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

 

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-real-reason-democrats-didnt-stop-the-barrett-confirmation/Content?oid=83825152

The real reason Democrats didn’t stop the Barrett confirmation - She’s exactly the kind of judge corporate donors support.

 

 

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. But Senate Republicans blocked his nomination on the grounds that it was too close to the presidential election, which was then seven months away.

 

Four and a half years later, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Although Barrett’s nomination was made just over one month from the presidential election (which Trump appears to be losing), she was confirmed.

 

The Democrats claimed to be united in their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation. Yet their resistance to having a justice rammed through at the 11th hour of a lame duck presidency feels like the resistance that the Washington Generals used to show against the Harlem Globetrotters. That is, pure theater in which the outcome is never in doubt.

 

What this tells us is that the corporate donors who control the Democratic Party are happy with a Justice Barrett.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:
 

 

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-real-reason-democrats-didnt-stop-the-barrett-confirmation/Content?oid=83825152

The real reason Democrats didn’t stop the Barrett confirmation - She’s exactly the kind of judge corporate donors support.

 

 

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. But Senate Republicans blocked his nomination on the grounds that it was too close to the presidential election, which was then seven months away.

 

Four and a half years later, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Although Barrett’s nomination was made just over one month from the presidential election (which Trump appears to be losing), she was confirmed.

 

The Democrats claimed to be united in their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation. Yet their resistance to having a justice rammed through at the 11th hour of a lame duck presidency feels like the resistance that the Washington Generals used to show against the Harlem Globetrotters. That is, pure theater in which the outcome is never in doubt.

 

What this tells us is that the corporate donors who control the Democratic Party are happy with a Justice Barrett.

 


I suppose it’s worth pointing out that this article is devoid of a single suggestion for something Senate Dems could have done to stop the confirmation. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

cliff notes:

- Democrats could have denied unanimous consent for procedural votes 

- Democrats could have demanded quorum from Republicans for process votes 

- Democrats could have filibustered amendments and filled endless procedural challenges 

- Pelosi could have coordinated impeachment of Trump or William Barr to force the Senate into procedural session

- Democrats could have gummed up the nomination 

- Schumer: Democratic caucus denying quorum 

- Stall past election

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I suppose it’s worth pointing out that this article is devoid of a single suggestion for something Senate Dems could have done to stop the confirmation. 

 

Speaking of fantasy, I on the other hand always look forward with anticipation to more propaganda tripe posted on this boomer board, like revisionist Iran Contra narratives from this last Feb/March in order to own Bernie and cOmMiEs. Real winners when libs defend Regan corruption and SA slaughter to own bros as toxic, continuation of a contrived trope narrative.

 

Stuff like that. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Speaking of fantasy, I on the other hand always look forward with anticipation to more propaganda tripe posted on this boomer board, like revisionist Iran Contra narratives from this last Feb/March in order to own Bernie and cOmMiEs. Real winners when libs defend Regan corruption and SA slaughter to own bros as toxic, continuation of a contrived trope narrative.

 

Stuff like that. 

 

Bernie Sanders Shaking Head GIF - BernieSanders ShakingHead Nodding -  Discover & Share GIFs

 

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We went from Barrett to Garland to Obama to Pelosi and Schumer to Iran Contra, Reagan, and Bernie.  I think I have a whiplash.

 

As for all the dumbass liberals who thinks that there was something the Dems could've done to deny McConnell and the GOP a 6-3 majority on SCOTUS or that Obama should've shut down the government for 9 months or that a more liberal nominee than Garland would've somehow sprinkled some fairy dust across the land that would've summoned a hoard of liberal terminators that would've beaten McConnell into submission, put down the ****ing pipe and go vote.  Maybe if enough you morons did that in 2016, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

 

And yes, I'm drunk.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think it's a toss up between 6-3 vs 7-2 on standing depending on how Barret swings.  Even if they overcome the standing hurdle (extremely unlikely it appears), it looks like 5-8 justices in favor of severability.  It was a dumbass challenge to begin with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

So much for being against judicial activism....

 

Think about how bat**** crazy this position is.  Legislature can regulate medical practice so far as it does not infringe on the right of the medical practioner to engage in procedures based on their religious belief.  

 

Suppose a new religion comes along where they earnestly believe that the organs of anyone over the age of 70 should be harvested for the collective good.  Are laws requiring donor consent for organ donation now illegal?  Are states no longer allowed to prohibit murder by these believers because it would infringe on their religious belief on forced organ harvesting? 

 

The rabbit hole these sorry excuse for jurists are willing to go down in order to invalidate facially neutral laws to place their view of Christian religious values on top of the world order is as ridiculous as it is flagrantly wrong.  They are not trying to protect religious freedom, they are trying to create a theocracy by judicial fiat.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I came here to comment on the injunction over New York state's COVID restriction.  Didn't even see the above regarding LGBTQ conversion therapy. 

 

Do we call this new SCOTUS the "activist Barrett court"?  In the NY decision, Roberts dissented due to his philosophy of judicial minimalism.  I wonder if the other conservative judges have been appeasing him until they could get a swing judge.  

 

Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh

Roberts

Kagan,Breyer, Sotomayor

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Days After Rejecting Absurd Texas Lawsuit, the Supreme Court Decided a Real Original Jurisdiction Case

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Texas in a dispute with New Mexico over water rights. The case and decision present a somewhat uncommon instance of the court’s original jurisdiction.

 

Writing for a 7-1 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied a motion by the Lone Star State to review a 2015 determination by the Pecos River Master. The master previously determined that New Mexico was entitled to a credit for lost rainwater after Texas asked for the water to be stored in a federal reservoir for use during drought season–which resulted in a massive depletion of the resource.

 

The heart of the case stylized as Texas v. New Mexico is a decades-old dispute between Texas and New Mexico over the flow of water from the Pecos River. New Mexico is situated upstream and, due to geography, Texas is situated downstream. In 1947, Texas complained that the Land of Enchantment was exceeding its fair share of the water from the river they share–resulting in the Pecos River Compact and the appointment of the Pecos River Master.

 

The river master here–and the court agreement that established their authority–is an oddity in American water law. Said master is one of only two such masters in existence. (The other was appointed over a dispute concerning the Delaware River in the 1950s.)

 

“This is a case about evaporated water,” Justice Kavanaugh notes. “In the southwestern United States, the Pecos River begins near Santa Fe, New Mexico, and winds its way south for hundreds of miles through New Mexico and Texas before flowing into the Rio Grande River on the Texas-Mexico border. The 1949 interstate Pecos River Compact provides for equitable apportionment of the use of the river’s water by New Mexico and Texas.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court hands down victory for lesbian moms

 

The Supreme Court has denied Indiana’s petition to hear a case involving the rights for same-sex spouses to appear on their children’s birth certificates, leaving in place an appeals court decision in favor of listing the wife of a woman who gives birth on their child’s birth certificate.

 

Last month, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill asked the Supreme Court to deny same-sex couples the same right of presumed parenthood that opposite-sex couples enjoy. When a child is born to a married, opposite-sex couple, the mother’s husband is presumed to be the father and is listed on the birth certificate, even if there is no proof that he is the child’s biological father, and even if the couple knows he is not because they used a sperm donor.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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...