• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction

The good news is this. Barrett is MUCH smarter than any of the dems on the committee. The Democrats don't realize that. Most of them look like morons trying to trip her up. Some, like the twit from Hawaii, demonstrate she shouldn't be anywhere near an office that has power over other citizens. Amy Klobuchar stated she was hoping to be nominated for a USSC position-sorry Amy, you don't have the wattage-and you are by far the smartest dem on that committee She is much smarter than most of the republicans too-and they know that too and don't attempt to outshine Barrett's intellect. Now Ted Cruz might be brighter-and perhaps he should be on the court, but he realizes she's an intellectual peer. Hawley is brilliant as well-summa at Stanford, JD Yale and he clerked for CJ Roberts I look forward to her being on the court and that she is going to replace someone who was a hard core socialist is even better news


How have we improved the Supreme Court by exchanging one extremist for the opposite extreme?
 
There will be no argument when you lose. Republicans have lost every ounce of high ground. We will bury trumpism once and for all.

wow that is mighty forceful but even more funny
 
How have we improved the Supreme Court by exchanging one extremist for the opposite extreme?
conservative judges tend to respect precedent. I'd wait before you call her an "Extremist"
 
conservative judges tend to respect precedent. I'd wait before you call her an "Extremist"

The problem is that many of those precedents were not based on originalist ideas. For example, the NFA was said not have violated (infringed upon?) the 2A.
 
The problem is that many of those precedents were not based on originalist ideas.
no doubt-but Scalia noted that he wouldn't overturn unconstitutional precedent if doing so would cause too much "social upheaval"
 
no doubt-but Scalia noted that he wouldn't overturn unconstitutional precedent if doing so would cause too much "social upheaval"

OK, but that amounts to having constitutional amendment via judicial activism - precisely what “the left” wants.
 
Well, in spite of the dissatisfaction of the left, there's another constitutionalist on the Supreme Court.
 
There's always the amendment process, which should result in a clear and concise modern wording which should limit the need of interpretation and more unanimous court decisions.
 
Sorry, what "extremist" did we lose ?
I was responding to Turtle who implied Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an extremist when he said said Ms Barrett was " going to replace someone who was a hard core socialist". I do not consider RBG an extremist.
 
I was responding to Turtle who implied Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an extremist when he said said Ms Barrett was " going to replace someone who was a hard core socialist". I do not consider RBG an extremist.

No offense

And she wasn't an extremist by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Back
Top Bottom