Should Amy Coney Barrett be appointed to the SCOTUS?

tbergs

Now that we've got a nominee, let the discussion of her possible appointment commence! Should she be appointed or are republicans playing by their own rules to stack the courts unfairly? Personally, my only issue is that Obama couldn't seat a justice with over 9 months to go before election, but republicans don't care about that this time claiming the very pathetic argument that the people chose a republican senate and president. Uh, last time I checked I can't control the senate majority with my state votes. I'd prefer a balance of power, but it seems that isn't happening these days.

Anyway, as usual this nominee comes with the typical concerns among liberals and vehement denials from conservatives that personal beliefs will impact the historical cases of Roe v. Wade and other key equality cases.

Here are 2 differing opinions for why Barrett's personal beliefs won't impact her bench decisions and why they will based on previous statements and her judicial record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/ive-known-amy-coney-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bombshell-consequences-of-amy-coney-barrett/2020/09/25/3531ab9c-ff6f-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html?_gl=1*1j21uf9*_ga*dGZKbzZBVm9YRXdXcVRtUlhfUHhPaFhPZjFiRlFxc3c2UmpmZWdhMS1uY1B0MW9NX205ZHNZUlVocE04cV9pOq..

mickeyrat

wont answer yet. inclined to say no based solely on mcconnells actions for the past 12 years.

but here we are, so I want to learn more about her brief(all to brief) judicial record before committing.

Lerxst1992

Ugh, do we really have to see her name at the top of the forum?

the question doesn’t matter, she will be on the Court and it will have a deeply conservative bias for decades unless the Dems play hardball.

the only way to take back this Mcconnellonian power grab is to add congress seats, add electoral votes, and senators/states from DC and PR


 

Glorified KC

No

She shouldn't.  She probably will be.  Fuck 2020.

OnWis97

Yes

I could vote no or yes based on the way "should" is framed.  Should this hard-core of a conservative be appointed?  Yes.  It's their president and their Senate.  It's unfortunate that the Senate and the electoral college skew to the minority but that is where we are.

Should the GOP get this through, given their stance of four years ago?  No.  In theory people should be upset and vote them out.  But they won't. So why would Mitch and Company worry about that?

gimmesometruth27

No

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

cincybearcat

No

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

tbergs

No

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

I think that's why we saw Kennedy step down midterm this time. He saw that this may be Trump's only term and wanted a conservative justice to replace him. Yeah, RBG could have stepped down in 2015 for sure. I do think in general that justices time their retirements based on the president.

Another thing I was thinking about is that between Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, 6 justices were seated by republicans. Granted, there was less partisanship on the selection of justices then.

gimmesometruth27

No

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

i agree with most of this. except who is to know if RBG had stepped down around the time scalia passed away that mitch would have allowed a vote on another obama pick? she probably knew mitch would not allow it, and this was reinforced when scalia died and no pick was allowed a vote.

the gop was on the beginning of the road to fascism during obama's 2nd term. keep that in mind.

OnWis97

Yes

gimmesometruth27 said:

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

i agree with most of this. except who is to know if RBG had stepped down around the time scalia passed away that mitch would have allowed a vote on another obama pick? she probably knew mitch would not allow it, and this was reinforced when scalia died and no pick was allowed a vote.

the gop was on the beginning of the road to fascism during obama's 2nd term. keep that in mind.

That was my first thought.  And I don't know...I'm not sure Mitch was there yet.  We'll never know.  That said, had Hillary won, I bet we'd be at 7 right now...

Edit: Yes seven...because Kennedy would still be there.

HughFreakingDillon

No

flip the senate, win the presidency, add 4 liberal justices, and and a big fuck you to mitch. 

cincybearcat

No

gimmesometruth27 said:

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

i agree with most of this. except who is to know if RBG had stepped down around the time scalia passed away that mitch would have allowed a vote on another obama pick? she probably knew mitch would not allow it, and this was reinforced when scalia died and no pick was allowed a vote.

the gop was on the beginning of the road to fascism during obama's 2nd term. keep that in mind.

I meant step down before the last year of his 2nd term ...like anytime early in the second term.  If she truly wanted to ensure a democrat was picking her successor, it was the only way she could have.  

gimmesometruth27

No

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

i agree with most of this. except who is to know if RBG had stepped down around the time scalia passed away that mitch would have allowed a vote on another obama pick? she probably knew mitch would not allow it, and this was reinforced when scalia died and no pick was allowed a vote.

the gop was on the beginning of the road to fascism during obama's 2nd term. keep that in mind.

I meant step down before the last year of his 2nd term ...like anytime early in the second term.  If she truly wanted to ensure a democrat was picking her successor, it was the only way she could have.  

i know what you mean man. i am sure she had her reasons for not stepping down earlier. her husband passed away and maybe she felt the need to keep working to help her process that. we will never know. i know i did not think that mitch was going to pull the stunt that he did after scalia died though. that was a game changer for me. and if i were a democratic senator or member of the house, i would have a political vendetta against some of these republicans that changed the rules in the middle of the game.

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

she shouldn't. but she will be confirmed.

this is what it was all about. the man who lost the popular vote gets to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country.

It's not good.  I hate the hypocrisy of it.

I will say RBG had a chance to control her own destiny and decided to roll the dice into a new president.  So her deathbed wish of her seat not being filled by trump and GOP doesn't hold any water with me.  She doesn't get to choose.  Now - if she was concerned, she could have stepped down in the middle of Obama's presidency.  It will be interesting to see if that lesson was learned by any of the SCOTUS.

