Amy Coney Barret appointed to the Supreme Court

What is this magic date where the term of office ends before four years are up?

 

Now that Repubs have shown a willingness to nominate and confirm a justice credibly accused of sexual misconduct, twice, why isn't that a necessary question to ask of a Repub nominee?

 

Democrats need to stop being afraid of setting precedents, while at the same time allowing Republicans to set them.

This time it is absolutely justified.

Does anybody really think that if, for some reason, three of the Republican partisan justices' seats became available, and Biden filled them, does anybody in their right mind believe that Republicans wouldn't pack the court the next time they had an opportunity?

Republicans have made it clear that they couldn't care less about decorum. So it's time for Democrats to take the initiative. If that means a "court packing" escalation war, so be it! But Democrats need to stop being the only adults in the room who care about precedent.

 

Agreed. You said highly qualified. I'd offer that someone who has been on a job for two years is not highly qualified. The job is irrelevant. It takes time to become an expert.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-supreme-court.580313/page-2#post-1072159965

 

You mean like Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden? Like that kind of a nominee? Do you suppose Hirazi is going to grill Biden like that on the floor of the Senate?

 

It's funny how the book 1984 came true, we have the bork rule that goes all the way back to the 1980s when the Democrats lowered the bar and smeared a supreme court nominee, then they tried to destroy clarence thomas, when Ginsberg was selected she received what a 95% confirmation?

This is all games started by Democrats

 

I couldn't care less what you call him. I'm just pointing out the fact that the emphasis on his second name is rarely done for any other purposes than to express a racist disdain for people of a different eth\nic origin.

Originalism is a myth, as I have shown multiple times on this forum. All supreme court justices legislate from the bench. We need to stop believing childish fantasies. What we need them to do is stop doing so in a blind partisan manner depending on which Party nominated them. We know that conservative justices will legislate according to their ideology, and progressive justices according to theirs. It's a fact! But ideology is different from partisanship. And what we are seeing now are real partisan justices on the right.

 

I don't disagree it takes time to be an expert...but if someone is qualified for a job or not, well they don't have to have the job they are even applying for to be qualified for the job...we aren't born into jobs.

 

Well if you go and read that thread....you'd see that your question was answered...the Dems were asking questions that if answered would have violated the Judicial Code of Ethics....and the RBG rule...the dems were grandstanding asking questions they knew she couldn't answer....once again, shaming themselves and the US Senate.

 

You know, you could have simply apologized for making an unwarranted racial attack on the other poster as well as having commenced the day drinking at such an early hour...

I suggest the only childish fantasy is harbored by liberals who believe they can legislate from the bench. That isn't either judicially appropriate or constitutional. How many times must we go back and undo BS courts have invented? In the absence of a legislative foundation, courts aren't the "insert opinion" here that fiats progressive agendas into existence. It's like how suddenly that retread Brennan established a birthright citizenship standard because he wrote a stupid footnote. The legislature didn't create that standard, Brennan did. And Merick was his acolyte.

And when you cry about "partisan judges", please label ms Sotomayor and Keagan as the mystic progressive hand maidens they are. Toodles...

 

So you are saying it's not a fact that she didn't answer that? She did answer questions about what the law from Republicans. Why did she hesitate on this (and other similar ones) from Democrats?

 

I'm not talking about those. There were many questions she, justifiably, didn't have to answer. I'm talking about the ones she should have answered, and didn't.

 

You are lagging behind in this debate.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-supreme-court.580313/page-3#post-1072160118

 

I think they have done a pretty fair job of that over the last five months of rioting.. Only problem no one is scared, only pissed off

 

Now, imagine Trump got it wrong; that Amy might abide by her oath after all and not follow Trump orders in her first few judgments and decides to vote against his demands ("la donna è mobile"). That would be quite ironic!
I'm not holding my breath though.

 

There are no "partisan" votes from any of those judges. There are ideological votes. Like ALL justices do and have done since the beginning of this nation's history.

It's your problem if you don't know (or refuse to see) the difference.

 

So pissed off that Trump is a mile behind in the polls.

 

Propaganda works well.. Like I say, I'm actually curious to see how this ruse plays out, Biden wins, steps down and then the whole country gets to see the greatest bait and switch in U.S. history

The best lessons are the ones that sting the most..

 

Yup. Another victory for the good guys.

 

I hope she does abide by her oath..

 

You mean go by the constitution?

She will, I trust a conservative leaning supreme court more then a left leaning one..

 

So by your account only one can be illegitimate. One of the two was Trump's no matter how you cut it. Keep up.

 

Very True!!!