? for dems on likely SCOTUS nominee
 

Spence, rockhound, anyone else that wants to chime in...

If Trump nominates a woman and if there's a vote (maybe a 50% chance we get that far), do democrats give her the Kavanaugh/Thomas treatment? Or do they play nice?

Seems like a lose-lose situation for them. If they play nice, the progressive wing (which is probably most of the party by now) will be angry. If they rough her up, they run the risk of turning off any undecideds out there who get to see that they don't actually advocate for women the way they say they do..

Especially if its Barrett, and they attack her for the heinous, unforgivable crime of being Catholic. Nominating a female Catholic would really put Senate democrats in an impossible situation.

Stinks when identity politics is used as a club against you.

The only thing you do is what republicans said should happen in an election year.. wait till after the elections. Isn't you who says elections have consequences
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well they're not going to wait if they have the votes. So assuming they vote on a female nominee, do you think the democrats will attack without mercy as they did to Kavanaugh? Or will they play nice?

elections do have consequences. There's a great chance Biden wins and the dems take control of the senate. The pickings are good for the dems.

It's like bunting with a 10 run lead, yeah, it's not smiled upon when you do it, but there is nothing in the rule book that says you can't.

Personally I think if they wait, that may drive some of the undecideds in Trumps direction where there is a SC seat on the line next term.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's logic to that, Spence thought the same thing. But there's at least a 50% chance the democrats retake the senate, there are a lot more republicans up for re-election than democrats.

There’s no need to get nasty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sincere apologies. he did say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumplicans have been using identity politics since Hillary called some people deplorable.
I’m sure they’ll play the poor white people victim card again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

any special reason why none of you can answer the question i asked? amazing how often you in particular are reduced to a blubbering mess by a simple question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's because they have their fingers in their ears screaming whatever they just heard on MSNBC :grins:

Democrats are largely powerless to stop GOP from confirming court choice
Paul Kane and Rachael Bade, The Washington Post Published 7:57 pm EDT, Monday, September 21, 2020

i’ll ask you, do you think his nominee gets attacked with brass knuckles? or do they play nice with her, and save their attacks for the senate republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It will depend on who the nominee is, they arent going to let it happen quietly, it’s not in their DNA

If it’s Barrett they’ll probably pick on her religious convictions.

They will have to put up some kind of fight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It comes back to the basic premise Republicans are 2 faced hypocritical cheats .. but you can keep avoiding what they said .. to include dearleader Trump.. yet somehow you keep trying to make this about the dirty democrats.. jim listen to the tapes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s be real, 50 Trumplicans would vote to put Judge Jeanine on SCOTUS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tweety needs the results of the swimsuit competition and then he will make his selection.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've said 10 times that they are being blatantly hypocritical. I agree with you.

Where we disagree, is that I also say Biden was just as hypocritical involving SCOTUS. That is obviously, irrefutably true, but you can't concede it. It only bothers you when republicans do it. You're OK when democrats flip flop to benefit themselves today. But you hate it when Republicans do the same thing.

Because Sonya Sotomayor is so much better. She has been overturned multiple times by the Supreme Court, often unanimously overturned. And when Ginsburg and Scalia and everyone in between say you got it wrong, brother, you got it wrong.

She also said very famously and very clearly, that female Latinas make better judges than white men. That's not bigoted. Nope.

You obviously don’t have the knowledge to do other than rant and make false claims about a sitting judge.
Cite the cases and dispositions and show how they differ from other judges.
You apparently are of the belief that all SCOTUS decisions are unanimous and that disagreement among members of the bar in reading the law is impossible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which claim did I make which was false?

I don't think most SCOTUS decisions are unanimous, what on Earth would make you say that? I know unanimous decisions are rare, which is precisely why it shows how wrong Sotomayor has been, that she has been unanimously overruled.

But if you have 2 federal appeals judges, and one has never been overruled by the SC, and one has repeatedly been overruled by the SC (even unanimously), that tells me that one is better than the other.

And if one says that female Latinas are superior to white males, well, that statement would make you ineligible for jury duty, let alone being a supreme court judge. She's a lunatic, who has often been wrong on the law.

he likes to make stuff up then argue against himself...it makes him feel smarter

classic conservative.. I've said 10 times that they are being blatantly hypocritical. I agree with you.

but I am ok if they do it ... jim dems have never done the same thing... there you go again spinning the facts and whats been said by republicans

wdmso, you keep dodging biden. will
you concede that he has also been hypocritical? that he says whatever benefits his party at the time?

i dislike hypocrisy from both sides. but i see. o value in the gop playing fair while the democrats fight dirty. you want to take off the gloves and put in brass knuckles, don’t cry when your opponent does the same thing.

the. democrats. started. this.

history is very clear on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously don’t have the knowledge to do other than rant and make false claims about a sitting judge.
Cite the cases and dispositions and show how they differ from other judges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yawn.

She was overturned by SCOTUS in 3 out of 5 cases where she wrote the majority opinion, and the SC reviewed it.

Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, which involved an inmate who sought to sue a private contractor operating a halfway house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons over injuries he sustained. Sotomayor said he could, but a majority of the justices disagreed.

•In another case, Sotomayor wrote that under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for drawing cooling water into power plants with minimal impact on aquatic life. By a vote of 6-3 this year, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Entergy v. Riverkeeper (here, she brilliantly concluded that cost/benefit analyses are unconstitutional)

•The third reversal, in 2005, was a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit. Sotomayor had written that a class action securities suit brought in state court by a broker/stockholder was not preempted by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. But the high court’s opinion said it "would be odd, to say the least" if the law contained the exception that Sotomayor said it did.

OK? In the case where she was overturned unanimously (meaning Scalia, Ginsburg, and everyone in between said she was wrong), and they went so far as to call her conclusion "odd, to say the least".

Worthy of a promotion? Debatable.

Got anything else you want to say?

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/sotomayor-overturned/

So the only lawyer that should be admitted to the Supreme Court is one who’s record is 100%
Do you think any lawyer wins every case?
Since you have such great concern about the vetting of proposed justices, why do you think it is unnecessary in the current case?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So the only lawyer that should be admitted..."

You know you've clobbered a liberal, when you say something, and they respond with "so what you're saying is....." and then claim that you said something that you never came close to saying. The last pathetic act of a desperate and defeated person, who isn't adult enough to EVER say, "you know what? That's a valid point".

I never said one needs a reversal rate of 0% to be qualified for SC. What I said, was that reversal rate seems like a good barometer to use to rank judges. And if Sotomayor was reversed unanimously, and they went as far as saying her legal conclusion was "odd, to say the least", doesn't that suggest to you, that the SC thought she blew it big time? "Odd, to say the least", is pretty clear language...They thought her legal conclusion was stupid.

You asked me to cite the cases, and I did. You have ben destroyed, bitch-slapped, once again.

You asked for the cases, and I provided them. Is there any chance you can show me the same courtesy and respond to a question of mine? What's your opinion of the fat that Biden once famously said that presidents shouldn't make SC nominations in an election year, and if they do, the Senate should refuse to vote (they called that the Biden rule). Then in 2016, when it suited him, he flipped 180 degrees.

What's your opinion of that flip-flop, and how is it remotely different from McConnells obvious flip flop here?

Please try and respond to what I'm actually saying, not to what the voices in your head tell you I'm saying.

Hearing voices again. I never said anything like that.

Barrett recently went through the check for federal appeals bench, so we know a lot about her, obviously there's no serious red flags or she wouldn't have been confirmed to the federal appeals bench. 40 days, or whatever it is, is plenty of time to dig a little deeper.

I want a thorough check on her. The resources of the United States Federal Government can pull that off in a month.

Pete, this is happening. Deal with it. Ginsburg is being replaced with a staunch conservative, a devout Catholic. VERY unlikely they'll overturn Roe, but the court will not be nearly as activist as it's been for the last 40 years. If liberals want to implement a wacky agenda, they can't use the courts for now, they have to do it legislatively, which is exactly how they're supposed to do it.

Now you know the proposed justice?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You consistently whine and claim to be a victim while ignoring the fact that Earl Warren retired on June 1969, one month before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Since then, Republican presidents have 15 appointments to the Court, while Democratic presidents have made exactly 4.
And you blame the Dems for the composition of the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When have I ever claimed to be a victim? I'm destroying you.

"Republican presidents have 15 appointments to the Court, while Democratic presidents have made exactly 4."

And some of the ones appointed by Republican, turned out to be the opposite of what my side wants. Souter is a liberal, activist judge.

You're using the wrong metric to keep score.

I blame liberalism for the composition of the court. Not democrats.

As I said before
Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A verdict that comports with the Constitution is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." It is constitutional.

If a verdict is not based on the text of the Constitution, but on personal "liberal" or "conservative" values, mores, politics, or opinion, it is unconstitutional. Such a verdict is quite acceptable to Progressives, and is often used as the basis for their "interpretation." This form of interpretation is called activism. The aim is not so much to uphold the Constitution as the source of their verdict, but usually to achieve some social aim that has not been achieved through the normal constitutional legislative process. In other words, legislating from the bench.

There’s a reason there is disagreement among judges and just because you claim originalists are correct does not make other interpretations impossible and certainly not illegal.
I’d much rather Congress pass legislation including stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdictional authority and letting voters decide.
But you prefer to be ruled by 9 lords for life as long as they agree with your views on the Constitution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously some judgment is brought to bear much of the time, its not always an exact science. That being said, there are times when judges have acted more like activists than like the neutral arbitrers theyre supposed to be.

Conservatives aren't looking for conservative judges who will ram a conservative agenda down the nations throats. We want judges who are less likely to stray away from what the constitution means. I think you know this.

As I've said, you seem to basically have Progressive views of what government should be and do. This last statement by you would be a lynchpin of Progressive governance. The greatest obstacle to our becoming an absolutely Progressive State is the Constitution and its separation of powers which includes the Supreme Court which was meant to secure and protect that separation along with the individual rights that are protected by that system.

You prefer a pure democracy, which is basically mob rule, and which has historically devolved into authoritarian despotism. What is there for the voters to decide? The platform and promises of power seekers? And half the nation being deprived of the promises they prefer? Your notion that the voters have total authority is merely a cover for those being elected having absolute power. And there is no protection from the elected rulers taking your stuff to give to someone else. No protection of private property. No functional outlet for diversity of opinion.

There is always a limit to what can be voted for. And as the ruling class is freer to create the issues, and narrowly tailor them to its agenda, what you vote for will become progressively narrower, till you have only the limited options allowed on the ballot.

:jester::jester::jester::jester::jester::jester:

Laugh all you want, miss. No serious conservative expects the SC to outlaw abortion. We would like the SC to say "the constitution clearly doesn't say this is a federal issue, therefore its a state issue, states can do what they want".

We want smaller federal government, more states rights, therefore more individual ability to govern themselves, whether they choose to do say liberally or conservatively.

What a concept! Obviously foreign to your red way of looking at things...

Every American who supports Trump should never be allowed to forget what just happened on that stage. After all the offenses against the nation and the Constitution, he refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. If you support this man, you cannot call yourself a patriot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please.

hilary told biden to never concede, under any circumstances.

do you not see you’re the one who will tolerate any level of ugliness from their side? you never criticize any democrats, ever.

sheep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, Jim
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device