Amy Coney Barrett

[SoCal Deek]

I have absolutely no idea what you people are all talking about. The rules are established within our current system. If you don’t like them either change them or wait until it’s your turn in power because the pendulum swings both ways. The core of the problem, and so many others, is that Donald Trump won the presidency four years ago when the entire DC and media establishment KNEW that he didn’t stand a chance. They were all wrong! If they were honest brokers RBG would’ve retired when Obama was still President and the Comey Show would’ve never tried playing around with the election. Too bad! Screw them all....confirm ACB. 

[Backintheday544]

43 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have absolutely no idea what you people are all talking about. The rules are established within our current system. If you don’t like them either change them or wait until it’s your turn in power because the pendulum swings both ways. The core of the problem, and so many others, is that Donald Trump won the presidency four years ago when the entire DC and media establishment KNEW that he didn’t stand a chance. They were all wrong! If they were honest brokers RBG would’ve retired when Obama was still President and the Comey Show would’ve never tried playing around with the election. Too bad! Screw them all....confirm ACB. 

 

Exactly. Then when the pendulum swings back Dem as the polls and early voting are pointing to, change the rules by adding a couple more justices.

[North Buffalo]

You guys are idiots... Biden isnt packing the court... could see Trump trying.... Biden is to much of a traditionalist to go down that route..

[BillsFanNC]

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Exactly. Then when the pendulum swings back Dem as the polls and early voting are pointing to, change the rules by adding a couple more justices.

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

4 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

You guys are idiots... Biden isnt packing the court... could see Trump trying.... Biden is to much of a traditionalist to go down that route..

 

You may be right, but Kamala?

[dickleyjones]

What is the issue here? Rs are in charge, they can do as they please, within the rules, including changing some rules. If and when the Ds are in charge, they can do as they please, same rules apply. Seems simple to me.

[Backintheday544]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

 

Sure, who knows when that will be. Texas may not go blue this year but the demographics are changing and will be blue soon. A blue Texas would change the electoral college math for a long time.

 

We won't see any changes with governors this year, but as the Dems get more.local control, and judges are starting to fight against racist gerrymandering, we will see fairer districts in states as well.

[oldmanfan]

She's qualified to sit on the bench.  I am sure I won't agree with some of her decisions, much like I don't agree with some liberal justice opinions, but there's really  no questioning her qualifications.  

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

The Republican Senate claims that the people spoke about what they want for the court when they elected a Republican Senate in 2016 and 2018.  If the democrats take control of the Senate this election, as well as the Executive branch, and also continue to hold the House, would it not be evidence of the people's will in terms of what they want for the judiciary?  I am not a proponent of adding justices to the court, but in our representative democracy the will of the people must be heard just as Mr McConnell and his colleagues have stated.

[The Frankish Reich]

29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

She's qualified to sit on the bench.  I am sure I won't agree with some of her decisions, much like I don't agree with some liberal justice opinions, but there's really  no questioning her qualifications.  

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

The Republican Senate claims that the people spoke about what they want for the court when they elected a Republican Senate in 2016 and 2018.  If the democrats take control of the Senate this election, as well as the Executive branch, and also continue to hold the House, would it not be evidence of the people's will in terms of what they want for the judiciary?  I am not a proponent of adding justices to the court, but in our representative democracy the will of the people must be heard just as Mr McConnell and his colleagues have stated.

Excellent comment.

[Koko78]

32 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

Biden can't say much, because it was HIS suggestion McConnell followed. They were calling it the 'Biden Rule' in 2016 for a reason - it was his brainchild back when he was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[3rdnlng]

Keep this in mind people:

 

The American people have their voice in the House of Representatives, the states have their voice in the Senate while the administration executes the laws passed by the House and Senate. The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the laws by Congress and the actions by the Executive branch. Nowhere is the Supreme Court a voice of the people. The people have their voice through their representative and by amending the Constitution.

[spartacus]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

 

 

match the # of states

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Sure, who knows when that will be. Texas may not go blue this year but the demographics are changing and will be blue soon. A blue Texas would change the electoral college math for a long time.

 

We won't see any changes with governors this year, but as the Dems get more.local control, and judges are starting to fight against racist gerrymandering, we will see fairer districts in states as well.

 

And when the pendulum does swing back, will court packing be a bad idea again?

[oldmanfan]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Keep this in mind people:

 

The American people have their voice in the House of Representatives, the states have their voice in the Senate while the administration executes the laws passed by the House and Senate. The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the laws by Congress and the actions by the Executive branch. Nowhere is the Supreme Court a voice of the people. The people have their voice through their representative and by amending the Constitution.

