Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $3,142.05 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  42 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Amy Coney Barret SCOTUS nomination thread


Muda69
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, not really.  Do you?

 

The links you cite and quotes you choose to bold along with your opinion on packing the court are inconsistent with a person that doesn't care which party picks the SCOTUS.

Yes I care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone assumes that they know how ACB would line up on certain issues. Just keep in mind that there have been some famous instances where a Justice performed quite differently than the appointing President expected. Justice Souter is an example. On a much larger scale, conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren as Chief Justice, and he led the Court during one of the most “liberal” periods in the Court’s history. Eisenhower referred to it as one of his biggest mistakes in office.

What a lot of people have a difficult time grasping is that the Court doesn’t rule on laws or policies in a vacuum. The Court decides cases. And the specific facts of those cases often drive the decision-making. At bottom, the Court does not make sweeping or philosophical pronouncements. The Court decides the cases brought before it, and leaves the interpretations, extrapolations, and applications of those decisions to others... until another case comes along.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alduflux said:

The links you cite and quotes you choose to bold along with your opinion on packing the court are inconsistent with a person that doesn't care which party picks the SCOTUS.

Yes I care.

No, they are not inconsistent.  I don't believe "packing the court" is a viable long term solution (in fact it's yet another solution looking for a problem), and that applies to both side sides of the uni-party coin.  If the situation right now were reversed and it was the republicans squawking about "packing the court" I would be just as a critical of them as I currently am with the democrats.  There really is no substantive difference between either side of the uni-party coin, the only one being whose money they want to steal to fund their big government initiatives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Everyone assumes that they know how ACB would line up on certain issues. Just keep in mind that there have been some famous instances where a Justice performed quite differently than the appointing President expected. Justice Souter is an example. On a much larger scale, conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren as Chief Justice, and he led the Court during one of the most “liberal” periods in the Court’s history. Eisenhower referred to it as one of his biggest mistakes in office.

<democrat>But, but ACB has to be nothing but a puppet for Mr. Trump and the GOP, right?  I'm sure right now a secret red phone is being installed in her office that will connect to either a GOP controlled White House or the RNC headquarters.  You can't bite the hand that fed you, right? </democrat>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

<democrat>But, but ACB has to be nothing but a puppet for Mr. Trump and the GOP, right?  I'm sure right now a secret red phone is being installed in her office that will connect to either a GOP controlled White House or the RNC headquarters.  You can't bite the hand that fed you, right? </democrat>

Hence, the reason SCOTUS Justices serve during “good behavior,” and not for a defined term or at the pleasure of the President (or the voters), as do all Article III judges. This makes them relatively immune from shifting political winds. Once they put on the robe, no one has any leverage over them any more. The people who believe they can predict with certainty how ACB will line up on the upcoming cases will be right most — but not all — of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

The burden of proof is on he who accuses. You accuse, therefore you bear the burden. 

Until this little quote was uttered-

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/09/24/mcconnells-fabricated-history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/

From the article: 

See @raiderx2 how I cite my sources?

Good job El Dante, you get a star sticker on the chalkboard today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO one way or another the msm is going to delve into the Hunter story.  If Trump wins they will definitely keep pursuing the issue to

the point that indictments are handed down, at which point msm will have no choice but to report on it. 

If Biden wins I think the press goes after the story to get rid of Joe, who they never liked, and allow knee pad Kamala and the

progressives to take over, which is what the msm wants.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...