The Supreme Court hearings...a farce.

Funny you should mention that. Reid nuked the Senate in 2013 so Obama could pack the lower courts with radicals --- then nominated a rubber stamp to the Supreme Court --- after the convenient demise of Scalia. Folk like us cheered when McConnell refused to allow that travesty to move forward as it would have put a stake in the heart of representative government.

What does Fascism, the exertion of power under an BIG intrusive government, have to do with anything discussed here? Anyway, in the US you should invoke the analog to European Fascism, Progressivism.

 

there is nothing extreme about its religious views. To suggest otherwise is pure bigotry

 

i am telling you what handmaiden refers to in the church. Mary was called the Handmaiden of the Lord...or the sergeant of the Lord. it has nothing to do with men

 

so true...i can’t help but think that when i hear libs that cheer the ideas of packing the court, getting rid of the EC, adding states from around the globe, etc

 

obama used the nuclear option to pack the DC Circuit...you all were warmed.

All the GOP here is follow the US Constituon and nominate someone to fill the seat and will vote on it.

 

I don’t want to turn this into a thread where I have to educate you on the civil war. But don’t tempt me.

And I’m more looking forward to her arguments when obergefell is challenged.

 

You should look into the history of SCOTUS picks a bit more carefully because your opinion as stated here is misinformed.

1968 and 1988 do not support your statements that I've accented in bold above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-and-integrity.578641/page-6#post-1072070979

***

Secondly, the Senate does not represent a majority of the country, not even close.

Nine states hold 51% of the US population.

How's your math?

What percentage of the Senate represents 51% of the people?

18% is it?

How many folks of the total population does Moscow Cocaine Mitch represent?

1.4% is it?

 

"Judge, we demand you give opinions in advance on hypothetical situations!"

That's not justice.

 

I've been ignoring 99% of what sleep monster points out forever!

 

1) Fortas was only successfull blocked due to the Dems, and in 1988, Reid hadn't used the nuclear option yet
2) The Senate represents the States...the majority of the states gave the GOP a majority

 

"Row." "Fascism." Doesn't address that Federalist Society is a far right boogeyboogey only in the sick minds of communists, not surprised. No need to type more. Thread fail.

 

On the contrary, I'm sincerely asking why you feel such a need to be arrogantly rude in nearly all of your replies. It isn't about me, it's about you. Why do you continually refuse to debate like a polite, civil adult, despite all the chances you've been given to "play nice?"? Why the arrogance? Why the snarkiness? Is that really who you are?

 

Why do you engage in silly mischaracterizations of senators asking for a potential justice's position on certain issues? If you actually think Barrett was equally coy when the folks responsible for telling Trump to nominate her asked her about where she stands on Roe, the ACA, voting rights, the environment, you're being naive.

 

Perhaps if the Senate was doing it's constitutional duty, the nuclear option wouldn't have been needed. Simple fact; they refused to hold hearings on any of Obama's appointments. If every time we have opposing parties in WH and Senate, means we can't get judges approved, then we need a new method.

 

So your research and thoughtfulness is going to wikipedia and seeing a word you don't like.

Then you shoehorn the word you don't like to suggest she's a character in the Handmaid's Tale, despite the fact that she's universally praised by both the left and right for her judicial acumen.

How many characters in your fictional tales were successful women who got appointed to the highest court in the land based on her personal accomplishments again?

Talk about tortured logic.

You should read the second entry in your sig.

 

Not sure how they weren't doing their duty. Please explain.

That's not true...they held up some....but that wasn't anything new...the Dems started that practice during the Bush admin...the difference the Bush admin, and GOP worked with the Dems, and compromised on issues to get the judges through.

 

These are important cases. Every potential SCOTUS judge should know these cases and be able to express a legal opinion about them. Ask yourself why she freely responded to questions about decisions like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia, but evaded expressing opinions about Griswold v Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Roe v Wade?

On the Griswold decision, she said "So I think that it's an academic question that wouldn't arise, but it's something that I can't opine on, particularly because it does lie at the base of substantive due process doctrine, which is something that continues to be litigated in courts today."

Really? Still being litigated? Griswold was decided in 1965, ffs! And in case you aren't aware, it was about a married couple's right to use contraceptives in the privacy of their own bedroom. Can you really not see why a member of a deeply religious, extremely patriarchal Christian sect would not want to say what she really thinks about the use of contraceptives?

The Obergefell decision gave same sex couples the right to marry, something that she and her People of Praise are very much against. "I was certainly not indicating disagreement with it," Barrett said. "The point of now answering was to simply say it was inappropriate for me to say a response." Ask yoyrself, why is it inappropriate to "say a response" on this SCOTUS decision but just fine and dandy to opine on Brown and Loving?

She also said "[Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent,] said, those who want same-sex marriage, you have every right to lobby in state legislatures to make that happen, but the dissent’s view was that it wasn’t for the court to decide...So I think Obergefell, and what we’re talking about for the future of the court, it’s really a who decides question.”

Seriously? "Who decides" is still not clear to her? Shouldn't "who decides" be the same sex couple themselves?

She was clearly dodging those issues about which her opinions are well known because of her religious views. I found her to be deliberately evasive on these three issues: contraception, the right of women to have autonomy over their own bodies, and same sex marriage.

She was also extremely evasive to the point of annoyance on the ACA, Trump's threat to postpone the election (which even Trump now knows is against established law), and voter intimidation. Again, ask ypurself why.

Even Kavanaugh was less troubling, IMO.

 

beat you! I ignore SM 100% of the time.

 

You can count on every televised congressional hearing to be pure theatrics.

 

nah, I don't have issues with SM, we just happen to disagree on some issues that's all.

 

In other words... you do not know of any evidence of wrong-doing by ACB.

 

99% of what Sleep Monster said has no rational basis.

 

Please let me know when you can defend your position from the points made against them - this is, after all, a discussion about your position, not me.
Thank you .

 

I refer you, again, to the Ginsberg Rule.
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule

 

one republicans removed the required 60 votes, going forward they will always be a farce