Republicans should have kept this in mind with Garland

[Backintheday544]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And when the pendulum does swing back, will court packing be a bad idea again?

 

If it's within the rules and represents the voice of Americans, then yes.

[BillsFanNC]

Just now, Backintheday544 said:

 

If it's within the rules and represents the voice of Americans, then yes.

 

Not sure I'm following. If Biden wins and pursues court packing you support that, correct? My question is when the pendulum swings back to republican control would you continue to support court packing?

[Backintheday544]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 

Not sure I'm following. If Biden wins and pursues court packing you support that, correct? My question is when the pendulum swings back to republican control would you continue to support court packing?

 

Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time.

[Cinga]

11 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

The Republicans should fill this seat. It's in the Constitution that they can.

 

However, it also was that Garland should have been brought to the Senate. Republicans betrayed that. They're going back on their word now. Lindsey Grahams spine looks worse than Daks foot.

 

I didn't say how the amendment process works, I just said start the process. Give those.700,000 US citizens taxation with representation.

 

10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

As with "court packing," there would be nothing unconstitutional about creating a state out of most of the District of Columbia. The constitution establishes a federal district, which initially included Arlington, Virginia, which was ceded back to the State of Virginia later on. My favored solution to enfranchise DC residents would be to cede much of the District to Maryland. But that won't happen -- it would disrupt political interests within Maryland, and -- let's be honest -- wouldn't accomplish the goal of getting 2 more Democratic senators.

But the plans do not run afoul of the Constitution. It's a political issue, and it will be settled at the ballot box next month.

 

First, I don't buy into the narrative of no representation. DC is most certainly represented by 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators. 30% of their revenue is provided by that Congress as Federal Funds as well. It must even be noted that over half that DC population of 700 thousand are actually there as federal employees and not necessarily native residents.

At the writing of the Constitution, land was carved out of Virginia and Maryland to create the District of Columbia. Since that time, their portion has been given back to Virginia. So if they indeed want their own representation instead of sharing with the 50 states then return that portion the the state of Maryland since it would only be fair.

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time.

 

And you don't see any problem with that concept in terms of separation of powers among the branches of government?

[Gary M]

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

- supported an argument in the Supreme Court that it must be invalidated because the individual mandate exceeded federal powers

- lost that argument when Chief Justice Roberts reconceptualized the mandate as a valid "tax"

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax

[unbillievable]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Republicans should have kept this in mind with Garland

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

[Cinga]

She did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

She used the Ginsburg Rule!

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

I agree, which is why I don't see Biden doing that.  We need to get back to representatives that are more than party, on both sides of the aisle.

[unbillievable]

Republican nominees to the court follow the intent of the judiciary Branch, routinely swinging the vote right or left depending on the laws passed by Congress as it pertains to the Constitution.

 

On the other hand, the Democrat Justice nominees are ACTIVISTS. They ignore  their jobs in favor of Social Justice initiatives popular at the time.

 

Obama already tried destroying the Executive branch by setting the precedent that the President can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Now the Dems want to do it again to 2nd branch of government.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by unbillievable

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

What makes it worse is that Republican nominees to the court are following the intent of the judiciary Branch by enforcing the laws and the Constitution. They routinely swing the vote right or left depending on the laws passed by Congress.

 

On the other hand, the Democrat Justice nominees are ACTIVISTS. They ignore  their jobs in favor of Social Justice initiatives popular at the time.

 

Obama already tried destroying the Executive branch by setting the precedent that the President can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Now the Dems want to do it again to 2nd branch of government.

 

 

 

Let me also throw in there the fact that GInsburg, and now Kagen have actually cited international law in opinions they have handed down which in my humble opinion SHOULD have gotten them impeached from the bench!

[unbillievable]

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Let me also throw in there the fact that GInsburg, and now Kagen have actually cited international law in opinions they have handed down which in my humble opinion SHOULD have gotten them impeached from the bench!

 

Not to Mention Sotomayer stating that she will use RACE as the basis for all her decisions.

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

 

Not to Mention Sotomayer stating that she will use RACE as the basis for all her decisions.

 

Which in and of itself is admitting purely racist intent.

[Backintheday544]

28 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

30 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And you don't see any problem with that concept in terms of separation of powers among the branches of government?

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

[unbillievable]

Just now, Backintheday544 said:

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

He was ignorant to have believed that; and you are too if you also think that.

 

Obama also didn't think through his stance on refusing to enforce the laws. Now look at how many Sheriffs are refusing to enforce state and local laws. I don't remember that happening before...

