Biden on the Barrett Nomination

[SheWolf]

Personally I could care less what Biden or any other Democrat has to say about Amy Coney Barrett. I am delighted. She is a female Scalia. In her I take solace in knowing my Constitutional rights will be upheld. At the end of the day she will be confirmed.

I am not sure everybody's rights will be upheld, but good for you. At least you can celebrate yourself.

 

[Ginza]

How did white people make black people rich, specifically?

They created the strongest economy in the world. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Chomsky]

Whoa there.

The slave states wanted slaves to count as people. The non-slave states wanted slaves to count as nothing. This is how the 3/5 compromise was reached.

Yes. After failing to commit the slave states to abolish slavery in the new Constitution, the non-slave states tried to deny the slave states full representation by only allowing the votes of 'free-men'. Then the compromise was reached.

The Electoral College exists so that smaller states have influence over national policy. This had nothing to with slavery, Virginia, for example, was a slave state.

Another 'yes', but the smaller population states were generally the slave states - Virginia of course excepted. The EC was in part an effort to bring them along.

Liberals are taking this “America is a racist nation” talking point just a little too far.

Well, slavery was a large part of America's history. We fought a civil war over it. Slavery, like women's' disenfranchisement, was of the times; but, it still is what it is.

 

[MaryP]

what crap: why is this illegitimate?

That's a minor point and it shouldn't become the focus of this thread. It's pretty clear, I think, where she stands on the ACA and Roe. Possibly on LGBT rights as well. People can choose their sides, but I agree a vote on her nomination should be shelved until we see how the American people vote in November. If Trump wins and the Senate remains al Republican majority, there is nothing to stop her nomination, but if the people elect the Democrats to leadership, it should be Biden's call to fill that seat. Fair is fair.

 

[Jason Warfield]

She has a mixed race family including 2 black children. It is predictable that bigot and racist Biden despises her.

In the event that no one has pointed this out to you already...his running mate is mixed race.

 

[GummyVitamins]

In the event that no one has pointed this out to you already...his running mate is mixed race.

He picked a minority female to rally his base. His mixed race running mate you are citing as evidence he is not racist has essentially called him racist. Oh, she also said she believes the women who accused him of sexual assault.

 

[BrotherFease]

Everything I can find online indicates that Barrett has not expressed any opposition to protecting legal rights of LGBTQ Americans.

It’s not fair to judge her before she’s even expressed an opinion on the issue.

False. She opposed the Obergefell decision. By all means, explain where she supported the decision. Civil rights are very important to me, and do not believe they up to the whims of the states.

 

[BrotherFease]

So your solution is to discriminate against her religion?

Both Barrett and I are Catholics. So your premise doesn't hold up. I am referring though to the concept that of people who want to impose their religious beliefs onto secular constitutional laws.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Both Barrett and I are Catholics. So your premise doesn't hold up. I am referring though to the concept that of people who want to impose their religious beliefs onto secular constitutional laws.

Except for the small issue of our secular laws being based on religious beliefs, you have no problem.

 

[ludin]

Biden's statement (THE U.S. SUPREME COURT – STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN) hits the right notes. A quick reminder that voting rights and equal justice and Roe are all at stake before the pivot to the main takeaway: "health care hangs in the balance."



Trump and the GOP are rushing this illegitimate nomination through because they want another friendly face there when they go before the court on November 10 to argue for taking tens of millions of Americans' health care away. And bringing back pre-existing conditions during a pandemic.

Every Dem with a microphone, Twitter account, or tree stump to climb on and speak from should be reminding voters morning, noon, and night what Trump, every GOP candidate and elected official, and Barrett are trying to do to Americans' health care.

you once again prove you have no clue what you are talking about. the nomination is 100% legitimate. you should read the constitution.

no obamacare was not constitution to begin with and Roberts very much and hugely distortion of the bill and the illegally changing of words doesn't change that fact.

also if you note that without the mandatory clause it invalidates everything else about the bill which is what is being argued. so when you can actually tell us what about nomination is illegitimate you might have an argument.

 

[ludin]

Both Barrett and I are Catholics. So your premise doesn't hold up. I am referring though to the concept that of people who want to impose their religious beliefs onto secular constitutional laws.

religious litmus tests are unconstitutional.

 

[BrotherFease]

Except for the small issue of our secular laws being based on religious beliefs, you have no problem.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. Catholic/Muslim/Evangelical/Jewish beliefs etc shouldn't be imposed onto other people. Laws are suppose to be neutral. See 1st Amendment. See what Thomas Jefferson wrote about separation of church and state. Her religion isn't my issue here, it's the concept that she MIGHT want to impose her opposition to same-sex marriage onto the entire country.

I am in no way discriminating against her religion. You made a false claim.

 

[Dans La Lune]

They created the strongest economy in the world. It's not that hard to understand.

How did they create the economy?

 

[MTAtech]

He [McConnell] said he would not move forward with an Obama nominee during an election year as is common practice when the opposing party controls the Senate.


