The Supreme Court hearings...a farce.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by kungfuliberal, Oct 18, 2020.

  1. TheImmortal

    TheImmortal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    11,868
    Likes Received:
    2,863
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or Kamalas parents for that matter
     
    Gatewood, squidward, vman12 and 2 others like this.
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statement necessitates that she had some reason to lie, but did not let herself get into a situation where she needed to.
    The obvious questions:
    What lie(s)?
    How do you know?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  3. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This whole thing is the result of the insanely bipartisan political world we live in now. It wasn't like this up until a few years ago. Supreme Court Justices had little issue being confirmed regardless of who held the Senate and their own ideologies in the past but now we are forced to play this dog and pony show during hearings. Nominee's in the past weren't subjected to a ridiculous bombardment of questions like this in order to smear them for political reasons but since we live in a crazy time ACB is forced to be a "politician" and put on the poker face.

    Civility is long dead in the realm of current American politics. This is the new normal, expect this sort of treatment towards any nominee in the future during hearings regardless of which party holds office.
     
    Gatewood, 10A and joesnagg like this.
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you fall for the same scare tactic the left has thrown up for every Republican-nominated USSC justice since Roe.
    It's been 45 years - why is Roe still sound?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  5. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,909
    Likes Received:
    1,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The left only offers fear tactics. Their ideas can’t stand on their own merits.
     
  6. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    She served as a handmaid in some religious group for some years. A handmaid is one who is subservient to men.

    It's probably not much, and I'm not dwelling on it; it is just kind of creepy. I'm not suggesting it doesn't make her qualified. I'm not thrilled with the pick, but whatever.

    I was hopeful, after the Gorsuch nomination, that Trump would make some excellent picks. I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh, and she is more like a "meh/whatever," type of pick.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  7. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh c'mon - the right engages in scare tactics just as much.

    ZOMG illegals! ZOMG Mexicans! ZOMG Muslims! ZOMG socialists!

    All partisans do it, and it sucks.
     
  8. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the info, I hope she got over it, no one needs to be subservient to anyone.
     
  9. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's been my experience that SCOTUS nominees always give vague answers and the Senate, whichever party opposes the nomination, always tries to ask gotcha questions. Most of the time the questions are theatrical in nature as they already know how the nominee is going to respond. They know because that SCOTUS nominee has already been thoroughly been vetted due to past appointments where they had to go through the same process. Which is probably the reason for the monotone (though I wouldn't describe it as such).

    Did you know that I've been watching past videos of her previous confirmation hearing before the Senate? Rhetorical question of course. Its point is to point you towards those videos. Found em on YT. You should look them up and watch em. They're not that much different than what was seen in these hearings. Though they attacked her religion more in those. They avoided it this time because people are far more interested in watching a SCOTUS nomination.
     
  10. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is exactly how it should be. These are Judges about to be appointed to the highest court of the land. It would be irresponsible for any of them to answer questions about how they would rule on a theoretical case without having evidence presented. I don't think anybody wants a Judge that would give a ruling on a case in 10 seconds without hearing any arguments regarding it.
     
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, handmaid refers to "Handmaid of the Lord" which was the title given to the Mother Mary
     
  12. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    9,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it's fiction, but based largly on the deeply fundamentalist Agnus Dei sect of Catholicism with which the author was familiar. Amy Coney Barret is a member of that sect, or so I've read.

    I've nothing against her personally, I'm sure she's a very nice woman, loving mom, etc. I just don't like justices or even high-ranking politicians who have openly expressed such extreme religious views. Their personal beliefs always enter into their decisions on specific cases or issues, no matter how hard they try to stay neutral.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  13. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    9,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know her reasons. I just know a well-rehearsed interview when I see one.

    If she had nothing to hide, why was she so cagy about certain answers, like the examples I described previously on this thread? She's an appeals court judge, she should know whether or not there is a law against a president postponing or rescheduling and election, or whether or not it's against the law to intimidate or harass voters at or near polling places. No one was asking for a decision, just whether or not she knew those laws existed. So why wouldn't she answer? Instead, she went into the same monotonal sphiel about how she would have to hear from the litigants, etc. I just don't trust her.
     
  14. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    9,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet in so many states, they've whittled away at the edges of it, making it as difficult as possible for women to access medical providers. There's even boilerplate state legislation that several states have tailored and used, provided by an organization called ALEC.

    Roe v Wade was only peripherally about abortion. The decision is based in part on the 4th Amendment and in large part on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It's about the right to privacy and autonomy in one's personal affairs.

    Like her or not, Amy Coney Barrett has often expressed her view that Roe was incorrectly decided. It's the single issue closest to her heart. Her views on abortion are deeply religious in nature. As a judge, she may try to be neutral, but I don't trust that she'll succeed. If a case comes before the SCOTUS that lends itself to her interpretation of what she has called a flawed decision, Roe could be overturned, stripping those 14th Amendment rights from all women of child bearing age.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  15. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    9,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've seen some of it. Questioning whether or not an openly deeply religious judge can remain true to the law and not her religious beliefs is not an attack. It's an important question.
     
  16. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's an attack when the question is asked many times over with different wording. Some of it in a tone of derision at best.
     
  17. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree.. those hearings ARE a farce.. the Senate should have just confirmed her..

    I have a little less respect for the Turtle pulling this deep stater tactic for putting us thru this.. his motives are questionable.. he certainly could not have tho't the Dems would like him more.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  18. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the Catholic church is not an extreme religious view
     
  19. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's wrong to be the smartest legal mind in the room, and to make the dems look like the petty self-serving politicians that they are.
     
    ToddWB, TheImmortal and vman12 like this.
  20. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe you could get a copy of her yearbook and look for some Devil's Triangle references.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  21. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Thank you for the clarification.
     
    struth likes this.
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't know why she would lie, and you don't know what she would lie about, and you don't know what that lie would be - you just know she managed to "avoid" lying.
    Compelling.
    You mean not addressing he position on hypothetical cases?
    Have you paid attention to any other USSC confirmation hearing, or is this your first?
    For your education:
    https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule
     
    vman12 and ToddWB like this.
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for confirming that you -have- fallen for 45 years of liberal scare tactic.
    Roe is open to legitimate criticism, both the left ad the right have criticized it, and ACB is --nowhere-- near unique in her position regarding same.
     
    vman12 and ToddWB like this.
  24. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    She has a long history of Layton disregard of the Constitution in rulings as a judge.

    She calls himself an originalist but her version of originalism is anything that she likes is original intent and anything that she doesn't like is unconstitutional.
     
    Sleep Monster and kungfuliberal like this.
  25. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    9,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice job of piece-mealing my post. What's your deal? I keep trying to be civil with you, and you keep replying with snide remarks and my words taken out of context. Why is that?

    Don't try to school me, please. It's arrogant. I'm entitled to my opinion on Barrett, and I came by that opinion through research and thoughtfulness. I find this more than reason enough to object to her nomination:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

    And if that isn't clear enough, there's this:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

    .... in which we find:

    "The highest office a woman can hold in the community is "woman leader" (formerly "handmaid")."

    If that isn't straight out of The Handmaid's Tale," nothing is.

    It isn't just these details, and it isn't just this justice. It concerns me greatly that justices with strong religious beliefs are too prone to put their god above our country and it's laws, even if they try not to.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.

Share This Page