Supreme court nomination

[Faicon9493 141]

Trump to ACB: "I can get you on the SCOTUS.....but I'd like you to do me a favor though."

[brenthutch 444]

On 9/29/2020 at 2:10 PM, wmw999 said:

She's inexperienced -- not as inexperienced as Harriet Miers, but still very light. Wendy P.

But more experienced than Kagan

[phantomII 37]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

......., a vacancy needed to be filled, ........

Like in 2016.
Now, explain again, why it is not a powergrabbing charade by the Republicans.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

But more experienced than Kagan

So being Dean of the Harvard Law School, and Solicitor General of the United States, doesn't count as experience?  I guess they hand those jobs out to random people getting a latte in Starbucks.

[brenthutch 444]

4 minutes ago, phantomII said:

Like in 2016.
Now, explain again, why it is not a powergrabbing charade by the Republicans.

The Senate rejected the nominee 

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

So being Dean of the Harvard Law School, and Solicitor General of the United States, doesn't count as experience?  I guess they hand those jobs out to random people getting a latte in Starbucks.

Zero experience as a judge.

[okalb 104]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

The Senate rejected the nominee 

The senate was never allowed to vote on the nominee. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, okalb said:

The senate was never allowed to vote on the nominee. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

Bottom line.....rejected 

Mitch just wanted to save his members from the political blowback from rejecting a qualified, albeit left leaning jurist.  The Rs in the Senate were not put there by their voters to shift the balance of the court to the left.

Edited October 20, 2020 by brenthutch

[GeorgiaDon 362]

28 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Zero experience as a judge.

Barrett: law school (Notre Dame) professor, 2 1/2 years on court of appeals.

Kagan: law school (Harvard) Dean, Solicitor General of the United States

It's not clear to me how less than 3 years as a judge on the court of appeals outweighs Kagan's experience, but obviously YMMV.

Edited October 20, 2020 by GeorgiaDon

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

How is it a power grab?  A Republican President  and a Republican Senate were elected, a vacancy needed to be filled, the President made a nomination and the Senate will either confirm or reject the nominee.  If the Dems win the Presidency and control the Senate, they can (and will) do the same.  It is also worth mentioning the majority of Americans want her to ascend to the SC.

From Gallup:

“WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim 51% majority of Americans support federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last month.”

I think it does say something about her. That she's as much of a self serving hypocrite as could be expected when offered a guaranteed, no brainer, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. People who value people with integrity think it would have been admirable for her to say, no, not me. Not after how Merrick Garland was handled.

When Dan O'Brien stood down from the 300 way (with an 8AM bottle of Patron) because of ill treatment of the "A" Team bench he simply said "it's all about integrity". Mike Raible didn't say it when he didn't take a well performing jumpers slot to be on the 200 Way but that was also all about integrity. I'm thinking that if Skydivers can show integrity maybe Judges could show some, too.

[brenthutch 444]

I know some (many) of you are seeking vengeance for the way Garland was treated, I get it.  However it is bad form to take it out on ABC.  Your venom should be directed toward Mitch.  Go make a donation to Amy McGrath’s campaign.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I think it does say something about her. That she's as much of a self serving hypocrite as could be expected when offered a guaranteed, no brainer, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. People who value people with integrity think it would have been admirable for her to say, no, not me. Not after how Merrick Garland was handled.

It would only have taken 4 Republican Senators to show some integrity after the lies they spouted in 2016.  Clearly as far as the entire Republican Party is concerned, to a person, integrity is a quaint old-fashioned notion compared to the exercise of raw power.  In Trump's party keeping your word is for suckers and losers.

[wmw999 2,447]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I know some (many) of you are seeking vengeance for the way Garland was treated, I get it.  However it is bad form to take it out on ABC.  Your venom should be directed toward Mitch.  Go make a donation to Amy McGrath’s campaign.

I have. And it's not vengeance, it's simply a matter of hypocrisy. Had McConnell simply said "We won't consider a Democratic-nominated judge because we don't have to, and we're too chicken to actually say so," then there'd be some intellectual honesty there. But there is none, just a power grab that is far more blatant than any executive order Obama ever signed.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I know some (many) of you are seeking vengeance for the way Garland was treated, I get it.  However it is bad form to take it out on ABC.  Your venom should be directed toward Mitch.  Go make a donation to Amy McGrath’s campaign.

You won't have me coming out against vengeance, no way. And if we get a chance to get some against this current crew of bastards I want to take it. In this instance I was talking about something far more valuable, and amongst most republican politicians these days very rare, which is integrity.

[kallend 2,027]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I know some (many) of you are seeking vengeance for the way Garland was treated, I get it.  However it is bad form to take it out on ABC.  Your venom should be directed toward Mitch.  Go make a donation to Amy McGrath’s campaign.

I did already.

[brenthutch 444]

20 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I have. And it's not vengeance, it's simply a matter of hypocrisy. Had McConnell simply said "We won't consider a Democratic-nominated judge because we don't have to, and we're too chicken to actually say so," then there'd be some intellectual honesty there. But there is none, just a power grab that is far more blatant than any executive order Obama ever signed.

Wendy P.

I think we can both agree there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC.  And it is not a “power grab” it is the constitutional exercise of the power given to them by their constituents.  It is no different than the hypocrisy of Obama.  He said on several occasions, he did not have the power to unilaterally impose DACA, but then he did.  Pelosi also circumvented regular order to shove through Obamacare.  Both sides do it, it just hurts more when your side loses.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,447]

People who admire that kind of power-for-power's-sake action generally also secretly admired the bullies in school, when they got away with it.

McConnell did whatever it took to maintain his party's power, at the expense of the continued efficient running of the country (all those "little people" with stuff pending in the federal courts with no judges, but hey, they're probably all democrats or minorities, so fuck 'em). That kind of siloing is a good day to ruin a company in the long run, while making its stock rise until the rats leave -- it's also a good way to make sure the country is full of people who see their compatriots, their neighbors, their family members, as subversive enemies.

Conservative beliefs aren't evil -- I've voted for my share of Republicans and Libertarians in my day. This kind of "my way or the highway" action doesn't advance the country, it only advances the party.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,991]

15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

This kind of "my way or the highway" action doesn't advance the country, it only advances the party.

It only really advances the party in the short term.  But most people can't see beyond ten years or so.

[brenthutch 444]

What McConnell did will increase the odds of loosing the Senate and may even cost him his election.  Hardly self serving.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The Senate rejected the nominee 

No they didn't.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What McConnell did will increase the odds of loosing the Senate and may even cost him his election.  Hardly self serving.

 

Nonsense. It’s simply the parable of the turtle and the scorpion read in real life.

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Bottom line.....rejected 

Not by the Senate.

[jakee 1,489]

 

57 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I think we can both agree there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC.  And it is not a “power grab” it is the constitutional exercise of the power given to them by their constituents.  It is no different than the hypocrisy of Obama.  He said on several occasions, he did not have the power to unilaterally impose DACA, but then he did.  

That's not the same hypocrisy. If he'd blocked Republicans from doing the same thing, argued it was against the will of the people for them to do it then did it himself that would be the same hypocrisy. But it isn't.

Regardless, I hope we can assume you would have zero complaints and see nothing at all wrong with Biden and a Dem Senate expanding the Supreme Court until it has a liberal majority again, if such a thing came to pass?

[brenthutch 444]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nonsense. It’s simply the parable of the turtle and the scorpion read in real life.

The scorpion died

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The scorpion died

Exactly. He'd died by doing what scorpions do. Hardly self serving.