Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

So many executive orders, so much twitter. What to do? Well, discuss it here for one...

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
Outpost716
Been around awhile
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:08 pm
Location: Western New York
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by Outpost716 »

featureless wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:24 pm
I don't give a rats ass what someone's faith is, provided it doesn't weasel it's way into the legal argument. Separation of church and state is a thing. So is freedom of/from religion.
Exactly! I don't care what you believe, so long as it does not affect your ability to perform job/profession and as long at that belief does not diminish the rights of others or elevate the rights of one group over another. If you claim that your faith is the source your morality, then I question your ability to empathize in the absence of dogma or "divine mandate". I've been questioned on more than one oscassion about how I can be moral without religion. Empathy. That's the answer. I murder, steal, and rape exactly as much as I want to: ZERO because I wouldn't want that shit done to me.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11908
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by DispositionMatrix »

For the Shannon Watts fans:
Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett puts years of gun safety progress at risk
If we don’t stop President Donald Trump and his Senate Republican allies, the coming years could bring legal decisions that threaten to undo decades of progress for public safety. Over 145,000 Americans have been killed by guns with President Trump in office, and if he succeeds in appointing another opponent of gun safety laws to the court, even more Americans will die.

After years of losing in the courts and at the ballot box, it’s not surprising that the beleaguered NRA and other opponents of strong gun safety laws see the Supreme Court as one of the last venues where they can try to turn the tide. That’s why President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans in the Senate are attempting a bold-faced, hypocritical power grab to reject the will of the American people. The president has made it clear that when it comes to choosing judges — just as when it comes to laws — he’s committed to letting the gun lobby take control.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:50 am
For the Shannon Watts fans:
Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett puts years of gun safety progress at risk
If we don’t stop President Donald Trump and his Senate Republican allies, the coming years could bring legal decisions that threaten to undo decades of progress for public safety. Over 145,000 Americans have been killed by guns with President Trump in office, and if he succeeds in appointing another opponent of gun safety laws to the court, even more Americans will die.

After years of losing in the courts and at the ballot box, it’s not surprising that the beleaguered NRA and other opponents of strong gun safety laws see the Supreme Court as one of the last venues where they can try to turn the tide. That’s why President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans in the Senate are attempting a bold-faced, hypocritical power grab to reject the will of the American people. The president has made it clear that when it comes to choosing judges — just as when it comes to laws — he’s committed to letting the gun lobby take control.
What I dislike about bloomie and crew always framing the discussion by referencing the gun lobby is they ignore the gun owners that do not want further restrictions and would prefer that the underlying reasons for violence should be addressed exist. And bloomie and crew just love to inflate statistics. None of this gives me any desire to go vote in November.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

sikacz wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:33 am
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:50 am
For the Shannon Watts fans:
Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett puts years of gun safety progress at risk
If we don’t stop President Donald Trump and his Senate Republican allies, the coming years could bring legal decisions that threaten to undo decades of progress for public safety. Over 145,000 Americans have been killed by guns with President Trump in office, and if he succeeds in appointing another opponent of gun safety laws to the court, even more Americans will die.

After years of losing in the courts and at the ballot box, it’s not surprising that the beleaguered NRA and other opponents of strong gun safety laws see the Supreme Court as one of the last venues where they can try to turn the tide. That’s why President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans in the Senate are attempting a bold-faced, hypocritical power grab to reject the will of the American people. The president has made it clear that when it comes to choosing judges — just as when it comes to laws — he’s committed to letting the gun lobby take control.
What I dislike about bloomie and crew always framing the discussion by referencing the gun lobby is they ignore the gun owners that do not want further restrictions and would prefer that the underlying reasons for violence should be addressed exist. And bloomie and crew just love to inflate statistics. None of this gives me any desire to go vote in November.
Also, the big numbers include suicides, something assault weapon bans and magazine bans, the professed way to end all gun violence, do nothing to address. And the big number is simply a distortion of truth--suicides, while tragic, are no public safety threat.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

With the addition of Barrett to SCOTUS, that moves the center of the court to the right. At this time Roberts is considered the center or the swing vote, but some court observers have noted that Gorsuch or even Kavanaugh might be the new center, even farther from liberals Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Barrett did her undergraduate degree at Rhodes College in Nashville, TN which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, a mainline Protestant denomination. While she obtained her law degree from the University of Notre Dame and taught there, consider that Pete Buttigieg was mayor of South Bend where UND is located and both his parents taught at UND.

