• 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

Soon the Supreme court will be 2 to 1 liberal to conservative justices. Then we will correct the mistakes of the trump years.

Then to work on the trump appellate court appointments
wishful thinking. what mistakes?
 
I read several of your posts. Take your time and try to process my next statement.

WRITTEN TRUMP-SPEAK COMES ACROSS AS GIBBERISH.
Sorry for your suffering. TDS is truly a terrible disease that obviously has long term cognitive effects.
 
Figures you provided links of distinguished DEM Senators asking reasonable questions instead of the stupid questions asked by the GOP Senators.

In case you don't know, the GOP Chair of the Committee totally flipflopped:


Doh!


1602857171916.png
 
And? Would you prefer a 4-4 decision that leaves the election in limbo if there is an issue?

4-4 decision over what exactly? To allow states to stop counting ballots because of massive turnout? To disallow it? I'd hope a 4-4 gridlock in some cases stops party shenanigans or at least does not lend legitimacy to any attempts to prematurely stop the count.

The funny thing is it's beginning to look like a landslide. If it were close, requiring recounts like in 2000, there might be a last-minute need for SCOTUS. Trump seems to be gearing up to bring the courts in early though, to stop even the first round of counting if it looks like he's going to lose.

So yeah in the scenario Trump is imagining, I think no decision would be better than the wrong one.

The simple fact is rushing to get a court pick in just before an election whose results he fully intends to contest is leaning on the scales a little too heavily. And having a candidate for a justice coming in knowing that and refusing to say whether or not she'll play along is an indication he's picking the right person to do that particular job.
 
With lies the Democratic Party's #1 tactic, this thread is build on a predictable lie.

Justice Barrett did not rule against the Indiana Republican Party because she is an "uber rightwinger."

Without lies, the Democratic Party has nothing other than racism, graft, hate mongering and fear mongering.
 
4-4 decision over what exactly? To allow states to stop counting ballots because of massive turnout? To disallow it? I'd hope a 4-4 gridlock in some cases stops party shenanigans or at least does not lend legitimacy to any attempts to prematurely stop the count.

The funny thing is it's beginning to look like a landslide. If it were close, requiring recounts like in 2000, there might be a last-minute need for SCOTUS. Trump seems to be gearing up to bring the courts in early though, to stop even the first round of counting if it looks like he's going to lose.

So yeah in the scenario Trump is imagining, I think no decision would be better than the wrong one.

The simple fact is rushing to get a court pick in just before an election whose results he fully intends to contest is leaning on the scales a little too heavily. And having a candidate for a justice coming in knowing that and refusing to say whether or not she'll play along is an indication he's picking the right person to do that particular job.

Yes....imagine if a case like 2000 happens again and it goes to the Supreme Court, same as last time, and it's 4-4. That instantly creates a significant constitutional crisis. I don't see there being anything beyond that catching a favorable ruling from SCOTUS on Trump's side, even if ACB is appointed. I don't see the most likely alternative being a good one with 8 members.
 
No matter how you slice it, the current mode of nominating and filling vacancies on the Supreme Court is a political process which is somehow supposed to result in an impartial/apolitical court.
 
Yes....imagine if a case like 2000 happens again and it goes to the Supreme Court, same as last time, and it's 4-4. That instantly creates a significant constitutional crisis. I don't see there being anything beyond that catching a favorable ruling from SCOTUS on Trump's side, even if ACB is appointed. I don't see the most likely alternative being a good one with 8 members.

No doubt it will be ugly but four more years of Trump could be worse.
 
No doubt it will be ugly but four more years of Trump could be worse.

Worse than a war over who gets to be President like a 3rd world nation?
 
Worse than a war over who gets to be President like a 3rd world nation?

look I don't see it getting that bad, but America already in uncharted territory to an extent: The nation has failed this constitutional crisis: a republican-led senate has been wilfully enabling the blatant criminality of a president. It was a test they passed with Nixon, not his time.

Now if the judiciary is on board with that as well - in order to 'keep the peace' - that is another step toward authoritarian rule.
 
look I don't see it getting that bad, but America already in uncharted territory to an extent: The nation has failed this constitutional crisis: a republican-led senate has been wilfully enabling the blatant criminality of a president. It was a test they passed with Nixon, not his time.

Now if the judiciary is on board with that as well - in order to 'keep the peace' - that is another step toward authoritarian rule.

OK fine....what is the worst than that has happened during Trump's 4 years that you're saying he did or is responsible for?
 
