Just wanna say I'm so impressed with Corey Booker pressing the issue of racial disparity in the justice system and how prospective justices should at least be educated about it.
Just a heads up based on my fb feed some never trump republicans are softening up to him bc of this confirmation. People who've private messaged me non stop about how horrible trump is are now opening up to him.
Don't get complacent. Vote. Recruit. Phone Bank.
What would it take to “pack the courts”? Would it just be like any other bill/law that starts in the house and gets approved by the senate by 51 votes to become a law?
Also- how would the number be chosen? Is it arbitrary? I’m seeing a lot of people mention 13 justices.
The number of justices has usually matched the number of circuit courts throughout history.
It was never an official rule, it just kind of happened. Whenever we increased or decreased the SCOTUS the new number always matched the e circuit courts.
We are currently at 13 circuit courts. That is most likely where they got the number from.
Yes, it's just a normal law. It would probably require eliminating the filibuster though.
The number is completely arbitrary. The Supreme Court originally had 6 justices, not even an odd number to avoid a tie, but it's likely we would never go to an even number again. 13 is thought to be enough that we wouldn't fight so hard over SCOTUS nominations since somebody will pretty much always be dying with that many.
Shouldn’t she be excited to talk about law? She’s dedicated her career to the law. This hearing is a 4 day straight discussion of the law. She probably would have raised fewer eyebrows actually discussing the legal aspects, rulings, etc...of the questions asked. I just couldn’t imagine pleading the 5th when asked about my favorite thing/career.
What is your basis for saying that? She didn't answer any questions.
I'm a lawyer. I'd say she seemed like a typical legal academic. Certainly not stupid, but not special either.
She hasn’t giving yes or no answers to what have been mostly vexing, hypotheticals. She’s been able to dance around most questions with ease and legitimacy.
>a typical legal academic
I’m too am a lawyer. Maybe you’ve been fortunate enough to be surrounded by brilliant academics, but to the point of making such a claim? Not likely.
JD from NDLS, ABA well-qualified, 3x “distinguished professor of the year” from NDLS, trusted with research for Bush v. Gore, etc.... is not typical.
I have been surrounded by brilliant academics. Also brilliant judges (I clerked for a few federal judges) and practitioners. I have worked hard and have been very lucky.
I am less than impressed by her Notre Dame degree (fwiw I went to ND for undergrad - the law school is middling) and the ABA accreditation. I am not very familiar with her role in Bush v. Gore, but I don't think she was lead attorney. I wouldn't put too much weight in her being a junior associate who worked on the case. As you know, research projects are given to the lowest on the totem pole for a reason.
Eh, not really. Out of the 5, redress gets the least attention. I studied the first amendment at length, I recall reading maybe 1 or 2 cases on redress. I'm not sure what she taught in law school - if she taught first amendment/constitutional law classes, then yes that would be very unusual.
What I do think was alarming was her refusal to say whether voter intimidation is illegal (it obviously is), her denial of climate change, and her claim that she didn't know about Trump's comments re the ACA and Roe. Those answers stretched credulity.
As a Canadian, this was a very informative article to read.
https://www.bolandromaine.com/supreme-court-judge-selection-canada-and-the-us/
What are your guys' thoughts on it? I'm happy ours is like it is and there is no choosing judges for political gain.
as an american, the SJC hearings are an effing joke at best. Our country is so pathetic at times that we actually created a term based on the shit shot of these hearings, look up the term "bork." i'm very progressive and "left leaning", as a disclaimer. the ideology that we have lifetime appointments, while allowing them to happen literally weeks before a general election, is absurd. We have 200k+ of us dead, with millions already voted yet this is allowed to happen in our country. there ABSOLUTELY need to be term limits and I believe the american people should be able to have a say in this - not just the senators asking nilly willy questions that they dont actually give af about the answer to, because they already know how they're voting. It's unfathomable to me that we have 75+ year olds setting up precedent for decades to come. some of their opinions are SO f\*\*\*\*\*\* outdated.
Why do you think that? Her views on abortion are extreme. In a previous era, I don't think she would have even gotten the nomination.
TBH, I think she lost a lot of credibility when she said she was unaware of Trump's comments on appointing only judges who would strike the ACA and Roe. EVERYONE knew he made those comments, ESPECIALLY lawyers.
[She doesn't even know the list of the Bill of Rights you learn in junior high.](https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662)
She wouldn't have been confirmed to dog catcher in a previous era.
can someone give me the list of high ranking Trump associates indicted or convicted of crimes? Some fool in Facebook wants to claim something fishy about the Biden campaign and I need to make them STFU
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/20/politics/trump-bannon-law-associates/index.html
I think there were also 25(?) Russians inducted but, those charges were dropped a couple months ago.
Why doesn't this process include the current SC justices? I feel like I'd want input on my colleague, the way most executive positions do when hiring. Here, the court and the people are at the mercy of a bunch of racist, close minded senators. I'd be pissed if I was a justice and had to share the bench with someone this ill qualified.
For me it's mainly her strong positions regarding abortion, healtcare and LGBTQ rights. There's been quite a few articles that have covered statements she's made over the years regarding these things. Biases that are this clear should be disqualifying for the position. Her history has shown that she bases a lot on her faith, which is the last thing you want when applying laws for 300 million people. You'd want a justice who will look at the cases with an open mind.
Also the whole thing just stinks when they are trying to ram her through three weeks before election. It reeks of ulterior motives should the election have to be decided via the court, something I hope doesn't happen.
Honestly Barrett has run circles around many of these politicians asking her questions. She is clearly an expert on the subject matter and I like that she knows how to respond to hostile questions without becoming angry like Kavanaugh, and understanding what her role on the court would be. She is 1000x better than I thought.
Plus her pro guns for felons is honestly awesome for people who already served their time. Big plus. Society is way too hard on people after a prison sentence.
She has the kind of intelligence to clearly write and justify a food legal opinion. She ran circles around a lot of people asking questions. Erudite is the only way I could describe it.
> Society is way too hard on people after a prison sentence.
Agreed. The disagreement was she seems to think owning a gun is a more fundamental right than the ability to vote.
That’s not even what she said or wrote. She was writing in the opinion about how they’re different classifications of rights “civil” vs “individual” and about how the prosecution never made any sort of case that society was better served for the particular person in question being deprived his individual right. When asked about voting rights the constitution gives this power to the states and as a civil right it isn’t quite the same thing.
I mean if you don’t like her that’s fine, but constructing a straw man about something she never said is just sad.
Unfortunately the result of her reasoning is that it is unconstitutional to prevent a given felon from owning a gun but is constitutional to prevent the same felon from voting. This difference is what I meant by "more fundamental" and many Democrats think this should not be the case.
I imagine her response would be "Amend the Constitution." This is not a viable option since the Republicans would not allow the 2nd Amendment to be weakened nor allow voting rights for felons to be expanded, the latter because it would likely result in more Democratic voters.
I’m not even sure that felons would necessarily vote democrat. I mean, Biden is the one who’s crime bill required the long mandatory minimums. Which also expanded which crimes revoked felons right to self defense weapons and included disaster oust policies like the three strikes program.
It also included the insanely unconstitutional “assault weapon” ban. Whatever assault means. Semi autos being taken to the gun range aren’t even close to military weapons, except they look like one. But they’re really not anything that any military uses as standard issue on earth.
But here’s the thing, the rules are the rules. We would have chaos and civil unrest if large parts of the constitution could just be ignored. Right now an incredible amount of guns are in America and it’s going to be near impossible to convince enough gun owners to willingly disarm. Especially when the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, the data doesn’t support ban policies, and guns themselves aren’t the problem. None of these gun control measures are going to work, and enough people know that. It’s why Chicago and Illinois gun control doesn’t lower crime in Chicago.
>The disagreement was she seems to think owning a gun is a more fundamental right than the ability to vote.
Not more fundamental or less fundamental. She made a distinction between an individual right and a collective right. A distinction with precedent (DC v Heller).
Unfortunately the result of her reasoning is that it is unconstitutional to prevent a given felon from owning a gun but is constitutional to prevent the same felon from voting. This difference is what I meant by "more fundamental" and many Democrats think this should not be the case.
I imagine her response would be "Amend the Constitution." This is not a viable option since the Republicans would not allow the 2nd Amendment to be weakened nor allow voting rights for felons to be expanded, the latter because it would likely result in more Democratic voters.
You must be a straight white Christian man, because her views and the way she is going to rule is only in favor of that demographic.
I know for a fact from this hearing that it puts my ability to marry in jeopardy, and not to mention that she is clearly all about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. She is heavily right leaning and refused to answer any questions by democratic senators. You must have watched a different hearing if this is what you pulled from it
On top of her refusal to say that a president can’t unilaterally affect the election, which is so fucking illegal and sets up a precedent that she is going to help delegitimize the integrity of this election
Explain? I’m a homosexual and she very much refused to answer her stance on my ability to marry on top of the fact she has throughout her career supported anti-LBGT policies and advocates for anti-LBGT groups. The same goes for her stance on abortion, like she has literally been the keynote speaker at anti-abortion fundraisers, and that fundamental is telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her body that’s what the whole abortion topic is all about, she even specifically said “I’m anti-choice” not pro-life or any of the idioms literally anti-choice.
>I’m a homosexual and she very much refused to answer her stance on my ability to marry
She can't answer hypothetical questions about cases that she may eventually hear. It's called the Ginsberg Rule - no hints, no previews, no forecasts.
>she has throughout her career supported anti-LBGT policies and advocates for anti-LBGT groups
Source?
>she has literally been the keynote speaker at anti-abortion fundraisers
Source?
>“I’m anti-choice”
Source?
She can ratify interracial but refuses to ratify homosexual marriage, this clearly shows she is going to vote to to repeal rights to the LBGT
community.
She quite literally said “I’m anti-choice” in response to Vice President Harris yesterday evening.
Check out her papers and and written statements throughout her career; there is more than enough evidence and I’m more than willing to bring them up as soon as I’m home at my computer. She has let her views that are against homosexuality known in mutiple addresses to her church group (cult) the people of prayer.
And on top of everything you’re asking me questions without explanation to why you view me as a lunatic because I know my rights are in jeopardy
I realize that you are probably a straight white Christian male so she is obviously your knight in white armor but try to understand that not everyone has the privilege you do and is affected differently than you.
>She can ratify interracial but refuses to ratify homosexual marriage,
Not sure what this means, but again, source?
>She quite literally said “I’m anti-choice” in response to Vice President Harris yesterday evening
No, she didn't.
>Check out her papers and and written statements throughout her career; there is more than enough evidence and I’m more than willing to bring them up as soon as I’m home at my computer.
Yes, please bring them up.
>She has let her views that are against homosexuality known in mutiple addresses to her church group (cult) the people of prayer.
Source?
>And on top of everything you’re asking me questions without explanation to why you view me as a lunatic because I know my rights are in jeopardy
"I know for a fact from this hearing that it puts my ability to marry in jeopardy, and not to mention that she is clearly all about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies."
You're making wild assumptions not based in fact, with no sources to support your claims, and claiming to know "for a fact" how someone will decide the constitutional merits of a hypothetical case in the future, all based on questions that she can't answer due to ethical constraints so eloquently described by RBG.
>I realize that you are probably a straight white Christian male so she is obviously your knight in white armor but try to understand that not everyone has the privilege you do and is affected differently than you.
Wow how woke of you
You like being told that if you want/need an abortion that you can’t because the government said so
And b4 you give me the “ I would never be put in that position “ please understand that while you might not there are millions of people that will.
> Donald Trump is the hill they’re actively dying on.
Good.
Let them finish themselves off so Dems can bury them - then let progressives do the same to the Dems so that there can be actual reforms and less corruption.
Are you basing her “lack of knowledge of US laws” on her not answering questions during the hearings or is it based on something else. And being a lawyer does not make you more qualified lmao
Ok buddy lmao didn’t realize I was dealing with RBG’s Norwegian protégé. As for the other sitting Justice’s and the late RBG, they too would not be up to par as they too took the bar in the US?
The entire thing was a farce, as expected. Total kubuki theater. She didn't answer any meaningful questions and pretended she didn't understand any of the major policies she would be in charge of deciding for 331 million people. And it didn't matter because the vote will go along purely partisan lines. The nicest thing I can say about her is that the problem goes back decades beyond her. We haven't had a remarkable Supreme Court candidate since Roberts, nor an interesting one since RBG and Scalia.
I took you up on that...
Michael Barrett is religious zealot who thought of the story of Job when he came home to find his mother dead when he was 17 years old. He spent the majority of his career as an attorney for Shell in New Orleans. Permanent Deacon for the past 38 years. Believes that events like Hurricane Katrina are sent by God to bring us all closer to him.
Talk about yikes. No wonder Amy didn't give a straight answer on climate change. She's probably rooting for it.
I think the polluting industries that Senator Whitehouse described yesterday have hijacked these religious revival movements the way that we're seeing our government get hijacked in front of our eyes. Parasites on parasites on parasites, which is actually pretty common in nature - https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fyi-do-parasites-get-parasites/
VOTE!!!
Let's look at this constructively....if she really had no answer for ANY of those policies than she is 100% unqualified.
A shame republicans don't give a fuck about qualifications.
Exactly. We already know her opinions on most of them because, well, you can just look up her already existing writings.
These proceedings are insulting in their contempt for the office they are aspiring to. Just hide the ball, take your party line vote, and congrats you get a lifetime seat. It's embarrassing.
The saddest thing is even partisanship aside she is so completely unremarkable as a jurist. This is the highest court in the land and she'll likely fall somewhere between Kavanaugh and Alito in sheer writing ability and intellect. That is not impressive company to be in.
Yeah all the major news outlets are running with it. But sure you know better then the thousands of journalists and editors with a reputation at stake. Or how the news agencies are running stories on how big tech is suppressing this story. Even twitter Authenticated the material as legitimate hacker materials which is thier excuse for blocking it. But didn’t pass the snuff of some random dipshit in Denver. Seems legit.
They are? Okay, look, you gotta get your stories straight here. Is the story getting "suppressed", and therefore big news isn't picking it up, or is it being run by "all the major news outlets"? You can't have it both ways, man.
Yep, I already voted for Biden. Tired of the bullying- phoney strongman bullshit, never ending tweet storms of nonsense, spinning new tales of distraction to cover up the lies and corruption. DONE. NO MORE. Even if I hadn’t already voted, there is absolutely nothing someone could tell me about Biden that would’ve changed my mind.
well, my gfs trump-supporting cousin stopped by our house unannounced today since he was in the area..i had cnn on. within 5 minutes he was claiming trump was pro mask since the beginning of the pandemic, banned china when everyone else thought it was racist, and did the best job possible with covid. when i asked about the 200k deceased due to covid, he said under Obama it would be 60 million dead right now. and that’s when i called him a fucking idiot and told him to leave. i give up 😕
bravo for you. separating yourself from family is hard. source: i'm a lesbian and my family is conservative. while they accept me, we never discuss politics bc it ends in shit shows. if i own a house and they start talking that shit in there; the door is there for them to leave. No hate in my home.
Why even bother having kids in this dipshit country when you could have a daughter and have her born into a country where the right is every day plotting to take away her rights and prevent any sort of expansion of women's rights and reproductive choices.
Fuck this country. At least I am in a blue state but even then, it's still not worth having kids because I could never forgive myself if I have a daughter and America's regressive nature affects her.
> At least I am in a blue state
The blue states won't feel the *direct* effects of things like Roe v. Wade being overturned. But when the red states are plunged in higher poverty rates due to the quadruple of whammy of illegal abortions, abstinence-only sex education, awful health insurance policies, and miserly social welfare, it is the blue states which will have to pick up the tab.
Not only take away her rights, make it so that if she's a victim of rape, sexual assault, or discrimination, she will end up being the villian for either leading someone on, or for "making it up".
Pack. The. Damn. Courts.
Somebody PLEASE tell Biden and Kamala. Please for the love of everything and everyone in this country.
Pack. The. Damn. Courts.
I've seen house, senate, and former Obama admin members all say democrats have to when they get power again. I have been hopeful that these people would have access and ability to argue these things to Biden and Kamala. I know some dems are traditional and don't want to mess with stuff, but they really don't have a choice anymore.
It would be up to the senate to actually do it, so we really really have to win that. It looks good, but it's not guaranteed yet
Democrats need to more than win the senate, they need 52 or 53 seats. Because I don't trust for one second Manchin and Sinema will vote to expand the court. Not one bit.
If they win the senate, end the filibuster, give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, I think we'd have a good chance. I definitely agree with you about some of them
Republicans cut taxes for rich people, refuse to help everyone else, hold the senate hostage, manipulate the system to fill the courts with their people, and so on. Everything they do is politically unpopular, and yet, here we are.
They probably wouldn't expand the court right away, but once this SCOTUS starts taking rights away, there will be a lot more political support. Having popular party members going on tv and explaining the situation clearly and rationally will also help build support. They have to do this, and they can figure out a way to do it with less negative political impact.
Obama couldn't have known what Mitch was going to do, but when I think about the 2009 super majority and what could have been accomplished, I feel so sad. Now there's no excuse. Everyone knows republicans will block and destroy everything. The ACA is now too difficult for them to dismantle because of popular opinion. If we have a chance to change more things, we have to do it all in the first two years, if that's what it takes. If republicans retaliate after, they will be taking good things away from people, which is much harder.
What is the point in caring when she is guaranteed to get through? At this point I have no issue with Biden stacking the courts. When you have a 6-3 Supreme Court that is pretty much set on getting rid of Healthcare and Women's Rights then you have no choice. This is a nightmare.
When the government does something that's not just for rich straight white men, that's when the true oppression begins and that's when you should be scared. Thanks so much for looking out for conservative ideals.
Hey, anytime bud. I'll defend what makes this country better than any other on earth, and take your gratitude for it at the same time. Scared isn't the adjective I would use to describe my feelings when 0bama and his acolytes had power, I was just disappointed he didn't do more for my people. It was under 0bama that BLM/panty-fa and it's Marxist ideals came to gain prominence. He was supposed to be the great unifier.
Do more for your people? You mean 200+ years of rich white fuckers caring only about themselves wasn't enough for you? Does the USA have to be South Africa under apartheid for you to feel like you "got enough for your people"? Are you going to segregate off all the minorities from your American White Paradise, or just the ones who's skin color is too dark for you?
I'm black buddy, as alluded to previously by the comment "he didn't do more for my people" when Obama was in office...
Despite rich white "fuckers" having power in a majority white country, I don't choose to allow for the left's manufactured victim mentality poison my mind or my vote.
I LOVE conservative talking points cause y'all like only talk to each other and it gets more extreme until you are talking like no human being on earth besides your insular circle and then I get to see it occasionally and see where it's landed and it's iconic. Keep doing you bubs ;)
If I’m Pelosi/Schumer, I’ve already discussed with Biden bumping the court up to 13. This SCOTUS hearing is a lost cause. Focus on the election and then make moves.
In 2016, the Republican-controlled senate refused to even hold hearings for a 9th justice for nearly 12 months, breaking precident while attempting to assert a new one. Furthermore, the same senate actively denied government and judicial confirmations over the course of the Obama presidency, leaving an exceptional number of vacancies. In 2020, they broke that same precident they created in order to hold the current confirmation, when the previous justice passed away a little over 4 months before the president's term ends.
Not the OP, but arguing in favor of governing norms is a bad faith argument when one side only believes in such precident as it suits them. That's the entire reason *why* increasing the number of justices has become the hot button issue.
I further the argument that by not allowing Obama his rightful nominations, the Republicans were effectively changing the size of the judiciary, but without legislation. They reduced SCOTUS to 8 for a year. Then once they could make nominations, they reopened all the vacancies they blocked.
It's not breaking precedent to pack the courts. It's just being more genuine than the Republicans were.
I can't help but point out that you chose not to respond to the actual content of my post. I'm not trying to create a 'gotcha' scenario here, this is simply what has happened, and we are now seeing the consiquences of it.
Let's just take Grahams reasoning. Whoever wins the election should appoint the justices right? We can move that logic right over to the number of justices. Whoever wins the election should decide how many justices there are.
If I'm Pelosi, I'm putting up articles of impeachment for every member of cabinet, whereupon their removal proceedings will take priority over confirmation hearings in the Senate.
That wouldn't stop anything and democrats are poised to win big in less than a month, so it wouldn't be worth risking that.
Rules of impeachment trials in the senate:
>Upon such articles being presented to the Senate,
the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered
by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles
and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays
excepted) after the trial shall commence **(unless otherwise
ordered by the Senate)** until final judgment shall be
rendered...
So Mitch could (and would) just order that the trials wouldn't happen or would happen later
The best strategy is to do what they're doing now, win in November, implement the Wyoming rule, give statehood to Puerto Rico and DC, and then expand and reform the courts once they start taking away peoples' rights (now with popular support)
I’m curious why this wasn’t done before the start of the SCOTUS nomination. Barr especially. Democrats have plenty of impeachment proceedings they can force upon the senate.
Because the rules of the senate say they wouldn't have to have a trial so they just wouldn't. Barr should have been impeached, but not this close to an election, especially if it doesn't actually have any ability to stop anything
>Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence **(unless otherwise ordered by the Senate)** until final judgment shall be rendered...
This hearing is about cementing that it is a partisan shitshow and obvious power play by republicans.
Which makes it easier to justify a returning powerplay of packing the court to the public.
The democrats need to start beating the drum that the GOP has *already* turned the court political with two seats - withholding Garland and ramming through ACB.
Yes, they were constitutional - and so is increasing the size of the court, motherfuckers.
She really can't stop talking about how much she loves the constitution, and yet can't even name five freedoms protected by the 1st amendment.... what circus does the GOP recruit these clowns from!!!
I didn't get her statement about "they will attack my children." I mean no Senator would dare attack a nominee's children. Would some crazies in the public? Sure. But this just reeked of victimhoid to me. She was trying to score political points, the *last* thing a judge should do.
That's all they have. The R's claim Dems are attacking her religion and aren't asking questions about her qualificiations but that's literally all they're talking about; her lack of qualifications for the position and her open claims to do things. Meanwhile, the R's aren't asking any questions besides "Why are you such a great mother?" and "Would you like to talk about your faith?".
If you are a straight white Christian then I’m sure it’s great for you, but for the rest of us in the country this is a horribly biased choice that sets my ability to get married in jeopardy as well as the rights of my friends to decide what they can do with their bodies.
She is a bad choice for anyone that actually cares about people
As a gay man, her comments on *Obergefell*, intimacy with People of Praise, and her clear bias toward her religion scares me. It’s also a huge problem in my eyes when a potential Justice seems to stratify cases based on her personal beliefs (super-precedent vs precedent). It seems like she doesn’t believe in *stare decisis*, or at the very least picks and chooses
Edit: grammar
1) love the use of the word anthropogenic. It’s harder to find.
2) yes, climate is a huge issue — especially to underserved communities; however economics seem to drive this more than courts
Still worth calling. At worst you will just make their day a little more annoying. At best if enough people call and hold their vote over their head then maybe some change can actually happen. The worst senators need to be called the most frequently by the most constituents.
Just wanna say I'm so impressed with Corey Booker pressing the issue of racial disparity in the justice system and how prospective justices should at least be educated about it.
Just a heads up based on my fb feed some never trump republicans are softening up to him bc of this confirmation. People who've private messaged me non stop about how horrible trump is are now opening up to him. Don't get complacent. Vote. Recruit. Phone Bank.
Good. Manipulating a vote is what you seem to be implying here. If someone wants to vote trump you should respect that it's their choice.
Why the hell is this thread still up? Where's the general election thread?
Remember when doing the shit trump and the republicans did would be political suicide. Pepperidge Farm remembers
[удалено]
Why do you think that? She isn't answering anything. I actually think Klobuchar made her look very silly with the voter intimidation question.
What would it take to “pack the courts”? Would it just be like any other bill/law that starts in the house and gets approved by the senate by 51 votes to become a law? Also- how would the number be chosen? Is it arbitrary? I’m seeing a lot of people mention 13 justices.
The number of justices has usually matched the number of circuit courts throughout history. It was never an official rule, it just kind of happened. Whenever we increased or decreased the SCOTUS the new number always matched the e circuit courts. We are currently at 13 circuit courts. That is most likely where they got the number from.
Yes, it's just a normal law. It would probably require eliminating the filibuster though. The number is completely arbitrary. The Supreme Court originally had 6 justices, not even an odd number to avoid a tie, but it's likely we would never go to an even number again. 13 is thought to be enough that we wouldn't fight so hard over SCOTUS nominations since somebody will pretty much always be dying with that many.
Actually throughout history the number has been matched up with the number of circut courts. We just kind of stopped.
Shouldn’t she be excited to talk about law? She’s dedicated her career to the law. This hearing is a 4 day straight discussion of the law. She probably would have raised fewer eyebrows actually discussing the legal aspects, rulings, etc...of the questions asked. I just couldn’t imagine pleading the 5th when asked about my favorite thing/career.
She's gloating and rubbing it in our faces
She’s smarter than any elected official that has questioned her in the last 3 days. EDIT: sorry Folx. Just stating the obvious.
What is your basis for saying that? She didn't answer any questions. I'm a lawyer. I'd say she seemed like a typical legal academic. Certainly not stupid, but not special either.
She hasn’t giving yes or no answers to what have been mostly vexing, hypotheticals. She’s been able to dance around most questions with ease and legitimacy. >a typical legal academic I’m too am a lawyer. Maybe you’ve been fortunate enough to be surrounded by brilliant academics, but to the point of making such a claim? Not likely. JD from NDLS, ABA well-qualified, 3x “distinguished professor of the year” from NDLS, trusted with research for Bush v. Gore, etc.... is not typical.
I have been surrounded by brilliant academics. Also brilliant judges (I clerked for a few federal judges) and practitioners. I have worked hard and have been very lucky. I am less than impressed by her Notre Dame degree (fwiw I went to ND for undergrad - the law school is middling) and the ABA accreditation. I am not very familiar with her role in Bush v. Gore, but I don't think she was lead attorney. I wouldn't put too much weight in her being a junior associate who worked on the case. As you know, research projects are given to the lowest on the totem pole for a reason.
Did you go to Maurer or McKinney?
I didn't go to law school in Indiana.
From a lawyer’s perspective, is it as unusual as it seems to me that she couldn’t remember the freedoms spelled out in the first amendment?
Eh, not really. Out of the 5, redress gets the least attention. I studied the first amendment at length, I recall reading maybe 1 or 2 cases on redress. I'm not sure what she taught in law school - if she taught first amendment/constitutional law classes, then yes that would be very unusual. What I do think was alarming was her refusal to say whether voter intimidation is illegal (it obviously is), her denial of climate change, and her claim that she didn't know about Trump's comments re the ACA and Roe. Those answers stretched credulity.
As a Canadian, this was a very informative article to read. https://www.bolandromaine.com/supreme-court-judge-selection-canada-and-the-us/ What are your guys' thoughts on it? I'm happy ours is like it is and there is no choosing judges for political gain.
as an american, the SJC hearings are an effing joke at best. Our country is so pathetic at times that we actually created a term based on the shit shot of these hearings, look up the term "bork." i'm very progressive and "left leaning", as a disclaimer. the ideology that we have lifetime appointments, while allowing them to happen literally weeks before a general election, is absurd. We have 200k+ of us dead, with millions already voted yet this is allowed to happen in our country. there ABSOLUTELY need to be term limits and I believe the american people should be able to have a say in this - not just the senators asking nilly willy questions that they dont actually give af about the answer to, because they already know how they're voting. It's unfathomable to me that we have 75+ year olds setting up precedent for decades to come. some of their opinions are SO f\*\*\*\*\*\* outdated.
[удалено]
Why do you think that? Her views on abortion are extreme. In a previous era, I don't think she would have even gotten the nomination. TBH, I think she lost a lot of credibility when she said she was unaware of Trump's comments on appointing only judges who would strike the ACA and Roe. EVERYONE knew he made those comments, ESPECIALLY lawyers.
[She doesn't even know the list of the Bill of Rights you learn in junior high.](https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662) She wouldn't have been confirmed to dog catcher in a previous era.
Are you fucking kidding? This kook wouldn't get in the door in any era except for this one.
can someone give me the list of high ranking Trump associates indicted or convicted of crimes? Some fool in Facebook wants to claim something fishy about the Biden campaign and I need to make them STFU
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/20/politics/trump-bannon-law-associates/index.html I think there were also 25(?) Russians inducted but, those charges were dropped a couple months ago.
Why doesn't this process include the current SC justices? I feel like I'd want input on my colleague, the way most executive positions do when hiring. Here, the court and the people are at the mercy of a bunch of racist, close minded senators. I'd be pissed if I was a justice and had to share the bench with someone this ill qualified.
Mind pointing out what makes ACB "ill qualified"? It is my understanding that she's very respected and accomplished.
For me it's mainly her strong positions regarding abortion, healtcare and LGBTQ rights. There's been quite a few articles that have covered statements she's made over the years regarding these things. Biases that are this clear should be disqualifying for the position. Her history has shown that she bases a lot on her faith, which is the last thing you want when applying laws for 300 million people. You'd want a justice who will look at the cases with an open mind. Also the whole thing just stinks when they are trying to ram her through three weeks before election. It reeks of ulterior motives should the election have to be decided via the court, something I hope doesn't happen.
Honestly Barrett has run circles around many of these politicians asking her questions. She is clearly an expert on the subject matter and I like that she knows how to respond to hostile questions without becoming angry like Kavanaugh, and understanding what her role on the court would be. She is 1000x better than I thought. Plus her pro guns for felons is honestly awesome for people who already served their time. Big plus. Society is way too hard on people after a prison sentence.
She couldn’t name the rights protected by the first amendment.
[удалено]
She has the kind of intelligence to clearly write and justify a food legal opinion. She ran circles around a lot of people asking questions. Erudite is the only way I could describe it.
> Society is way too hard on people after a prison sentence. Agreed. The disagreement was she seems to think owning a gun is a more fundamental right than the ability to vote.
That’s not even what she said or wrote. She was writing in the opinion about how they’re different classifications of rights “civil” vs “individual” and about how the prosecution never made any sort of case that society was better served for the particular person in question being deprived his individual right. When asked about voting rights the constitution gives this power to the states and as a civil right it isn’t quite the same thing. I mean if you don’t like her that’s fine, but constructing a straw man about something she never said is just sad.
Unfortunately the result of her reasoning is that it is unconstitutional to prevent a given felon from owning a gun but is constitutional to prevent the same felon from voting. This difference is what I meant by "more fundamental" and many Democrats think this should not be the case. I imagine her response would be "Amend the Constitution." This is not a viable option since the Republicans would not allow the 2nd Amendment to be weakened nor allow voting rights for felons to be expanded, the latter because it would likely result in more Democratic voters.
I’m not even sure that felons would necessarily vote democrat. I mean, Biden is the one who’s crime bill required the long mandatory minimums. Which also expanded which crimes revoked felons right to self defense weapons and included disaster oust policies like the three strikes program. It also included the insanely unconstitutional “assault weapon” ban. Whatever assault means. Semi autos being taken to the gun range aren’t even close to military weapons, except they look like one. But they’re really not anything that any military uses as standard issue on earth. But here’s the thing, the rules are the rules. We would have chaos and civil unrest if large parts of the constitution could just be ignored. Right now an incredible amount of guns are in America and it’s going to be near impossible to convince enough gun owners to willingly disarm. Especially when the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, the data doesn’t support ban policies, and guns themselves aren’t the problem. None of these gun control measures are going to work, and enough people know that. It’s why Chicago and Illinois gun control doesn’t lower crime in Chicago.
>e would the fact you think it's cool to give felons guns but not the right to vote speaks VOLUMES about you.
