U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court pick Barrett in nearly party-line vote

[Phoenix Rising]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't get Schumer's statement.  The Democrats have never granted the Republicans credibility so how can Schumer and the Dems give something back that was never given in the first place.  Makes no sense.

Your post makes no sense. There once was something called bipartisanship until the loonies started infesting the GOP. It's obviously been a gradual process but IMO right around Tea Party time would be a considered a good starting point wrt the rapid decline of the GOP.

Now, of course, they're a bunch of spineless maggots totally beholden to trump and his political filth and there's no coming back from this. Nothing but a complete purge of all trump related garbage can give the GOP any chance of ever becoming a serious contender in future national elections. Simple demographics dictate it.

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Your post makes no sense. There once was something called bipartisanship until the loonies started infesting the GOP. It's obviously been a gradual process but IMO right around Tea Party time would be a considered a good starting point wrt the rapid decline of the GOP.

Now, of course, they're a bunch of spineless maggots totally beholden to trump and his political filth and there's no coming back from this. Nothing but a complete purge of all trump related garbage can give the GOP any chance of ever becoming a serious contender in future national elections. Simple demographics dictate it.

I'll decline to reply to such a hate filled post.  I thought the Dems would unite all Americans?

[Jonnapat]

Susan Collins obviously only voted against because her Senate seat is under threat.

As for Barrett, you only have to look at her CV to see that she doesn't have the necessary qualifications for the job and is simply a convenient political appointment 

[TKDfella]

These Americans...what is all the fuss about. One lot celebrating like new year party has already started ????, the other lot with their bottom lip dragging on the floor????. It's just another day at the office chaps...the world will keep on turning in usual way...and if it doesn't...? Calm down, get over it...whatever, and move on.

[earlinclaifornia]

9 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

WRONG

[Kelsall]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Warning to ever-trumpers: 

Chuck is coming for you. First say bye-bye to the filibuster then hello to an expanded SC. Hopefully we will be able to greet Justices Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley just to see the faces of the trump base!????

 

''You will never, never get your credibility back': Schumer warns GOP that they have no right to tell Democrats how to run things when they're the majority after Barrett's confirmation'

Cryin' Chuck.

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll decline to reply to such a hate filled post.  I thought the Dems would unite all Americans?

"All" Americans probably only applies to those with the correct political attitude. After all, are not the opposition "deplorable"?

[Phoenix Rising]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll decline to reply to such a hate filled post.  I thought the Dems would unite all Americans?

"I'll decline to reply to such a hate filled post."

You just did.

 

"I thought the Dems would unite all Americans?"

All Americans? A certain subset is a completely lost cause and definitively not worth the effort.

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Your post makes no sense. There once was something called bipartisanship until the loonies started infesting the GOP. It's obviously been a gradual process but IMO right around Tea Party time would be a considered a good starting point wrt the rapid decline of the GOP.

Now, of course, they're a bunch of spineless maggots totally beholden to trump and his political filth and there's no coming back from this. Nothing but a complete purge of all trump related garbage can give the GOP any chance of ever becoming a serious contender in future national elections. Simple demographics dictate it.

Two words - Anger management......

[Phoenix Rising]

22 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Cryin' Chuck.

Ah, those stinging and intelligent nicknames that really show how mature you guys are. Hats off!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Two words - Anger management......

Yes. Someone needs to have a cup of tea and a lie down.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Two words - Anger management......

Anger? Sure there's some of that but mainly it's utter disgust.

[JulesMad]

10 hours ago, sanbyran said:

A great day for america.

Indeed, america joining banana-republic countries... going back to the middle ages, burning witches and KKK is the next step ????

[JulesMad]

10 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

And for those who think she is a Zealot, well then I feel sorry for you but then you are allowed your view, it is what makes it a free country.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-confirms-barrett-to-supreme-court-cementing-its-conservative-majority/ar-BB1apNhG?ocid=msedgdhp

usa, a free country?!? Yes, only as long as you agree with the ruling class ????

[Morch]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Looking at it from Graham's and McConnell perspective 

Graham came at the acceptance  of her two fold. One was as a constitutional  originalist, which many conservatives agree . The other approach was revenge and spite for how they treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation !

 

Mitch had a similar approach but took the controversy of him as leader of the senate denying obamas choice while explaining ,the senate and the executive branch at that time weren't of the same political  party!

 

And know today they are, with Mr. Trump and the Senate Gop in majority!

 

I think she was the best choice out of the 3 Mr. Trump nominated! 

Good for you Mr. President ,America knows what you stand for ,I can't say the same of the radical left!

 

 

 

Don't know how to break it to you, so might as well just say it - the 'radical left'? They are Americans too.

And while you may imagine you speak for 'America', actual Americans hold differing views regarding the President, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll decline to reply to such a hate filled post.  I thought the Dems would unite all Americans?

 

Coming from someone who himself posts hate filled posts, and clicks 'like' and 'thanks' to those made by others (so long as they align with his politics), about as disingenuous as they come.

[flexomike]

10 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

not all their was one vote from the Republican from Maine that voted against it

[bkk6060]

One of the biggest issue seems to be Roe vs. Wade.

Around 800,000 abortions are performed in the US each year.

Just about every Christian or Republican you ask will tell you they are pro life. They try to profess that only a godless Democrat would have an abortion.

Yet, over 70% of these so called baby killers identify themselves as "Christian" during the pre-abort interview.

 

The hypocrisy of these people is appalling and disgusting.

Be careful what you wish for and good luck taking your Christian teenage daughter to some foreign country, Mexico or some underground clinic. 

 

[wwest5829]

12 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Another fantastic achievement by President Trump. This saga illustrates the danger of ego. Had RBG been thinking clearly she could have resigned under Obama's reign and had some progressive judge voted in, but no...

Not necessarily as the Republican majority Senate refused to hold hearings or vote on the nomination of Justice Merrick Garland.

[wwest5829]

8 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Such nice beliefs you have, and painting not all but most Republicans with the same broad stroke of your brush...Wow. Glad you have polled all republicans.

Does not matter that all republicans embrace this outlook. All Americans are now subject to the purposely appointed SCOTUS rulings.

[rabas]

46 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Not necessarily as the Republican majority Senate refused to hold hearings or vote on the nomination of Justice Merrick Garland.

That was a lame duck presidency, which guaranteed a new sitting president in January. As Mitch McConnell had stated.

 

Besides, Democrats wouldn't have the required votes in the ultra partisan atmosphere downwind of Harry Reid's nuclear option to shamelessly stack the DC circuit court with politicly favourable judges.

 

Stacking the D.C. Circuit

 

Majority Leader Reid made clear his designs to switch the majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The dwindling caseload on the D.C. Circuit, however, does not warrant the confirmation of more judges to that court. So why the insistence on adding judges to a court that doesn’t need it? Simple: President Obama and his political allies do not like many of the recent decisions handed down by the court, and they recognize that changing the majority of the court will stop such decisions and cement his agenda.

 

Politics in the courts courtesy of the Democrats.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by rabas

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

.

Best post you have made.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts removed. 

 

[MaxYakov]

'A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. The president has asked me to become the 9th justice and as it happens, I’m used to being in a group of nine, my family.'

 

- Associate Justice Amy Barrett's Acceptance Speech

[LiamB80]

The smartest statement Obama said was “elections have consequences”. Legitimacy flows from the constitution, not from democrats feelings.

[xofswen]

10 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Now that the supreme court is packed with conservative judges, will they push their political activism agenda and ban prostitution, alcohol, gay marriages. Geez that will be almost like the sharia law. That's not very progressive.

And when did this SC packing occur exactly? I think you are confused about this concept. Do you know the meaning of court packing, or court stacking? And sharia?? C'mon man.

Edited October 27, 2020 by xofswen

[wwest5829]

On 10/27/2020 at 8:12 AM, ThailandRyan said:

And for those who think she is a Zealot, well then I feel sorry for you but then you are allowed your view, it is what makes it a free country.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-confirms-barrett-to-supreme-court-cementing-its-conservative-majority/ar-BB1apNhG?ocid=msedgdhp

Happy see you support whistleblowers and that they are protected ...

[Thingamabob]

On 10/27/2020 at 8:21 AM, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Democrat Party started the "judicial wars" 30 years ago by not seating Robert Bork on the Supreme Court...the Republican Party ended them by seating Amy Barrett. The moral: Don't start something you can't finish.

Well said.

[RocketDog]

On 10/27/2020 at 8:33 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

A major victory at any time. Well done Trump for nominating this excellent candidate for SCOTUS. Win or lose the election, Trump has secured his legacy.

 

No doubt he will be remembered. But not in a good way. 

[mtraveler]

Several people have noted this is payback for Bork being voted down.  A few historical facts:

 

Bork was the person who fired Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre during Nixon's Presidency.  He did so after the Attorney General  and Deputy Attorney General refused to do so.  I think that's pretty disqualifying.    

 

Bork also was on record condemning parts of the Civil Rights Act, and defending Jim Crow Era Poll Taxes.  So, I think based on these facts, there was good reason to reject him. (Six Republicans voted no.)  After Bork was rejected, Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, and was approved unanimously.  After that, Souter also got unanimous approval.  So, it's not like the Democrats were just rejecting for no reason.  

 

The point is that Bork was a problematic nomination, and there is no equivalency between him and any other nominee.  

 

As to Amy Coney Barrett being the bookend for the Bork rejection, what about Garland?  Should that have not evened the score?  Is Bork the excuse the Republicans will use for or against every Supreme Court nomination for the next 100 years?