The Catholic Church today isn't one big monolith where everyone thinks the same, it too has a left, center and right wings. The right wing (traditionalists) have even founded their own Catholics college because existing Catholic institutions such as Georgetown U, Fordham U, BC, UND, Loyola U Chicago, DePaul U, Seattle U, U of San Francisco...are considered too liberal.

The Senate will confirm Barrett and she'll be sworn in the day she's confirmed so she'll only miss one month in this term. We'll see where it goes.

The older I get the less I am in favor of "lifetime government appointments".
Last edited by highdesert on Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Secretive group that bankrolled Kavanaugh nomination now pouring money into Barrett’s confirmation

A secretive conservative group is bankrolling the confirmation battles for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, but it’s not clear who funds that activity.

The right-wing Judicial Crisis Network has spent $27 million in dark money to block President Barack Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee, only to turn around and spend millions ushering Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh through their confirmation process, reported The Daily Poster.

The shadowy organization, originally founded in 2004 to promote President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, received $15.9 million from a single donor between July 2018 and June 2019, when the group was promoting Kavanaugh’s controversial nomination.

JCN will now spend at least $10 million to promote the also controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg just weeks before the presidential election.

The group plans to spend $3 million on ads promoting Barrett, just as it spent millions to build support for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch after helping to block Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, from getting a Senate hearing.

The Koch Network’s Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are also pushing Barrett’s speedy confirmation by the Republican-led Senate.

JCN is effectively controlled by Trump judicial adviser Leonard Leo, a longtime executive at the Federalist Society, but its sources of funding are a complete mystery.

Their sources don’t show up Center for Political Accountability database, and they don’t appear to be listed in an Internal Revenue Service database.

The dark-money Wellspring Committee had plowed money into JCN for years before shutting down two years ago, but it took in tens of millions of dollars from a single donor in 2016 that almost all was passed on to the right-wing activist group.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/secret ... firmation/

Best Judge rightwing money can buy.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Amy Coney Barrett Signed Ad Supporting End Of ‘Barbaric’ Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed her name on a newspaper advertisement in 2006 calling for the “end of abortion on demand.”

The two-page spread in the South Bend Tribune was sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that also goes by the name Right to Life Michiana.

“We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death,” a statement on the ad’s first page reads. “Please continue to pray to end abortion.” Barrett’s name is listed on the page, among hundreds of others including her husband’s.

The second full page of the Tribune ad, opposite the page of signatures, urges “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.”

Barrett, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, was nominated last week by President Donald Trump to fill the seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett is a devout Catholic who is known to personally oppose abortion.

She is expected to face intense questioning about her ability to remain impartial on abortion rights, considering her apparent hostility to Roe v. Wade, the landmark court decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.

The resurfacing of the letter, first reported by The Guardian, has ratcheted up reproductive rights supporters’ concerns that Barrett will work to overturn Roe v. Wade if seated. Her nomination is supported by many anti-abortion activists who hope that she will represent their interests on the court.

Jackie Appleman, the executive director of Right to Life Michiana, said the organization had no comment on Barrett nor her nomination.

A White House spokesperson said that during Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing, the judge made clear she was committed to the rule of law, not her own personal beliefs.

This is not the first public letter on reproductive rights signed by Barrett to come under scrutiny.

In 2012, she signed a letter of protest to the Obama administration about the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The statement criticized the workaround offered to religious employers, saying it “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.”

She also signed a letter to Catholic bishops in 2015 affirming the “value of human life from conception to natural death.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amy-cone ... 4c558aa458

Taking away the right to choose.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

TrueTexan wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:16 pm
Amy Coney Barrett Signed Ad Supporting End Of ‘Barbaric’ Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed her name on a newspaper advertisement in 2006 calling for the “end of abortion on demand.”

The two-page spread in the South Bend Tribune was sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that also goes by the name Right to Life Michiana.