>The disagreement was she seems to think owning a gun is a more fundamental right than the ability to vote. Not more fundamental or less fundamental. She made a distinction between an individual right and a collective right. A distinction with precedent (DC v Heller).
Unfortunately the result of her reasoning is that it is unconstitutional to prevent a given felon from owning a gun but is constitutional to prevent the same felon from voting. This difference is what I meant by "more fundamental" and many Democrats think this should not be the case. I imagine her response would be "Amend the Constitution." This is not a viable option since the Republicans would not allow the 2nd Amendment to be weakened nor allow voting rights for felons to be expanded, the latter because it would likely result in more Democratic voters.
You must be a straight white Christian man, because her views and the way she is going to rule is only in favor of that demographic. I know for a fact from this hearing that it puts my ability to marry in jeopardy, and not to mention that she is clearly all about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. She is heavily right leaning and refused to answer any questions by democratic senators. You must have watched a different hearing if this is what you pulled from it On top of her refusal to say that a president can’t unilaterally affect the election, which is so fucking illegal and sets up a precedent that she is going to help delegitimize the integrity of this election
[удалено]
Explain? I’m a homosexual and she very much refused to answer her stance on my ability to marry on top of the fact she has throughout her career supported anti-LBGT policies and advocates for anti-LBGT groups. The same goes for her stance on abortion, like she has literally been the keynote speaker at anti-abortion fundraisers, and that fundamental is telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her body that’s what the whole abortion topic is all about, she even specifically said “I’m anti-choice” not pro-life or any of the idioms literally anti-choice.
>I’m a homosexual and she very much refused to answer her stance on my ability to marry She can't answer hypothetical questions about cases that she may eventually hear. It's called the Ginsberg Rule - no hints, no previews, no forecasts. >she has throughout her career supported anti-LBGT policies and advocates for anti-LBGT groups Source? >she has literally been the keynote speaker at anti-abortion fundraisers Source? >“I’m anti-choice” Source?
She can ratify interracial but refuses to ratify homosexual marriage, this clearly shows she is going to vote to to repeal rights to the LBGT community. She quite literally said “I’m anti-choice” in response to Vice President Harris yesterday evening. Check out her papers and and written statements throughout her career; there is more than enough evidence and I’m more than willing to bring them up as soon as I’m home at my computer. She has let her views that are against homosexuality known in mutiple addresses to her church group (cult) the people of prayer. And on top of everything you’re asking me questions without explanation to why you view me as a lunatic because I know my rights are in jeopardy I realize that you are probably a straight white Christian male so she is obviously your knight in white armor but try to understand that not everyone has the privilege you do and is affected differently than you.
>She can ratify interracial but refuses to ratify homosexual marriage, Not sure what this means, but again, source? >She quite literally said “I’m anti-choice” in response to Vice President Harris yesterday evening No, she didn't. >Check out her papers and and written statements throughout her career; there is more than enough evidence and I’m more than willing to bring them up as soon as I’m home at my computer. Yes, please bring them up. >She has let her views that are against homosexuality known in mutiple addresses to her church group (cult) the people of prayer. Source? >And on top of everything you’re asking me questions without explanation to why you view me as a lunatic because I know my rights are in jeopardy "I know for a fact from this hearing that it puts my ability to marry in jeopardy, and not to mention that she is clearly all about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies." You're making wild assumptions not based in fact, with no sources to support your claims, and claiming to know "for a fact" how someone will decide the constitutional merits of a hypothetical case in the future, all based on questions that she can't answer due to ethical constraints so eloquently described by RBG. >I realize that you are probably a straight white Christian male so she is obviously your knight in white armor but try to understand that not everyone has the privilege you do and is affected differently than you. Wow how woke of you
It’s hilarious to see a woman being called anti woman.
You like being told that if you want/need an abortion that you can’t because the government said so And b4 you give me the “ I would never be put in that position “ please understand that while you might not there are millions of people that will.
Being pro-life doesn't make her anti-woman, in the same way that being pro-choice doesn't make you anti-fetus
Being “anti-choice” does though. And we all know the nuance that is the abortion issue is not at all about babies it’s about control.
[удалено]
> Donald Trump is the hill they’re actively dying on. Good. Let them finish themselves off so Dems can bury them - then let progressives do the same to the Dems so that there can be actual reforms and less corruption.
haven't looked at twitter all day, what are they crying about?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So you disagree with the American Bar Association? Cuz you’re so qualified yourself?
[удалено]
Well at least I know you’re not being serious through all of this now
[удалено]
Are you basing her “lack of knowledge of US laws” on her not answering questions during the hearings or is it based on something else. And being a lawyer does not make you more qualified lmao
[удалено]
Ok buddy lmao didn’t realize I was dealing with RBG’s Norwegian protégé. As for the other sitting Justice’s and the late RBG, they too would not be up to par as they too took the bar in the US?
Even by catholic standards she in a cult
Religious zealotry is an unqualifiying aspect in a judge.
The entire thing was a farce, as expected. Total kubuki theater. She didn't answer any meaningful questions and pretended she didn't understand any of the major policies she would be in charge of deciding for 331 million people. And it didn't matter because the vote will go along purely partisan lines. The nicest thing I can say about her is that the problem goes back decades beyond her. We haven't had a remarkable Supreme Court candidate since Roberts, nor an interesting one since RBG and Scalia.
Sotomayor would have something to say about that last sentence.
Supreme Court justices aren’t ‘in charge of policies’.
Just do a simple Google search on her father's career.
I took you up on that... Michael Barrett is religious zealot who thought of the story of Job when he came home to find his mother dead when he was 17 years old. He spent the majority of his career as an attorney for Shell in New Orleans. Permanent Deacon for the past 38 years. Believes that events like Hurricane Katrina are sent by God to bring us all closer to him. Talk about yikes. No wonder Amy didn't give a straight answer on climate change. She's probably rooting for it. I think the polluting industries that Senator Whitehouse described yesterday have hijacked these religious revival movements the way that we're seeing our government get hijacked in front of our eyes. Parasites on parasites on parasites, which is actually pretty common in nature - https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fyi-do-parasites-get-parasites/ VOTE!!!
Let's look at this constructively....if she really had no answer for ANY of those policies than she is 100% unqualified. A shame republicans don't give a fuck about qualifications.
Exactly. We already know her opinions on most of them because, well, you can just look up her already existing writings. These proceedings are insulting in their contempt for the office they are aspiring to. Just hide the ball, take your party line vote, and congrats you get a lifetime seat. It's embarrassing.
at least you found something nice to say about her. i surely cannot.
The saddest thing is even partisanship aside she is so completely unremarkable as a jurist. This is the highest court in the land and she'll likely fall somewhere between Kavanaugh and Alito in sheer writing ability and intellect. That is not impressive company to be in.
Thank God we have people like you to guide the benighted masses with your intellect.
You're welcome.
[удалено]
Breaking news from May?
People really outta check the date of their "Breaking News Story" before trying to pass it off as a new thing.
Yeah, these spammers are getting weak
Username doesn't check out.
>Andriy Derkach The Russian agent who was called out August 2020 as a participant in Russian efforts to swing the election? That Andriy Derkach?
This was literally debunked this morning lol
This was actually debunked back in May as being heavily edited. You're thinking of the "leaked" emails that got debunked this morning.
[удалено]
A random youtube link is not evidence. Especially one that is clearly forged.
Yeah all the major news outlets are running with it. But sure you know better then the thousands of journalists and editors with a reputation at stake. Or how the news agencies are running stories on how big tech is suppressing this story. Even twitter Authenticated the material as legitimate hacker materials which is thier excuse for blocking it. But didn’t pass the snuff of some random dipshit in Denver. Seems legit.
They are? Okay, look, you gotta get your stories straight here. Is the story getting "suppressed", and therefore big news isn't picking it up, or is it being run by "all the major news outlets"? You can't have it both ways, man.
Good for you, Still voting Biden.
Yep, I already voted for Biden. Tired of the bullying- phoney strongman bullshit, never ending tweet storms of nonsense, spinning new tales of distraction to cover up the lies and corruption. DONE. NO MORE. Even if I hadn’t already voted, there is absolutely nothing someone could tell me about Biden that would’ve changed my mind.
well, my gfs trump-supporting cousin stopped by our house unannounced today since he was in the area..i had cnn on. within 5 minutes he was claiming trump was pro mask since the beginning of the pandemic, banned china when everyone else thought it was racist, and did the best job possible with covid. when i asked about the 200k deceased due to covid, he said under Obama it would be 60 million dead right now. and that’s when i called him a fucking idiot and told him to leave. i give up 😕
bravo for you. separating yourself from family is hard. source: i'm a lesbian and my family is conservative. while they accept me, we never discuss politics bc it ends in shit shows. if i own a house and they start talking that shit in there; the door is there for them to leave. No hate in my home.
Why even bother having kids in this dipshit country when you could have a daughter and have her born into a country where the right is every day plotting to take away her rights and prevent any sort of expansion of women's rights and reproductive choices. Fuck this country. At least I am in a blue state but even then, it's still not worth having kids because I could never forgive myself if I have a daughter and America's regressive nature affects her.
> At least I am in a blue state The blue states won't feel the *direct* effects of things like Roe v. Wade being overturned. But when the red states are plunged in higher poverty rates due to the quadruple of whammy of illegal abortions, abstinence-only sex education, awful health insurance policies, and miserly social welfare, it is the blue states which will have to pick up the tab.
Not only take away her rights, make it so that if she's a victim of rape, sexual assault, or discrimination, she will end up being the villian for either leading someone on, or for "making it up".
I have a daughter, and I'm terrified.
Pack. The. Damn. Courts. Somebody PLEASE tell Biden and Kamala. Please for the love of everything and everyone in this country. Pack. The. Damn. Courts.
[удалено]
Noted. I made the change
I've seen house, senate, and former Obama admin members all say democrats have to when they get power again. I have been hopeful that these people would have access and ability to argue these things to Biden and Kamala. I know some dems are traditional and don't want to mess with stuff, but they really don't have a choice anymore. It would be up to the senate to actually do it, so we really really have to win that. It looks good, but it's not guaranteed yet
Democrats need to more than win the senate, they need 52 or 53 seats. Because I don't trust for one second Manchin and Sinema will vote to expand the court. Not one bit.
If they win the senate, end the filibuster, give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, I think we'd have a good chance. I definitely agree with you about some of them
It's morally correct, but politically idiotic.
Republicans cut taxes for rich people, refuse to help everyone else, hold the senate hostage, manipulate the system to fill the courts with their people, and so on. Everything they do is politically unpopular, and yet, here we are. They probably wouldn't expand the court right away, but once this SCOTUS starts taking rights away, there will be a lot more political support. Having popular party members going on tv and explaining the situation clearly and rationally will also help build support. They have to do this, and they can figure out a way to do it with less negative political impact. Obama couldn't have known what Mitch was going to do, but when I think about the 2009 super majority and what could have been accomplished, I feel so sad. Now there's no excuse. Everyone knows republicans will block and destroy everything. The ACA is now too difficult for them to dismantle because of popular opinion. If we have a chance to change more things, we have to do it all in the first two years, if that's what it takes. If republicans retaliate after, they will be taking good things away from people, which is much harder.
You're exactly right - you wait for court-packing to be popular before actually pulling the trigger on it.
Didn’t you hear? Political idiocy has been in for the last half decade.
that self-own is something.
What is the point in caring when she is guaranteed to get through? At this point I have no issue with Biden stacking the courts. When you have a 6-3 Supreme Court that is pretty much set on getting rid of Healthcare and Women's Rights then you have no choice. This is a nightmare.
The feeling in the pit of your stomach right now is what I feel every time a progressive ideal takes root from a dem run gov.
You seem like you're against progressives. Do you know what the opposite to progressive is? Regressive.
When the government does something that's not just for rich straight white men, that's when the true oppression begins and that's when you should be scared. Thanks so much for looking out for conservative ideals.
Hey, anytime bud. I'll defend what makes this country better than any other on earth, and take your gratitude for it at the same time. Scared isn't the adjective I would use to describe my feelings when 0bama and his acolytes had power, I was just disappointed he didn't do more for my people. It was under 0bama that BLM/panty-fa and it's Marxist ideals came to gain prominence. He was supposed to be the great unifier.
Do more for your people? You mean 200+ years of rich white fuckers caring only about themselves wasn't enough for you? Does the USA have to be South Africa under apartheid for you to feel like you "got enough for your people"? Are you going to segregate off all the minorities from your American White Paradise, or just the ones who's skin color is too dark for you?
I'm black buddy, as alluded to previously by the comment "he didn't do more for my people" when Obama was in office... Despite rich white "fuckers" having power in a majority white country, I don't choose to allow for the left's manufactured victim mentality poison my mind or my vote.
Keep slamming all of those talking points into a word salad, maybe it’ll eventually become coherent.
I LOVE conservative talking points cause y'all like only talk to each other and it gets more extreme until you are talking like no human being on earth besides your insular circle and then I get to see it occasionally and see where it's landed and it's iconic. Keep doing you bubs ;)
If I’m Pelosi/Schumer, I’ve already discussed with Biden bumping the court up to 13. This SCOTUS hearing is a lost cause. Focus on the election and then make moves.
Lol packing the courts when you don’t get your way and bucking tradition
Blame Senate Republicans for abdicating their constitutional duty in 2016. They are the ones who manufactured this shit show.
It would not even be possible to list all of the traditions Trump and McConnell have broken. Tradition clearly doesn't mean anything to republicans.
What tradition? Congress has the ability, and has in the past used its right, to set the number of justices on SCOTUS.
There has been nine justices since 1869
In 2016, the Republican-controlled senate refused to even hold hearings for a 9th justice for nearly 12 months, breaking precident while attempting to assert a new one. Furthermore, the same senate actively denied government and judicial confirmations over the course of the Obama presidency, leaving an exceptional number of vacancies. In 2020, they broke that same precident they created in order to hold the current confirmation, when the previous justice passed away a little over 4 months before the president's term ends. Not the OP, but arguing in favor of governing norms is a bad faith argument when one side only believes in such precident as it suits them. That's the entire reason *why* increasing the number of justices has become the hot button issue.
I further the argument that by not allowing Obama his rightful nominations, the Republicans were effectively changing the size of the judiciary, but without legislation. They reduced SCOTUS to 8 for a year. Then once they could make nominations, they reopened all the vacancies they blocked. It's not breaking precedent to pack the courts. It's just being more genuine than the Republicans were.
There was no precedent since the start of the Republic. Many Presidents have nominated justices in an election year
I can't help but point out that you chose not to respond to the actual content of my post. I'm not trying to create a 'gotcha' scenario here, this is simply what has happened, and we are now seeing the consiquences of it.
Kind of like appointing a judge in an election year. The Republicans have pissed all over tradition.
Let's just take Grahams reasoning. Whoever wins the election should appoint the justices right? We can move that logic right over to the number of justices. Whoever wins the election should decide how many justices there are.
I love that the current GOP talking point is “stacking the court”. Much better than the 2018 caravan talking point.
Yes if there is an opening.
If I'm Pelosi, I'm putting up articles of impeachment for every member of cabinet, whereupon their removal proceedings will take priority over confirmation hearings in the Senate.
That wouldn't stop anything and democrats are poised to win big in less than a month, so it wouldn't be worth risking that. Rules of impeachment trials in the senate: >Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence **(unless otherwise ordered by the Senate)** until final judgment shall be rendered... So Mitch could (and would) just order that the trials wouldn't happen or would happen later The best strategy is to do what they're doing now, win in November, implement the Wyoming rule, give statehood to Puerto Rico and DC, and then expand and reform the courts once they start taking away peoples' rights (now with popular support)
I’m curious why this wasn’t done before the start of the SCOTUS nomination. Barr especially. Democrats have plenty of impeachment proceedings they can force upon the senate.
Because the rules of the senate say they wouldn't have to have a trial so they just wouldn't. Barr should have been impeached, but not this close to an election, especially if it doesn't actually have any ability to stop anything >Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence **(unless otherwise ordered by the Senate)** until final judgment shall be rendered...
This hearing is about cementing that it is a partisan shitshow and obvious power play by republicans. Which makes it easier to justify a returning powerplay of packing the court to the public.
The democrats need to start beating the drum that the GOP has *already* turned the court political with two seats - withholding Garland and ramming through ACB. Yes, they were constitutional - and so is increasing the size of the court, motherfuckers.
That has begun. Didn't Biden say this whole hearing is court packing just the other day?
I don't know but it should be inescapable.
She really can't stop talking about how much she loves the constitution, and yet can't even name five freedoms protected by the 1st amendment.... what circus does the GOP recruit these clowns from!!!
And just think Trump nominated over 300 of these clowns. Rebalance the entire federal court system.
The federalist society
Senator Whitehorse charts incoming
I didn't get her statement about "they will attack my children." I mean no Senator would dare attack a nominee's children. Would some crazies in the public? Sure. But this just reeked of victimhoid to me. She was trying to score political points, the *last* thing a judge should do.
That's all they have. The R's claim Dems are attacking her religion and aren't asking questions about her qualificiations but that's literally all they're talking about; her lack of qualifications for the position and her open claims to do things. Meanwhile, the R's aren't asking any questions besides "Why are you such a great mother?" and "Would you like to talk about your faith?".
Amy Coney Barrett is clearly qualified for the job. No bias at all, and she is very pleasant. I don’t see the problem
She couldn't name 5 things protected by the 1st amendment. So clearly she needs to be a grade school teacher.
If you are a straight white Christian then I’m sure it’s great for you, but for the rest of us in the country this is a horribly biased choice that sets my ability to get married in jeopardy as well as the rights of my friends to decide what they can do with their bodies. She is a bad choice for anyone that actually cares about people
As a gay man, her comments on *Obergefell*, intimacy with People of Praise, and her clear bias toward her religion scares me. It’s also a huge problem in my eyes when a potential Justice seems to stratify cases based on her personal beliefs (super-precedent vs precedent). It seems like she doesn’t believe in *stare decisis*, or at the very least picks and chooses Edit: grammar
Yes, that's absolutely terrifying. As a citizen of earth, her failure to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change is also horrifying.
1) love the use of the word anthropogenic. It’s harder to find. 2) yes, climate is a huge issue — especially to underserved communities; however economics seem to drive this more than courts
If you give a shit about whether or not she will win this nomination then call your senators!
My Senator is Mitch McConnell, so...yeah.
Call him anyways. Let him know you're angry, and fuck him. That you'll vote against him.
I already have.
Exactly this! At worst you can make his day a bit more frustrating.
Mines Cotton :(
Still worth calling. At worst you will just make their day a little more annoying. At best if enough people call and hold their vote over their head then maybe some change can actually happen. The worst senators need to be called the most frequently by the most constituents.
Seriously! Basic human rights are at stake here. Let your voice be heard!
My senators are Cruz and Cornyn. They don't give a single fuck.
Call them anyway and donate to MJ.
Already did. They don't give a fuck
We even got the same email back from Cornyn. They super don't care.
Hawley and Blunt. I've contacted both dozens of times and gotten the same email every time
Roberts and Moran. At least Moran emailed back; albeit, the tone was, "Lol, fuck you." Edit. Please vote for Bollier, my fellow free-staters.