Conservative rulings doesn't mean they're wrong. Time for you to move on dude, you don't have a winning hand. She's a ****ing genius compared to the leftwing idiots questioning her in that Senate hearing. It's laughable watching them flail in their attempt to discredit her with their books of papers, while she sits there batting the feeble attempts without a single note in front of her.


Oh, please. You're just happy because you sense that her evasiveness might have annoyed some liberals somewhere. That's all.


PS: someone who cannot answer the question does Trump have authority to delay the election as president with a flat "no" is either an idiot, or someone being cagey for a selfish reason. That isn't one of those murky legal issues. It's a hard inarguable no.

Chances are she's not an idiot. I mean sometimes you end up with an idiot on a circuit court, but not usually. Sometimes. So chances are that she's being cagey because her views are a tad more extreme . . . hence the playing coy on Roe. That or it's selfishness: she knows the GOP wants her to overturn Roe, so she plays coy in a way that nods to them but does not commit her.
 
OK fine....what is the worst than that has happened during Trump's 4 years that you're saying he did or is responsible for?

Who, Trump?

Killing a mass testing plan that Kushner - the one good thing he seems to have managed to do - came up with because he calculated that a lot of liberals would die in blue states and he could thus gain politically by blaming blue governors was straight-up evil.

As was, as he admitted, lying and denying about COVID, allowing it to explode in the states that it didn't have to, and now we have 215,000 in the ground.



Remember what we did when 3,700 people died on a certain September? We ended up invading two countries, getting over a hundred thousand civilians there killed, getting several thousand of our troops killed, spent trillions, acquiesed in mass government surveillance and letting security guard rejects feel up grandma and her grand daughter at the airport.

215,000 what happens? You lot make wearing a ****ing mask your hill to die on. Because, dear lord, it's ever so slightly uncomfortable. Trump and Trumpism are poisons.
 
OK fine....what is the worst than that has happened during Trump's 4 years that you're saying he did or is responsible for?

Trump's record has been done to death in other threads. This one is about his apparent quid-pro-quo stacking of the judiciary that could potentially help SCOTUS take his side in a disputed election, simply to return the favor.

He gets Barrett a job; she helps him keep his.
 
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

1) Ted Cruz being an intellectual heavy weight. :LOL:

2) RGB being a socialist. :LOL:

3) Dems stopped the tradition of cross aisles on nominees because Merrick's seat was flatout stolen. Thus, you could say Mitch McConnell ended that tradition.

4) The best we can hope for is that a right-winger is a total joke-buffoon (like 90% of Republicans and their voters), rather than being a corrupt and competent fascist. Looks like Amy is on the competent end of the spectrum, meaning she knows full well what she's doing in not answering soft-ball questions like 'Can a president pardon himself from corruption charges?' or 'Is it legal to allow armed right-wingers to engage in voter-intimidation?' or 'Should the loser facilitate a peaceful transition of power?'
 
1) Ted Cruz being an intellectual heavy weight. :LOL:

2) RGB being a socialist. :LOL:

3) Dems stopped the tradition of cross aisles on nominees because Merrick's seat was flatout stolen. Thus, you could say Mitch McConnell ended that tradition.

4) The best we can hope for is that a right-winger is a total joke-buffoon (like 90% of Republicans and their voters), rather than being a corrupt and competent fascist. Looks like Amy is on the competent end of the spectrum, meaning she knows full well what she's doing in not answering soft-ball questions like 'Can a president pardon himself from corruption charges?' or 'Is it legal to allow armed right-wingers to engage in voter-intimidation?' or 'Should the loser facilitate a peaceful transition of power?'

Cruz's record academically is much better than Obama's. Did not you tell us Obama was a genius?

how was Garland's seat "Stolen"? WTF do you think this seat belongs to?
 
Cruz's record academically is much better than Obama's. Did not you tell us Obama was a genius?

I don't recall ever calling Obama a genius. I said he's almost infinitely smarter than Trump. However, it's possible that Trump is actually smart but is so incredibly lazy that he's functionally retarded.

As for Cruz, regardless of what his academics are, he talks like a buffoon and spews some of the least intellectual arguments I've ever heard. He's not a good debater, he's just good at word-salad-speak and sounding smart to less intelligent people. There are people who think Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin are super-geniuses, but that doesn't make them particularly bright.

how was Garland's seat "Stolen"? WTF do you think this seat belongs to?

Garland's seat was blocked when Obama had a year to go on his presidency, then Republicans immediately took the seat when they secured the presidency.

If you pull out a chocolate bar and try to eat it, but I grab the chocolate bar from you and give it to my friend... that's theft.
 
I don't recall ever calling Obama a genius. I said he's almost infinitely smarter than Trump. However, it's possible that Trump is actually smart but is so incredibly lazy that he's functionally retarded.

