Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, visionary said:

In a similar train of thought, what is keeping Trump and co. from expanding the courts right now?

 

Nasty Nancy Pelosi

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Really, Democrats just need to let whatever is going to happen, happen... until November 4th. No whining, complaining, blocking, etc.

 

You're banning from ES until Nov. 4th?  That's cold.... 😢

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it's going to be her.  I sense the GOP thinks she best energizes the base and can be used as bait because of her religious views to get the left attack her.  Dems should be careful to lay out why they don't think she should be on the SC, based on her legal opinions.  Make clear that they respect her, but don't think she is good for the country.  

Edited by visionary
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gallen5862 said:

What will the Democrats who want end of Legislative Filibuster and Court Packing and Statehood for Dc and PR do if it goes the opposite way? President Trump wins re election the Republicans keep the Senate and retake the House. Then the Republicans go ok we will end the Filibuster, Then The Senate and President Trump say we will pack the Court and find places with republican Majorities in Democrat States and Grant them Statehood and The Republicans add seats in the House and Senate. 

 

The Republicans could just say trying to honor wishes the Democrats wanted.

 

Regardless of who does it, the above scenario or some facsimile is the inevitable conclusion of the events playing out now.  There was a gang of eight to forestall the nuclear option during W Bush years.  We don't have enough senators left with that kind of respect and loyalty to the institution anymore (whether that's a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on your POV).

 

Lets say the Dems don't do it this time around and never does it.  And every dem voters swear off the idea.  You really think that will prevent such a move in the future?  Why would a legislative filibuster be a sacred cow when the judicial filibuster was not?  Why would packing the judiciary be a sacred cow when sitting on a president's nomination for 8 months and then turning around in 4 years and jamming one through in 45 days is not?

 

We got the mother****ing occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania tear gassing people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble for a damn photo op.  And not a peep from the esteemed gentlemen and gentlewomen of his party.  You really think these are the people who's gonna show some moral dignity and restraint when they regain power because they saw that the other side didn't do it?  How much can I get you to pay me for the Brooklyn Bridge?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

You're banning from ES until Nov. 4th?  That's cold.... 😢


To that point. ES is fine. Reddit is fine. Social media, fine. People who will be voting should be ****ing outraged. Democrats in office, just be professional. Republicans are BANKING on liberal establishment outrage to help sell them votes in November. That’s their playbook.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

Yeah, they should just ignore her altogether.  Just say it wouldn't matter who Trump nominates.  This is not about who is nominated, it's about when the nomination should be submitted.

True, but it's harder to get voters to care about that then losing healthcare or rights.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. 
 

I realize it reads as though I’m trying to be snarky but right now this is just an honest question after reading one of the tweets above. 
 

and I’m not religious. I mean I was raised Christian and I believe in god in some way, but I don’t go to church and I don’t generally identify myself as a typical religious person. 
 

Is it ok for a nominee to have strong religious beliefs (mainly catholic and most Christian as it relates based on what I know), for their strength to be unquestionable (think: has spoken about it publicly, but never in an official capacity, answers questions honestly about it during hearing)?

 

why is it automatically assumed someone that’s qualified for the Supreme Court is by default labeled as the next reason roe v wade is overturned ? (I mean seriously we go through this every single time a justice needs to be replaced. Every single time. )

 

all these judges that have been appointed over time, every single one was the reason women had to fear the ability to get an abortion was going to be taken away, and so far I believe scotus has ruled in favor or abortion when it comes up because of nefarious things at the state level. (Edit: if I’m wrong here I’m sorry. At the end of the day I don’t know 1/10 about scotus most the active posters do )
 

what does a religious person being appointed by the gop have to have to convince you they’re not after row v wade?

 

what if they were a member of an anti abortion group in college? Never anything other than he/she was an active member can be found out. Is that instantly disqualifying?

 

I always find it interesting when things like partisanship or inability to separate ones person opinion from their legal obligation become the primary focus of the conversation (talking about all things scotus not just nominating new justices. ) I mean obviously there’s a level of it but for some it’s like the only level. 
 

(ps: all the gop had to do to earn a little credit during a time it’s hard for them to earn any (so they manufacture it themselves) is treat rbg’s death with respect and dignity. Could you imagine if they did that? People would be stunned. They’d look normal and decent for a change. They didn’t even try)

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

 

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

all these judges that have been appointed over time, every single one was the reason women had to fear the ability to get an abortion was going to be taken away, and so far I believe scotus has ruled in favor or abortion when it comes up because of nefarious things at the state level. (Edit: if I’m wrong here I’m sorry. At the end of the day I don’t know 1/10 about scotus most the active posters do )

I'm not sure it's so simple.  I think the decisions have in some cases left things open to revisiting with different ways of framing the laws.

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

Yeah, they should just ignore her altogether.  Just say it wouldn't matter who Trump nominates.  This is not about who is nominated, it's about when the nomination should be submitted.


diagree. Don’t attack her but attack what a Supreme Court with her would mean for America. No ACA, no protections for preexistinf conditions, overturning Roe v Wade etc. 

 

these are massive issues to energize the base and are important to swing voters and independents 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is it ok for a nominee to have strong religious beliefs (mainly catholic and most Christian as it relates based on what I know), for their strength to be unquestionable (think: has spoken about it publicly, but never in an official capacity, answers questions honestly about it during hearing)?

 

I feel like I've used up my quota in this thread, but this is such a fascinating issue, I really wanted to chime in.

 

Whether it be rooted in religion or self ascribed values, I would imagine that almost everyone who is nominated for the federal bench has strong opinions on the appropriate course of action in any given circumstances.  So I think it is entirely fair to question a nominee on their values and how they would address judicial rulings within the context of those values.

 

Let's take the example of abortion.  What if there's a nominee who has extremely "liberal" personal values.  Let's say that person views a fetus as nothing more than a clump of cells and would not bat an eye at themselves or someone else getting an abortion.  But say that such a nominee is a strict constructionist and thinks that the idea of the penumbra of the Constitution is bull****.  And in every case, the nominee would vote to strike down Roe and it's progeny every single time.  

 

Or the flip side.  Nominee who believes fetus is life, abortion is murder, and anyone who commits it will be eternally damned.  But they believe that the notion of freedom guaranteed in the Constitution is more expansive than those enumerated rights and government intrusion into individual choices must pass muster on the scale of competing interest.  And such scale must occur outside the nominee's personal moral judgment.  I think these views are fair game for questions and discussions in a confirmation hearing.

 

I would also want to know if they subscribe to some notion of higher justice.  That no matter what the written words on a piece of parchment says, no law could ever justify ruling that one human being is the property of another.  That no Constitution could justify the mass incarceration of people based on their national origin.  

 

Or is it better to have justices who say that it is not their role to be the final check against grave injustice.  If the democractic process fails to remedy the flaw in the law, it is not the job of the judiciary to infuse common sense where none exists in the text.  If you don't want your neighbor to own a latest model ballistic nuclear missile, go and define "arms" in the Constitution before you come running to the courthouse.  

 

I love RBG and obviously have enormous respect for her.  But we really opened a nasty can of worms when we accepted a nominee's answer that they would not comment on specific issues because it might come before them.  We do not force justices to recuse themselves in cases where they've been involved in relevant precedential rulings.  People should know how nominees view major Constitutional issues and principles in plain language before we appoint them to the bench.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one thing I always wanted to say, and it applies to Scalia.  Amy Coney Barrett is somebody I don't trust due to the number of children she has.  She has 7 total children, 5 of whom are biological. 2 of them were adopted from Haiti.  This may mean that she is not a white nationalist, but then, how does she treat them?  We don't know.   Furthermore, one of her children is special needs.  Good that she can cope with all that.

Isn't this a red flag?   She probably doesn't believe in birth control.  If I recall, Scalia has 7 children. 

  • Confused 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

This is one thing I always wanted to say, and it applies to Scalia.  Amy Coney Barrett is somebody I don't trust due to the number of children she has.  She has 7 total children, 5 of whom are biological. 2 of them were adopted from Haiti.  This may mean that she is not a white nationalist, but then, how does she treat them?  We don't know.   Furthermore, one of her children is special needs.  Good that she can cope with all that.

Isn't this a red flag?   She probably doesn't believe in birth control.  If I recall, Scalia has 7 children. 

Possible deceit aside...this is not a path of inquiry Democrats should go down.   Way too much chance of it backfiring and getting ugly.

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

This is one thing I always wanted to say, and it applies to Scalia.  Amy Coney Barrett is somebody I don't trust due to the number of children she has.  She has 7 total children, 5 of whom are biological. 2 of them were adopted from Haiti.  This may mean that she is not a white nationalist, but then, how does she treat them?  We don't know.   Furthermore, one of her children is special needs.  Good that she can cope with all that.

Isn't this a red flag?   She probably doesn't believe in birth control.  If I recall, Scalia has 7 children. 

 

 

Some disgusting thoughts.... she doesn’t believe in birth control because she has a lot of children?  Cmon man...

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, visionary said:

Possible deceit aside...this is not a path of inquiry Democrats should go down.   Way too much chance of it backfiring and getting ugly.


Really though, what’s the point of Democrats even trying to answer questions? Just treat the proceedings like the joke they are. If I were the Dems I wouldn’t even show up and not bother voting on the issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

This is one thing I always wanted to say, and it applies to Scalia.  Amy Coney Barrett is somebody I don't trust due to the number of children she has.  She has 7 total children, 5 of whom are biological. 2 of them were adopted from Haiti.  This may mean that she is not a white nationalist, but then, how does she treat them?  We don't know.   Furthermore, one of her children is special needs.  Good that she can cope with all that.

Isn't this a red flag?   She probably doesn't believe in birth control.  


You need to offer something more concrete to make those kinds of insinuations.
 

You are suggesting she is adopting kids from Haiti in order to mistreat them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Corcaigh said:


You need to offer something more concrete to make those kinds of insinuations.
 

You are suggesting she is adopting kids from Haiti in order to mistreat them?

I did not say that judge Barrett is adopting kids from Haiti to mistreat them. But who would I trust, a White liberal family or a White conservative family?

Well, Laura Ingraham has 3 adopted children, one from Guatemala.  You trust her when it comes to her children?  She is blasting immigrants any chance she gets.

You probably heard about this lady a few weeks ago insinuating that her adopted black child is statistically going to commit more crime.  This is a republican politician.

 https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/08/25/abby-johnson-son-cops-adopted-black-son.html

 

Now, on the flip side, I have always  trusted the McCain family. Look how they treated him though.  Calling him a RINO and all that.

Nonetheless, I trust a White liberal family over a White conservative family when it comes to adopting non-White children.

Now, this is not an attack on Catholics, as my wife went to a Catholic school.  My daughter went to a Catholic school for a year. It is known that some very religious  Catholics don't believe in contraception. Yes, more than 90% do believe in it.  Scalia with 9 children.  He is a Catholic. Now this judge with 5.  

When I googled "Catholic Contraception" , I was greeted with a passage from the 1960's. 

On the plus side, this is am educated judge with a PhD.  So maybe she is not like the politician above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

I did not say that judge Barrett is adopting kids from Haiti to mistreat them. But who would I trust, a White liberal family or a White conservative family?

Well, Laura Ingraham has 3 adopted children, one from Guatemala.  You trust her when it comes to her children?  She is blasting immigrants any chance she gets.

You probably heard about this lady a few weeks ago insinuating that her adopted black child is statistically going to commit more crime.  This is a republican politician.

 https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/08/25/abby-johnson-son-cops-adopted-black-son.html

 

Now, on the flip side, I have always  trusted the McCain family. Look how they treated him though.  Calling him a RINO and all that.

Nonetheless, I trust a White liberal family over a White conservative family when it comes to adopting non-White children.

Now, this is not an attack on Catholics, as my wife went to a Catholic school.  My daughter went to a Catholic school for a year. It is known that some very religious  Catholics don't believe in contraception. Yes, more than 90% do believe in it.  Scalia with 9 children.  He is a Catholic. Now this judge with 5.  

When I googled "Catholic Contraception" , I was greeted with a passage from the 1960's. 

On the plus side, this is am educated judge with a PhD.  So maybe she is not like the politician above.

 

This is a preposterous position and you should be ashamed of it.  Bad parents are bad parents.  Their political affiliation has nothing to do with it.  Stereotyping is wrong no matter who does it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

This is a preposterous position and you should be ashamed of it.  Bad parents are bad parents.  Their political affiliation has nothing to do with it.  Stereotyping is wrong no matter who does it.

 

I don't understand the backlash against me tbh.  The Republican party is a White Nationalist party, and if they( meaning Republicans) adopt non-White children, I will question it. What is their motivation?  

This is a view of mine.  Democrats can't use it.  I get that.  I can see that even liberals would be pissed by this argument.

Having said all that, she is getting confirmed. Some of the right-leaning judges will shift left, and the Supreme Court will not be as right leaning as people think it will be. Again a view many will not agree with.  

 

Edited by redskins59
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redskins59 said:

 

I don't understand the backlash against me tbh.  The Republican party is a White Nationalist party, and if they( meaning Republicans) adopt non-White children, I will question it. What is their motivation?  

This is a view of mine.  Democrats can't use it.  I get that.  I can see that even liberals would be pissed by this argument.

 

 

 

I have seen some outlandish views on this site. And I normally keep my mouth shut because it isnt worth the time. But Wow!!! I am left speechless on this view. I think you should be ashamed to even think this. It is pretty much inferring you think Republicans are adopting to mistreat and abuse children. Shame on you! At least have some sort of evidence to back up your outlandish claim.    

Edited by just654
  • 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...