The vote is hapenning now. Welcome to SCOTUS JUDGE BARRETT!

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,831
Reaction score
10,800
Points
1,410
She is a well qualified and principled person. She will be fantastic for the next 30-40 years...as will Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
They'll have four new liberal colleagues next year.
No. Just two. That preserves the balance that would have occurred had tbe Republicans not stolen a seat from Obama.
Joe means 4 more. That will give the liberals 7 justices against 6 justices for conservatives.
At that point, the Republic has ended.

We agree to split up the states (the libs get 1/2 of california) or we go to war.
 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
534
Points
908
Its official...52-48!

USA!
USA!
USA!
I hope when Trump goes whining to them because he lost, she decides against him.
Whatever she decides, it will be based as much on the constitution as possible.

Unlike the dyke patrol.

Roberts is going to be the key, how he guides the other members of the court.

If there is a Democratic majority and President he is not going to want them to pack the court so I reckon he will steer the court clear of the most polarizing political cases, Roe vs Wade for instance.
I could care less about Roe v Wade.

There are many other issues that need to be taken away from the feds as they are not within federal purview.

Well on many issues that are a matter of balance of federal and state power even with a Democratic President and majority he would be willing to put them on the dock.

He is not in the same judicial philosophy of say the late Scalia who would have loved to overturn a whole host of rulings from the last 50 years but he does have a measured but bold approach which will challenge previous rulings if he believes they are way off the constitutional mark.

And Roberts would agree with you on state power, with a Trump Presidency he might let rip.

He did say " We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the Federal system is based on."
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
31,831
Reaction score
10,800
Points
1,410
Its official...52-48!

USA!
USA!
USA!
I hope when Trump goes whining to them because he lost, she decides against him.
Whatever she decides, it will be based as much on the constitution as possible.

Unlike the dyke patrol.

Roberts is going to be the key, how he guides the other members of the court.

If there is a Democratic majority and President he is not going to want them to pack the court so I reckon he will steer the court clear of the most polarizing political cases, Roe vs Wade for instance.
I could care less about Roe v Wade.

There are many other issues that need to be taken away from the feds as they are not within federal purview.

Well on many issues that are a matter of balance of federal and state power even with a Democratic President and majority he would be willing to put them on the dock.

He is not in the same judicial philosophy of say the late Scalia who would have loved to overturn a whole host of rulings from the last 50 years but he does have a measured but bold approach which will challenge previous rulings if he believes they are way off the constitutional mark.

And Roberts would agree with you on state power, with a Trump Presidency he might let rip.

He did say " We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the Federal system is based on."
Can you supply a reference.

I would be grateful.
 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
534
Points
908
Its official...52-48!

USA!
USA!
USA!
I hope when Trump goes whining to them because he lost, she decides against him.
Whatever she decides, it will be based as much on the constitution as possible.

Unlike the dyke patrol.

Roberts is going to be the key, how he guides the other members of the court.

If there is a Democratic majority and President he is not going to want them to pack the court so I reckon he will steer the court clear of the most polarizing political cases, Roe vs Wade for instance.
I could care less about Roe v Wade.

There are many other issues that need to be taken away from the feds as they are not within federal purview.

Well on many issues that are a matter of balance of federal and state power even with a Democratic President and majority he would be willing to put them on the dock.

He is not in the same judicial philosophy of say the late Scalia who would have loved to overturn a whole host of rulings from the last 50 years but he does have a measured but bold approach which will challenge previous rulings if he believes they are way off the constitutional mark.

And Roberts would agree with you on state power, with a Trump Presidency he might let rip.

He did say " We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the Federal system is based on."
Can you supply a reference.

I would be grateful.
Sorry mate, that is on his Wikipedia entry.



There is a lot of interesting stuff about him there.

 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
32,908
Reaction score
8,434
Points
1,330


I'M SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHY THE LEFT IS REALLY UPSET OVER AMY BARRETT!

It has NOTHING to do with Amy's character or integrity.

It has NOTHING to do with balancing the court, the timing close to the election.

It has NOTHING really to do with Obamacare, the election or R v W!

Not really.

The Democrats have lost EVERYTHING with Trump. Donald has literally EVICTED them from the Obama years and thrown them to the street with a lamp and the shirt on their backs.

They thought they had it all made with Barack-- -- had they been able to steal the election (or just win it as they were sure they would) with HILLARY,

it would now be a 6-3 court PACKED FULL OF SIX RADICAL LEFTWING SOCIALISTS! And there would be NO TALK of "packing the court."

It's just not fair. They can't take losing. It hurts all the worse losing to Donald Trump.


View attachment 407241
Donald Trump just :9:all over the miserable legacy of RGB. Loving it!
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
38,890
Reaction score
9,185
Points
1,330
She is a well qualified and principled person. She will be fantastic for the next 30-40 years...as will Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

You have Harry Reid to thank, Dems. Blame him.
At 9pm tonight she will be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Great news. We need more just like her on the SC.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
32,173
Reaction score
16,397
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth


I'M SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHY THE LEFT IS REALLY UPSET OVER AMY BARRETT!

It has NOTHING to do with Amy's character or integrity.

It has NOTHING to do with balancing the court, the timing close to the election.

It has NOTHING really to do with Obamacare, the election or R v W!

Not really.

The Democrats have lost EVERYTHING with Trump. Donald has literally EVICTED them from the Obama years and thrown them to the street with a lamp and the shirt on their backs.

They thought they had it all made with Barack-- -- had they been able to steal the election (or just win it as they were sure they would) with HILLARY,

it would now be a 6-3 court PACKED FULL OF SIX RADICAL LEFTWING SOCIALISTS! And there would be NO TALK of "packing the court."

It's just not fair. They can't take losing. It hurts all the worse losing to Donald Trump.


View attachment 407241
Donald Trump just :9:all over the miserable legacy of RGB. Loving it!
Trump just Bluzman61nd all over Ruth's legacy? Ruth was for promoting women's rights and equality-- -- she should be proud and happy for Amy Barrett. I think Amy would be for her if the shoes were reversed putting freedoms and equality ahead of personal ideology, unfortunately the Left is rarely as free thinking, generous and tolerant. ITMT, methane is both an energetic and rarefied gas-- -- Ruth should not mind some more as she'll soon be producing enough of it herself.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
63,059
Reaction score
21,457
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
Its official...52-48!

USA!
USA!
USA!
I hope when Trump goes whining to them because he lost, she decides against him.
View attachment 407201
Well, yeah, a little. I hope everyone is wrong about her changing the tenor of the court, though. She says her personal opinions don't matter, so maybe she'll be a good judge.
Why aren’t you concerned about your own pathetic fascist Canada that prosecutes people for saying Islam is controlled by people wishing to do harm to Western Civilization?
 

LiberalsLIE

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
2,391
Points
1,893
Ruth was for promoting women's rights and equality
Ruth was a demonic baby-killing piece of shit, and if there is any justice she is rotting in hell where she belongs.

Barrett is a great American and a wonderful mother.

And by the way dimwit, there is no such thing as "women's rights." There is the Bill of Rights, and all American Citizens have the same rights.

Now shut your stupid piehole.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,686
Reaction score
3,982
Points
400
Location
Pittsburgh
As I viewed this little episode playing out, from the timely death of RBG to the swearing in of ACB, I just have to wonder if Democrats are as stupid as they have seemed to be in this kabuki dance.

The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee continually lied and distorted the ramifications of this appointment. They predictably took the position that, in spite of what the Constitution SAYS, there are other principles that are supposed to inure to Democrat benefit, and the Republicans were ignoring those principles. Nobody is stupid enough to buy this, and nobody did.

Also, they kept bringing up "arguments" that literally have nothing to do with the proceedings. "Here is an unfortunate woman with cancer of the cootchie and if the Affordable Care Act is ruled unconstitutional, she will surely die." This ploy is so awful, you could write a sizable pamphlet on why the Senator presenting the argument should be shot.

First of all, no Supreme Court justice should even consider the public policy aspects of cases brought before the court. That is the role of CONGRESS. A Supreme Court justice looks at the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the particular case, and rules on whether the law, as applied to these facts, contravenes the Constitution. That's it. If the ruling affects one person badly, then it probably affects other people positively. Again, it's not the Court's job to make this assessment.

Second, in the extremely unlikely event that ACA would be struck down, NOBODY WILL INSTANTLY LOSE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. Those policies have TERMS. They start on a fixed date and they end on a date. The SC decision will not VOID any health insurance policies.

Third, If the SC would strike down the law, they would state very clearly WHY they are striking down the law, and Congress would know EXACTLY what it has to do in order to replace the law with one having provisions that are Constitutional. IN FACT, this is the VERY REASON why Our Beloved President wishes so fervently, and so publicly for the law to be struck down: to FORCE Congress to act and create a better law...one that uses market forces and competition to control costs, and not government mandates.

But regardless, everything presented by Democrats throughout this whole process has been either IRRELEVANT, FALSE, or TOTALLY MISLEADING. And since it is ALL for their constituents at home, they must think that Democrats are too stupid to see what they are doing.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,265
Reaction score
13,629
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No. Just two. That preserves the balance that would have occurred had tbe Republicans not stolen a seat from Obama.
I'd say go for four, and restructure all the lower courts to make up for all the idiots Trump has put on the bench.

The courts haven't been restructured since the 1930's, so it's well past time.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top