“We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death,” a statement on the ad’s first page reads. “Please continue to pray to end abortion.” Barrett’s name is listed on the page, among hundreds of others including her husband’s.

The second full page of the Tribune ad, opposite the page of signatures, urges “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.”

Barrett, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, was nominated last week by President Donald Trump to fill the seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett is a devout Catholic who is known to personally oppose abortion.

She is expected to face intense questioning about her ability to remain impartial on abortion rights, considering her apparent hostility to Roe v. Wade, the landmark court decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.

The resurfacing of the letter, first reported by The Guardian, has ratcheted up reproductive rights supporters’ concerns that Barrett will work to overturn Roe v. Wade if seated. Her nomination is supported by many anti-abortion activists who hope that she will represent their interests on the court.

Jackie Appleman, the executive director of Right to Life Michiana, said the organization had no comment on Barrett nor her nomination.

A White House spokesperson said that during Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing, the judge made clear she was committed to the rule of law, not her own personal beliefs.

This is not the first public letter on reproductive rights signed by Barrett to come under scrutiny.

In 2012, she signed a letter of protest to the Obama administration about the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The statement criticized the workaround offered to religious employers, saying it “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.”

She also signed a letter to Catholic bishops in 2015 affirming the “value of human life from conception to natural death.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amy-cone ... 4c558aa458

Taking away the right to choose.
And clinton, Obama and likely biden appointees might have similar ideas about the right to self defense judging from the current lower court democratic appointees.

The debate on where life begins has always been a bad frame. The question is the autonomy of single person, a woman, and whether anyone should be able to force a person to carry a parasite for nine months. The choice should have nothing to do with when life begins, it’s about the right of an individual to self autonomy.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

Frankly, as a Californian, the appointment would make me feel better should Biden win from a 2A perspective. Without another conservative justice, CA gun laws will remain fucked because Roberts neglected his duty to treat all constitutional rights the same. With a liberal majority or RBG replacement, CA gun laws will get considerably worse.

It's a sad state of affairs all around that we have so politicized rights. Same as it ever was.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:06 pm
Frankly, as a Californian, the appointment would make me feel better should Biden win from a 2A perspective. Without another conservative justice, CA gun laws will remain fucked because Roberts neglected his duty to treat all constitutional rights the same. With a liberal majority or RBG replacement, CA gun laws will get considerably worse.

It's a sad state of affairs all around that we have so politicized rights. Same as it ever was.
Roberts should be a disappointment to any republican and any person concerned with the direction of the second.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Democrats Demand Delay in Barrett's Confirmation Process After Third GOP Senator Tests Positive for Covid-19

Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocates demanded on Friday and into Saturday that the Senate Judiciary Committee postpone Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing for the U.S. Supreme Court after at least three Republican senators tested positive for the coronavirus.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) announced his positive result on Saturday morning, a day after two Senate Judiciary Committee members—Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—were also diagnosed with Covid-19.

Johnson did not attend the White House gathering last Saturday where President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Barrett, but he has been attending lunches with other Republican senators three times per week, including this past week. Lee and Tillis have also been attending the gatherings, suggesting that they may have exposed several of their Senate colleagues. Democratic senators have suspended their in-person lunches in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice was among those who called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to postpone Barrett's hearings, which are set to begin Oct. 13.

"They need to postpone the hearing because voting on Barrett before the election would gravely damage the legitimacy of the Court itself," wrote Susan Hennessey, executive editor of Lawfare. "Rushing to have the hearing under these circumstances just shows that Republicans know they won't have the votes after Election Day."

Johnson's diagnosis calls into question—even if the Senate Judiciary Committee moves forward with a virtual hearing—whether Barrett could be confirmed before Election Day, one month from Saturday.

As CNN reported Saturday, "If the three senators remain out this month, it would effectively prevent Barrett from being confirmed to the Supreme Court until they return, which could be after Election Day during a lame-duck session."

"A lame-duck confirmation is a situation that GOP leaders are eager to avoid in case they lose control of the chamber next month," reported Manu Raju and Lauren Fox. "The fear is that one or two GOP senators may break ranks after seeing the election results and citing the will of the voters."

Two Republican senators—Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have already indicated they do not support moving forward with Barrett's confirmation process before the election, but have not ruled out a confirmation during a potential lame-duck session should Trump lose to Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted late Friday that with at least two Covid-positive Judiciary Committee members, "The Senate cannot safely proceed on the Supreme Court nomination. We must focus on containing this virus to protect members and staff."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, issued a joint statement Friday along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), noting the "bipartisan agreement that a virtual confirmation hearing for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is not an acceptable substitute" for an in-person hearing and calling on committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) postpone the hearing.

"All circuit court nominees have appeared in person during the pandemic, and there is far more at stake for the American people with this Supreme Court nomination, including the Affordable Care Act being struck down and more than seven million Covid survivors being denied health coverage," the lawmakers said. "It’s critical that Chairman Graham put the health of senators, the nominee and staff first – and ensure a full and fair hearing that is not rushed, not truncated, and not virtual. Otherwise this already illegitimate process will become a dangerous one.”

The statement followed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's indication that Republicans intend to move "full steam ahead" with Barrett's confirmation. McConnell made his statement before Tillis announced his positive test result.

"How many Senate Judiciary Committee members need to test positive to get Lindsey Graham to postpone Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing?" asked UCLA political scientist Miranda Yaver after Tillis's diagnosis became public.

David Segal, executive director of progressive campaign group Demand Progress,called for the hearing to be postponed while urging voters to "prepare to push for further postponement thereafter."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... fter-third

I expect MoscowMitch to continue to push the nomination forward no matter what happens.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

I suspect they will move up the timeline.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Roe V. Wade will be in serious doubt if she gets confirmed.
Amy Coney Barrett Submits Additional Anti-Abortion Docs To Senate After Scrutiny

As part of a last-minute addition to documents she was required to submit for her nomination process, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Bryant revealed on Friday a 2013 newspaper ad she signed condemning the “infamous” Roe v. Wade decision that, the ad claimed, “killed 55 million unborn children.”

The ad came alongside additional material she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which requires judicial nominees to fill out a questionnaire and provide published writings and statements. The documents followed her initial submission on Sept. 29.

In the Friday disclosure, Barrett also revealed that she spoke at two events held by anti-abortion student groups at Notre Dame University in 2013, where she was a law professor at the time. She did not reveal the content of her talks.

The ad, sponsored by a faculty group to which Barrett belonged, appeared in Notre Dame’s student newspaper, she noted in a letter to Judiciary Committee leaders released late Friday.

“In the 40 years since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, over 55 million unborn children have been killed by abortions,” it read. “We ... renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law.”

Barrett submitted the new information following criticism from Democrats after a 2006 anti-abortion newspaper ad she signed, which she had not previously disclosed, resurfaced earlier this month.

Her nomination hearings begin Monday.

Barrett claimed in her letter Friday that she was releasing the “supplemental” information “out of an abundance of caution.” She insisted it “is not clear” that the new disclosures were required as part of the questionnaire. But she noted, “I have been made aware of some items you may have already seen” — so now she was providing them.

Barrett’s omissions raise the possibility that there may be more information she hasn’t disclosed. It’s not clear what kind of consequences she may face for not initially revealing the ads and talks.

Additionally, video of a public talk Barrett had already disclosed was removed from YouTube in 2014, CNN reported.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to the Justice Department earlier this week demanding that officials determine whether Barrett has complied with full disclosure requirements.

Democrats pointed out that Barrett had earlier failed to reveal an open letter from 2006. That statement, signed by Barrett and others, blasted what it called the “barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade and “explicitly called for overturning” the decision.

“The failure to disclose the 2006 letter leads to additional questions about other potentially missing materials,” the Democrats wrote. “The omission also raises concerns that the process of collecting materials responsive to the [questionnaire], like the nomination process itself, has been rushed, for no legitimate reason.”

Barrett hasn’t made any rulings about abortion as a federal appeals court judge, but her position is clear on Roe v. Wade, which gave American women the right to abortion nearly half a century ago.

Trump and Senate Republicans are rushing to get Barrett confirmed by the full Senate before the Nov. 3 election.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amy-con ... 97bac2e2c0
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

Judge Amy Coney Barrett says "the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches," not the courts.

That's from her opening statement she's set to deliver in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when her Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins Monday.

NPR obtained the opening statement on Sunday from a source familiar with the hearing preparations who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Barrett's nomination by President Trump has been hyper-partisan. Republicans are aiming to confirm Barrett before Election Day. If confirmed, her presence would solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-c ... on-hearing

Barrett's statement.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document ... Submission
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Internet recoils in horror over Amy Coney Barrett ruling that says n-word does not make workplace ‘hostile’

A ruling by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that whitewashed racism in the workplace shocked the Internet this week.

In a recent report on Barrett’s notable opinions, the Associated Press highlighted a 2019 workplace discrimination ruling that Barrett wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

According to the the report, Barrett said that there was no evidence that use of the n-word “created a hostile or abusive working environment.”

The AP reported:

“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”

Twitter users reacted in shock on Tuesday when attorney Jill Filipovic shared details of the case.

Here's a racial discrimination case that Barrett did decide, where she wrote that being called the n-word at work by your supervisor does not constitute a hostile or abusive work environment. https://t.co/BUG4vcSzJE pic.twitter.com/egSDRL6rpg

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 13, 2020

Many of the commenters wondered if Barrett would feel the same way if her adopted black children had been the subject of racial discrimination.
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement. ... e-hostile/

I wonder if she would feel the same if she was called a Honky at work?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

As I understand the current situation there is nothing the democrats can do to stop her confirmation. The republicans control what will happen and confirm her at their convenience.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 23361
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by CDFingers »

I would like ol' Chuck to make sure there is no quorum on the day of the vote--safety first, eh.

CDFingers
ImageImage
And if a man among you got no sin upon his hand
let him cast a stone at me for playin' in the band.

DamnYankee
Been around awhile
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:28 pm
Location: Austin Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by DamnYankee »

I thought this was fascinating. PBS coverage of Sen Whitehouse at Barrett’s hearing breaking down the “dark money” train and its impact across the entire judiciary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY

User avatar
Bisbee
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8197
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by Bisbee »

sikacz wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:26 pm
As I understand the current situation there is nothing the democrats can do to stop her confirmation. The republicans control what will happen and confirm her at their convenience.
Never say never. We are in the age of Covid. Play out the time and allow Nature to takes its course.

But it’s probably true of any long fight, especially the good fight in politics and government. We all do what we can and pay attention to the process more than the outcome.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 13186
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by YankeeTarheel »

Barrett lied her ass off.
The idea that Trump NEVER said a word to her about helping him win the election is flat-out ludicrous. The asshole had been, and has been saying that's EXACTLY why he nominated her, in his rallies, and tweets. To think that he would be judicious and hold his tongue in private meetings with her makes believing the Earth is flat and the REAL deity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster seem sensible!

When she refused and claimed ignorance as to whether the President can cancel or postpone the election she, again, was lying her ass off.
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution is explicit and unambiguous about it:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Congress has done so, in long-established legislation. And NOTHING there indicates that the President may interfere with that. Even in the midst of the Civil War and WWII, the National Election was held. Barrett is too good a lawyer not to know this. So she lied about it.

She lied again to Klobuchar about interference and intimidation of a citizen's right to vote, spewing bullshit about how the case would have to come to her and she'd have to see the briefs. Anyone who graduated HS, and most who didn't, knows it's illegal to interfere with someone else voting. ReThugs just don't care: Power trumps Law.

She lied about "Precedent" and "Super-Precedent". She used the term, but when asked about Roe, pretended to not know the meaning. She pretended that nobody questions Brown v Board or Marbury v Madison, when they do all the time, and said because Roe, now 48 years in place IS questioned it's not a "Super-Precedent". Yeah, Republicans only like Marbury v Madison when Dems are in control, but not when they are. And the racists have criticized Brown for 66 years!

She fully intends to overturn Roe, the ACA, and ensure Trump steals the election if it comes to the SCOTUS. And every ReThug hypocrite in the Senate knows it. I couldn't listen to their lies--I had to turn off Grassley and his fake outrage bullshit.

I wish every damn one of them would not just get Covid, but would end up on ventilators. And they way they are going, they just might.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:55 am
Barrett lied her ass off.
The idea that Trump NEVER said a word to her about helping him win the election is flat-out ludicrous. The asshole had been, and has been saying that's EXACTLY why he nominated her, in his rallies, and tweets. To think that he would be judicious and hold his tongue in private meetings with her makes believing the Earth is flat and the REAL deity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster seem sensible!

When she refused and claimed ignorance as to whether the President can cancel or postpone the election she, again, was lying her ass off.
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution is explicit and unambiguous about it:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Congress has done so, in long-established legislation. And NOTHING there indicates that the President may interfere with that. Even in the midst of the Civil War and WWII, the National Election was held. Barrett is too good a lawyer not to know this. So she lied about it.

She lied again to Klobuchar about interference and intimidation of a citizen's right to vote, spewing bullshit about how the case would have to come to her and she'd have to see the briefs. Anyone who graduated HS, and most who didn't, knows it's illegal to interfere with someone else voting. ReThugs just don't care: Power trumps Law.

She lied about "Precedent" and "Super-Precedent". She used the term, but when asked about Roe, pretended to not know the meaning. She pretended that nobody questions Brown v Board or Marbury v Madison, when they do all the time, and said because Roe, now 48 years in place IS questioned it's not a "Super-Precedent". Yeah, Republicans only like Marbury v Madison when Dems are in control, but not when they are. And the racists have criticized Brown for 66 years!

She fully intends to overturn Roe, the ACA, and ensure Trump steals the election if it comes to the SCOTUS. And every ReThug hypocrite in the Senate knows it. I couldn't listen to their lies--I had to turn off Grassley and his fake outrage bullshit.

I wish every damn one of them would not just get Covid, but would end up on ventilators. And they way they are going, they just might.
It won’t matter she lies or not. It’s about votes.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

I've listened to a little on the radio, we know how it ends. McConnell has the votes to confirm her so she'll be sworn in before the end of the month. It's high drama, the candidate is well prepped and the opposition asks questions to try and trip the candidate up. Since it's televised, both sides try to give their best performances for the home crowd. In our binary system of politics the two parties whip their followers into a frenzy in opposition or support and the media feeds it. Every issue, every person they reduce to "either/or", they practice KISS for their followers.

Nate Silver at 538 had an article last month which condenses a lot of things we've talked about here for quite a while.
But for the time being, the Senate is effectively 6 to 7 percentage points redder than the country as a whole, which means that Democrats are likely to win it only in the event of a near-landslide in their favor nationally. That’s likely to make the Republican majority on the Supreme Court pretty durable.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... eme-court/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
sig230
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:39 pm
Location: Deep South Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sig230 »

And Breyer is 82, Thomas 72, Alito 70. If trump wins a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate it's possible that we will see five conservative Justices all under 60 years old.
To be vintage it must be older than me! Coming to you from Deep South Texas!

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

sig230 wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:38 am
And Breyer is 82, Thomas 72, Alito 70. If trump wins a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate it's possible that we will see five conservative Justices all under 60 years old.
That's been the Republican playbook, confirm young Federalist conservatives to the circuit courts and then when a SCOTUS vacancy comes along, they have candidates in their late 40s to early 50s range to put on the high court. They too want to avoid the drama of another Bork appointment.

Democrats can get around it with term limits for federal judges or age restrictions, no civil servant should have a lifetime job.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

highdesert wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:19 am
It's high drama, the candidate is well prepped and the opposition asks questions to try and trip the candidate up. Since it's televised, both sides try to give their best performances for the home crowd. In our binary system of politics the two parties whip their followers into a frenzy in opposition or support and the media feeds it. Every issue, every person they reduce to "either/or", they practice KISS for their followers.
Yup. I tried watching some of it. It's a pretty disgusting show on all sides. No wonder this country is falling apart. All our "leaders" do is teach us to hate the other side.

To Barrett's credit, she appears well composed, very articulate and intelligent. I do hope she is able to separate her personal beliefs from her interpretation of the law, just like any good judge.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests