Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053 
|
Post by Olan on Oct 14, 2020 20:06:03 GMT
If you polled Black women, very few of us would be shocked at the way Amy and the Republicans are using her children. Self serving. White saviorsNothing new under the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Oct 14, 2020 20:19:43 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? It has steadily become more political, IMO since the Bork SC hearings in the late 80’s. He answered questions candidly and was not confirmed. Republicans have not forgotten. Then during Obama’s last year as president, Merrick Garland did not get a hearing. The SC vacancy was instead given to Neil Gorsuch by Trump. Now Republicans say that it’s fine to confirm Amy Barrett during Trump’s last year. So there is a lot of bad blood. I do not know if there is a study. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 14, 2020 21:00:14 GMT
Her views on gun control are even more conservative than Scalia www.npr.org/2020/10/09/921713631/gun-control-groups-voice-grave-concerns-about-supreme-court-nominee-s-record
In essence, Barrett concluded that historical precedent led to the conclusion that only people convicted of dangerous felonies should lose their right to keep and bear arms. The judge left open the possibility that others convicted of misdemeanor charges — on, for instance, domestic violence — should lose their gun rights for some time.
He said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books, from prohibitions on machine guns to so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others.
"We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s," Winkler said. "Does that mean that there's a constitutional right to have machine guns because there's no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?"
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Oct 14, 2020 21:22:07 GMT
Her views on gun control are even more conservative than Scalia www.npr.org/2020/10/09/921713631/gun-control-groups-voice-grave-concerns-about-supreme-court-nominee-s-record
In essence, Barrett concluded that historical precedent led to the conclusion that only people convicted of dangerous felonies should lose their right to keep and bear arms. The judge left open the possibility that others convicted of misdemeanor charges — on, for instance, domestic violence — should lose their gun rights for some time.
He said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books, from prohibitions on machine guns to so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others.
"We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s," Winkler said. "Does that mean that there's a constitutional right to have machine guns because there's no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?"
But in the same opinion she has no problem with felons losing their voting rights. It’s not a matter of being an originality it’s a matter of picking and choosing what rights she’s interested in protecting vs what rights she wants to destroy. |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 14, 2020 23:39:28 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. Agreed. The blatant misogyny and tokenism are super annoying. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Oct 14, 2020 23:51:13 GMT
OMG John Neely Kennedy ask her who did the laundry at her house.  |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 14, 2020 23:52:01 GMT
OMG John Neely Kennedy ask her who did the laundry at her house. Funny, I don’t remember anyone asking Kavanaugh the same question... 😤 |
|
