• 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!

Trump taps Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court, setting up confirmation sprint (1 Viewer)

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
70,165
Reaction score
63,106
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
apple.news

Trump taps Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court, setting up confirmation sprint — The Hill

President Trump on Saturday officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, revealing his choice at a Rose Garden ceremony and kicking off a sprint to
apple.news apple.news


“President Trump on Saturday officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, revealing his choice at a Rose Garden ceremony and kicking off a sprint to get the conservative judge confirmed before Election Day.”


Not sure that “taps” is the appropriate word here...........
 
Rexedgar said:
apple.news

Trump taps Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court, setting up confirmation sprint — The Hill

President Trump on Saturday officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, revealing his choice at a Rose Garden ceremony and kicking off a sprint to
apple.news apple.news


“President Trump on Saturday officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, revealing his choice at a Rose Garden ceremony and kicking off a sprint to get the conservative judge confirmed before Election Day.”


Not sure that “taps” is the appropriate word here...........
Click to expand...
A good choice, IMHO. She's been vetted by the Senate only 2-3 years ago.
 
Democrats are going to rake this woman over the coals again and ensure anyone left on the fence will NEVER vote for Biden. Brilliant move by Trump.
 
VanceMack said:
The democrats already vetted her for a seat on the 7th. After the vile shit the idiot left pulled with Kavanaugh, they ought to just take this to a floor vote.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh is deeply flawed as a person and as a lawyer. The Republicans knew this and refused to let Democrats see the body of information they held on his political, personal and professional history. Democrats were left with nothing more than the history of his high school and college exploits and grades. Letting Republicans manipulate Democrats into using that material was a mistake. It made the hearings irrelevant and the Democrats look petty. What the Democrats should have done was walk out of all the hearings and present their legitimate case against Kavanaugh to the public where he couldn't be protected by Republicans.
 
Jack Hays said:

I’ve known Amy Coney Barrett for 15 years. Liberals have nothing to fear.
Opinion by O. Carter Snead

Women have a great deal to fear. Most people don't realize that Roe was not about whether abortion was legal. Roe was about whether women had a right to make personal decisions about their private lives, abortion being only one of those private decisions. It is not the legality of abortions that religious conservative leaders want repealed. It is this right of women to make decisions about their private lives that they want denied.

Amy Coney Barrett believes that men are the head of the family. She and her husband belong to the charasmatic People of Praise in which males are called “the head” and make the decisions in a family and all those of the organization. In the past the organiation used the term "handmaid" for women, derived from the words of Mary, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” (no relationship to Margaret Atwood’s term Handmaiden). This speaks strongly to denying decision making and leadership roles. The vision is of women in a secondary status in all phases of society.
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
Kavanaugh is deeply flawed as a person and as a lawyer. The Republicans knew this and refused to let Democrats see the body of information they held on his political, personal and professional history. Democrats were left with nothing more than the history of his high school and college exploits and grades. Letting Republicans manipulate Democrats into using that material was a mistake. It made the hearings irrelevant and the Democrats look petty. What the Democrats should have done was walk out of all the hearings and present their legitimate case against Kavanaugh to the public where he couldn't be protected by Republicans.
Click to expand...
no what those leftists nuts did to kavanaugh was inexcusable. no one should have that done to them.
 
all you sane people explain to your kids what Mitch and Republicans did 11 months prior to the end of Obama's term. then explain what's happening now (same Mitch).

let them know how important it is to hold politicians accountable for this type of hypocrisy and the "words" Republicans will use to try to talk it away or justify the hypocrisy. that way they will be able to spot the hypocritical folks supporting Trump and Mitch now.
 
Carjosse said:
How exactly is it anti-Catholic bigotry to question someone's views?
Click to expand...
Explained well in the link. An excerpt:

". . . In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. But insinuations that Catholics take their cues from Rome and not from the U.S. Constitution are deeply embedded anti-Catholic smears that still emerge when useful.

If Senate Democrats in Barrett’s confirmation hearings, or in talking to the press, again focus on the nominee’s religion, the scurrilous tactic will almost certainly be met with disgust by voters. Democrats up and down the ticket will not be protected from severe blowback just because they have previously nominated Catholics, Joe Biden among them, for the presidency. Today’s voters, Catholics in particular, will recognize any focus on faith in this judicial context for what it is: anti-Catholic bigotry. . . . "
 
CaughtInThe said:
all you sane people explain to your kids what Mitch and Republicans did 11 months prior to the end of Obama's term. then explain what's happening now (same Mitch).

let them know how important it is to hold politicians accountable for this type of hypocrisy and the "words" Republicans will use to try to talk it away or justify the hypocrisy. that way they will be able to spot the hypocritical folks supporting Trump and Mitch now.
Click to expand...
Consistent values don't matter when the only goal is holding onto power.
 
Jack Hays said:
Explained well in the link. An excerpt:". . . In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. But insinuations that Catholics take their cues from Rome and not from the U.S. Constitution are deeply embedded anti-Catholic smears that still emerge when useful.
If Senate Democrats in Barrett’s confirmation hearings, or in talking to the press, again focus on the nominee’s religion, the scurrilous tactic will almost certainly be met with disgust by voters. Democrats up and down the ticket will not be protected from severe blowback just because they have previously nominated Catholics, Joe Biden among them, for the presidency. Today’s voters, Catholics in particular, will recognize any focus on faith in this judicial context for what it is: anti-Catholic bigotry. . . . "
Click to expand...

When your speeches are read one draws the conclusion that liberal dogma of banning guns lives loudly within you. That is of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of men have fought for years to protect.
 
Jack Hays said:
I Disagree With Barrett--But She Deserves to Be on Court

Noah Feldman, Bloomberg
Click to expand...

I disagree with that opinion.

I am not arguing whether or not they have the Constitutional mandate to seat a judge... they do. They are simply showing themselves to say some bullshit when it is politically expedient on one hand and some other when the opposite is true.

This action leads to a very predictable outcome if the Democrats win big in a month and a half. I don't want that outcome of packing the courts... but man oh man are they going to fight for it. And those who will raise objections will simply have to understand that they were told that this would be the response and it will escalate further and further and further.

That isn't a future that I want... but it is what is going to happen.
 
weaver2 said:
When your speeches are read one draws the conclusion that liberal dogma of banning guns lives loudly within you. That is of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of men have fought for years to protect.
Click to expand...
That's not religious bigotry.
 
Jezcoe said:
I disagree with that opinion.

I am not arguing whether or not they have the Constitutional mandate to seat a judge... they do. They are simply showing themselves to say some bullshit when it is politically expedient on one hand and some other when the opposite is true.

This action leads to a very predictable outcome if the Democrats win big in a month and a half. I don't want that outcome of packing the courts... but man oh man are they going to fight for it. And those who will raise objections will simply have to understand that they were told that this would be the response and it will escalate further and further and further.

That isn't a future that I want... but it is what is going to happen.
Click to expand...
There will be no court packing. There is a solid bi-partisan Senate majority against it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Explained well in the link. An excerpt:". . . In the 2017 hearing, for instance, Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
This open attack on Barrett’s beliefs was roundly and rightly condemned. It should not be repeated. But insinuations that Catholics take their cues from Rome and not from the U.S. Constitution are deeply embedded anti-Catholic smears that still emerge when useful.
If Senate Democrats in Barrett’s confirmation hearings, or in talking to the press, again focus on the nominee’s religion, the scurrilous tactic will almost certainly be met with disgust by voters. Democrats up and down the ticket will not be protected from severe blowback just because they have previously nominated Catholics, Joe Biden among them, for the presidency. Today’s voters, Catholics in particular, will recognize any focus on faith in this judicial context for what it is: anti-Catholic bigotry. . . . "
Click to expand...

People of Praise is not the Catholic Church. It is not even a Catholic organization. it is a 'club' that says men make the decisions in life and women are handmaids serving those decisions. Feinstein was not attacking Ms Barrett's religion nor was she accusing Catholics of taking cues from Rome. She was concerned how Barrett's personal view of how the world is ordered, that men have dominion over all decision making and women are subservient would figure in cases that dealt with issues of women's rights. That is not unfair questioning nor is it smearing the Catholic Church. If Democrats get a chance to question Ms Barrett it will not be about her Catholicism but about her view that men have legal rights not allowed to women.
 
Tlrmln said:
Why not? Being a Catholic and promoting the horrible ideas of the Catholic church is a choice, not an immutable characteristic.
Click to expand...
Because in our country we take pride in tolerance and religious freedom.
 
weaver2 said:
People of Praise is not the Catholic Church. It is not even a Catholic organization. it is a 'club' that says men make the decisions in life and women are handmaids serving those decisions. Feinstein was not attacking Ms Barrett's religion nor was she accusing Catholics of taking cues from Rome. She was concerned how Barrett's personal view of how the world is ordered, that men have dominion over all decision making and women are subservient would figure in cases that dealt with issues of women's rights. That is not unfair questioning nor is it smearing the Catholic Church. If Democrats get a chance to question Ms Barrett it will not be about her Catholicism but about her view that men have legal rights not allowed to women.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous on its face. She's going to be on the SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom