• 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

To be fair, if confirmed she would be among the MOST experienced (as far as years in the bench) of the female justices on the bench currently

Federal Bench Experience at Nomination (Yrs.)

Garland (DC Cir.) - 19.0
Sotomayor (NY/SD [6.2] + 2nd Cir. [10.6]) - 16.8
Alito (3rd Cir.) - 15.5
Breyer (1st Cir.) - 13.4
Ginsburg (DC Cir.) - 13.0
Kavanaugh (DC Cir.) - 12.1
Gorsuch (10th Cir.) - 10.5
Barrett (7th Cir.) - 2.9
Roberts (DC Cir.) - 2.1
Thomas (DC Cir.) - 1.3
Kagan (n/a) - 0.0
 
Federal Bench Experience at Nomination (Yrs.)

Garland (DC Cir.) - 19.0
Sotomayor (NY/SD [6.2] + 2nd Cir. [10.6]) - 16.8
Alito (3rd Cir.) - 15.5
Breyer (1st Cir.) - 13.4
Ginsburg (DC Cir.) - 13.0
Kavanaugh (DC Cir.) - 12.1
Gorsuch (10th Cir.) - 10.5
Barrett (7th Cir.) - 2.9
Roberts (DC Cir.) - 2.1
Thomas (DC Cir.) - 1.3
Kagan (n/a) - 0.0
Exactly my point. No one attacking ACB based on her years on the bench actually believes that is a disqualifier.
 
Exactly my point. No one attacking ACB based on her years on the bench actually believes that is a disqualifier.

I'm not suggesting it's a disqualifier either... but it does make her something of a relatively unknown quantity. That's the risk you run by nominating relatively young Judges - you never can tell how their views will shift as they gain experience. Personally, if I were on the other side of aisle, I'd be more comfortable with nominating a more experienced Judge (like Diane Sykes, for instance) whose views are more "locked-in".
 
I'm not suggesting it's a disqualifier either... but it does make her something of a relatively unknown quantity. That's the risk you run by nominating relatively young Judges - you never can tell how their views will shift as they gain experience. Personally, if I were on the other side of aisle, I'd be more comfortable with nominating a more experienced Judge (like Diane Sykes, for instance) whose views are more "locked-in".
Seems odd. Gorsuch was 1 year older than ACB when sworn in, and he had 10 years on the bench. I don't see any recent historical evidence that age or bench tenure has any impact on how a Supreme Court Justices will vote, or their fitness for duty. In fact, the whole point is that they should be of experience and temperament to consider the facts and arguments of each case that comes before them on their own merits, and not be a slave to some rigid ideological line of reasoning.
 
The San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee didn't endorse anyone in that race.
You don't need an official endorsement. The establishment knows to back the floozy sleeping with Slick Willie and following him around to all their fundraisers and public events.

You wouldn't know her name if she didn't drop her panties for that old troll.
 
Seems odd. Gorsuch was 1 year older than ACB when sworn in, and he had 10 years on the bench. I don't see any recent historical evidence that age or bench tenure has any impact on how a Supreme Court Justices will vote, or their fitness for duty. In fact, the whole point is that they should be of experience and temperament to consider the facts and arguments of each case that comes before them on their own merits, and not be a slave to some rigid ideological line of reasoning.

I'm not trying to suggest she isn't fit for the office.... on the contrary, I think she's perfectly suited for it. I'm just trying to gauge where she'll fit in on the Court and how flexible her views might be going forward. Truth be told, I think she's pretty much the conservative mirror-image of Kagan - solid academic experience, limited practical experience... roughly equivalent and interesting writing styles. Should be interesting when those two cross swords.
 
You don't need an official endorsement. The establishment knows to back the floozy sleeping with Slick Willie and following him around to all their fundraisers and public events.

You wouldn't know her name if she didn't drop her panties for that old troll.

Yeah... I'm not all that interested in your National Enquirer opinions. Why not take it the gossip circle down at the bingo hall? You'll fit in well with the cackling hens there.
 
I'm not suggesting it's a disqualifier either... but it does make her something of a relatively unknown quantity. That's the risk you run by nominating relatively young Judges - you never can tell how their views will shift as they gain experience. Personally, if I were on the other side of aisle, I'd be more comfortable with nominating a more experienced Judge (like Diane Sykes, for instance) whose views are more "locked-in".
Ever since Democrats "borked" Robert Bork the judges nominated to the Supreme Court are groomed for it. They purposely avoid any controversial cases/rulings and avoid public statements on controversial issues. You actually know more about ACB's personal views and history than you do the vast majority of previous nominations.
 