 

 

 

 

[unbillievable]

18 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

 

It's more like 2-2 and 5, if Barret is confirmed. 

Trump and the GOP picked impartial judges, despite the Dem circus and MSM propaganda. Even Barrett is a facts over feelings nominee.

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by unbillievable

[North Buffalo]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

 

You may be right, but Kamala?

She was a Attny General Cali so doubt but who knows...

[spartacus]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

classifying the justices by party affiliation is misleading & wrong

 

the mandate of the court is determine if the laws and actions being litigated comply with Contitution

the justices are split along lines of those that follow that mandate and those who impose their personal feelings into pushing an agenda

 

The Dems have been unable to get preferred legislation passed thru Congress (abortion), so they have made an endrun by filling the Court with activist judges to push their agenda- who are forced to perform mental gymnastics to fit the agenda items into a perverted Constituional interpretation.

 

 

[DFT]

Very impressed with ACB thus far.  Watching her act with grace and dignity is wonderful.  She knows the letter of the law and like any good nominee worthy of the role, sticks to it without partiality.  So far, very impressed by her.

[The Frankish Reich]

5 minutes ago, DFT said:

Very impressed with ACB thus far.  Watching her act with grace and dignity is wonderful.  She knows the letter of the law and like any good nominee worthy of the role, sticks to it without partiality.  So far, very impressed by her.

Agreed. I say this as someone who would have rather had Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

I do have an argument with the process (I really think it should have waited till after the election under the Lindsey Graham Rule), and I do think she should probably recuse from the ACA decision [this is not an actual conflict, but I consider it an "appearance of impropriety" situation] and maybe some litigation over the election on a case-by-case basis. But she is clearly qualified and of good character.

Edited October 13, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Cinga]

All due respect to the other Justices on the Supreme Court and the Senators in this hearing, but I've heard said that often ACB is referred to as the smartest person in the room and she is proving it today, as I suspect she will as well once seating.

[DFT]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed. I say this as someone who would have rather had Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

I do have an argument with the process (I really think it should have waited till after the election under the Lindsey Graham Rule), and I do think she should probably recuse from the ACA decision and maybe some litigation over the election on a case-by-case basis. But she is clearly qualified and of good character.

I get the sense that she’ll do that if she feels compelled by the people.  I tried to go in open minded and looking for character flags in partisanship.  I never agreed with RBG totally on her thoughts, but what made her so appealing to me, was she knew the law indisputably and levied it in her decision making.  That’s the same quality I see in Amy.    She won’t be pushed around or influenced and it resonates.  I don’t believe she has any pre-conceived notions.  I believe like RBG, she’s a true student of the law.  I’m excited to see what she does and hopeful that she makes incredible non-partisan decisions that benefit the country.   

3 minutes ago, Cinga said:

All due respect to the other Justices on the Supreme Court and the Senators in this hearing, but I've heard said that often ACB is referred to as the smartest person in the room and she is proving it today, as I suspect she will as well once seating.

Agree and I almost wish we could restart this thread to discuss our early impressions and not so much our doomsday scenarios.  She is really incredible thus far.   Very impressed!

[Wacka]

And she is doing it with no notes. If you know your subject, you don't need notes.  I made notes for my thesis defense, but once I started speaking I never referred to them.  I was prepared (had practiced it about 30-40 times.).

Edited October 14, 2020 by Wacka

[DFT]

1 minute ago, Wacka said:

And she is doing it with no notes. If you mow your subject, you don't need notes.  I made notes for my thesis defense, but once I started speaking I never referred to them.  I was prepared (had practiced it about 30-40 times.).

Yes!!!!!   That’s such an incredible skill.  I loved when they asked what she was taking/ using notes with and she lifted up her notebook and it was blank.  She’s impressive!  

 

 

[Kemp]

Senator Mike Lee said it would be wrong to pack the court, because there should be 9 justices.

 

Four years ago, when there were 8, he wasn't bothered by that.

 

Hypocrisy has become the daily norm of the Republicans.

[Cinga]

Whitehouse with the conspiracy theory of the century!

 

Holy crapola!

 

Koch Industries? They've become DEMOCRAT donors of late you idiot! Because they want that cheap labor to come across an open border! But at least he admitted that politicians taking dark money is the norm smdh... 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Cinga

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Whitehouse with the conspiracy theory of the century!

 

Holy crapola!

 

Koch Industries? They've become DEMOCRAT donors of late you idiot! Because they want that cheap labor to come across an open border! But at least he admitted that politicians taking dark money is the norm smdh... 

True about the Kochs. Say what you will about them, they have a particular right-libertarian viewpoint and they'll support causes that align with that regardless of party lines.