|
|
Post by Skellinton on Oct 14, 2020 3:18:32 GMT
This woman is a vile disgusting human who will be on the Supreme Court so I need to just move on BUT this was too vile not to share: That is beyond vile. WTF is the matter with her? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Oct 14, 2020 4:04:38 GMT
I’m okay with this. I’m more concerned with the way the Repugnicans in Congress outright lie and are proud of their lies. That’s what bothers me most. Yes, the SC has been liberal in the majority of the last 50 years but I’m not afraid of a conservative court. I am afraid of a Repugnican majority in either of the houses of Congress. I am. These Supreme Court seats are for life. It’s worse than a congressional majority, which is not. Same here. This court is going to determine so many things that are going to directly negatively affect my daughter throughout most of her adult life unless Biden gets elected, the Senate flips blue and they increase the size of the court. It’s scary as hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Oct 14, 2020 4:27:35 GMT
This woman is a vile disgusting human who will be on the Supreme Court so I need to just move on BUT this was too vile not to share: That is beyond vile. WTF is the matter with her? Oh.my.God. This happened LAST YEAR. She is basically saying that anyone can say any words they want and unless someone can actually prove you're a racist/homophobe/misogynist, there's nothing you can do. Really? REALLY? This is exactly what Trump does. He says stuff like "Maybe they're [x,y,z], maybe not. Who's to tell?" and then millions of lemmings feel justified in their racist, homophobic, misogynist ways. UGH. We are doomed. |
|
|
|
Post by prapea on Oct 14, 2020 4:47:07 GMT
There is absolutely no chance that Mitch McConnell will not get his way in ramrodding her through. She could just sit there and sing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song in response to each question and she would still be confirmed. Her faculty colleagues at Notre Dame have issued a letter calling for her NOT to be confirmed. It won’t matter. The hearings are complete and total sham. None of it matters. FYI - the faculty of the law school have written in her support (23 of them signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee) The letter in opposition was from faculty in other departments. But I agree with you that unless there's another COVID outbreak, none of this matters. I am going to hell so here it goes. You are the queen of voting for the opposite side while trying to make it look like you are with us. Every single fucking post. Sometimes it is as easy as that....just pick a goddamn side. We are not stupid to think everyone at Notredame opposed her confirmation. Yes the law school faculty at Norte Dame did not sign the letter. We read Fox News too. 88 faculty members from other departments like political science, sociology and others signed. I guess that doesn’t matter to you and your “semantics”. The point is most of us here do not want her as the Supreme Court judge. I am sick and tired of this “I am just stating facts” or “I am not voting for trump and I don’t like that trump is doing this BUT...”. Sometimes in life there is no gray area and this shit show of trump is one of them |
|
|
|
Post by pattyraindrops on Oct 14, 2020 5:04:39 GMT
I was vocal in my opposition of Trump appointing someone so close to an election. I was offended that RBG's legacy was stomped on to try and shove someone in before the election. I also imagine I have several philosophical differences with Judge Barrett. I think the move to appoint younger and younger individuals is misguided personally, and like to see individuals with a wide variety of experience. But just as Elena Kagan - someone with NO experience as a judge, Amy Coney Barrett is a well respected law professor with experience clerking for the Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame - I imagine your claim that she doesn't "even know basic laws" is more than a little exaggerated. Really? Because THIS is what happened today. For those of you who do not want to click, Barrett was asked “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?” The only answer is NO. She responded "Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process.” The 20th Amendment to the Constitution requires: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January … and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” So darcy you can see she does NOT know basic laws. To not know the Constitution is awful. To not know this amendment is TERRIFYING. Oh wait, are you going to say I only gave one example? Here's another from today: “Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?” Again, an easy question with an obvious answer. The U.S. Code (Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 594) calls for a fine, imprisonment or both for “whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote.” But Barrett answered differently. “I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” she said. So either she knows and has decided she is not going to follow the Constitution or she doesn't know. Which one is it? These are NOT hypothetical situations. These are situations that Trump has said may occur if he feels like it. Voter intimidation has occurred in numerous states. Be terrified if this woman is put on the SC. TERRIFIED. All our rights are being destroyed as women, as families, as LGBTQ, but even more frightening is the fact that she does NOT know the law or the Constitution. Irrefutable facts darcy . What do you have to say about that? Help me understand this please. The question was, "Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?" You said the answer is "no" because "The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January … and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” The question is about the election. Your answer is about the day the new president's term begins. Unless the election was delayed too close to January 20th, I'm not sure why that would answer the question. |
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,241 
|
Post by Gennifer on Oct 14, 2020 5:46:47 GMT
She admitted that she or her husband owns a gun, so I think we can forget about reasonable gun safety, too, as well as the Affordable Care Act and women’s reproductive rights. That’s not fair. My husband owns a couple of guns, and I am all for reasonable gun laws. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Oct 14, 2020 6:02:14 GMT
That is beyond vile. WTF is the matter with her? Oh.my.God. This happened LAST YEAR. She is basically saying that anyone can say any words they want and unless someone can actually prove you're a racist/homophobe/misogynist, there's nothing you can do. Really? REALLY? This is exactly what Trump does. He says stuff like "Maybe they're [x,y,z], maybe not. Who's to tell?" and then millions of lemmings feel justified in their racist, homophobic, misogynist ways. UGH. We are doomed. The plaintiff did not present the N word as evidence of a hostile work environment. The N word was not used in creating a hostile environment, it wasn't used until he was terminated. She also stated that the panel left their statement open to be interpreted that a single use of the N word CAN be cause for a hostile work environment. But they couldn't rule in favor of something that wasn't presented. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Oct 14, 2020 6:27:00 GMT
Here's what I don't get. How can the GOP use her confirmation as a reason to vote for them in November if they plan to have her confirmed before election day? We keep getting mailers from Thom Tillis with something about how important her confirmation is and to vote for him. Well, I think that is what they say because I really can't speed read fast enough to see what they say between the mailbox and the recycling bin. Tillis no doubt is hoping that her nomination will fire up evangelicals and anti-choice voters to get out the vote. And I suspect that McConnell realizes that he might lose control of the Senate and so is determined to ram her nomination through before that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Oct 14, 2020 6:50:45 GMT
We Dems need to get our act together and unify on expanding the SC if we get the Senate and the WH because Breyer is next. He was born in 1938. I don’t know how much longer he’ll be on the bench, but if Trump wins a 2nd term, forget 6-3, we’ll be looking at 7-2. And either age or term limits. It is absurd that a Justice could serve for over 30 years. Justices need to be mentally sharp and healthy. Given her health issues, it would have been better if RBG could have retired during Obama’s term. And I say that as someone who admired her greatly. I am hoping that if Dems win the Senate, that they consider making changes to the SC. SC confirmations have become a political football, and it is very troubling to realize that so many Justices have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. I just read that since Nixon in 1969, Democrats have appointed 4 SC Justices, and Republicans have appointed 15. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Oct 14, 2020 6:54:26 GMT
I don’t get why republicans are praising her for not having any notes. Who the fuck needs notes when you don’t answer a single question. And no doubt she has been thoroughly prepped. |
|
|
|
Post by worldwanderer75 on Oct 14, 2020 8:29:03 GMT
I disagree with most of what she stands for but 2 of my close friends had her for law school at Notre Dame and said she is an exceptional teacher who knows the law backwards and forwards. Neither of them agree with her politically but could not deny that she is a gifted teacher with a wealth of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 14, 2020 11:07:39 GMT
She admitted that she or her husband owns a gun, so I think we can forget about reasonable gun safety, too, as well as the Affordable Care Act and women’s reproductive rights. That’s not fair. My husband owns a couple of guns, and I am all for reasonable gun laws. Sorry, my dad is a gun owner too and also supports reasonable gun safety. I didn’t mean to suggest that all gun owners are opposed. I just think her views on gun safety probably line up with her other conservative views. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 14, 2020 13:56:27 GMT
