Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction

[NotreDame]

Whoa! I appreciate your incredulity. You specialize in verbosity and rambling word salads. Do you consider your writing style concise and effective? NB, cut to the chase! Just write "I support ACB."

Ask a few people you respect to give you honest responses. Not to suggest you lack subject proficiency or intelligence, your mumbo jumbo makes for really dull reading!

More trash from the dumpster.

The problem is you watch some television, some news station, read something somewhere, gaze out your window and formulate beliefs about the world with apparent complete disregard as to whether your beliefs reflect reality or are supported by any facts. You’d make a great flat earth believer.

Your bitter post above doesn’t change the fact you presently have no facts for your claim of the amount of partisanship on SCOTUS or the federal judiciary.

To deflect from that fact you complain about word accounts, reflecting an aversion to reading that rivals Trump’s. Sorry I’m unable to accommodate your 50 max word count. I’ll use pop ups, coloring, mazes, and highlights for you next time.

No doubt this post is too lengthy for you.

 

[NotreDame]

By holding a seat open for several months for the express purpose of trying to pack the court in case a republican president came into office.

Sen.Whitehouse gave a good explanation as to why this is worrying.

That’s not “rigging.” Rigging is artificially prodducing an outcome by loading artificial advantages into the scenario. Paying off a ref or a player to call/blow a game so that one team wins/another loses is rigging.

That’s not applicable to the open seat under Obama.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

More trash from the dumpster.

The problem is you watch some television, some news station, read something somewhere, gaze out your window and formulate beliefs about the world with apparent complete disregard as to whether your beliefs reflect reality or are supported by any facts. You’d make a great flat earth believer.

Your bitter post above doesn’t change the fact you presently have no facts for your claim of the amount of partisanship on SCOTUS or the federal judiciary.

To deflect from that fact you complain about word accounts, reflecting an aversion to reading that rivals Trump’s. Sorry I’m unable to accommodate your 50 max word count. I’ll use pop ups, coloring, mazes, and highlights for you next time.

No doubt this post is too lengthy for you.

Clearly you support ACB. Please celebrate her impending confirmation ahead of the likely backlash next year.

Maybe an aversion to criticism and truth spurred you to inaccurately describe my post as bitter. I encourage you to at least attempt to write concise and effective posts.

 

[bomberfox]

That’s not “rigging.” Rigging is artificially prodducing an outcome by loading artificial advantages into the scenario. Paying off a ref or a player to call/blow a game so that one team wins/another loses is rigging.

That’s not applicable to the open seat under Obama.

The senate failed to do its job in holding a hearing using the most bullshit of excuses. Now you have no argument against packing the court.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

Whatever you want to call it, its coming and you will only have yourself to blame.

 

[Cordelier]

How edgy.

I'll take edgy over salacious any day.

 

[NotreDame]

Maybe an aversion to criticism and truth spurred you to inaccurately describe my post as bitter. I encourage you to at least attempt to write concise and effective posts.

Is that a joke? Your fits about having to read isn’t criticism. If you wanted nursery rhyme length responses, then the library is your friend.

As I accurately said before, there’s not shred of evidence presently for a thing you’ve claimed about SCOTUS or the judiciary. Short enough for you?

 

[NotreDame]

The senate failed to do its job in holding a hearing using the most bullshit of excuses. Now you have no argument against packing the court.

Its job? Where do I or anyone else find this job description you ambiguously reference? Because I can find no mandate they act upon a nomination.

Now you have no argument against packing the court.

Oh really? There’s an argument against court packing. One such argument is creating new seats for the purpose to fill the newly created seat with a person of a particular ideological view to negate an ideological advantage one way or achieve an ideological advantage another way, is an escalation to another terrain that’s sets the precedent of creating new seats to reverse prior ideological gains, which is vastly different than what Republicans have done.

That’s the argument against your absolute statement of “no” argument.

 

[NotreDame]

Whatever you want to call it, its coming and you will only have yourself to blame.

“Myself” to blame? Says who?

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Is that a joke? Your fits about having to read isn’t criticism. If you wanted nursery rhyme length responses, then the library is your friend.

As I accurately said before, there’s not shred of evidence presently for a thing you’ve claimed about SCOTUS or the judiciary. Short enough for you?

 

[bomberfox]

“Myself” to blame? Says who?

Says the new congress and president .

 

[bomberfox]

Its job? Where do I or anyone else find this job description you ambiguously reference? Because I can find no mandate they act upon a nomination.



Oh really? There’s an argument against court packing. One such argument is creating new seats for the purpose to fill the newly created seat with a person of a particular ideological view to negate an ideological advantage one way or achieve an ideological advantage another way, is an escalation to another terrain that’s sets the precedent of creating new seats to reverse prior ideological gains, which is vastly different than what Republicans have done.

That’s the argument against your absolute statement of “no” argument.

There will be no argument when you lose. Republicans have lost every ounce of high ground. We will bury trumpism once and for all.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Last month, Trump laid out his overarching plan to win reelection via a Rigged 9 member USSC. It does not take much imagination to fill in some of the strategy.

1. Use as many tactics as possible to suppress the Anti-Trumper vote.
2. Encourage Trumpers to disrupt the Election process.
3. Ram the Barrett nomination through the GOP-majority Senate.
4. File bogus lawsuits alleging wide spread voter fraud by Anti-Trumpers.
5. Count on the USSC to rule in Trump's favor. Shucks, two of the justices (Roberts, Crybaby K) and the presumptive replacement for Notorious RBG (Barrett) helped on the Bush v. Gore case.





If Biden wins and the DEMs regain the Senate majority, I anticipate an adjustment in the number of justices.... and a HUGE collective whine by Conservative Elites.
.

That collective whine you will hear will be hundreds of millions of Americans decided what the republicans said about democrats making drastic changes in America to grab power is true after all. You had better get all you can done in the first term, you'll never see another and then the republicans will return the favor.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

That collective whine you will hear will be hundreds of millions of Americans decided what the republicans said about democrats making drastic changes in America to grab power is true after all. You had better get all you can done in the first term, you'll never see another and then the republicans will return the favor.

Oh my! What a scary prognostication so close to Halloween!

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

 

[Integrityrespec]

You must be correct. I am not sure which one of those listed above actually asked, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
Followed by,
“Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

Wow, now those were well beyond stupid.

Not to be outdone on the Dunning-Kruger scale, one other republican senator on your list asked Barrett if she would condemn "white supremacy". He himself was an obvious product of black privilege.
Had this buffoon turned around he would have been face to face with two of Barrett's black adopted children whom she rescued from a life of poverty in Haiti. I think he thought he was Kirk Douglas.
Oh, those wacky republicans.

Democrats looked like fools. Power hungry fools.

 

[weaver2]

Democrats looked like fools. Power hungry fools.

Self-examination's not your strong point is it.

 

[NotreDame]

View attachment 67300909

Has it ever occurred to you the Court misinterpreted the Constitution in Roe v Wade?

 

[TurtleDude]

By holding a seat open for several months for the express purpose of trying to pack the court in case a republican president came into office.

Sen.Whitehouse gave a good explanation as to why this is worrying.

Whitehouse is one of the worst hacks in the senate and one of the most leftwing. He is the epitome of a trustafarian or Mercedes Marxist. I know, I went to college with him

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Has it ever occurred to you the Court misinterpreted the Constitution in Roe v Wade?

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

www.history.com

14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact | HISTORY

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”

www.history.com

Very likely right now a majority of the current justices on the USSC agree with you. I don't agree with overturning Roe v. Wade. In the event Biden wins and the DEMs flip the Senate, I expect legislative changes that go along way toward trying to protect Roe v. Wade.

 

[NotreDame]

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

www.history.com

14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact | HISTORY

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”

www.history.com

Very likely right now a majority of the current justices on the USSC agree with you. I don't agree with overturning Roe v. Wade. In the event Biden wins and the DEMs flip the Senate, I expect legislative changes that go along way toward trying to protect Roe v. Wade.

I do not care how many agree with me. This is not a popularity contest. I’m not right or wrong based on who does or doesn’t agree with me.

Has it ever occurred to YOU, that Roe may be a misinterpretation of the Constitution?

 

[NotreDame]

There will be no argument when you lose. Republicans have lost every ounce of high ground. We will bury trumpism once and for all.

Lose? We are perceiving this vastly differently. You apparently view this as some gladiatorial sport, with a winner and loser. Sorry man, that is not my view.

And I fear you’ve made some presumptions about me with your comment of “We will bury trumpism once and for all.” Good! I’m no fan of Trump. I’ll help throw the dirt onto the metaphorical coffin.

But you’ve said nothing about the substance of what I said, and that’s cool.

 

[NotreDame]

Says the new congress and president .

I will happily accept a new president.

 

[NotreDame]

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

www.history.com

14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact | HISTORY

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”

www.history.com

Very likely right now a majority of the current justices on the USSC agree with you. I don't agree with overturning Roe v. Wade. In the event Biden wins and the DEMs flip the Senate, I expect legislative changes that go along way toward trying to protect Roe v. Wade.

So, you really have no idea whether Roe misinterpreted the Constitution? Just another example of you just believing in something devoid of any critical thought of your belief. You surely disagree with Socrates’ proposition of, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Au contraire Socrates, meet Trippy, his posts reflect such a life is quite palatable.

 

[bomberfox]

Lose? We are perceiving this vastly differently. You apparently view this as some gladiatorial sport, with a winner and loser. Sorry man, that is not my view.

And I fear you’ve made some presumptions about me with your comment of “We will bury trumpism once and for all.” Good! I’m no fan of Trump. I’ll help throw the dirt onto the metaphorical coffin.

But you’ve said nothing about the substance of what I said, and that’s cool.

My mistake then.

 

[NotreDame]

My mistake then.

I concur with your sentiment, the sooner Trump is outta there, the better.