Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States



Graham with a Freudian slip.
 
That caught my attention too, but to be fair she has done very good during the hearings.
I’m following them through CSpan on youtube
And she named four of the freedoms and didnt remember the right to assembly

edit: not assembly, but protest
 
Last edited:
Marcosdeto said:
That caught my attention too, but to be fair she has done very good during the hearings.
I’m following them through CSpan on youtube
And she named four of the freedoms and didnt remember the right to assembly

edit: not assembly, but protest
Click to expand...

"Summer 2020, Amy. Just think of summer 2020"
 
nimic said:
87 years, Christ on a bike. There should be an age limit for something as important as the senate.
Click to expand...
She's been useless for years. She really should have stepped down years ago. Why she doesn't is telling.
 
thread:


and an article:
If Democrats take back the Senate, and Congress is in a position to pass climate legislation next year, it could include provisions in those laws that strip the courts’ ability to challenge them—a tool used commonly by the right. “The Constitution in Article 3 gives the Congress a huge amount of authority to set up the courts and structure their jurisdiction,” Moyn says. “If Congress says the courts can’t help certain kinds of litigants, then the courts are powerless. Liberals and the left should want to use that power.” Rethinking basic legal ideology for a new generation will take more time.

Traditionally, climate has been thought about in the realm of so-called social issues, floating above supposedly meatier subjects like trade and the economy. Neither the Koch brothers nor the Federalist Society tend to see it that way, and thanks to her training, Amy Coney Barrett probably won’t, either. For the government to keep working in a warmer world and stave off its worst effects, people like Barrett will need to have less power to obstruct life-saving policy—and law schools will have to produce many fewer people like her.
Click to expand...

https://newrepublic.com/article/159766/supreme-court-designed-kill-climate-policies
 
Raoul said:
Not really. Just wing win media stirring the pot. The entire three days of hearings went remarkably smoothly compared to Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
The media told Sen Kennedy about the boston professor calling her a white colonist for adopting two kids of color? Honest question.
And yes, it’s going smoothier than kavanaugh hearings but he harassed a former employee and “forgot” to tell that he was under investigation for misconduct
 
nimic said:
87 years, Christ on a bike. There should be an age limit for something as important as the senate.
Click to expand...

Couple more years and she will be old enough for a run at the presidency
 
Marcosdeto said:
things are getting ugly

Click to expand...

The Blaze as a reputable news source? These are the twats that gave Tomi fecking Lahren her springboard into the public consciousness. That alone puts them into the same batshit stratosphere as Newsmax & WND.
 
Marcosdeto said:
The blaze is just showing what a senator told ACB
That’s not a source
Click to expand...
Of course it’s a source, it is showing news, somewhat breaking news in this case.

Okay, for the semantically-focused among us, The Blaze is a dubious news platform due to the loons they have had on their site.
 
calodo2003 said:
Of course it’s a source, it is showing news, somewhat breaking news in this case.

Okay, for the semantically-focused among us, The Blaze is a dubious news platform due to the loons they have had on their site.
Click to expand...
Ok. Now i know that and I won’t argue it, i’m sure you know better
Anyway, in this case, they are just showing what a senator told ACB
So, the source is not the Blaze, but sen Kennedy
 
Marcosdeto said:
Ok. Now i know that and I won’t argue it, i’m sure you know better
Anyway, in this case, they are just showing what a senator told ACB
So, the source is not the Blaze, but sen Kennedy
Click to expand...
Again, for the semantically-focused among us, The Blaze is a news platform or a media source. My apologies for apparently violating a canon of the news industry.

Was what the senator asked ACB not newsworthy?
 
calodo2003 said:
Again, for the semantically-focused among us, The Blaze is a news platform or a media source. My apologies for apparently violating a canon of the news industry.

Was what the senator asked ACB not newsworthy?
Click to expand...
Mate, my english is not that good. But i think i understand your point. The Blaze is trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Is it that?
If that’s the case, my apologies.
 
nimic said:
87 years, Christ on a bike. There should be an age limit for something as important as the senate.
Click to expand...

The person she is interviewing will be appointed for life. The judge they’re replacing was a sitting judge till her death at the age of 87.
America definitely needs term limits for various government positions.
 
iKnowNothing said:
The person she is interviewing will be appointed for life. The judge they’re replacing was a sitting judge till her death at the age of 87.
America definitely needs term limits for various government positions.
Click to expand...

Something needs to be done but definitely no complete age ban. Some of the old folks serve as good reminders as well and can see history "repeating" itself.
 
One thing that amazes me is the importance that the judges have in the USA. In Argentina most people have no idea who are the SC judges.
But i just read an article in the NYT about ACB, were it says that in 2003 :eek:the SC ruled out state sodomy laws!!! :eek:
Of course, if you have such shit state laws, the SC decisions are paramount.
So the problem are not the SCOTUS, but the stupid state legislators.
 
Marcosdeto said:
One thing that amazes me is the importance that the judges have in the USA. In Argentina most people have no idea who are the SC judges.
But i just read an article in the NYT about ACB, were it says that in 2003 :eek:the SC ruled out state sodomy laws!!! :eek:
Of course, if you have such shit state laws, the SC decisions are paramount.
So the problem are not the SCOTUS, but the stupid state legislators.
Click to expand...
The real horror of the Trump administration is the hundreds of lower court judges that his admin has rammed through in copious numbers. Their vileness will inhabit this country for at least one full generation, of not more. These judges will negatively affect potentially many people more quickly than SCOTUS will.
 
calodo2003 said:
The real horror of the Trump administration is the hundreds of lower court judges that his admin has rammed through in copious numbers. Their vileness will inhabit this country for at least one full generation, of not more. These judges will negatively affect potentially many people more quickly than SCOTUS will.
Click to expand...
one senator today IIRC said that Trump appointed over 100 lower court judges, non of them were black and only 20 percent weren't white -i guess latinos and asians-.
But seriously, judges work with the laws that the legislature provides, and for what i see some state legislatures have very shit laws
 
Marcosdeto said:
But seriously, judges work with the laws that the legislature provides, and for what i see some state legislatures have very shit laws
Click to expand...

same law can be interpreted very differently. for example, 5 supreme court judges thought that a state cannot ban guns and 4 thought it can. 5 thought that votes should not be re-counted in florida and 4 thought they should, and so whoever was ahead at the point (George Bush) won.
all 5 were appointed by republicans. it is not a coincidence.
 
berbatrick said:
same law can be interpreted very differently. for example, 5 supreme court judges thought that a state cannot ban guns and 4 thought it can. 5 thought that votes should not be re-counted in florida and 4 thought they should, and so whoever was ahead at the point (George Bush) won.
all 5 were appointed by republicans. it is not a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Those are examples of comstitutional law, and of course, you are right

but when in 2003 you still had a state that punish sodomy, and enforces it, the problem is greater than you think and the judicial labor becomes too important

edit. On second thought i don’t know if the bush v gore ruling was about constitutional law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.