As for Cruz, regardless of what his academics are, he talks like a buffoon and spews some of the least intellectual arguments I've ever heard. He's not a good debater, he's just good at word-salad-speak and sounding smart to less intelligent people. There are people who think Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin are super-geniuses, but that doesn't make them particularly bright.



Garland's seat was blocked when Obama had a year to go on his presidency, then Republicans immediately took the seat when they secured the presidency.

If you pull out a chocolate bar and try to eat it, but I grab the chocolate bar from you and give it to my friend... that's theft.

if you had a law degree with many years of practice in high level constitutional cases and federal appellate issues, I doubt you'd make that claim. Garland didn't have the votes to win a nomination. He was a gun banning democrat and the senate had the majority. Boo hoo, elections matter. It wasn't his seat, it wasn't Obama's either, and given the MINORITY dems had blocked votes for at least two men who had more than enough votes to be seated on the Court of appeals under Bush, the whining about Garland is hypocritical
 
You do. Again, this just highlights that you questioning someone else's intelligence here is funny. You're going around with symbols you don't even know where they come from.
View attachment 67299732
Yes antifascist action prevented Britain from becoming a vichy puppet state of the nazis by crushing Mosely and bravely fought against the nazis. There werent just communists who were antifascists.
The three arrows struck the monarchy, nazis, and communists. Are you opposed to antifascism by chance?
 
if you had a law degree with many years of practice in high level constitutional cases and federal appellate issues, I doubt you'd make that claim.

Do you think Louie Gohmert is a smart man?

Garland didn't have the votes to win a nomination.

Why did McConnell block it if the votes weren't there?
 
Who, Trump?

Killing a mass testing plan that Kushner - the one good thing he seems to have managed to do - came up with because he calculated that a lot of liberals would die in blue states and he could thus gain politically by blaming blue governors was straight-up evil.

As was, as he admitted, lying and denying about COVID, allowing it to explode in the states that it didn't have to, and now we have 215,000 in the ground.

Remember what we did when 3,700 people died on a certain September? We ended up invading two countries, getting over a hundred thousand civilians there killed, getting several thousand of our troops killed, spent trillions, acquiesed in mass government surveillance and letting security guard rejects feel up grandma and her grand daughter at the airport.

215,000 what happens? You lot make wearing a ****ing mask your hill to die on. Because, dear lord, it's ever so slightly uncomfortable. Trump and Trumpism are poisons.

Trump didn't say he lied about it. Fauci himself said that Trump didn't provide any false information. What he did say was he downplayed it because people panicking. That could've caused it's own set of problems. So far as the number dead, you'll have to look to mostly Democrat governors for that, like Cuomo forcing nursing homes to take COVID patients, as well as the 3 other Democrat governors who did the same. The actual ground responses to COVID were on the governors, not the President as that office doesn't have the authority to implement policies in the states. I understand that you don't understand basic U.S. government realities.

Further, there was a lot of regulations that had to be cut through, that held up the process. I'm not saying that Trump did a good job but Democrat governors definitely did a worse job and to lay everything at Trump's feet is just ignorant and shows an utter lack of understanding or perspective. The bureaucratic state that existed, not generated by Trump, was a significant issue.

 
amy-coney-barrett-scotus.png
 
Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction



Illuminating monologue by Eric Levitz allows one to cut through Barrett's obfuscating bullshit at the confirmation hearing and pin her down for what she obviously is ... uber-conservative.

No judge is recommended by the Federalist Society unless they have an abundant history of conservative rulings and papers. Barrett came highly recommended.

And make no mistake, the Federalist Society acts as a conduit for judicial dark money donations from wealthy conservative individuals and organizations.

For example, some entity (Mercer family? Koch family?) wrote the Society a $17 million check to recommend/lobby for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)
You mean like Kagan's and Sotomayor's?

Lets have some fun, define court packing as you see it, I bet it will resemble the fictional distortion being passed around the media right now.
 
Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction



Illuminating monologue by Eric Levitz allows one to cut through Barrett's obfuscating bullshit at the confirmation hearing and pin her down for what she obviously is ... uber-conservative.

No judge is recommended by the Federalist Society unless they have an abundant history of conservative rulings and papers. Barrett came highly recommended.

And make no mistake, the Federalist Society acts as a conduit for judicial dark money donations from wealthy conservative individuals and organizations.

For example, some entity (Mercer family? Koch family?) wrote the Society a $17 million check to recommend/lobby for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)
Good. That works for me, after all the liberals on the court that have made NO EFFORT to maintain "Judicial Neutrality".
 
Back
Top Bottom