• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Justice Barrett

Lurch said:
I wonder how Barrett feels to know that more than half the country sees her fast-tracked installation in this ramming down their collective throat as wrong. Not enough, I guess, to heed the pleas of some 100 professors from her alma mater to decline this confirmation and await the election result.
Click to expand...

The letter signed by 88 faculty of Notre Dame includes no signers from the law school. I suspect she's not bothered by it.
 
Ziggurat said:
The letter signed by 88 faculty of Notre Dame includes no signers from the law school. I suspect she's not bothered by it.
Click to expand...

The idea that her or anyone else nearing the culmination of a 50 year project to seize the courts would at all care about any of that sort of thing is just inane.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Murkowski announces she will vote yes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/poli...te-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html
Click to expand...

Murkowski Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Nominee

March 16, 2016

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) issued the following statement today after President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court:

“Today the President exercised his constitutional authority to nominate an individual to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. However, given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of a Presidential election and in an increasingly toxic political environment, I had urged the President to refrain from naming a nominee. I believe he should have left that task to the next administration. Vice President Joe Biden, during his time in the Senate, advised that consideration of a Supreme Court nominee should be put off until after the election is over, because the thoughtful consideration that a Supreme Court nominee deserves simply cannot occur at the height of a political season. I find a great deal of wisdom in those words, because in my judgment they accurately describe what is already happening with regard to this election-year nomination. Any nominee is likely to become a political football in the midst of this already contentious and divisive campaign season. This is not good for the nominee, it is not good for the court, and it is not good for the American people.”
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Democrats boycott the vote to advance Barrett, forcing the Republicans to break Senate rules in order to do so
Click to expand...
LOL! They didn't even BOTHER with a discharge resolution, which they could have easily have done. But instead, they just said 'eff it' and broke the rules, because... they could.

I'd say that the thing that bothers me the most is all the people going on about 'well, if the Democratic party changes the Supreme Court, then won't the Repubs do the same?!". That's very strange to me: isn't the right question "If the Repubs proceed with hypocritically installing their candidate 2 weeks before the election, won't the Democratic party respond in kind?" So bizarre. The Repubs are ploughing ahead with this, but there's just all this talk about to the Democratic party that "you better not respond, cuz we'll respond back!". Don't want a response? Then fine, don't pull this bs, and you won't get one.

Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
 
bignickel said:
Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
Click to expand...

I gave 2 similar suggestions a while ago.

The first is that if you double the size of the Supreme Court, then it becomes harder for Republicans to respond in kind. It's harder to decrease the size than it is to expand it, and it disfavours the Republicans to expand it. That might help level the playing field.

But what I think is the best suggestion, both because it would lead to fairer outcomes, and because it would be very hard to undo - make every Circuit judge a member of the Supreme Court. Have everything, including which cases to take, decided by 9 randomly-selected judges. And the Republicans would find it difficult to say that it wasn't fair, because it would still have a Republican bias.

Combine the two, though, and appoint 179 new judges...
 
bignickel said:
Personally, I love the idea floated earlier in this thread or the RBG thread (by Joe Morgue? Can't remember), or increasing the Supreme Court to 15 seats, and have a random 9 picked for every session. Can't pack the court when you have no idea who's gonna show up for the trial.
Click to expand...

You cannot guarantee it, but if 10 of the 15 justices are right-wingers, the likelihood is that 9 picked from that group would have a right-wing bias.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if all 5 liberal judges were picked.
 
But again this is all so much noise in the wind for the foreseeable future.

As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote, approved by a Republican Senate Majority that represents 15% fewer people than the Democratic Minority. Nothing at this point can change that.

This is not democracy (nor is it "bUt iT's a RePUBLIc!"). This is madness.
 
JoeMorgue said:
But again this is all so much noise in the wind for the foreseeable future.

As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote, approved by a Republican Senate Majority that represents 15% fewer people than the Democratic Minority. Nothing at this point can change that.

This is not democracy (nor is it "bUt iT's a RePUBLIc!"). This is madness.
Click to expand...

AKA, business as usual.
 
JoeMorgue said:
As of this afternoon 5 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court will have been nominated by Presidents who didn't win the Popular Vote
Click to expand...

Winning the popular vote doesn't mean anything. Just like which team scores more 3 point shots in a basketball game doesn't mean anything. Neither side is trying to win the popular vote. We do not know what the election outcome would have been if candidates were trying to win the popular vote. We only know who won it in reality, where winning it means nothing.

The fact that so many people still cling to this as if it means something demonstrates how out of touch much of the electorate is with basic reality.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Hence: madness.

Any electoral system where the person where the winner is often the person or party who got fewer votes than another person or party is fundamentally broken.
Click to expand...

This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom