Trump rejoices as Senate panel approves Barrett while Democrats boycott

[Scott]

A post with unsubstantiated claim and replies reported and removed.  

 

[herfiehandbag]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While I would have worded it differently, I could have written something along the same lines.

Of course the senate GOP are going to put someone allied to their philosophy in the SCOTUS given the opportunity. That's only to be expected in politics. As Mitch said on tv, if the shoe were on the other foot the Dems would do exactly the same thing.

That is of course true, however the Republican Senates refusal to consider President Obama's Supreme Court "pick" because it was an election year does introduce an element of perhaps "jaw dropping hypocrisy" to the whole business.

 

What it does, I think, demonstrate is that the selection of justices for the Supreme Court in the USA has now become so politicised that the idea of separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government has gone for a Burton! Certainly, if one looks at Mrs Barrett, she is hardly being appointed as the result of a long and glittering career practising as a lawyer or as a judge!

[hugocnx]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

You cannot prove your statement at this very moment. The next election will prove you wrong.

[Nout]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

Not true. 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

It is interesting to note that if Barrett gets confirmed to the Supreme Court before the election, this can actually sway some voters to either vote for Biden or not vote at all. I saw a video of one swing voter that stated that if Barrett gets confirmed, he will most likely vote for Biden as the Supreme Court pick has been settled and that is no longer a factor in his vote. I also believe that if Barrett gets the SCOTUS seat, a number of Donald leaning voters might just decide there is no longer a good enough reason to vote for him and just decide to no longer vote at all.

 

So if Republicans push to get Barrett seated, this can actually work in Biden's favor as the SCOTUS seat is no longer an issue for conservative voters who might decide to either not vote or vote for Biden. Not exactly what McConnell is hoping for but I assume McConnell would rather have the SCOTUS seat filled than either the presidency or Senate control.

Assuming Barrett is confirmed on Monday, Trump has managed to do what is more important for the future of the US than anything else he has achieved during his first term.

Good result and during his next term he may even get to nominate more conservative judges to the SCOTUS.

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assuming Barrett is confirmed on Monday, Trump has managed to do what is more important for the future of the US than anything else he has achieved during his first term.

Good result and during his next term he may even get to nominate more conservative judges to the SCOTUS.

He hasnt acheived anything.

 

And his court pics are easily nullified.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Nout said:

Not true. 

Depends which polling organisation one accepts as reasonable e.g.

 

Americans are split on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, with 46% saying they do not want the Senate to send her to the high court and 42% saying the Senate should confirm her in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

[simple1]

@topdeadsenter. Don't mind from time to time, but rather than posting sneering emoji as a common practice by you (stalking?), at least try and refute with facts from credible source/s.

Edited October 23, 2020 by simple1

[Scott]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

@topdeadsenter. Don't mind from time to time, but rather than posting sneering emoji as a common practice by you (stalking?), at least try and refute with facts from credible source/s.

 

Stalking members, including with consistent posting of emoticons from one topic to the next is stalking and violates the following rule:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[tilaceer]

19 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

They need to put an end to these partisan appointments, irrespective which party is in power.

Even a blind man could see what Trump is up to, and this will possibly lead to Biden adding more judges to even the political balance of the court. On it goes.

They need to introduce a pool of judges who are selected at random from the appelate courts and have a term limit to serve as a justice.

[Phoenix Rising]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assuming Barrett is confirmed on Monday, Trump has managed to do what is more important for the future of the US than anything else he has achieved during his first term.

What's that, assuring that the SC will be expanded and that the SC nomination process will be politically utterly toxic for the foreseeable future?

[Nout]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

He hasnt acheived anything.

 

And his court pics are easily nullified.

He has achieved more for the USA in 4 years than  biden

 did in 47 years 

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Highly partisan comment, not agreed with by the majority of US voters.

Not sure what happened with you post but thats not my post you quoted. Maybe a quote malfunction.

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, Nout said:

He has achieved more for the USA in 4 years than  biden

 did in 47 years 

Your interpretation of the word ‘achieved’ is interesting.

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Not sure what happened with you post but thats not my post you quoted. Maybe a quote malfunction.

 

OK, just checked don't know how, but an error on my part

Edited October 24, 2020 by simple1

[xylophone]

29 minutes ago, Nout said:

He has achieved more for the USA in 4 years than  biden

 did in 47 years 

I'm not sure that I understand this "achieved" bit?

 

Sure enough his achievements include being responsible for over 220,000 Americans dying from a virus which he initially stated was totally under control and would go away in April – – some achievement.

 

Taking billions from the state coffers to build a wall which his own administration has said will not help at all in stopping the influx of illegal immigrants.

 

Making enemies of many long-time allies.

 

Starting a trade war with China which has negatively impacted the American consumer.

 

The same with the NAFTA agreement which has done next to "stuff all" to help Americans, apart from making goods imported from Mexico more expensive for the American folk.

 

And the list could go on, but it it is a Herculean task trying to show trump supporters about his shortcomings, because their dear cult leader cannot be wrong, and whilst they see a saviour and a knight in shining armour, others see him for what he is; a spoilt, ignorant, lying poor excuse for a man, who has no problem with calling Americans who died in the armed forces, "losers".

 

A totally despicable creature.

[rabas]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Depends which polling organisation one accepts as reasonable e.g.

 

Americans are split on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, with 46% saying they do not want the Senate to send her to the high court and 42% saying the Senate should confirm her in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

 

Depends on when!

 

My poll is much newer from after the confirmation hearings, and from center-left Politico.

 

Your old Oct 1 poll is from hard left CNN, rated two levels below Politico in factual reporting.

 

So, America wants Ami. What a cutie pie.

21 hours ago, rabas said:

Latest ...    Poll: Majority says Senate should confirm Amy Coney Barrett

 

"51 percent, think the Senate should vote to confirm her nomination, far greater than the 28 percent who say the Senate should vote not to confirm her."

 

"just 24 percent of voters say Congress should pass a law increasing the number of justices."

 

Will Biden pack the courts against a strong American will?

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by rabas

[Kelsall]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assuming Barrett is confirmed on Monday, Trump has managed to do what is more important for the future of the US than anything else he has achieved during his first term.

Good result and during his next term he may even get to nominate more conservative judges to the SCOTUS.

Barrett's confirmation and Trump's reelection are now slam dunks.  I'm not sure who will be the next liberal SCOTUS judge to vacate his/her seat, but 82 yo Breyer and Sotomayer would be candidates IMO.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Kelsall

[Boon Mee]

16 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Barrett's confirmation and Trump's reelection are now slam dunks.  I'm not sure who will be the next liberal SCOTUS judge to vacate his/her seat, but 82 yo Breyer and Sotomayer would be candidates IMO.

That's excellent news! ????

[simple1]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Depends on when!

 

My poll is much newer from after the confirmation hearings, and from center-left Politico.

 

Your old Oct 1 poll is from hard left CNN, rated two levels below Politico in factual reporting.

 

So, America wants Ami. What a cutie pie.

 

Will Biden pack the courts against a strong American will?

 

 

I assume you're American to describe CNN as 'hard left'. However, opinion based reporting has bias one way or the other according to the author. Regards CNN news reporting the media bias organisation used by many of this forum describes CNN as "news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks" CNN polling was by a third party (New format of the response template is irritating)

 

I do note the latest polling I can locate shows Barrett appointment now supported by a 1% majority.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/10/20/poll-51-of-voters-support-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation/#189690db4724

 

Our preferences in women differ, wouldn't describe an ultra conservative right winger as 'cute'.

 

Hopefully, Biden with facility a balanced Supreme Court, not one that is stacked with the intent to support the hard right agenda. Personally I don't trust Barrett's disclaimers given her dedication to evangelical Catholicism. In fact I don't think anyone with strong religious views should be on the Supreme Court. I don't believe they can separate their religious ideology from decision making on Law effecting the whole of society.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by simple1

[placeholder]

Just wait until she votes to overturn the previous gay marriage decision of the supreme court. 2 of the justices who voted against the decision are still there. 2 of the justices who voted in favor are gone. All have since been replaced by conservative judges. Gorsuch would probably vote to uphold the decision. But Kavanaugh almost certainly not. And Barrett is as close to a definite "no" as you can get give her past affiliations with vehemently anti-gay groups.

 

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Barrett's confirmation and Trump's reelection are now slam dunks.  I'm not sure who will be the next liberal SCOTUS judge to vacate his/her seat, but 82 yo Breyer and Sotomayer would be candidates IMO.

Yes Barrett will be confirmed but it doesn't follow 45 will win. He possibly may but the odds are against him.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

I assume you're American to describe CNN as 'hard left'. However, opinion based reporting has bias one way or the other according to the author. Regards CNN news reporting the media bias organisation used by many of this forum describes CNN as "news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks" CNN polling was by a third party (New format of the response template is irritating)

 

I do note the latest polling I can locate shows Barrett appointment now supported by a 1% majority.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/10/20/poll-51-of-voters-support-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation/#189690db4724

 

Our preferences in women differ, wouldn't describe an ultra conservative right winger as 'cute'.

 

Hopefully, Biden with facility a balanced Supreme Court, not one that is stacked with the intent to support the hard right agenda. Personally I don't trust Barrett's disclaimers given her dedication to evangelical Catholicism. In fact I don't think anyone with strong religious views should be on the Supreme Court. I don't believe they can separate their religious ideology from decision making on Law effecting the whole of society.

 

The difference between the 51% who said yes she should confirmed and the 28% who said no is 21%. The rest had no opinion. Your 1% avoids the the story.

 

Your fact check.  I provided a link to the same https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn.  To clear confusion, let me show the full paragraph from where you cherry picked the black part. Emphasis mine.

 

"Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts.  However, news reporting on the *website* tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."

 

Re: religion. Evangelical refers christians, sometimes meaning not catholic. Anyway, I doubt the media mentioned that when Ami is confirmed, the SC will have six (6) catholic judges and a 7th who was raised catholic and is now Episcopalian. The rest are Jewish. [ref] So take heart, there is only one evangelical, the Episcopalian.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by rabas

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

 

Re: religion. Evangelical refers christians, sometimes meaning not catholic. Anyway, I doubt the media mentioned that when Ami is confirmed, the SC will have six (6) catholic judges and a 7th who was raised catholic and is now Episcopalian. The rest are Jewish. [ref] So take heart, there is only one evangelical, the Episcopalian.

 

People of Praise, the sect to which Judge Barrett belongs is an apostolate in the catholic church:

Seems extremely evangelical to me.

Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.

An apostolate is a Christian organization "directed to serving and evangelizing the world", most often associated with the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church.^[1] In more general usage, an apostolate is an association of persons dedicated to the propagation of a religion or a doctrine. 

 

Seems extremely evangelical to me.

Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

People of Praise, the sect to which Judge Barrett belongs is an apostolate in the catholic church:

Seems extremely evangelical to me.

Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.

An apostolate is a Christian organization "directed to serving and evangelizing the world", most often associated with the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church.^[1] In more general usage, an apostolate is an association of persons dedicated to the propagation of a religion or a doctrine. 

 

Seems extremely evangelical to me.

Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.

They also encourage speaking in tongues, which is characteristic of certain Protestant evangelicals.

Haven't been able to determine yet if they also practice snake handling.

If Judge Barrett wasn't involved with this, I don't think most reasonable people would hesitate to call it a cult.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by placeholder

[tilaceer]

7 hours ago, Nout said:

That is what effectively is the current system and it works fine

It not the current system which obviously does not work fine.
 

Currently the President nominates to suit his political agenda and the appointment is for life.
How in any context is that similar to a system where the Justices are randomly selected from a pool of appellate judges by an independent panel for a fixed term where, upon expiry of that term, they return to the appellate ????????

Edited October 24, 2020 by tilaceer

[ThailandRyan]

7 hours ago, xylophone said:

I'm not sure that I understand this "achieved" bit?

 

Sure enough his achievements include being responsible for over 220,000 Americans dying from a virus which he initially stated was totally under control and would go away in April – – some achievement.

 

Taking billions from the state coffers to build a wall which his own administration has said will not help at all in stopping the influx of illegal immigrants.

 

Making enemies of many long-time allies.

 

Starting a trade war with China which has negatively impacted the American consumer.

 

The same with the NAFTA agreement which has done next to "stuff all" to help Americans, apart from making goods imported from Mexico more expensive for the American folk.

 

And the list could go on, but it it is a Herculean task trying to show trump supporters about his shortcomings, because their dear cult leader cannot be wrong, and whilst they see a saviour and a knight in shining armour, others see him for what he is; a spoilt, ignorant, lying poor excuse for a man, who has no problem with calling Americans who died in the armed forces, "losers".

 

A totally despicable creature.

And you truly believe that just one man could have save countless lives.  If you believe that then there is definitely something wrong with everyone else not doing there part as well.  He must be superman, able to leap tall buildings, and to crush crime and everything else in your world view.  It takes everyone pulling together.  The Dems and the republicans never learn, and are always putting there beliefs ahead of what truly needs to be done.  Then you have States rights and the Governors doing there own thing regardless of what the federal government says.  Can you see how ludicrous your view truly is.  One man or woman can not right the ill's of the country no matter who they may be.

[tilaceer]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

That's excellent news! ????

It is also wishful thinking.

[placeholder]

Just now, ThailandRyan said:

And you truly believe that just one man could have save countless lives.  If you believe that then there is definitely something wrong with everyone else not doing there part as well.  He must be superman, able to leap tall buildings, and to crush crime and everything else in your world view.  It takes everyone pulling together.  The Dems and the republicans never learn, and are always putting there beliefs ahead of what truly needs to be done.  Then you have States rights and the Governors doing there own thing regardless of what the federal government says.  Can you see how ludicrous your view truly is.  One man or woman can not right the ill's of the country no matter who they may be.

Please. The president had plenty of executive powers to greatly mitigate the effects of the pandemic. He could have invoked the Defense Act to compell companies to manufacture all the PPE equipment which was in such short supply. He could have supported the scientists instead of politicizing and opposing the measures needed to subdue the pandemic. There are lots of issues in which a President's power is very limited. This isn't one of them.

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, tilaceer said:

It is also wishful thinking.

It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that she will be voted into the position she was nominated and passed through committee for.  She is qualified in every aspect.  She may not be what some want, but can she do the job as a conservative Judge following in the footsteps of her mentor, the answer is yes she can.  The Dems do not like this and they are already making preconceived guesses about how she will vote on certain hearings schedule before SCOTUS.  That my friend is call prejudice and is a true statement.