Ever since Democrats "borked" Robert Bork the judges nominated to the Supreme Court are groomed for it. They purposely avoid any controversial cases/rulings and avoid public statements on controversial issues. You actually know more about ACB's personal views and history than you do the vast majority of previous nominations.

Bork disqualified himself from the Supreme Court when he followed Nixon's orders during the Saturday Night Massacre. If he had followed Richardson's and Ruckelshaus' example and resigned instead of carrying out an illegal order from the President, then he would have been a hero. By blindly following orders, he made himself a zero.
 
I'm not trying to suggest she isn't fit for the office.... on the contrary, I think she's perfectly suited for it. I'm just trying to gauge where she'll fit in on the Court and how flexible her views might be going forward. Truth be told, I think she's pretty much the conservative mirror-image of Kagan - solid academic experience, limited practical experience... roughly equivalent and interesting writing styles. Should be interesting when those two cross swords.
I can only say that I agree with much of what you've said in this post, and point out that I have been surprised quite often by how individual justices, especially those appointed recently, vote. No doubt more due to my lack of knowledge of their history and less that they are unpredictable, but my 2 cents.
 
Yeah... I'm not all that interested in your National Enquirer opinions. Why not take it the gossip circle down at the bingo hall? You'll fit in well with the cackling hens there.
It's not gossip. It was their public life. They were not ashamed of it. Don't be ashamed for them. She was an adult and was able to consent. She doesn't need random people on the internet defending her honor. She's not going to sleep with you, you can't help her career. Move on, it'll be okay.
 
Last edited:
As soon as I heard of her being recommended by the Federalist Society, I knew she was a ringer and a liar. Those types of so-called Christians are programmed to lie if it suits their Lord..and believe me, they just happen to know exactly what their Lord wants..
Phony as a human can possibly get. Any woman that goes along with "My man knows what's best for me in every facet of my life"..is one female that needs some serious consulting...especially when it affects my ass and also 200 million other people.
 
Bork disqualified himself from the Supreme Court when he followed Nixon's orders during the Saturday Night Massacre. If he had followed Richardson's and Ruckelshaus' example and resigned instead of carrying out an illegal order from the President, then he would have been a hero. By blindly following orders, he made himself a zero.
Opinions of Bork doesn't change the fact that his nomination changed the course of Supreme Court nominations.
 
As soon as I heard of her being recommended by the Federalist Society, I knew she was a ringer and a liar. Those types of so-called Christians are programmed to lie if it suits their Lord..and believe me, they just happen to know exactly what their Lord wants..
Phony as a human can possibly get. Any woman that goes along with "My man knows what's best for me in every facet of my life"..is one female that needs some serious consulting...especially when it affects my ass and also 200 million other people.
Every judge on Trump's list of potential judicial nominees comes from the Federalist Society. Trump and his people don't have the first clue about judges. They've outsourced it.
 
It's not gossip. It was their public life. They were not ashamed of it. Don't be ashamed for them. She was an adult and was able to consent. She doesn't need random people on the internet defending her honor. She's not going to sleep with you, you can't help her career. Move on, it'll be okay.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and not be so obsessed with a relationship someone had 25 years ago?

As you say... move on, it'll be okay.
 
Opinions of Bork doesn't change the fact that his nomination changed the course of Supreme Court nominations.

His actions during Watergate aren't opinion - they're clearly fact. Bork revealed himself to be a toady... and the Supreme Court is no place for toadies.
 
I agree with that up to a point. I think the character and integrity of a nominee outweigh their ideological positions in most instances... unless and up to the point where those ideological positions are blatantly at odds with the Constitution... but I haven't seen anything to indicate that has been the case with Judge Barrett... have you?
The only thing I have seen is she refuses to be intimidated or bullied by the left. That in itself makes her a great choice.
 
Like the ACA, wait until she's been confirmed and seated on the Court before passing judgement on her.
 
Perhaps you should heed your own advice and not be so obsessed with a relationship someone had 25 years ago?

As you say... move on, it'll be okay.
Well that tramp is likely to be one old man shy of the running the country. So her history and ethics are important just like Donald Trump's history.
 
Well that tramp is likely to be one old man shy of the running the country. So her history and ethics are important just like Donald Trump's history.

You don't get it... I don't give a rat's @ss about Trump's history.... all I care about is him being history.
 
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)
The constitution naturally favors conservatives on every issue because the founders were not revolutionary cultural marxists
 
Its a reason SCOTUS matters and republicans know it, its why they are going back on their word. They want to pack the courts.

Packing isn’t filling vacant seats. Packing is creating new seats for the express purpose of filling the new seats with a nominee of a particular ideological predisposition to reduce, minimize, or shift away from an existing ideological slant, perceived or otherwise, towards another kind of ideological slant.
 
Back
Top Bottom