I think given the difficulty Reid was having getting votes taken on Obama's lower court picks explains why she held on

brianlux

No

I say no way because I believe in separation of church and state.  This won't happen with Barrett.  What likely will happen is that she will be confirmed and we will mover further from Democracy and closer to a now dark ages.  It's going to be a long road back, assuming we ever get back.

hedonist

I don’t know, so if anyone could tell me, please: Do other Justices practice religion in their personal life? Whether “strict” or not, no Jews or Catholics or even Latvian Orthodox?

brianlux

No

hedonist said:

I don’t know, so if anyone could tell me, please: Do other Justices practice religion in their personal life? Whether “strict” or not, no Jews or Catholics or even Latvian Orthodox?

Undoubtedly, I would think anyway.  It's not my thing, but I'm cool with anyone practicing any religion that doesn't practice doing harm to others... like limiting a woman's reproductive thing.  I don't care if Barrett sing Hosannas in the shower  or goes to Synagogue twice a week or lights candles and incense on a  hillside at sunset.  I just don't know how much I trust someone who defines them self by their religion.  I believe Barrett does that.  If I'm wrong, I'm definitely open to being corrected.

hedonist

I don’t want my (or any woman’s) reproductive thing to be controlled

And yeah, I was asking for that reason - my.religious heritage is part of me but not ME. Hence my question. 

tbergs

No

brianlux said:

hedonist said:

I don’t know, so if anyone could tell me, please: Do other Justices practice religion in their personal life? Whether “strict” or not, no Jews or Catholics or even Latvian Orthodox?

Undoubtedly, I would think anyway.  It's not my thing, but I'm cool with anyone practicing any religion that doesn't practice doing harm to others... like limiting a woman's reproductive thing.  I don't care if Barrett sing Hosannas in the shower  or goes to Synagogue twice a week or lights candles and incense on a  hillside at sunset.  I just don't know how much I trust someone who defines them self by their religion.  I believe Barrett does that.  If I'm wrong, I'm definitely open to being corrected.

She would be the 6th Catholic justice on the current court and while no nominee is dumb enough to overtly state they'd blatantly overturn any precedent already established, she would not be opposed. This in combination with Trump's very own words that he wants to seat justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade should speak for itself. Whether she will actually do it, I don't know, but it seems to me she would be more than willing to find a reason to do so if the circumstances arise.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917827735/a-look-at-amy-coney-barretts-record-on-abortion-rights

brianlux

No

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

hedonist said:

I don’t know, so if anyone could tell me, please: Do other Justices practice religion in their personal life? Whether “strict” or not, no Jews or Catholics or even Latvian Orthodox?

Undoubtedly, I would think anyway.  It's not my thing, but I'm cool with anyone practicing any religion that doesn't practice doing harm to others... like limiting a woman's reproductive thing.  I don't care if Barrett sing Hosannas in the shower  or goes to Synagogue twice a week or lights candles and incense on a  hillside at sunset.  I just don't know how much I trust someone who defines them self by their religion.  I believe Barrett does that.  If I'm wrong, I'm definitely open to being corrected.

She would be the 6th Catholic justice on the current court and while no nominee is dumb enough to overtly state they'd blatantly overturn any precedent already established, she would not be opposed. This in combination with Trump's very own words that he wants to seat justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade should speak for itself. Whether she will actually do it, I don't know, but it seems to me she would be more than willing to find a reason to do so if the circumstances arise.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917827735/a-look-at-amy-coney-barretts-record-on-abortion-rights

Fuhrer evid... I mean, further evidence someone wants to stir shit in this country in a big (not good) way. 

hedonist said:

I don’t want my (or any woman’s) reproductive thing to be controlled

And yeah, I was asking for that reason - my.religious heritage is part of me but not ME. Hence my question. 

Haha!  I'm so fucking dumb sometimes!  Words can really trip me up sometimes, lol!

Gern Blansten

No

I'm all for the Dems stacking the court if they win the WH and Senate.  Fuck the GOP...they would do it and you could argue they have already done it by stealing the Garland nomination.  

joseph33

Yes

I will not hold anybodys religion against them. If she's qualified,why not? But at the same time,she needs to be properly vetted in. People don't have say in such matters,thats up to the Senate. And its a disgrace for Trump to rush into appointing a SCOTUS nominee so soon after the passing of a judge.I want the high Court of the land to be balanced,and not so far sided.

Gern Blansten

No

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

HughFreakingDillon

No

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

OnWis97

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

Gern Blansten

No

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

That's what I think...she is clueless which is sad given her position

HughFreakingDillon

No

Gern Blansten said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

That's what I think...she is clueless which is sad given her position

i don't find her clueless. i just find her completely devoid of a soul. 

Bentleyspop

No

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

Maybe now that she is a Rhodes scholar she'll also win a noble prize

mace1229

Yes

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

HughFreakingDillon

No

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

i think the senate should be compelled to hold confirmation hearings if a president nominates a judge, no matter if it's his first day or his last in the white house. the senate majority leader should not have that much power. 

i disagree with democrats who say she shouldn't be confirmed because that would be the end of obamacare. that's her job, to hear cases brought before the courts. if she believes obamacare to be unconstitutional as interpreted by law, then so be it. 

PJPOWER

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

i think the senate should be compelled to hold confirmation hearings if a president nominates a judge, no matter if it's his first day or his last in the white house. the senate majority leader should not have that much power. 

i disagree with democrats who say she shouldn't be confirmed because that would be the end of obamacare. that's her job, to hear cases brought before the courts. if she believes obamacare to be unconstitutional as interpreted by law, then so be it. 

Exactly, if Obamacare is unconstitutional, it should not exist.