Amy Coney Barrett

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County Board of Elections has filed a brief with the Supreme Court demanding Barrett recuse herself if the case involving ballots received after Election Day is heard again.

“The nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice this close to a presidential election is unprecedented,” the brief states. “As concerning as that is, what is even more troubling is the language President Trump has used in consideration of this nomination, linking it directly to the electoral season at hand, with implications for his own re-election.” The argument maintains that Trump rushed that confirmation process in an obvious attempt to stack the deck in cases involving his reelection, which “raises a terrible ‘appearance’ problem which can only engulf the Supreme Court in a political stew with poisonous consequences for the independence and perceived integrity of the judiciary.”

 

 

The brief cites a case regarding a justice on West Virginia’s supreme court to show that failure to recuse when necessary impinges on the due-process rights of the litigants. In that case, the brief argues, what was critical “was not the justice’s own beliefs, nor even the presence of actual bias which mattered, but instead, the ‘objective risk of actual bias that required [the justice’s] recusal.’” The brief continues:

The law has long understood “the universally recognized legal maxim, nemo judex in causa sua, [‘no one may be his own judge’].” . . . [The West Virginia case] adds an important annex: improprium eligere vestri iudici — “no one may choose his own judge.” The present case is one of utmost important to the President’s re-election bid. Just as President Trump has placed Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court with whatever hope or expectation he may have, he has also imposed on her the duty to recuse herself in this case. Her integrity and the integrity of this Court cannot tolerate any other choice.

The brief also points out that the judicial rules governing lower federal court judges require recusal based on how his or her “participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.” The standard is whether participation in a case might cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances to “harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” That is certainly the case here.

How did Trump rush the confirmation process?

 

Also I have Josh Allen on my fantasy football team.  Can you explain why he didn't get credit for the 6 field goals last week?  I should have won my game but I lost.

[Wacka]

29 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

On what basis should she recuse herself?

Because Tibs doesn't like her.

[Tiberius]

55 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

How did Trump rush the confirmation process?

 

I like this answer because when we push things through I can just say, what’s fair? Who’s to say? 

[Just Joshin']

I see why the Dems did not vote for her:  day 2 and no changes made to hurt people.  What a loser.

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I like this answer because when we push things through I can just say, what’s fair? Who’s to say? 

Huh?

[Warcodered]

I was having a conversation about this with my dad and the whole thing is kind of weird. It makes no sense for them to hurry up and get it done now. This is such an important issue for a large part of the Republican base why wouldn't they make it an election issue. Getting it done quick before the election makes it look like they don't actually think they're going to win.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I was having a conversation about this with my dad and the whole thing is kind of weird. It makes no sense for them to hurry up and get it done now. This is such an important issue for a large part of the Republican base why wouldn't they make it an election issue. Getting it done quick before the election makes it look like they don't actually think they're going to win.

 

Not weird at all.  No one knows how the election will go and they have a chance to seat her.  And the election issue now becomes court-packing by the Dems.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Not weird at all.  No one knows how the election will go and they have a chance to seat her.  And the election issue now becomes court-packing by the Dems.

Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home.

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

On what basis should she recuse herself?

Ordinarily she wouldn't have to recuse herself. There is no active case or controversy that she's been involve in or commented on regarding election issues, so there's no actual conflict.

But thanks to Trump stating that it's important to confirm her to have a full Court to hear any election disputes, and given that her confirmation was moved through quickly in order to have her in place before the election, the standard becomes the more vague "appearance of impropriety." And (again thanks to Trump thinking out loud here) there's a good argument to be made that that's exactly what her involvement in election cases would create -- an appearance of impropriety.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Ordinarily she wouldn't have to recuse herself. There is no active case or controversy that she's been involve in or commented on regarding election issues, so there's no actual conflict.

But thanks to Trump stating that it's important to confirm her to have a full Court to hear any election disputes, and given that her confirmation was moved through quickly in order to have her in place before the election, the standard becomes the more vague "appearance of impropriety." And (again thanks to Trump thinking out loud here) there's a good argument to be made that that's exactly what her involvement in election cases would create -- an appearance of impropriety.

In what loony world?

 

Trump stated his opinion.  The Senate confirmed her.....not Trump.  She most certainly did not confirm herself.    Any appearance of impropriety would be based on SC judges "owing" something to those who nominated and confirmed them.  What would be the expiration date on that?  Would Sotomayor have to recuse because she knows what Obama thinks about a case?

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

In what loony world?

 

Trump stated his opinion.  The Senate confirmed her.....not Trump.  She most certainly did not confirm herself.    Any appearance of impropriety would be based on SC judges "owing" something to those who nominated and confirmed them.  What would be the expiration date on that?  Would Sotomayor have to recuse because she knows what Obama thinks about a case?

No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics.

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics.

It's important because at 8 you can get a tie. Has nothing to do with her specifically other than she was nominated. 

[Taro T]

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home.

 

Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court.

 

Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4.

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

It's important because at 8 you can get a tie. Has nothing to do with her specifically other than she was nominated. 

True. i'm just saying it's case by case. The Pennsylvania case (I think it was about accepting mail ballots postmarked by election date and received within 3 days of the election)? I think most people would say yes, she should recuse. Remember, the standard is not actual conflict; it's appearance of something being improper. Some unanticipated case like Bush v. Gore, the hanging chads and all that? Probably not.

Edited October 28, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court.

 

Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4.

Right but the thing is that's a possible issue where as the current empty seat was an actual thing. Maybe it doesn't seem like much but definitely think the current seat would of been better for getting their base out and maybe get some others to switch on the issue. As opposed to the idea of the Dems doing something that hasn't been done in over 100 years.

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home.

 

How long had the Senate needed 60 votes to confirm lower court judges until Filthy Harry changed it?   Which led to this?  Things can and do change.  And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

How long had the Senate needed 60 votes to confirm lower court judges until Filthy Harry changed it?   Which led to this?  Things can and do change.  And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides.

I know it's very much a possibility, what I'm saying is it's far easier for people to blow it off than the actual empty seat and it's odd for Republicans to not use that to their advantage with both the Presidency and the Senate up in the air.

[Gary M]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

  And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides.

 

And that's why nothing got fixed in DC until Trump got there, because if you solve a problem you have no issues to run for re-election on.

[Doc]

23 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I know it's very much a possibility, what I'm saying is it's far easier for people to blow it off than the actual empty seat and it's odd for Republicans to not use that to their advantage with both the Presidency and the Senate up in the air.

 

The people who would care about the issue aren't blowing-it-off.  Meanwhile Joe refuses to answer whether he'll pack the court, which pretty much tells you what he'd do if elected.  So what if they get a R-appointed SCJ on the Bench, ostensibly making it 5-4 (Roberts doesn't count as a conservative judge anymore)?  The Dems add 4 more and it's moot.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Doc

[4merper4mer]

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics.

If there was any conflict it would be undue influence of the exec on the legis. She had no ability to impact her own confirmation nor did Trump.  It was in the hands of the Senate.

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The people who would care about the issue aren't blowing-it-off.  Meanwhile Joe refuses to answer whether he'll pack the court, which pretty much tells you what he'd do if elected.  So what if they get a R-appointed SCJ on the Bench, ostensibly making it 5-4 (Roberts doesn't count as a conservative judge anymore)?  The Dems add 4 more and it's moot.

I'm not talking about what will happen, I'm talking about this as an issue in the election. In 2016 the Supreme Court vacancy was a huge issue and it got their base out and voting. So I don't get why they're going with this weird vague Court packing issue that not enough people even understand to be even remotely as effective. I'm saying purely election wise this doesn't make sense to me, it comes off as a loser mentality for the Republicans and in a year where they need to turn out the vote as much as possible I don't get why they're not making this simple for the people who want a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

I'm not talking about what will happen, I'm talking about this as an issue in the election. In 2016 the Supreme Court vacancy was a huge issue and it got their base out and voting. So I don't get why they're going with this weird vague Court packing issue that not enough people even understand to be even remotely as effective. I'm saying purely election wise this doesn't make sense to me, it comes off as a loser mentality for the Republicans and in a year where they need to turn out the vote as much as possible I don't get why they're not making this simple for the people who want a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

 

What's so "weird" and "vague" about it?  There are currently 6 (and again some would say 5) conservative judges out of 9.  You add 4 liberal judges/expand the SC to 13 and it becomes at-worst for liberals 7-6.  You're under the assumption (or something else) that, for people for whom having a majority of conservatives on the SC is an important issue, the Dems doing this if they gain control isn't a concern.  And again, Joe and Kammy dodging the issue only proves that that's what they're going to try to do. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Doc

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What's so "weird" and "vague" about it?  There are currently 6 (and again some would say 5) conservative judges out of 9.  You and add 4 liberal judges and expand the SC to 13 and it becomes at-worst (for liberals) 7-6.  You're under the assumption0( or something else) that, for people for whom having a conservative SCJ is an important issue, the Dems doing this if they gain control isn't an issue.  And again, Joe and Kammy dodging the issue only proves that that's what they're going to try to do. 

 

 

...so why is there now an automatic need to expand the Court?......is this alleged need the same as the need (COUGH) to abolish the Electoral College?.......

[The Frankish Reich]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

If this lady refuses to recuse herself in the Pa voter case she will exposes herself as the hack she is. Being sent to the court to help a President win an election is absolute fraud and undermines any credibility this court might have had. Brett Kav's decision on Wisconsin voting was. a farce. He said the election might not get decided election day. Oh no! That's never happened before! 

 

Hacks on the court. 

The Court declined to hear the Repub's attempt to get this back before it now that there's a 9th justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-ballots.html?action=click&module=Alert&pgtype=Homepage

They reasoned that ACB hadn't had time to fully review the filings/arguments, etc., so she did not take part.

The Supreme Court is a pretty elite club, and I generally mean that in a good way. Here the longer tenured justices are protecting ACB from having to make that recusal decision. Surely she would have had time to make a decision by, say, Friday. All in all this is pretty typical of what you expect of any Court -- one side is saying "but all kinds of bad things MAY happen if you don't intervene now!" -- and the Court is saying, "maybe we should just wait to see what really DOES happen." The same thing goes for that Wisconsin decision on extending mail-in ballot deadlines that came out yesterday. If there are hundreds or thousands of Wisconsin ballots mailed yesterday that don't make it there by Tuesday, I guess they may have an argument. But if there aren't? Well, then there's really nothing there, and it's premature to get all worked up about it.

Edited October 28, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Right but the thing is that's a possible issue where as the current empty seat was an actual thing. Maybe it doesn't seem like much but definitely think the current seat would of been better for getting their base out and maybe get some others to switch on the issue. As opposed to the idea of the Dems doing something that hasn't been done in over 100 years.

 

3 things.  1st, conservatives realize that 4-4 decisions from the SC create even more chaos than we all are currently expecting. 

 

And having a jurist whom darn near everybody (from both sides of the aisle) that speaks of her claims is brilliant is something good to have on the bench.

 

Lastly, that something hasn't been done in over 100 years does not mean the D's are beyond doing it.  Senator Reid fired the 1st shot in removing the filibuster when he did away with it for appointments other than the Supreme Court.  This vote apparently was (haven't had a chance to confirm it, thus apparently) the 1st time since the mid-1800's that a SC Justice was confirmed without a single vote from anybody that isn't in the majority party.  They passed the 1st MAJOR legislation on a strict party line vote in ages with the ACA.  Schumer is on record as saying if he's Majority Leader the filibuster is gone entirely.  With all that, why would a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter) trust that the D's won't pack the SC given the chance?  (Not only that, the last President to threaten packing the court had a D next to his name as well.)

[Doc]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...so why is there now an automatic need to expand the Court?......is this alleged need the same as the need (COUGH) to abolish the Electoral College?.......

 

If the rules of the game don't allow you to win...change the rules.  Despite changing the rules earlier biting you in the ass later and leading you to have to change them again and likely screw you even further down the road.

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The Court declined to hear the Repub's attempt to get this back before it now that there's a 9th justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-ballots.html?action=click&module=Alert&pgtype=Homepage

They reasoned that ACB hadn't had time to fully review the filings/arguments, etc., so she did not take part.

The Supreme Court is a pretty elite club, and I generally mean that in a good way. Here the longer tenured justices are protecting ACB from having to make that recusal decision. Surely she would have had time to make a decision by, say, Friday. All in all this is pretty typical of what you expect of any Court -- one side is saying "but all kinds of bad things MAY happen if you don't intervene now!" -- and the Court is saying, "maybe we should just wait to see what really DOES happen." The same thing goes for that Wisconsin decision on extending mail-in ballot deadlines that came out yesterday. If there are hundreds or thousands of Wisconsin ballots mailed yesterday that don't make it there by Tuesday, I guess they may have an argument. But if there aren't? Well, then there's really nothing there, and it's premature to get all worked up about it.

 

So, maybe all the hand wringing about Justice ACB being a conservative shill was misplaced?

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The Court declined to hear the Repub's attempt to get this back before it now that there's a 9th justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-ballots.html?action=click&module=Alert&pgtype=Homepage

They reasoned that ACB hadn't had time to fully review the filings/arguments, etc., so she did not take part.

The Supreme Court is a pretty elite club, and I generally mean that in a good way. Here the longer tenured justices are protecting ACB from having to make that recusal decision. Surely she would have had time to make a decision by, say, Friday. All in all this is pretty typical of what you expect of any Court -- one side is saying "but all kinds of bad things MAY happen if you don't intervene now!" -- and the Court is saying, "maybe we should just wait to see what really DOES happen." The same thing goes for that Wisconsin decision on extending mail-in ballot deadlines that came out yesterday. If there are hundreds or thousands of Wisconsin ballots mailed yesterday that don't make it there by Tuesday, I guess they may have an argument. But if there aren't? Well, then there's really nothing there, and it's premature to get all worked up about it.

They are saving the option to stop counting votes until after election in case it’s a close vote. Why burn their credibility if Trump gets trounced at the hustings anyway. 

 

The court’s brief order gave no reasons for declining to expedite consideration of the case. In a separate statement, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, said the court may still consider the case after the election.

Here’s is BK anti-democracy opinion on Wisconsin 

 

In his opinion, attached to the 5-to-3 ruling against the deadline extension in Wisconsin, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that Election Day mail-in deadlines were devised “to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election.”

 

 

My God, the votes might get counted and make a difference? Take this with attempt to sabotage the post office. Putin style oligarchy 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html

BK sounds like Trump 

[SoCal Deek]

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

My God, the votes might get counted and make a difference? Take this with attempt to sabotage the post office. Putin style oligarchy 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html

BK sounds like Trump 

The issue should be whether the vote was SUBMITTED or OPENED after the deadline. The exact same principle applies to public contract bidding all over America. You have to submit your sealed bid PRIOR TO the exact time and date. However, when the Agency chooses to OPEN the bids is somewhat up to the Agency, so long as they’re opened ‘in public’.

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The issue should be whether the vote was SUBMITTED or OPENED after the deadline. The exact same principle applies to public contract bidding all over America. You have to submit your sealed bid PRIOR TO the exact time and date. However, when the Agency chooses to OPEN the bids is somewhat up to the Agency, so long as they’re opened ‘in public’.

 

And, due to the fact that technically votes can recieve a postmark (or be deposited in a ballot collection station) on the day of the election but be submitted AFTER the polls have closed (unless they make sure EVERY mailbox is emptied and the contents collected at the poll closing time; & there's no realistic way that could ever happen), those SHOULD be required to be put into the mailbox/ballot collection box by the day prior to the polls closing to cut down on ballot stuffing AFTER polls have closed.

