RBG leaves the stage.

Stacyhs said:
Because he knows that's the #1 subject near and dear to the religious right's heart. He wants to be sure that after she takes the SC bench she doesn't double cross him and vote to support precedent by not overturning Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
Why would it matter after Nov and certainly Roe v Wade won't be tested before then?

Why would Trump care? He cares how she'd vote if a challenge to the election comes up. Maybe he cares that she wants to overturn Roberts' ruling on the ACA because Trump is all about overturning anything Obama.

But abortion? The religious right already expects Barrett to be an antiabortion candidate. Trump has no reason to give a rip.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Democrats are better off focusing on Biden winning, and not showing their cards until Jan.

Delaying the installation of Barrett isn't of much value unless one is certain she'll cast some deciding vote installing Trump and I don't believe that is the case.
Click to expand...

The idea is that it won't delay it, it'll prevent it. Keep the Senate tied up until it's once again a Democrat majority.

As I say, I don't think that it's a good or likely plan, but it is legally feasible.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why would it matter after Nov and certainly Roe v Wade won't be tested before then?

Why would Trump care? He cares how she'd vote if a challenge to the election comes up. Maybe he cares that she wants to overturn Roberts' ruling on the ACA because Trump is all about overturning anything Obama.

But abortion? The religious right already expects Barrett to be an antiabortion candidate. Trump has no reason to give a rip.
Click to expand...

I think he cares because he's made such a big deal out of appointing anti-abortion and all the other far right values judges to the bench. But especially to the Supreme Court. He sees that and getting rid of the ACA (due to his hatred of Obama) as his legacy. You disagree; fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It's not worth belaboring the point.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think he cares because he's made such a big deal out of appointing anti-abortion and all the other far right values judges to the bench. But especially to the Supreme Court. He sees that and getting rid of the ACA (due to his hatred of Obama) as his legacy. You disagree; fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It's not worth belaboring the point.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he will see his Supreme Court nominations as his legacy. The rest of us will see the smouldering ruins of democracy that he has left behind, but for his own way of thinking, I am sure he will take the adulation of Evangelical Christians because all he wants is to be thought of as amazing. He doesn't really care who thinks of him that way (or who he hopes thinks of him that way). It could be theological nuts, Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Kim Jong-un. It's all the same to him.
 
angrysoba said:
I'm sure he will see his Supreme Court nominations as his legacy. The rest of us will see the smouldering ruins of democracy that he has left behind, but for his own way of thinking, I am sure he will take the adulation of Evangelical Christians because all he wants is to be thought of as amazing. He doesn't really care who thinks of him that way (or who he hopes thinks of him that way). It could be theological nuts, Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Kim Jong-un. It's all the same to him.
Click to expand...

All he'll remember are the throngs of MAGA hat wearing idiots cheering and repeating simple minded chants and the adulation.
 
I’ve been looking for information for what Novalsnd brought up earlier about the repubs need for a 9 member quorum in the committee: this is the only recent thing I’ve found so far:

“ A quorum is the minimum number of members present for a committee or the full Senate to conduct business and hold votes. The quorum in the full Senate is 51 members and the quorum of the Judiciary Committee is nine members including two in the minority party. This means that if one or fewer Democrats show up to the planned Oct. 22 meeting where the Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the Barrett confirmation then they could prevent the committee from reporting the nomination to the Senate.

There are ways around this. Most notably, the Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination from the committee, allowing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to call the nomination for a full vote.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sc...-oct-22-meeting-to-advance-barrett-nomination

This seems trivially easy for the repubs to do. They just need a simple majority for the discharge resolution.
 
Last edited:
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
 
Amy Coney Barrett: "I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act."

That won't make trump happy.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
Click to expand...

Interpreting the law should not involve moral decisions for a judge. The people trying to turn constitutional jurisprudence into a moral question are disturbingly misguided and undermining the rule of law.

If the constitution permits capital punishment, it is not immoral to say so. Nor is it immoral to rule accordingly. One's own morality does not enter into it.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Amy Coney Barrett: "I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act."

That won't make trump happy.
Click to expand...

LOL.

It depends, doesn't it? She can't destroy the ACA if she doesn't get confirmed. If Trump knows her mission and is happy with her mission, why wouldn't he be happy that she says whatever she needs to say to get confirmed?

But honestly I doubt Trump really cares about the ACA one way or the other.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court justices are there to interpret the Constitution and to make sure US laws adhere to the rights given by that document. Judges do not make moral decisions. They are there to make sure the law is followed. Their moral beliefs regarding that law have no role in making sure the law is followed.
 
theprestige said:
LOL.

It depends, doesn't it? She can't destroy the ACA if she doesn't get confirmed. If Trump knows her mission and is happy with her mission, why wouldn't he be happy that she says whatever she needs to say to get confirmed?

But honestly I doubt Trump really cares about the ACA one way or the other.
Click to expand...

We agree on this. The only thing Trump cares about is getting re-elected. This is why he wants Barrett confirmed. Packing the SC with conservative judges is something he thinks will help him get re-elected. If he gave a damn about getting rid of he ACA and replacing it with something better that would really help Americans, he'd have done it by now as he's been promising for 4 years.
 
Stacyhs said:
We agree on this. The only thing Trump cares about is getting re-elected. This is why he wants Barrett confirmed. Packing the SC with conservative judges is something he thinks will help him get re-elected. If he gave a damn about getting rid of he ACA and replacing it with something better that would really help Americans, he'd have done it by now as he's been promising for 4 years.
Click to expand...

With healthcare, even if he cared, President Trump is facing the same problem that Brexiteers in the UK are facing. Anything which will make the situation better is fundamentally incompatible with the views and values of his party.
 
theprestige said:
Interpreting the law should not involve moral decisions for a judge. The people trying to turn constitutional jurisprudence into a moral question are disturbingly misguided and undermining the rule of law.

If the constitution permits capital punishment, it is not immoral to say so. Nor is it immoral to rule accordingly. One's own morality does not enter into it.
Click to expand...

Then what do you make of Barrett, who claims she'd recuse on moral grounds cases around the death penalty? Isn't that, by your above belief, an admission she's not suitable for the job? That she isn't going to make the separation between her personal morality and constitutional jurisprudence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom