-
Supreme Court Vacancy 2020 after death of RBG
-
I didnt hear that but there was a compelling argument for how the dark money interest got Amy Coney to where she is.
She seems pretty flakey about what shell answer about.
-
Its all about non answers while speaking.
-
Hirino sexual question was completely disgusting and embarrassing. Strong work demos. Joke
-
-
-
Great to hear a lawyer who worked for Team Bush in Bush v. Gore testify that she’s never thought or written about law around a disputed presidential election
-
Did any senator say something like “would you like to change your statement”
-
Holy sharts. Lindsey said good old days of segregation. Feed the oppo.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Holy sharts. Lindsey said good old days of segregation. Feed the oppo.
whoosh
That was obviously a sarcastic remark:
[b]GRAHAM: [/b]And one of the reasons you can say with confidence you think Brown v. Board Education is super precedent is that you’re not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?[b]BARRETT:[/b] That is correct. I’ve also said in lectures that Brown was correct as an original matter. So that is the kind of thing since I said in writing I felt I could express before the committee.
-
What exactly is Super Precedent
Hahahaha
Yep thats what I thought
-
Barrett gets in. We could do worse.
Next is hopefully a Cuban anti-communist
That will really cause weeping and nashing of teeth after Trump is re-elected and Breyer bites it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/polls-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-court-packing]https://www.foxnews.com/p…irmation-court-packing[/link]
Majority support ACB
Big majority against Dem court packing.
-
From FOX?
OMG, what a surprise.
Whodda thunk.
-
Hahahaha
I just laughed when I saw that
-
Fox’s polling unit is a) independent and b) well-regarded.
It makes sense to me that ACB has high mark. Democrats made a strategic decision *not* to attack her so as not to risk chances at the Presidency and Senate.
If Dems decide to do big structural change they should absolutely expect a backlash. … But if done right then over the long term it strengthens the party and their policies.
-
Yeah 538 actually rates Fox’s polling as “lean dem”
But anyway, I don’t mind if Biden wins. I do mind court packing and filibuster removal. Those are bigger changes than any President.
-
Barrett having high marks depends on who is being asked. I view texturalists. & originalists like griffons, mythical creatures based on nonsense misunderstanding. Or, if you read the Atlantic article, a deliberate disguise for conservative judges legislating from the bench. Her appointment is a given, no use crying over spilt milk, but as Republicans like to warn, their turn will come.
Packing is another mythical creature, like the Green New Deal being implemented in 1 swell foop on Jan after Bidens inauguration.
-
I do believe that there need to be term limits for the supreme court and an age cap at 75. Every president gets two picks, in the unlikely event of a in-office death the respective president can fill out the remaining term. Would take a lot of the random crazyness out of the process.
-
xxxx dup
-
Quote from fw
I do believe that there need to be term limits for the supreme court and an age cap at 75. Every president gets two picks, in the unlikely event of a in-office death the respective president can fill out the remaining term. Would take a lot of the random crazyness out of the process.
I could get on board with that.
In my fantasy world I would think that maybe some negotiation could be agreed to between McConnell/Republicans and the White House. Convince Thomas to resign and be replaced immediately with the justice of Biden’s choice.
Then negotiate removal Kavanaugh (under threat of impeachment for perjury during his testimony) and put a “Gang of 8” group of Senators to find a mutually agreeable SCOTUS moderate to represent the new swing vote.
4-4-1 … even split for the short term
couple that with staggered term limits that would take the randomness out of it.
-
Quote from dergon
I could get on board with that.
In my fantasy world I would think that maybe some negotiation could be agreed to between McConnell/Republicans and the White House. Convince Thomas to resign and be replaced immediately with the justice of Biden’s choice.
Then negotiate removal Kavanaugh (under threat of impeachment for perjury during his testimony) and put a “Gang of 8” group of Senators to find a mutually agreeable SCOTUS moderate to represent the new swing vote.
4-4-1 … even split for the short term
couple that with staggered term limits that would take the randomness out of it.That is truly fantasy world. Remove the judges you don’t like to artificially create a balance based on a two party system that was never part of the constitution.
No. Amend the constitution . Fix the number of justices at 9. Set terms to coincide with 3 presidential terms. Each president gets 2 picks. The justices select the presiding justice to be confirmed by the senate. If someone dies in office, the sitting president can fill out that associates term whether that is 1 year or 17.
-
Frumi that’s the crux of the argument the two sides cant agree on. I scientifically and ethically believe a fetus has a right to life as a nascent human. I believe that the right to life is a right that supercedes all others. I wont convince you and I dont need to. It’s just how I interpret the law, the science, and I feel morally good about protecting the unborn.
Also fw, I like your thought process and I would trade SC justice term limits for Congress term limits.
-
Republicans care about life before birth
Democrats care about life after birth
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Republicans care about life before birth
Democrats care about life after birth
Unfortunately too true.
-
Its part of Originalist thinking, power to men while women are secondary.
Regardless of how a woman – or girl becomes pregnant, even rape of a minor – she is solely responsible, not the impregnating man. -
Oh I’m glad you brought that up. Those are less than 1% of all abortions. I’m happy to allow abortions up to viability (22 weeks) for those cases.
In 99% of the cases the woman decides to have sex. The woman makes her choice. Seems pretty consistent with a woman’s rights no?
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Oh I’m glad you brought that up. Those are less than 1% of all abortions. I’m happy to allow abortions up to viability (22 weeks) for those cases.
In 99% of the cases the woman decides to have sex. The woman makes her choice. Seems pretty consistent with a woman’s rights no?
It does take two people to have sex though, right?
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Oh I’m glad you brought that up. Those are less than 1% of all abortions. I’m happy to allow abortions up to viability (22 weeks) for those cases.
In 99% of the cases the woman decides to have sex. The woman makes her choice. Seems pretty consistent with a woman’s rights no?
Wait. Why the allowance? What exactly is your opposition to abortion? Some embryos & fetuses can be aborted?
As for 99% women “decides to have sex,” um, where are the men? They are not “choosing” to have sex? Why the difference in who is responsible? Why is the State involved at all? Where is the consistency of rights between men and women?
-
You could institute term limits and those cross-count between house and senate somehow.
The 99% assumes the man consented also to having sex. I’m not sure what you’re asking there.
The allowance for rape is because the woman didnt choose to have sex and thus become pregnant. In a perfect world we wouldn’t have rape or abortion but we don’t live in a perfect world.
If voters want to decide in each state to abort babies then so be it. My issue is that it came from the SC. I also dont see any legal or medical argument to support abortion after viability. You could make an argument for “personhood” at the point of viability.
I’m also a big proponent of birth control which I think is a better method rather than having abortion. We waste tax dollars on stupid stuff all the time. I wouldnt mind subsidizing birth control if it meant less abortions.
I’m trying to discuss it from a legal and medical standpoint. I have no religious comments.
-
In consentual sex, only the woman is responsible for having and raising the child. Where are men’s responsibility for “consensual” sex? What’s your issue with women and consensual sex?
After viability is not an issue. It’s never been the issue. A “person” also does not exist until birth.
Birth control for women has and is a problem for many that is analogous to the abortion issue for many, especially the religious. Ted Cruz is still out there conflating abortion with birth control for example. -
As a complete shock to nobody, the judiciary committee voted to recommend ACB for confirmation by the full senate.
-
Quote from Frumious
In consentual sex, only the woman is responsible for having and raising the child. Where are men’s responsibility for “consensual” sex? What’s your issue with women and consensual sex?
After viability is not an issue. It’s never been the issue. A “person” also does not exist until birth.
Birth control for women has and is a problem for many that is analogous to the abortion issue for many, especially the religious. Ted Cruz is still out there conflating abortion with birth control for example.
I’m not conflating the two. I’m fully supportive of as much birth control as needed to stem the tide of abortion. The woman is making the choice at the birth control level.
Also, I fully support making the father as liable as possible to help raise the child as you are referring too. There are biological realities that can’t be changed but the lack of fathers is terrible.
-
Murkowski a no. Collins a no.
Looks like it will be 51-49 to confirm.
-
-
It’s also possible that the individual conservatives on the court realize that the institution is at risk and start the Biden term and Dem Senate with *not* ruling against the ACA or wading deeply into election/voting rights.
That might keep the pressure down. But if the ACA gets dumped 5-4 it will markedly increase pressure (and democratic willingness) to court pack.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes
If the court becomes political
It will be packed
-
Roe v wade was political. Were you upset about that one?
Constitution speaks to a right to life but doesnt say anything about abortion.
Baby right to life should supercede the womans right to do anything to the baby based on the constitution as written.
That issue should have always been decided by the States, legislators, and voters. Not the court.
Legislation from the bench always reeks of politics.
Citizens United would be an example of another “found” right of groups to have free speech.
Has happened many times. That’s why the biggest failure has always been Congress. We wouldn’t even care so much about the justices or their appointments if Congress did its job.
-
Ok
If the minority imposes its will on the majority then the court will get packed
Not really difficult to understand
-
What Article in the Constitution specifically speaks to right to life again? There were rights to ownership of humans but right to life seems missing? And for whom were those rights applying?
I missed that reference.
I also cant find anything in Originalism or Textualism on Right To Life.
And why should a womans rights be superseded by a fetuss? No mention of that in Original text either. Can you show me?