FYI - the faculty of the law school have written in her support (23 of them signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee) The letter in opposition was from faculty in other departments. But I agree with you that unless there's another COVID outbreak, none of this matters. I am going to hell so here it goes. You are the queen of voting for the opposite side while trying to make it look like you are with us. Every single fucking post. Sometimes it is as easy as that....just pick a goddamn side. We are not stupid to think everyone at Notredame opposed her confirmation. Yes the law school faculty at Norte Dame did not sign the letter. We read Fox News too. 88 faculty members from other departments like political science, sociology and others signed. I guess that doesn’t matter to you and your “semantics”. The point is most of us here do not want her as the Supreme Court judge. I am sick and tired of this “I am just stating facts” or “I am not voting for trump and I don’t like that trump is doing this BUT...”. Sometimes in life there is no gray area and this shit show of trump is one of them I don't really give a damn if you no longer care about facts. I do - and I will continue to point out utter bullshit like the OP where someone stated a law professor doesn't know basic laws. If you're unable to make a point or decide to support another's point that's based on bullshit - that's on you. I had no problem contacting my senators regarding voting against Amy Coney Barrett using actual facts based on reality. |
|
Jili
Pearl Clutcher
SLPea
Posts: 4,366
Jun 26, 2014 1:26:48 GMT
|
Post by Jili on Oct 14, 2020 14:11:44 GMT
She'll be confirmed no matter what. These hearings are merely an opportunity for the Democrats to lay the concerns out in front of the public. Amy Coney Barrett just has to endure it for a few days, no worries. She can provide the sloppiest answers because it just doesn't matter. She's been given her marching orders, and she will follow them eagerly once this is all over, to the detriment of the rest of us.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Oct 14, 2020 14:29:52 GMT
We Dems need to get our act together and unify on expanding the SC if we get the Senate and the WH because Breyer is next. He was born in 1938. I don’t know how much longer he’ll be on the bench, but if Trump wins a 2nd term, forget 6-3, we’ll be looking at 7-2. And either age or term limits. It is absurd that a Justice could serve for over 30 years. Justices need to be mentally sharp and healthy. Given her health issues, it would have been better if RBG could have retired during Obama’s term. And I say that as someone who admired her greatly. I am hoping that if Dems win the Senate, that they consider making changes to the SC. SC confirmations have become a political football, and it is very troubling to realize that so many Justices have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. I just read that since Nixon in 1969, Democrats have appointed 4 SC Justices, and Republicans have appointed 15. I agree that it’s absurd. I’m glad you used the word “And” because term limits alone will not help us. There’s a House bill for term limits that will be introduced soon, if not already, but the problem is all eight present justices will be exempted from it should it pass, so the five current right-leaning justices will stay no matter what, and Barrett as a newcomer stays for eighteen years per the bill. So, that in and of itself won’t help us if our goal is to equalize the SC. We have to aim for expansion. I think Dems are beginning to realize that we either get smart and fight back hard or we get rolled again the next go-round and lick our wounds for the next thirty years or until we die, whichever comes first. |
|
|
|
Post by pattyraindrops on Oct 14, 2020 14:55:22 GMT
We Dems need to get our act together and unify on expanding the SC if we get the Senate and the WH because Breyer is next. He was born in 1938. I don’t know how much longer he’ll be on the bench, but if Trump wins a 2nd term, forget 6-3, we’ll be looking at 7-2. And either age or term limits. It is absurd that a Justice could serve for over 30 years. Justices need to be mentally sharp and healthy. Given her health issues, it would have been better if RBG could have retired during Obama’s term. And I say that as someone who admired her greatly. I am hoping that if Dems win the Senate, that they consider making changes to the SC. SC confirmations have become a political football, and it is very troubling to realize that so many Justices have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. I just read that since Nixon in 1969, Democrats have appointed 4 SC Justices, and Republicans have appointed 15. "Become political football." I don't know much about the whole process. Has this really become political or has it been political all along? I used to think of judges being impartial. As I have aged and heard more and more about the politics of the SC I have wondered if judges have not been more impartial in the past and this has been a flaw all along or if things really have been more political in more recent times. Has anyone seen a study on this? |
|
carhoch
Pearl Clutcher
Be yourself everybody else is already taken
Posts: 3,044
Location: We’re RV’s so It change all the time .
|
Post by carhoch on Oct 14, 2020 14:55:33 GMT
I think that there is zero chance that she is not elected and I hope that the Democrats win and win big in November and add 2 justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 14, 2020 14:58:42 GMT
Let me just add that I hate that she and the GOP are using her children as props in this process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 14, 2020 15:02:15 GMT
Let me just add that I hate that she and the GOP are using her children as props in this process. I agree - I detest when people use children in politics in general, and don't even know what point is trying to be made. We get it - you have a ton of kids, not relevant in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 14, 2020 16:06:42 GMT
I disagree with most of what she stands for but 2 of my close friends had her for law school at Notre Dame and said she is an exceptional teacher who knows the law backwards and forwards. Neither of them agree with her politically but could not deny that she is a gifted teacher with a wealth of knowledge. neither of those things mean she'd make a good supreme court justice. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Oct 14, 2020 17:18:43 GMT
And either age or term limits. It is absurd that a Justice could serve for over 30 years. Justices need to be mentally sharp and healthy. Given her health issues, it would have been better if RBG could have retired during Obama’s term. And I say that as someone who admired her greatly. I am hoping that if Dems win the Senate, that they consider making changes to the SC. SC confirmations have become a political football, and it is very troubling to realize that so many Justices have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. I just read that since Nixon in 1969, Democrats have appointed 4 SC Justices, and Republicans have appointed 15. "Become political football." I don't know much about the whole process. Has this really become political or has it been political all along? I used to think of judges being impartial. As I have aged and heard more and more about the politics of the SC I have wondered if judges have not been more impartial in the past and this has been a flaw all along or if things really have been more political in more recent times. Has anyone seen a study on this? The SC has been partisan since the early ‘70s. Practically all my adult life, it has been that way. Especially after Roe, omg, slews of decisions were along partisan lines. It’s arguable when it specifically began but it trended that way as Congress became more and more a battleground. Public policies, social issues, and everything under the sun became a combat between Right and Left. By the time Reagan was president, it was apparent it would take a miracle to go back to a unified court. If you’re really interested in the subject, there are many books I can personally recommend that you may wish to borrow from the library. Here are some that, IMO, are superb, and even if you just read one, it will illuminate your understanding of how and why we ended up where we are, and how the SC became the most powerful entity in our gov't: --Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Mill Hiser --The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court's Assault on the Constitution by David Kaplan (no water-carrier for the Liberals) --Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America by Adam Cohen --The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (yes, that’s CNN’s Toobin) |
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Oct 14, 2020 17:24:20 GMT
back in late January, Trump was riding high. seemed like a shoo-in for re-election. then a turn of events.
we knew RBG was sick but i don't think anyone thought she would pass this quickly. at least i didn't. another turn of events.
signs point to ACB being confirmed but stranger things have happened this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Oct 14, 2020 17:42:42 GMT
If I recall correctly, there were 2 R senators who were opposed to hearings being held this close to the election. They should be voting no if they stand by their principles.
Mitt Romney said the hearings should be held, but very gently opposes Trump. He should also be voting no.
I also read that several senators, who have been in lockstep with Trumo for the past 4 years, are now trying to distance themselves from him, so they should all vote NO.
So, in summary, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that her confirmation doesnt go through, because if there is one constant in the republican party, it is that they are blind followers of trump and will do whatever he wants regardless of what the american public wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Oct 14, 2020 18:05:58 GMT
1. Being "top of one's class" means fuck all in terms of capacity in a profession.
2. Being a teacher does not mean one has a grasp of all content.
3. She can't name the five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053
|
Post by Olan on Oct 14, 2020 18:30:04 GMT
FYI - the faculty of the law school have written in her support (23 of them signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee) The letter in opposition was from faculty in other departments. But I agree with you that unless there's another COVID outbreak, none of this matters. I am going to hell so here it goes. You are the queen of voting for the opposite side while trying to make it look like you are with us. Every single fucking post. Sometimes it is as easy as that....just pick a goddamn side. We are not stupid to think everyone at Notredame opposed her confirmation. Yes the law school faculty at Norte Dame did not sign the letter. We read Fox News too. 88 faculty members from other departments like political science, sociology and others signed. I guess that doesn’t matter to you and your “semantics”. The point is most of us here do not want her as the Supreme Court judge. I am sick and tired of this “I am just stating facts” or “I am not voting for trump and I don’t like that trump is doing this BUT...”. Sometimes in life there is no gray area and this shit show of trump is one of them I concur. It used to be maddening to me until I saw the pattern in it. I’m always trying to find inventive ways to avoid walking around seething with anger and the best I’ve come up with as it relates to the DarcyCollins/Amy Barretts of the world is: They have been maintaining the fuckery way before I even came to be. It’s just who they are 🤷🏾♀️Nothing I type, and certainly nothing I do can implore them to be anything but who they’ve always been. |
|
|
|
Post by pattyraindrops on Oct 14, 2020 18:46:23 GMT
"Become political football." I don't know much about the whole process. Has this really become political or has it been political all along? I used to think of judges being impartial. As I have aged and heard more and more about the politics of the SC I have wondered if judges have not been more impartial in the past and this has been a flaw all along or if things really have been more political in more recent times. Has anyone seen a study on this? The SC has been partisan since the early ‘70s. Practically all my adult life, it has been that way. Especially after Roe, omg, slews of decisions were along partisan lines. It’s arguable when it specifically began but it trended that way as Congress became more and more a battleground. Public policies, social issues, and everything under the sun became a combat between Right and Left. By the time Reagan was president, it was apparent it would take a miracle to go back to a unified court. If you’re really interested in the subject, there are many books I can personally recommend that you may wish to borrow from the library. Here are some that, IMO, are superb, and even if you just read one, it will illuminate your understanding of how and why we ended up where we are, and how the SC became the most powerful entity in our gov't: --Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Mill Hiser --The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court's Assault on the Constitution by David Kaplan (no water-carrier for the Liberals) --Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America by Adam Cohen --The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (yes, that’s CNN’s Toobin) Thank you. I'm not interested enough to read all 4, but I will see what my library has and choose one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Oct 14, 2020 19:29:27 GMT
My thoughts on ACB
She may know the law, and can quote case law by memory, but she does not know the Constitution, which is ironic since she is suppose to be a Constitutional Law Professor.
The Republicans are throwing her softball questions, ie Ted Cruz, "do you play the piano, do your children play the piano? What the F does that have to do with the law?
Every Republican has been praising her because she has children, and a perfect family. Did they do that for all male candidates?
She may have a great deal of book knowledge, but she comes off to me a a bit of a robot.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 14, 2020 19:40:20 GMT
My thoughts on ACB She may know the law, and can quote case law by memory, but she does not know the Constitution, which is ironic since she is suppose to be a Constitutional Law Professor. The Republicans are throwing her softball questions, ie Ted Cruz, "do you play the piano, do your children play the piano? What the F does that have to do with the law? Every Republican has been praising her because she has children, and a perfect family. Did they do that for all male candidates? She may have a great deal of book knowledge, but she comes off to me a a bit of a robot. No. The misogyny is jaw dropping. Although, I think the true intent is to keep drawing attention to the fact that she has two children who are POC. I think that they think that visual will somehow convince the general public that the GOP isn’t being run by a bunch of white male white supremacists. |
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,447
|
Post by amom23 on Oct 14, 2020 19:49:23 GMT
Oh I believe she will be confirmed, but I also believe the Republicans are going to pay dearly at the polls. They have a pretty short memory of what happened to them in the midterms.
|
|
jennamama
Full Member
Posts: 114
Jul 13, 2018 18:42:10 GMT
|
Post by jennamama on Oct 14, 2020 20:05:38 GMT
I disagree with most of what she stands for but 2 of my close friends had her for law school at Notre Dame and said she is an exceptional teacher who knows the law backwards and forwards. Neither of them agree with her politically but could not deny that she is a gifted teacher with a wealth of knowledge. neither of those things mean she'd make a good supreme court justice. Came here to say this!! She also didn't seem to have a wealth of knowledge when she couldn't name the top 5 today. |
|
