Author Topic: ACB for SCOTUS  (Read 510 times)

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8334
  • Karma: +83/-17
ACB for SCOTUS
« on: October 14, 2020, 04:57:16 PM »
I have been addicted to the senator questioning of ACB; what a grueling experience. I wonder what she must feel like during and after - I do not envy her position at all. Overall this process if flawed I think; most senators spend more time talking about their agendas rather than asking (and listening) to her answers. And most questions they ask cannot be answered. And they all ask, more or less, the same questions. What a complete waste of time. Many of the democrats are quite rude. Harris is down right condescending. This is too bad. I think that Judge Barrett is a great candidate and I hope she becomes our next SCOTUS. I don't have much to compare to, because I never watched these hearings before, but she is tremendously composed and respectful. She seems quite smart and knowledgeable.

what do you guys think?
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7751
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2020, 07:20:16 PM »
It's pure political theater and as you said mostly a waste of time. The conclusion is foregone as 50 Republicans have said they will confirm essentially any nominee and all the Democrats have indicated they don't agree with McConnell's political tactics so they'll all (or almost all) vote against any nominee.

Most SCOTUS nominee hearings have a lot of speeches and unanswered questions because potential justices don't want to answer questions about potential cases and put themselves on record (which I'm fine with). Generally the opposition party is harsher for obvious reasons but the tone is rarely too much different than this unless a nominee is particularly problematic (like Kavanaugh or Thomas).

I've always thought the super long sessions were kind of dumb. I'm not sure if that's new this time because the Republicans are trying to rush the nomination before the election or if Congress is just weird that way but it certainly doesn't seem fair to the nominee.

As far as her qualifications for SCOTUS I haven't really thought it through (again because it's kinda moot). We'll see what kind of justice she ends up being. Obviously her record indicates she'll be quite conservative but all justices have issues that they'll rule differently on so it's kind of hard to tell.

hans

  • Guitar Addict
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 3350
  • Karma: +46/-18
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2020, 10:01:31 PM »
She seems quite smart and knowledgeable.

what do you guys think?

Except on what's in the first amendment. ;)

Honestly, I'm in the camp that says they should wait until the next President is decided. Republicans stalled on Obama's nomination, because they could, and they're slamming this though, again, because they can, not because they really should. I hope it bites them in this election. And if the Dems win the Senate and pack the court, the Reps shouldn't complain, but definitely will.

Despite what it might seem like from my recent political comments, it might surprise some that I used to consider myself a Republican. While I'm not a fan of either party at the moment and think they both act like children, I'm probably more so displeased by the direction of Republican party following Trump.
This signature intentionally left blank.

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 13903
  • Karma: +73/-790
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2020, 12:00:03 AM »
She's bad for the court.  Period.  She's said many times that she cannot remove her religion from how she rules in her court.  She's very much against abortion and as someone who stands firmly behind the right to choose, this is a bad nominee for that purpose alone.  She's also been known to have extremist religion views.  She was part of some shady group that has completely wiped her from their online records before she got the nomination.  This article kind of sums up my concerns: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/amy-coney-barrett-extremist/

Mike

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 11019
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2020, 12:23:25 AM »
Several issues with this process:

1. Given the precedent set in 2016 this shouldn't have been taken up my the Senate until after the inauguration.
2. The GOP is trying to get this done by election day which will make it the shortest confirmation hearing since Sandra Day O'Connor.  Is the senate really going to be able to properly vet the nominee?
3. As Ober mentioned, there are some serious concerns about how she rules and the affect her religious views have on her rulings.

I'll say that she does seem calmed and composed - like a federal judge should.  Kavanaugh should have been disqualified for his temperament alone.

Honestly, they need to reinstate the 2/3 requirement for judicial confirmations.  Look at https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm and see how we used to have much broader support for confirmed justices.

Edit: while not a reason to reject her, I find it concerning that a person would accept the nomination in these circumstances
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 12:34:31 AM by Mike »

Mike

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 11019
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2020, 08:52:22 PM »
Well, the GOP has confirmed they are no longer the party of law and order.  I'm truly saddened by how far they have fallen.  The only thing they respect is whatever power they can take to benefit themselves.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8334
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2020, 10:56:29 PM »
you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing is the situation was flipped?
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8334
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2020, 11:11:57 PM »
I am happy that ACB is now on the Supreme Court - she will be a great addition and hopefully help sway the scales back to normalcy.
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Mike

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 11019
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2020, 12:07:33 AM »
you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing is the situation was flipped?
That's some nice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The GOP is the one that claims to be the law and order party and yet they continue to prove that they are anything but.

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 13903
  • Karma: +73/-790
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2020, 07:58:49 AM »
I am happy that ACB is now on the Supreme Court - she will be a great addition and hopefully help sway the scales back to normalcy.
Not sure what you mean by normalcy.  If you mean taking rights away from people, I agree with you.

jkim

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 3259
  • Karma: +106/-12
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2020, 10:01:57 AM »
Time will tell how she judges over SC case, but I'm mourning for all the doors Barrett could potentially close promptly after going through all the doors that RBG opened for her.
definitely bas

hans

  • Guitar Addict
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 3350
  • Karma: +46/-18
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2020, 10:02:47 AM »
Ya, Jake, I too am curious about normalcy.
This signature intentionally left blank.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8334
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2020, 10:56:17 AM »
Ya, Jake, I too am curious about normalcy.

I have to think about how I want to reply to that question on this forum. But I promise that I will.

If you mean taking rights away from people, I agree with you.

or stopping them from being taken away - like excessive gun control.
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7751
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2020, 11:04:09 AM »
you don't think the dems would do the exact same thing is the situation was flipped?

In all honesty I don't think they would, no. Generally speaking both parties push the boundaries of traditional norms in order to gain additional power, but this Garland/Barrett gambit is jumping way over those boundaries.

And the Democratic party has been much more timid about breaking norms than the Republicans, especially over the last 20-40 years. The logical and reasonable response would be to add two more justices to the court if (big if) Democrats win all three branches but at this point I'd say it's only 50-50 that they'd do that.

Well, the GOP has confirmed they are no longer the party of law and order.  I'm truly saddened by how far they have fallen.  The only thing they respect is whatever power they can take to benefit themselves.

I guess I don't get the "law and order" framing here but maybe that's just semantics. This seems totally within the law to do. It's just that it's (a) norm-breaking and (b) explicitly defended as a power grab whereas usually there is some (often dubious) rationale for why the move is fair.

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7751
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: ACB for SCOTUS
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2020, 11:09:18 AM »
Ya, Jake, I too am curious about normalcy.

I have to think about how I want to reply to that question on this forum. But I promise that I will.

If you mean taking rights away from people, I agree with you.

or stopping them from being taken away - like excessive gun control.

Before you answer just remember that the I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has had a majority of Republican-appointed justices for decades. You'll have to justify saying that going even more conservative than that is a return to "normalcy".