 

That would not be "voter suppression" in any meaningful form of the term as people would still have had months to get their mail in or absentee ballot submitted.  But it would limit every party's ability to stuff the ballots as prior to the polls closing, they don't know for certain who will or won't vote & also don't know just how many votes they need to manufacture to get the "right" outcome.  

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And, due to the fact that technically votes can recieve a postmark (or be deposited in a ballot collection station) on the day of the election but be submitted AFTER the polls have closed (unless they make sure EVERY mailbox is emptied and the contents collected at the poll closing time; & there's no realistic way that could ever happen), those SHOULD be required to be put into the mailbox/ballot collection box by the day prior to the polls closing to cut down on ballot stuffing AFTER polls have closed.

 

That would not be "voter suppression" in any meaningful form of the term as people would still have had months to get their mail in or absentee ballot submitted.  But it would limit every party's ability to stuff the ballots as prior to the polls closing, they don't know for certain who will or won't vote & also don't know just how many votes they need to manufacture to get the "right" outcome.  

You'd be ok with throwing out votes that were mailed on election day? 😕 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

You'd be ok with throwing out votes that were mailed on election day? 😕 

 

Not this year, no, because that wasn't the rule that was set up.

 

But in the future, absolutely.  There is almost no way a conscientious voter ends up with & needing to mail in a ballot ON election day.  They LITERALLY have MONTHS to obtain & return that ballot.  Allowing  ballots postmarked on election day encourages ALL parties to manufacture ballots.

[Capco]

At this point, I'm all for packing the Court if they even sniff Roe v. Wade.  Add 6 Justices along party line votes if you have to.  

 

As long as they don't start undoing decades of precedent I'm okay with a 6-3 Court for now.  But if they do, it's game on.  

 

That's why the Senate is going to be so critical in this election.  I have a feeling the Republicans will back off on any over-the-top agenda via the SCOTUS if they lose the Senate.  

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You'd be ok with throwing out votes that were mailed on election day? 😕 

Why wouldn't it work the same as your taxes?  Every year, there's a mad rush to the post office on April 15th. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The issue should be whether the vote was SUBMITTED or OPENED after the deadline. The exact same principle applies to public contract bidding all over America. You have to submit your sealed bid PRIOR TO the exact time and date. However, when the Agency chooses to OPEN the bids is somewhat up to the Agency, so long as they’re opened ‘in public’.

 

...good call...we are in the competitive bid arena for construction......5 seconds late and you're SOL with no exceptions.....

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...good call...we are in the competitive bid arena for construction......5 seconds late and you're SOL with no exceptions.....

I think you already may know.....I'm on the other side of the table, opening your bids. We have often had to tell Contractors that their bid will not be opened because it's late.

[Doc]

6 hours ago, Capco said:

At this point, I'm all for packing the Court if they even sniff Roe v. Wade.  Add 6 Justices along party line votes if you have to.  

 

As long as they don't start undoing decades of precedent I'm okay with a 6-3 Court for now.  But if they do, it's game on.  

 

That's why the Senate is going to be so critical in this election.  I have a feeling the Republicans will back off on any over-the-top agenda via the SCOTUS if they lose the Senate.  

 

I don't support court-packing but I don't want them touching Roe v. Wade either.  Except for outlawing late-term abortions.

[SoCal Deek]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I don't support court-packing but I don't want them touching Roe v. Wade either.  Except for outlawing late-term abortions.

With all due respect. I believe you're missing the core of the current debate.  Court packing is the symptom. The disease is a Court that wrongfully substitutes itself for the Legislative branch and tries to write laws.  We already have a packed "Court".....you just know it better by it's more common term "The House of Representatives".

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all due respect. I believe you're missing the core of the current debate.  Court packing is the symptom. The disease is a Court that wrongfully substitutes itself for the Legislative branch and tries to write laws.  We already have a packed "Court".....you just know it better by it's more common term "The House of Representatives".

Court packing literally renders a branch of government moot and that is far more consequential than just about any of the other worry.

[B-Man]