How about Griswold vs Connecticut? That too is no right? That right belongs to the State to decide?-
The idea that people are originalist is the biggest farce ever. If we followed the text as written Amy Barrett wouldnt even be allowed to vote.
I dont foresee any reasonable deal ever made where anyone steps down or is impeached like Dergon mentioned. The reasonable thing to do would be to not pack it 6-3 by adding ACB. She is not even a well tenured or knowledgeable judge. She couldnt even name the rights guaranteed by the first amendment.
-
No, sadly we have something called the 19th amendment. Amendments are part of the Constitution, or did you forget that method that the founders wrote in our original Constitution. Cosmic thinking over there or something.
Naming Barrett is naming Barrett, as is the responsibility of our elected officials. Not packing. There you go again making up terms and buzzwords because you feel like a loser. Don’t be so obvious, Danny boy.
ACB is less intelligent than Sotomayor? The other two weirdo XX heavyweights certainly have her beat in a tag team match with hoagies and their favorite sugar beverage, but that’s about it. And that’s not saying much about Barrett. Anyone can be less repellent physically and mentally than Kagan and Sotomayor.
-
Are you being serious Frumi?
It literally says we are endowed with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I think it’s pretty clear.
You can disagree that you think unborn children have a right to life but dont say its not in the Constitution.
-
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.
-
Ah crap I messed up. That’s right Frumi. The right to life is in the 14th amendment in the constitution. I erred.
-
-
-
Quote from Casino Royale
No, sadly we have something called the 19th amendment. Amendments are part of the Constitution, or did you forget that method that the founders wrote in our original Constitution. Cosmic thinking over there or something.
Naming Barrett is naming Barrett, as is the responsibility of our elected officials. Not packing. There you go again making up terms and buzzwords because you feel like a loser. Don’t be so obvious, Danny boy.
ACB is less intelligent than Sotomayor? The other two weirdo XX heavyweights certainly have her beat in a tag team match with hoagies and their favorite sugar beverage, but that’s about it. And that’s not saying much about Barrett. Anyone can be less repellent physically and mentally than Kagan and Sotomayor.
Originalist = as written by the founding fathers. Also I didn’t make up the buzzword about packing the court. Isn’t that what republicans are pre-emptively trying to pin on Biden by saying he’ll add more liberal/progressive judges. It’s very much the same thing. packing it with conservatives, or packing it with liberal/progressive judges. Snowflakes just don’t like being called on their own projections.
Again she couldn’t even name the rights guaranteed in the first amendment. Check the C-SPAN highlight real. Also who the fudge cares how attractive they are? What are you looking for a SCOTUS beefcake calendar shoot?-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Originalist = as written by the founding fathers.&n…
Ah, no. As written in the currently applicable constitution. Women can vote because it was amended, not because a judge created rights that were not in the written document.
You want to change it, amend it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Ah crap I messed up. That’s right Frumi. The right to life is in the 14th amendment in the constitution. I erred.
And it relates to your prior statements, how?
-
Just comments about legislation from the bench which has happened for both “sides” over the years. I gave two example. One for each “side.” I was hoping we could agree the best way forward for the judicial branch is to have a better legislative branch because that’s where the failure has been.
-
Actually Im interested in your statement that an embryo/fetus has rights that supersede the mothers rights & how does the Constitution & the 14th Amendment support that statement of yours?
-
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Also fw, I like your thought process and I would trade SC justice term limits for Congress term limits.
We already have that. Every two years we can throw the bums out, yet we rarely do.
I would have said that switching to at large election of the representatives to eliminate the effect of gerrymandering, but then you look at the Senate and it is even more encrusted as the house.
-
Real term limits like the Presidency and Governors.
2 terms for senators. 5 terms for house
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Real term limits like the Presidency and Governors.
2 terms for senators. 5 terms for house
The result would be a shuffling back and forth of career politicians from state to federal to K-street jobs and back.
But yeah, those kind of term limits would make sense. Along with federal redistricting rules that create districts strictly based on geographic criteria. If you have 15 congress seats for a state, start with the 15 largest muncipalities and use them in a seed-growing algorithm until all of the state is consumed. Suddenly we would see democrats in rural districts and cities represented by republicans. Democrats would have to stop pissing on religious conservatives and republicans would have to stop being a-holes towards anyone with extra melanin in their skin.
-
-
-
[size=”3″]Interesting. 2 women who are more concerned with “choice” while men frame anti-abortion as protecting embryos & fetuses. Under that framing you’d think to wonder why women apparently love children less than men? Men need to protect fetuses from loose women who want to have recreational sex who are apparently are quite a lot of women? [/size]
[size=”3″] How can that be? [/size]
