been packed today can be unpacked tomorrow. :coffee:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 9285
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: Fence Sitter & Ball-Sack Splitter

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS and houndawg drinks goat pee

Post by UNI88 »

houndawg wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:28 pm
You never know I guess. She might turn around and recuse herself after her appointment goes through in an attempt to salvage some miniscule amount of what is left of SCOTUS' and her own credibility.
Feinstein? There is no credibility left there. Must be a requirement to be a Senator from California.
houndawg wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:32 pm
Disagree. What has been packed today can be unpacked tomorrow. :coffee:
How do you unpack a bunch of lifetime appointments?

WWII
Level1
Level1
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:28 pm
I am a fan of: UAlbany

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by WWII »

Ask Hillary.

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18670
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11227
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by HI54UNI »

Confirmed 52-48. :clap: :clap:
All my posts are satire.

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18670
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

HI54UNI wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:43 pm
Confirmed 52-48. :clap: :clap:
:thumb:
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11227
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by HI54UNI »

Image

Image
All my posts are satire.

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54188
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by AZGrizFan »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:41 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:42 am


Given the fiasco with Feinstein back when Barrett was being nominated for the appellate judge it's not surprising at all that they haven't asked what you're asking - anything that could look like they are questioning her faith or her religion has been avoided so as not to make the same mistake Feinstein did, especially this close to the election. In fact, knowing nothing about Barrett is more advisable - putting human face on the nomination doesn't work to the Dems favor - they want they image to be that abortion and Obamacare will be eliminated and they want the focus to be on that. That way it will be easier to pack the court in January after Biden's inauguration. It's all about staying on message and winning elections - attacking people's faith is more for a non election year.
Packing the court is dumbest things he could do. I say he should come out and say, " I will not pack the courts" but we all know that won't mollify the right. In fact, it'll only make it worst. " See, sleepy Joe is lying to you!"

He should focus on filling all the lower court vacancies, try to equal/outnumber the Trump appointees and leave the Supremes alone. We have Roberts on the court who sides with liberals (he just did this week on a mail in vote case in Pennsylvania). Even Gorsuch has shown an independent streak. Meanwhile, Breyer is in his early 80s, Thomas and Alito are in their early 70s. It is possible that one of them can be gone within the next 4-8 years. A President Biden will be able to re-calibrate the court with their replacement(s). :twocents:

Leave the Supremes alone and focus on the lower courts.
I agree. But what about Dianna Ross?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Pwns »

Super Hornets favorite judge ever is now on the Supreme Court.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18670
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11827
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Col Hogan »

“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55297
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:27 pm
FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court
Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14665
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

Ibanez wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:13 am
BDKJMU wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:27 pm
FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court
Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?
Well, there aren't an infinite number of SCOTUS justices being confirmed in our lifetimes. I think she's the first judge to become a SCOTUS justice while still having school age children. I think the other moms all had adult kids.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18670
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

Ibanez wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:13 am
BDKJMU wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:27 pm
FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court
Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?
Was there something else going on that was more newsworthy at the time that CNN & MSNBC shouldn’t have been covering it?
BLM: Burning Looting Marxists

User avatar
Gil Dobie
Level5
Level5
Posts: 26822
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Gil Dobie »

Good choice for the court. Balance of power swings over the years, and balances out.
ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 36564
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by 89Hen »

Ibanez wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:13 am
BDKJMU wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:27 pm
FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court
Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?
Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in... :coffee: :ohno:
Image

Post Reply