Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Recommended Posts

You could give me a 6th grade law textbook and I could repeat her performance by studying the bold words. 

 

Waiting for someone to ask her if the Senate should be confirming a new justice right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should ask ACB that if she feels that the ACA is the law and passed the constitutional test, then does she feel it is settled law and would vote as a supreme court judge, not to take up a challenge to it.

 

Mike Lee, get over yourself....you are boring. 

Edited by NoCalMike
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

How true is this article?  The use of the N-word does not necessaily mean the workplace is hostile, according to her ruling? 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/internet-recoils-in-horror-over-amy-coney-barrett-ruling-that-says-n-word-does-not-make-workplace-hostile/

 

 

 

She could be a hamster and it wouldn't make a difference. 

 

They have the votes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can respect the intellectual consistency of a strict constructionist, even if it's going to lead to absurd results.

 

The originalists, Constitution as people at the time would've understood it, is totally dishonest.  How could we with any reasonable certainty conclude what people in the 1700s would've thought of as unreasonable search and seizure in the digital age?  How they would've defined arms in the nuclear era?  

 

And why would we need a jurist instead of a historian for this job?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans seem to be certain democrats are going to take the senate, given how sure they are that Biden will pack the court.  He’d need democrats to control the senate to do that.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I can respect the intellectual consistency of a strict constructionist, even if it's going to lead to absurd results.

 

The originalists, Constitution as people at the time would've understood it, is totally dishonest.  How could we with any reasonable certainty conclude what people in the 1700s would've thought of as unreasonable search and seizure in the digital age?  How they would've defined arms in the nuclear era?  

 

And why would we need a jurist instead of a historian for this job?

 

A third of the people who ratified the U.S. Constitution owned slaves.  There were no women in that group - they couldn't vote or hold public office.  No common firearm could discharge more than 2 bullets at a time.

 

Edit: And as Joy Reid points out, they classified black people as 3/5 of a person.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dan T.
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Destino said:

Republicans seem to be certain democrats are going to take the senate, given how sure they are that Biden will pack the court.  He’d need democrats to control the senate to do that.  

their internal numbers are probably terrible. They are indebted to dark money to get this through before the election. Some have future lobbying and board of directors jobs dependent on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen from the hearings, the Dems are at least going about this the right way.  They are pretty much acknowledging that her being on the court is a foregone conclusion and they are less so fighting that, as they are trying to get as much of her opinions and thoughts on things out there in the public so they can use that to try and flip the Senate. 

 

Klobuchar was really good on the voting rights stuff.  Basically saying it isn't enough to merely repeat the phrase "voting is a fundamental right"  it has to actually been practiced through both legislation and the courts.  States all over the country are trying to limit, disenfranchise, and make that so-called "fundamental right" weaker and harder to practice by citizens....especially minorities.   It is important to know ACB's thoughts on the courts role in upholding those rights when legislators are actively trying to take them away.   She should be hammered on this issue by every single senator. 

 

I've only watched bits & pieces of the hearing, but I have heard ACB say quite often (paraphrasing)  "my job is to come to legal conclusion and not what my personal political preferences are"  Has she offered any examples of this  in her time as a judge?  Furthermore any that ended up her ruling in favor of the more liberal favored conclusions?

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, the Dems are doing a solid job of making aware the real world consequences of her nomination. I would still like see questions about some of her controversial written decisions.

 

BTW, Klobacher not so subtly letting the Biden campaign know that if there are multiple SC nominations, she'd be happy to be in the conversation to get appointed.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

A third of the people who ratified the U.S. Constitution owned slaves.  There were no women in that group - they couldn't vote or hold public office.  No common firearm could discharge more than 2 bullets at a time.

 

Edit: And as Joy Reid points out, they classified black people as 3/5 of a person.

 

 

 

 

 

Wonder if the Framers thought women should be Supreme Court justices.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hersh said:

Agree, the Dems are doing a solid job of making aware the real world consequences of her nomination. I would still like see questions about some of her controversial written decisions.

 

BTW, Klobacher not so subtly letting the Biden campaign know that if there are multiple SC nominations, she'd be happy to be in the conversation to get appointed.   

 

Has anyone asked her yet about her previous thoughts about thinking a Supreme Court Justice shouldn't be appointed/confirmed during an election year and why she feels differently now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Has anyone asked her yet about her previous thoughts about thinking a Supreme Court Justice shouldn't be appointed/confirmed during an election year and why she feels differently now?

 

I haven't been able to listen to everything but I assume not since I haven't seen it trending anywhere

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Wonder if the Framers thought women should be Supreme Court justices.  

 

 

It is such an easy question to ask to the "originalist" appointed judges.   By their own definition, women, minorities, etc etc etc would not be legally allowed to serve on the court.  So I am not sure why this nonsense is allowed to be repeated without the actual original version of the constitution being brought up and used.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...