On which issue?

The issue is this is 39 days before an election in an election year but his previous rule somehow doesn't apply when the shoe is on the other foot and 65% of the public says it should wait until a new president is elected. That's the issue.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Er, absolutely nothing at all makes her appointment illegitimate.

This is just yet another case of the Democrats trying to strum up anti-Trump hysteria.

...or calling out the hypocrisy behind proceeding with this nomination after the reasons given for holding up the previous one.

 

[BlueTex]

The issue is this is 39 days before an election in an election year but his previous rule somehow doesn't apply when the shoe is on the other foot and 65% of the public says it should wait until a new president is elected. That's the issue.

Let's ask Judge Barrett how she thinks this should be handled...

 

[Greenbeard]

The Electoral College exists so that smaller states have influence over national policy. This had nothing to with slavery, Virginia, for example, was a slave state.

Per Madison's convention notes, the Electoral College had everything to do with slavery.

Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted.

He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

Madison himself preferred a popular vote for president but recognized that the EC was attractive politically because it allowed states to get credit in presidential elections for the total size of their populations (including chattel slaves, via the odious Three Fifths Compromise) without the inconvenience of granting suffrage.

 

[JasperL]

That does not answer the question asked. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of something being illegitimate: not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

Ginsberg herself addressed the same in 2016 concerning Obama and his lame duck appointment.

It applied then and it applies the same today with Trump.

I see, so the black Democrat only got three years, but the white Republican gets all four. That's the standard the GOP is advancing, hence the problem.

 

[PoS]

if Hillary was president now, and had a slim majority in the senate-would she do anything differently? I just love you Trump haters who pretend that the Democrat party is somehow more honest or more virtuous than the GOP

Yup, exactly. The dems are not an improvement compared to the GOP in any way, shape or form.

 

[Phys251]

She’s Catholic and the GOP is trying to make this an issue of all Catholics, but I think that there’s two sides to this. I’m not sure that all Catholics would want to be associated with her views. There are a lot of Catholics. How many Catholics would want her to represent the faith of all Catholics?

I just don’t think the way the GOP is playing this is very smart. There are already a lot of Catholics on the Supreme Court, and Biden is a Catholic

Not just a Catholic: A member of the People of Praise cult.

 

[Sabre]

I see, so the black Democrat only got three years, but the white Republican gets all four. That's the standard the GOP is advancing, hence the problem.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Set your bias aside and read what she said with a clear mind. ALL presidents have the same power in the fourth year as they do in the third year.

 

[Greenbeard]

Democrats say Barrett's nomination is all about the future of Obamacare

Democrats on Saturday night launched their case against federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, saying support for her confirmation was equivalent to a vote to end the Affordable Care Act.

In a rush of statements following Barrett's Rose Garden introduction, top Democrats put the fate of the law -- and its popular protections for patients with pre-existing conditions -- front and center. They also made frequent reference to the coronavirus pandemic, and the chaos that could arise from stripping health insurance options from millions of Americans in its midst.

From the Democratic presidential ticket on down, criticism of Barrett repeatedly circled back to what has been a political winner for the party: health care -- and the backlash to Republican efforts to dismantle the ACA, former President Barack Obama's signature policy achievement.

Senate Democrats promise 'major focus' on Obamacare in Supreme Court fight

WASHINGTON — With President Donald Trump on the verge of announcing a Supreme Court nominee, Democrats are coalescing around a focus on health care — and the prospect that millions could lose it during a pandemic — ahead of an ugly confirmation battle, key senators and aides said.

The strategy aims for the sweet spot: It's a political winner for Joe Biden and Democratic candidates among liberals and swing voters across the country. And it has urgency, with the law headed back to the Supreme Court one week after Election Day as the country's coronavirus death toll has topped 200,000.

Trump, who is supporting the Texas-led lawsuit to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has repeatedly indicated that he would nominate judges who would rule against it.

 

[JasperL]

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Set your bias aside and read what she said with a clear mind. ALL presidents have the same power in the fourth year as they do in the third year.

Right, but the GOP said that based on principle it was illegitimate for Obama to exercise that power in his 4th year, and blocked any consideration of his nominee. So sure, they "have" the power but according to the GOP the black Democrat wasn't entitled to exercise it, but the white Republican can and SHOULD do so up until the day Trump exits.

 

[Taylor]

Democrats say Barrett's nomination is all about the future of Obamacare


Senate Democrats promise 'major focus' on Obamacare in Supreme Court fight

If they were really that worried they'd be coming up with alternatives.

 

[Sabre]

Right, but the GOP said that based on principle it was illegitimate for Obama to exercise that power in his 4th year, and blocked any consideration of his nominee. So sure, they "have" the power but according to the GOP the black Democrat wasn't entitled to exercise it, but the white Republican can and SHOULD do so up until the day Trump exits.

So you are prejudiced against white people?