Trump to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg, sources say

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Right-wing, religious fruit cake.

Surlynot

And Ginsburg was not a left wing liberal zealot. 

That is the trouble with what has happened to the Supreme Court and Judges in general.  Given the same law the rulings should come down the same whether the judge is a liberal or a conservative.  However, judges Ginsburg included injected their own bias into ruling.  So calling Barrett a  right wing religious nut case is hypocrisy if you don't equally call Ginsburg a left wing liberal fruit cake. 

[connda]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

She is quoted on one instance as expressing very strong religious beliefs. She is quoted on another saying such should not effect rulings. There is no way to tell which statement would carry more weight when push comes to shove. I wouldn't say 'fear', but probably some reason for concern. At the very least, she ought to be confronted regarding where exactly she stands.

It's called a confirmation hearing.  Coming up...

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Notice that Ginsburg a flaming liberal was still voted in by 96 - 3 with one abstaining because the Senate found that she had the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice despite her liberal bias. 

What do you think the chances that Democrats will do the same for Barrett

 

Wasn't David Souter voted for with a similar majority? Nominated by Bush the Elder. Granted, his stance shifted over time, but as per the vote, pretty much the same, wasn't it?

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Surlynot

And Ginsburg was not a left wing liberal zealot. 

That is the trouble with what has happened to the Supreme Court and Judges in general.  Given the same law the rulings should come down the same whether the judge is a liberal or a conservative.  However, judges Ginsburg included injected their own bias into ruling.  So calling Barrett a  right wing religious nut case is hypocrisy if you don't equally call Ginsburg a left wing liberal fruit cake. 

 

Being a left wing liberal is not essentially at odds with the constitution. Same goes for holding right wing views. It depends on the context. Religion could be be different. I agree that 'fruit cake' isn't helpful, and unless someone really know how to make it well, a bit disgusting.

[simple1]

48 minutes ago, connda said:

It's called a confirmation hearing.  Coming up...

Is there a realistic chance Barrett will not be confirmed along party lines?

Edited September 26, 2020 by simple1

[Tchooptip]

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

It always is, and she's not just a mother, she's adopted several kids from Haiti and raises them as her own. By all metrics a good person. 

 

One of her kids has downs as well. All around good person. 

 

 

 

She is not a racist for sure!

[Emdog]

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004). During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law.

Obama would be a good choice for SC. One would hope he knows the subject

Trump's likely choice has been a judge for 3 years, reportedly never was in court as a lawyer

I don't know if she's "nice". Who cares how many kids she adopted? If that is criteria, then nominate Angelina Jolie....

[candide]

39 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004). During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law.

Obama would be a good choice for SC. One would hope he knows the subject

Trump's likely choice has been a judge for 3 years, reportedly never was in court as a lawyer

I don't know if she's "nice". Who cares how many kids she adopted? If that is criteria, then nominate Angelina Jolie....

That's precisely one if the key reasons why she may be chosen. She's relatively young (48), so she will be able to remain SC Judge for at least 30 years.

Edited September 26, 2020 by candide

[opalred]

he has had a few meetings with her /wanting her loyalty to him /when all his criminal court cases come after election

[Isaan sailor]

No doubt, Democrats will remain on their best behavior during the committee  hearing—just like they did for Judge Kavanaugh.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

No doubt, Democrats will remain on their best behavior during the committee  hearing—just like they did for Judge Kavanaugh.

Its their duty to question her. Or fo you think a justice for life should just be appointed.

 

If repubs do their job properly they will also question and challenge her. It is quite an important job.

[ncc1701d]

10 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Good point. Amy Coney Barrett is way too moderate. When I consider that Biden himself said he would nominate Obama for the supreme court if he is Potus(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html) which is the epitome of divisive impartiality, I would suggest Trump plays this ball with more snarl. Ted Cruz would work, Stephen Miller better, Judge Pirro? If they scream "impartiality" for no reason with Barrett, I say make them rush for their feinting couches.

 

Not sure the son of a man who was obviously involved in the assassination effort of President John F. Kennedy would be considered.

 

Fox News

[Surelynot]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

So whats your biggest fear with this constitutional  scholar?

Abortions will become illegal and 10's of thousands of women will/might die......?

[Surelynot]

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

No doubt, Democrats will remain on their best behavior during the committee  hearing—just like they did for Judge Kavanaugh.

Have you watch any of the recent enquiries and seen how the Republicans have behaved?.....Get a grip.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Abortions will become illegal and 10's of thousands of women will/might die......?

According to this article :

Cato Institute's Shapiro said that abortion backers should not worry about the chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned if Barrett is put on the court.

"She gave a lecture a few years ago at Jacksonville University saying that the core holding or Roe is unlikely to change. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-case-rulings

 

If I remember right  kavanaugh is unwilling to change roe v as well

 

It looks like your safe

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by riclag

[Rimmer]

A troll post and two replies removed

[RocketDog]

6 hours ago, connda said:

It's called a confirmation hearing.  Coming up...

It will be performed with the same careful deliberation as the impeachment trial was I'm sure. 

 

It could well drag on for several minutes before the vote is called. 

 

The outcome is a foregone conclusion. 

[Mama Noodle]

23 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

Pretty much the same as what Trump offers the Dems I would guess. What else would you expect? If you expect them to be any more civil than Trump is then you're dreaming. He has brought out the worst in people on both sides of the political spectrum. 

I just do not think going after a good person because “trump” is gonna do anything other than make people angry. 

[Thingamabob]

If the rumour is correct Amy Coney Barret is an excellent choice. She is a thoroughly good person, and highly intelligent and competent.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

I just do not think going after a good person because “trump” is gonna do anything other than make people angry. 

 

If by people you mean Trump supporters, then at worst (for the Democrats, that is) there might be a slight surge of them casting votes. Kinda doubt there will be a dramatic effect on Democrat voters, and the swing vote will probably balance out. Framing the confirmation hearing as holding some significant weight as far as support and voting goes doesn't sound like it's based on anything solid.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

If the rumour is correct Amy Coney Barret is an excellent choice. She is a thoroughly good person, and highly intelligent and competent.

 

But can she bake?

 

Seriously, being a 'good person' is a nice to have trait for this job, 'highly intelligent' almost goes without saying (jokes aside, most judges aren't daft), 'competent' I don't know what it means with regard to being a judge or a SC justice.

 

What's important is where she stands on major issues, whether she can separate between legal views and personal ones on said major issues, and whether she's got enough backbone to withstand pressures.

 

I don't know a whole lot about her, but she doesn't sound too bad - especially compared to the last one appointed. Granted, any confirmation process is bound to result in some digging up of stuff so who knows.

[Mama Noodle]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

If by people you mean Trump supporters, then at worst (for the Democrats, that is) there might be a slight surge of them casting votes. Kinda doubt there will be a dramatic effect on Democrat voters, and the swing vote will probably balance out. Framing the confirmation hearing as holding some significant weight as far as support and voting goes doesn't sound like it's based on anything solid.

I feel completely opposite. If they give ACB the Kavanaugh treatment (gang rape, or equivalent) it’ll have a negative impact on swing votes, and in that sense I welcome it. 

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

I don't know a whole lot about her, but she doesn't sound too bad - especially compared to the last one appointed.

There was nothing wrong with “the last one” other than the absurd nonsense the Dems made of the hearings. 
 

But like I said, let them have at it. The nastier they are the better it is for the right. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

I feel completely opposite. If they give ACB the Kavanaugh treatment (gang rape, or equivalent) it’ll have a negative impact on swing votes, and in that sense I welcome it. 

 

I seriously doubt she'll get the same treatment.

Was there such a negative effect following the last SC confirmation sessions?

 

[Mama Noodle]

Just now, Morch said:

I seriously doubt she'll get the same treatment.

Was there such a negative effect following the last SC confirmation sessions?

Last one wasn’t days away from the presidential election, taking the headlines away from covid and putting them on a woman who by all accounts is a poster for good American. 
 

I’m 100% positive the Dems will dump all over her. They can’t help it. No doubt they are gonna do something nasty. 

[Morch]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

There was nothing wrong with “the last one” other than the absurd nonsense the Dems made of the hearings. 
 

But like I said, let them have at it. The nastier they are the better it is for the right. 

 

It can be argued whether there was "nothing wrong". Doubt we need to rehash that. And doubt she'll be in for anything similar.

 

Does the closing remark work the other way around? Nastier Trump/supporters/Republicans help Democrat prospects?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

Last one wasn’t days away from the presidential election, taking the headlines away from covid and putting them on a woman who by all accounts is a poster for good American. 
 

I’m 100% positive the Dems will dump all over her. They can’t help it. No doubt they are gonna do something nasty. 

 

There will still be Covid figures, this or that milestone casualties. There will be debates. Trump will say or do something outrageous. A black person or a policeman will get shot. I don't think this is going to be that big a deal as you imagine.

 

And speaking of imagination, the second part of your post is.

[Mama Noodle]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There will still be Covid figures, this or that milestone casualties. There will be debates. Trump will say or do something outrageous. A black person or a policeman will get shot. I don't think this is going to be that big a deal as you imagine.

 

And speaking of imagination, the second part of your post is.

Then we disagree. Shocker. 
 

Black person will be (justifiably) shot and there will be “largely peaceful” riots. 
 

Everyone on planet earth knows Biden is losing his marbles and will bomb the debates, if he even nuts up and does them at all. This isn’t even debatable. 
 

Only the fringe cares anymore about covid. It’s been months of arresting business owners while allowing massive protests and riots (most expensive in America’s history) and dog and pony shows of public funerals with massive gatherings by the left, for bad people. 
 

You must think this is a shoe-in for Biden, and I wholly disagree. It’s gonna be close and it’s gonna be nasty and it’s gonna be contested because of unsolicited ballots - and who can we thank for that? You guessed it, Democrats. 
 

And on top of all that, Democrats are gonna put ACB through the ringer, publicly, 5 minutes before an election. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Then we disagree. Shocker. 
 

Black person will be (justifiably) shot and there will be “largely peaceful” riots. 
 

Everyone on planet earth knows Biden is losing his marbles and will bomb the debates, if he even nuts up and does them at all. This isn’t even debatable. 
 

Only the fringe cares anymore about covid. It’s been months of arresting business owners while allowing massive protests and riots (most expensive in America’s history) and dog and pony shows of public funerals with massive gatherings by the left, for bad people. 
 

You must think this is a shoe-in for Biden, and I wholly disagree. It’s gonna be close and it’s gonna be nasty and it’s gonna be contested because of unsolicited ballots - and who can we thank for that? You guessed it, Democrats. 
 

And on top of all that, Democrats are gonna put ACB through the ringer, publicly, 5 minutes before an election. 

 

The previous posts might have been a disagreement, the one you offer now is just out there.

 

Such nonsense as "everyone on planet earth knows", "isn't even debatable", "only the fringe cares anymore about covid" are not how things are outside of your echo chamber.

 

Nowhere in my posts have I said anything about this being a "shoe-in" for Biden. You've actually berated me not too long ago for NOT expressing confidence in this prospects. I think he might win, I think if he does it'll be with a narrower margin than it ought to be. Then again, he might very well loss. I hope not.

 

So again, you "disagree" with a straw-man position of your own making.

 

As for laying all the blame on the expected mess of the elections - given things were out in the open a long time now, shouldn't have Trump been a wee bit more proactive getting the Postal Service in shape? How about not causing more issues by making controversial statements? Or asking people to cast double votes?

 

The last bit, is your guess - I doubt it will be as you imagine, or that even so it will have a major effect.

[tomazbodner]

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

It always is, and she's not just a mother, she's adopted several kids from Haiti and raises them as her own. By all metrics a good person. 

 

One of her kids has downs as well. All around good person. 

 

 

 

She looks like a good person. But I personally think that she'd prefer to be nominated by a president after election to avoid the shadow of being appointed by Trump at the last minute, which would affect her credibility for many years to come.