The Supreme Court hearings...a farce.

Great, another arrogant Mr. Snarkypants.

Just because I linked to one article or bit of information doesn't mean that's all I've read about this judge.

I don't trust her, with good reason. I don't trust religious fanatics of any sort, and yes, she is one by ALL ACCOUNTS, including her own words. As for yoyr remark abput successful women, her gender is completely irrelevant to my opinion of her. I had the same problem with Antonin Scalia.

Like I've said more than once here, my opinion is not of her as a person. She's intelligent and very knowledgable, and hands down, I'm sure, many excellent legal decisions. She seems very nice, but that does not qualify her to make decisions that could adversely affect the lives of millions of Americans, and I'm convinced that regardless of how much she protests that her religious beliefs do not enter into her legal decisions, all deeply religious justices are suspect IN MY OPINION because they do, in fact, tend to put their god above the laws of the secular nation to which they belong.

You can disagree, but please do me the courtesy of disagreeing without rancor. If that's asking too much, that's about you, not me.

 

I've done that several times over on this thread.

My question was about your choice to snarl insults about my opinions. You still haven't answered.

 

Again, she wasn't being asked for her opinion of those laws, just whether or not she knew of them. Nothing to do with the so-called Ginsburg rule.

You tell me: why couldn't she simply answer "yes" when asked whether it was illegal to intimidate voters? Or when asked if it was legal for a president to postpone or reschedule an election? Either she knows the law or she doesn't, and if she doesn't, how is she even being considered for such a lofty legal lifetime post?

 

You have, not once, defended them from my commentary.
Not once.
When you think you can, let me know.
Until then, I fully expect you'll continue in your attempts to divert attention from your inability to do so and try to make the discussion about me.

 

Cite the questions. Copy and paste the text, and her response.

Your honest and knowledgeable response to my challenge, above, will prove you wrong.

 

i’ve posted the transcript the left continues to deny it

 

Is the Constitution outdated to the point of needing to be replaced:

 

The Constitution does not make any stipulation as to the maximum number of justices on the SC.

As aghast as Repubs will pretend to be over the possibility of expanding the number of justices on the bench.......it's been done before. What hasn't ever been done is McTreason's court packing with ideologues.

 

There are always exceptions to every rule.

***

The Senate doesn't represent The People. They represent the States. That's the majority being talked about. Not the People.

The House represents The People. If you have a problem with how SCOTUS judges are nominated and appointed then talk to your House Rep that is in the House of Representatives. They could always try and draft an Amendment to the Constitution and try and get it passed.

 

Are leftists capable of looking farther ahead than the present? If Dems pack the court there WILL be serious consequences.

 

The reality is that no politician looks beyond what is politically expedient in the moment. This isn't new. It's one of the first things I learned in HS Civics in 1982.

All politicians should enact rules that they can live with if team "other" gets in office. That never happens, though.

 

Ever since ex-democratic senate leader Harry Reid first used, set the precedence for its use, the nuclear option, the fix is in for any nomination of the same party that controls the senate and presidency. So thank Harry Reid for the fix, he done it. Without that it would have taken 60 votes for cloture, no Barrett and no Kavanaugh. Both owe their confirmation a great deal of thanks to Harry Reid. They wouldn't have been without Reid's first use of the nuclear option.

On the other hand, you have this from Gallup.

51% in U.S. Want Amy Coney Barrett Seated on Supreme Court

https://news.gallup.com/poll/322232...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Actually it's 51-46. Scroll down in the link above to see how partisan a SCOTUS nomination can be. Interesting.

 

Sigh ... to quote a favorite movie line, "The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."

I'm not the one doing the diverting. If you can't or won't answer my sincere question, buzz the hell off.

 

You are. I challenge your positions, and rather than defend them, you try to make the conversation about me.
That is, rather than respond to what I said, you whine about the way I said it.
That's diversion.
Why can't you defend your positions?

 

Stop repeating GOP propaganda, will ya please? It's not funny, but pathetic. For your education; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ibuster-on-supreme-court-nominees/ar-BB19Ct4r

We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Again, you need to get educated as to the true definition of fascism, and not the bilge found in Murdock media:

Definition of fascism


often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Remember when the punditry floated the idea of unlimited terms under Ronnie Raygun? Now we have this orange faced boob who's demonstrated a complete disdain for the Constitution, along with his henchman Barr and his accomplice McConnell and Graham. These are the guys who had no problem publicly stating the fix was in.

 

Yeah, the old lame defense retort for religious misogyny, child labor and quasi-slavery. Sorry dude, but that dog of yours won't fly. Barretts stint with a promise-keepers like group is there for all to see...TFB if the ramifications stink to high heaven.

 

You're not telling me a damned thing....the article spelled it out in detail. Here's a the catch, "...It is not a church, but a faith community ... All the top leaders within People of Praise are male, but in each of the group’s 22 regional branches a select group of women is entrusted with mentoring and offering spiritual guidance to other female members..... Barrett did not disclose her decades-long affiliation with People of Praise on her voluminous Senate judiciary Committee questionnaires filed last month and three years ago, when the Notre Dame law professor was appointed by Trump to a seat on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago."

But like I said in the OP, the whole hearing is a farce, as the GOP leadership publicly stated the fix was in.

 

You hear a lot of reactionary hype and talk to 8 years of the Shrub and 4 years of the Orange Oaf.....Dump with his cronies Barr, McConnell and Graham are making it a reality....when you have congressional/senate hearings where the GOP states prior that they will find their favorites innocent or qualified regardless of evidence to the contrary, who's pushing towards fascism? It was under Reagan that the conservative punditry floated the idea of unlimited terms. Deal with it.

 

A correction to your revisionism:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

And while legal, the current GOP move is pure hypocrisy, as they denied Obama the same entitlement 9 MONTHS from the election. Or didn't you catch the old Lindsey Graham video?

 

Spare me hubris bull horn....All the crap about justifying the Confederate flag couches on the denial of slavery's importance to the Confederacy (which was what, only 4 years old officially?). No wonder you're pushing smoke about Barrett. But like it or not, the OP is valid....based not on opinion, but statements by the GOP and conservative punditry. Deal with it.

 

so there's no point in trying to have a rational, logical discussion with you. Adios.

 

As usual, you throw out a lot of right wing buzz words but with no connective substance to the discussion at hand....none the least to what I previously posted. You cannot deny the GOP declaration that put the fix in for Barrett. Hardly something that would or should be allowed in a court of law (prejudicial, I believe it's called). Nor can you deny her historically documented statements on various subjects. Let me know when you're finished blowing smoke and discuss rationally and logically.

 

I do wish you guys would stop parroting failed propaganda. For your enlightenment:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

Our rating: False
We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Individual Polls are always subjective, and 51% is a squeaker to be sure. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/cnn-poll-scotus-aca-october/index.html

 

reid did the option on all other picks. McConnell just finished it off and followed Reid’s lead.

The Dems didn’t have a majority in the senate then. The GOP did as they do now

 

not sure what you are going on about