Judge Amy Coney Barrett sounds like Trumps first nominee
she is fine
a catholic, mother of 7, great scholar
the only little tiny thing is that she seems to be against abortion
RBG passes away | Trump to nominate replacement soon
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
she is fine
a catholic, mother of 7, great scholar
the only little tiny thing is that she seems to be against abortion
Liberals now distraught that a right wing loon they thought was their "ally" is not their "ally" is perhaps the most hilarious and nauseated take of the trump presidency.
To be fair, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were qualified.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett sounds like Trumps first nominee
she is fine
a catholic, mother of 7, great scholar
the only little tiny thing is that she seems to be against abortion
She is definitely not fine. She is part of the cult that inspired The Handmaid's Tale, believes that all women should be subservient to men, wants church and state to be one so there will be a "kingdom of God" and... yeah. She will 100% be the next SCOTUS member and the complete antithesis to everything that RBG stood for.
Feck, knowing that show is just a tiny bit closer to reality than I thought brings a hell of an uneasy feeling.
I was being ironic Damien
RIP notorious RBG
Court packing won’t help the democrats. The senate is innately structurally against them and in general will remain so. All they do is set precedent for republicans to act in the same way. Electorally this is likely good for them, so they should keep their heads down and attack the gop/trump rather than currently proposing crazy shit as in this climate they can take the senate.
once they have the trifecta (presidency, both houses) they can move on some of the structural disadvantages by perhaps granting statehood (and 4 senators) to dc and Puerto Rico. Or consider other extreme boundary changes before altering the court. scotus is currently extremely powerful and would likely fight back. And Biden is (probably???) too centrist to do anything crazy compositionally.
people like status quo, and while most don’t want a return to segregation, roe vs wade overturned, or even the aca gutted, they also don’t want the court (A symbol of Americanism) altered.
ps. Looks like McConnell is 100% driving this. Makes no sense electorally to confirm before 3rd. They'll throw trump to the wolves, sacrifice the senate and hope the dems don’t retaliate too severely.
Court packing won’t help the democrats. The senate is innately structurally against them and in general will remain so. All they do is set precedent for republicans to act in the same way. Electorally this is likely good for them, so they should keep their heads down and attack the gop/trump rather than currently proposing crazy shit as in this climate they can take the senate.
once they have the trifecta (presidency, both houses) they can move on some of the structural disadvantages by perhaps granting statehood (and 4 senators) to dc and Puerto Rico. Or consider other extreme boundary changes before altering the court. scotus is currently extremely powerful and would likely fight back. And Biden is (probably???) too centrist to do anything crazy compositionally.
people like status quo, and while most don’t want a return to segregation, roe vs wade overturned, or even the aca gutted, they also don’t want the court (A symbol of Americanism) altered.
ps. Looks like McConnell is 100% driving this. Makes no sense electorally to confirm before 3rd. They'll throw trump to the wolves, sacrifice the senate and hope the dems don’t retaliate too severely.
Ya I agree with this take, although I am worried that SCOTUS will shoot down any basic reform that Dems push with a 6-3 distribution. Court packing does set a bad precedent but am worried that there is no other alternative. Another thing that the Dems can consider is to increase House seats.
To be honest everything about the American electoral system is a perversion of democracy. I'm not even talking about the fact that it's all set up to benefit the people at the very top of the social pyramid, but even your electoral college that favors the vote of one person in the middle of nowhere rather than 1000 people in a city. The electoral college is the biggest perversion of democracy in the world today.
Isn't the loss of balance in effect already? Trump already picked Gorsuch once and I suppose the best we can hope for is someone like him.
Yep that’s why they need to alter structurally before packing. I’m not a constitutional expert but to my knowledge, adding states to the union is one area where scotus are effectively kneecapped.
Its also interesting to think about it electorally; if scotus spend the next few years overturning norms and status quo’s which most Americans are opposed to (roe, brown, gun control etc) that will drive up support for packing and electoral support for Dems in the senate. That’s gonna hurt. Couple it with 4 extra blue senators and it’s shifting the sands.
replacing Scalia with Gorsuch and Kennedy with Kavanaugh barely shifted the court at all. (Kavanaugh will probably end up more liberal than Kennedy but who knows. Gorsuch is less liberal than kavanaugh)
Replacing RBG with Barrett or Lagoa is seismic.
stolen image from. 538
Cool homophobia
Arent supreme judges supposed to be impartial? What's with this liberal conservative crap?
It's like saying an epl ref is London biased. They might but it's not like you're gonna broadcast that in public.
It's acknowledging that your judges arent impartial.
It's like saying an epl ref is London biased. They might but it's not like you're gonna broadcast that in public.
It's acknowledging that your judges arent impartial.
"Introducing... Supreme Court Justice Linda McMaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahon"
*Smashes Roberts with steel chair, theme song starts
If judges are being appointed by politicians in a deeply divided country, of course, they won't be impartial.
I am surprised by people getting surprised that the GOP will try and push this through.
As I said earlier on the thread, it is guaranteed to happen.
Dems will fight between themselves and chicken out of retaliation, while this is the best time to do so.
I am surprised by people getting surprised that the GOP will try and push this through.
As I said earlier on the thread, it is guaranteed to happen.
Dems will fight between themselves and chicken out of retaliation, while this is the best time to do so.
RBG was 87 years old and dying. I am guessing she chose to go to this wedding knowing the risks.
Zero.
Some of the people in this thread are still in denial.
Well, we'd have to define 'decent', I guess.
It will be someone who believes women are inferior and abortion should be banned and ACA binned.
Yeah, I'd agree that that's not 'decent'.
Na there are increasing voices from moderate Dems that they are tired of this crap, expect them to talk safe until the election is over and then institute changes to counter this pick.
Are there any incentives for already appointed Judges in the supreme court to side with a political party after they've been appointed? I know the conservative judges are picked because their positions are more aligned with conservative positions but what incentive is there for someone like Gorsuch to let's say side with Trump if the election is contested?, With senators it's the fundraising and the re-elections that drive the decision to stick with the parties but Judges should at least be immune from that, right?
obungler does it again!
this is from 2010...
2014
from 2016
He had the senate from 2008 till 2014. Trump has had it for 3.5 years.
Yeah but "there are increasing voices from moderate Dems that they are tired of this crap". This time it's real charlie brown
Astronaut in space looking at the Earth dressed as the SC: “Wait, it’s all politicized?”
Astronaut behind him pointing gun: “Always was”
If you haven’t seen this meme, then, well.
Damn, so Obama wasn’t the best president then?
In the cold, hard light of day, Obama was a war president and 100% in bed with wall street. His campaign speeches were intoxicating but in hindsight were the high watermark of his career.
The moment he nominated Timothy Geithner was a crushing blow to those who had hoped that he was the real deal and a president of the people.
I wasn’t being serious
I’m in the same boat as you regarding him.But I’m not familiar with Timothy Geithner. Mind if I ask for a brief rundown on this character?
I wasn’t being serious
But I’m not familiar with Timothy Geithner. Mind if I ask for a brief rundown on this character?
I can’t comment on his character but you don’t make a Goldman Sachs insider Secretary of Treasury after campaigning with the promise of putting Main Street ahead of Wall Street. I knew then and there he wasn’t the real deal.
Last edited:
Judge Amy Coney Barrett sounds like Trumps first nominee
she is fine
a catholic, mother of 7, great scholar
the only little tiny thing is that she seems to be against abortion
Religious bias in this day and age is a bad mix with a judge.
Could someone more knowledgeable than me tell me why the following line of reasoning is wrong:
The Senate is split 53-45-2 (2 independents). They need 50 votes to confirm because Pence will split the tie. So let's assume Sanders and King (1 of the independents) won't confirm as they both caucus with the Democrats. Its now 53-47. So the Democrats would need to flip 4 votes. From what I've read a couple of Republican senators have said they wouldn't confirm this year and Romney I think won't either. It looks like it could quite quickly because 50-50. Is there no chance at all that a few Republican rebels hold this up?
The Senate is split 53-45-2 (2 independents). They need 50 votes to confirm because Pence will split the tie. So let's assume Sanders and King (1 of the independents) won't confirm as they both caucus with the Democrats. Its now 53-47. So the Democrats would need to flip 4 votes. From what I've read a couple of Republican senators have said they wouldn't confirm this year and Romney I think won't either. It looks like it could quite quickly because 50-50. Is there no chance at all that a few Republican rebels hold this up?
Romney will
Only two Senators have said they opposed filling the seat before the election and that is purely because they've been "allowed" to for the benefit of their next election campaigns. Like with the impeachment - Romney voted for it as it wouldn't change a thing. Just a day or two ago Romney supported a nomination prior to the election and in his latest rally, Trump thanked him for the support.
And because the two Senators opposed filling the seat before the election doesn't mean they wouldn't confirm when it gets to the floor, either.
Romney signed an amicus brief earlier this year urging the Supreme Court to consider overturning Roe v Wade (and has had that view going back to 2012 and beyond). He'll be all for the new judge as they will help fulfill that.
Not really. We have already seen Trump publicly bitching about Roberts, and apparently he has been very unhappy with some of Gorsuch’s rulings. So for elections, all bets are off (except Thomas being on the wrong side, that is the only certainty on life).
On the other hand, when it comes to ACA, abort etc, they will side with conservatives cause they hold those opinions.
I assume you are talking about Collins and Murkowski. To be fair, only Collins actually needs that for election and is allowed to do so.
Murkowski neither needs it, nor is actually very dependent on GOP. I think she is actually the only GOP senator who still has some principles (maybe Romney to some lesser degree). In fact, if she loses her seat, it will be from someone running to her right. But she has already been there, and despite losing the primaries (and GOP heavily investing on the guy who defeated her, despite she being incumbent) she still managed to win with write in voting. So I think she won’t vote because of principles, not because of being allowed so.
Just looked and she's said she won't rule out voting, so she doesn't have many principles.
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/0...ule-out-voting-for-trumps-supreme-court-pick/
No. It’s not electoral. Plenty of other purple senators who would benefit more if it was, and they wouldn’t waste 2/4 on Collins and Murkowski. The whole thing makes no sense electorally.
She might still vote, but if she declines it would be a matter of principles, not of being allowed from McConnell. After all she won’t go for re-election until 2022, comes from a red state, and the independents (and especially the Native people) seem to love her.
- Status