I'm crying right now.

[Hypothetical]

Not a single sentence in this post is true. Well done.

Sometimes people like you accidentally tell the truth sometimes.

You avoided that trap.

if not a sentence in that is true, when did the senate convict him?

since that IS true then , that they did NOT convict him, we should probably believe the rest of it as well, instead of the misinformation you are espousing about it, eh?

 

[Drawdown]

Yes. Assuming that Democrats control Congress and the presidency, that is what is going to happen.

There is literally no reason why it wouldn't happen.

What this particular SCOTUS might or might not choose to do will have no impact on that decision.

Democrats will be in charge. Democrats will want a Supreme Court not affected by defective "Originalists."

Again, elections have consequences.

Elections do have consequences but that doesn't mean the democrats are going to get all three branches. America likes divided government and 96% of them are voting straight party tickets so red places will tend to stay red and blue places will tend to stay blue

 

[Casper]

You do know that will never happen do you not?

What will not happen that things will improve economically and pandemic wise? Of-course they will. That the Dems will add seats to the SC? You can Count on It.

 

[VanceMack]

at this point there is no getting around it.

Hell, they PROUD of it....

 

[Xilnik]

Activist--------------No She will decide cases according to the Constitution.

Based on her hearings, I question how well she understands the Constitution, so I will have to wait and see if she can decide cases "according to the Constitution."

 

[Jay59]

This reminds me of fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible or Koran. You ignore the spirit of the document and become absurdly literal. The entire point is the protect citizens from government yet we're supposed to believe that government has a right to control what you do in your bedroom. This is my problem with conservative "originalists."

This is one of the more rational statements here so far. However, it strikes me that you do exactly the same thing when you claim Trump is lying. You don't take the content seriously, but you are extremely literal.

History is all about ups and downs and this period in American history will be known as one of the worst downs ever. So bad it is, that it may be the end of the Republican party. Nonetheless, usually down periods are followed by up periods. The only thing to worry about is whether we will live long enough to experience the updraft.

Don't be so dramatic. The Trump administration is little more than a course change, not even a big one.

Meh, the easy way would be to just expand Medicare to cover everyone... Is Medicare unconstitutional? Asking for my senior friends...

There is nothing easy about Medicare for all. For one thing, it would no longer be Medicare.

That's complete bullshit. OTOH, I wouldnt have expected a Democratic president to miss the opportunity either.

The it's not complete bullshit.

Its still important to vote, we can change the composition of the court.

It is always important to vote. that said, you are preaching to the choir in a forum like this.

The Bible doesn't say it's murder, and that's the only possible foundation for the argument. Rich conservative women will always have access to abortion, and they can and will take advantage of it, and have historically.

Don't be silly. Half the pro life people I know are that way because of ultra sound images.

So why should poor women suffer? Abortion will happen, regardless of the law. It can either be done for rich women and poor women equally, or laws can be enacted to punish poor women while advantaging the rich.

I'm pro choice, but this is twisted.

 

[mike2810]

Activist--------------No She will decide cases according to the Constitution.

Hope she does.

If all the SC Justices decided cases according to the Constitution, then why does the SC have split decisions?

 

[Moon]

You can be certain that she (sorry I forgot her name) will decide cases on her interpretation of the Constitution and in accordance with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith and morals.

She’s been involved in over 100 rulings on the circuit court. Please show us examples where she’s done that.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Do you realize that the country is split nearly evenly on almost every issue these days. The approval rating by polls for Barrett was 58% favorable. These days nearly every time a decision is made related to our government about half the country is unhappy.

What does that have to do with voting?

You have to vote and keep voting in every election. One election will not change everything, you don't like what's happening get active.

 

[Mason66]

Why is Roe v Wade being brought up?

Is it before the court again?

 

[Logical1]

Just lost it watching the senate proceedings tonight. This is the beginning of the end of separation of church and state and health care for millions. We've basically allowed a bunch of backward red states full of Bubbas and Jim Bobs overpower the Senate and stack the highest court with bigoted ideologues. I'm not even sure showing up to the polls to vote by now will even do anything. Just completely stunned and heart-broken. I don't have any answers.

Looks to me like you are just a sore loser, and a name caller.

 

[NWRatCon]

She’s been involved in over 100 rulings on the circuit court. Please show us examples where she’s done that.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

In a 2013 law review article, she examined the role of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided” and is shorthand for respect for precedent. The doctrine is, Judge Barrett wrote, “not a hard-and-fast rule in the court’s constitutional cases,” and she added that its power is diminished when the case under review is unpopular.

“The public response to controversial cases like Roe,” she wrote, “reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”
....
Judge Barrett has considered three laws restricting abortions from her home state, Indiana. In all three cases, she expressed misgivings about earlier rulings from appeals judges that had struck down the laws.

Barrett’s Record: A Conservative Who Would Push the Supreme Court to the Right (NYT, Subscription). Scholarly analysis of her judicial history demonstrates that she is the most conservative judge on the 7th Circuit, and would be to the right of every Justice save Thomas. How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett? (FiveThirtyEight)

 

[Moon]

Ask, and ye shall receive: Barrett’s Record: A Conservative Who Would Push the Supreme Court to the Right (NYT, Subscription). Scholarly analysis of her judicial history demonstrates that she is the most conservative judge on the 7th Circuit, and would be to the right of every Justice save Thomas. How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett? (FiveThirtyEight)

This is what I was responding to:

“You can be certain that she (sorry I forgot her name) will decide cases on her interpretation of the Constitution and in accordance with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith and morals.”

I don’t think you quite reached the bar.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Don't cry. Just vote. And drive a bunch of other people to vote.

 

[NWRatCon]

This is what I was responding to:

“You can be certain that she (sorry I forgot her name) will decide cases on her interpretation of the Constitution and in accordance with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith and morals.”

I don’t think you quite reached the bar.

I wouldn't expect that you would. Ever. And then, of course, the bar would move. (And you didn't follow the links, did ya?)

 

[Moon]

I wouldn't expect that you would. Ever. And then, of course, the bar would move.

No, the bar is pretty set. Should be easy if there is evidence she has ever made a legal opinion where she ruled because of her being a Catholic. Show me something concrete.

 

[Roadvirus]

I think so as well. The other take-away is that if the SCOTUS gets out of step with popular opinion about high profile topics, calls for reform do start to happen which has had the historical effect of reigning the court back in as well. The population is becoming more liberal with demographic changes, so the court will have to change with it (and the justices are smart enough to know this)

So you're saying SCOTUS justices will have to say "**** the Constitution" just to appease Liberals or else get booted for not ruling the way they want?

 

[joko104]

Just lost it watching the senate proceedings tonight. This is the beginning of the end of separation of church and state and health care for millions. We've basically allowed a bunch of backward red states full of Bubbas and Jim Bobs overpower the Senate and stack the highest court with bigoted ideologues. I'm not even sure showing up to the polls to vote by now will even do anything. Just completely stunned and heart-broken. I don't have any answers.

You should get out of the USA as fast as possible!!! Flee to Mexico.

Did you vote in this poll? https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...t-to-outlaw-abortions.426713/#post-1072878333

 

[Roadvirus]

It's a big setback but only Dems with full power can do something about it, e.g. stack the court or impeach existing SCOTUSes.

Impeach them for what? Not being the obedient slaves that Liberals want them to be?

Last i looked, "Cuz i hate them" is not grounds for SCOTUS impeachment.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you're saying SCOTUS justices will have to say "**** the Constitution" just to appease Liberals or else get booted for not ruling the way they want?

That is how it has worked historically in that if the court veers too far outside of mainstream consensus, talk of regulating the courts picks up. This is why Justices tend to be concerned about their reputation as a matter of protecting their position. Where you are wrong is that there is history about this from both sides and not just liberals, but essentially, this is as American as apple pie.

Why The Supreme Court’s Reputation Is At Stake

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, begin today. And they are going t…

fivethirtyeight.com

Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion. But when that does happen, faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren’t far behind. In recent times, politicians haven’t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down. Most famously, in the late 1930s, after then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court, a member of the court’s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before.

 

[weaver2]

Elections have consequences. The dems don't control the government.

Elections have consequences and when conservatives elected Trump both Republicans and Democrats lost control. The religious right now controls the presidency, the Supreme Court and the Senate

 

[Roadvirus]

That is how it has worked historically in that if the court veers too far outside of mainstream consensus, talk of regulating the courts picks up. This is why Justices tend to be concerned about their reputation as a matter of protecting their position. Where you are wrong is that there is history about this from both sides and not just liberals, but essentially, this is as American as apple pie.

Why The Supreme Court’s Reputation Is At Stake

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, begin today. And they are going t…

fivethirtyeight.com

Bullshit.

They rule by what the CONSTITUTION SAYS, not by what some slobbering, toe-chewing pajama boy Liberal WANTS.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Bullshit.

They rule by what the CONSTITUTION SAYS, not by what some slobbering, toe-chewing pajama boy Liberal WANTS.

All judges rule by what the constitution says. They just have different opinions on exactly how that applies to the problems of today (that were not explicitly envisioned by the founding fathers)

Originallism, as they call it, is just a bit of propaganda labeling in that it pretends it is the one true interpretation or only possible interpretation, which is silly.

also, toe-chewing? That is an amusing label, I like your creativity. (also, I tend to sleep naked, no pajamas for me!)

 

[Drawdown]

Elections have consequences and when conservatives elected Trump both Republicans and Democrats lost control. The religious right now controls the presidency, the Supreme Court and the Senate

for 5 minutes in the grand scheme of things perhaps. they were dead and buried until the dems pushed too hard too fast on trans rights. many on the right were secretly or openly okay with gay marriage and then suddenly we had 89 genders all of whom could pee wherever they demand and the fractured religious right became more galvanized

 

[iguanaman]

Well you can begin by stopping to think you are in control and therefore had the power to allow or disallow something. Elections have consequences. The dems don't control the government.

But when we do we have every right to do as we please and F**k the GOP. Thanks Mitch.