Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Should Amy Coney Barrett be appointed to the SCOTUS?

24

Comments

  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,988
    Yes
    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. 
    I agree with you in principle, though she needs to be vetted for impartiality, etc., of course.

    As for the unbolded, I don't think it's realistic to do it on the last day. They need more vetting. I almost wish there was a codified amount of time.

    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,630
    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."
    What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

    Do you really think they can just set that aside?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 5,782
    edited October 1
    Yes
    dignin 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."
    What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

    Do you really think they can just set that aside?
    Lawyers have to set their prejudices aside in numerous scenarios.  Do you think any lawyer wants to defend child rapists or murderers?  They have to learn to set their beliefs aside to do their job, that’s why they are all soulless, ha
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,184
    Yes
    dignin 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."
    What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

    Do you really think they can just set that aside?
    Who then decides which religions are too extreme and which ones are okay to practice in this country? Everyone has the freedom of religion (with the exception of religions that break laws of course. So yeah, a cult leader would not be qualified). But to say this Catholic is okay because they are they only go to church on Easter and Christmas, but this Catholic takes the bible way too seriously, she's disqualified, well then you're taking away freedom of religion and discriminating at that point. 

    And you think there is any justice or judge that doesn't hold personal political views? We expect them all to put them aside. But we know they are human and it is not possible to do that 100% of the time, that is why there are 9 in the supreme court. If it was just black and white, we'd only need 1. 
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,630
    She isn't just a normal Catholic though. She belonged to, or still does, a cult group. She has no business being considered for the supreme Court. If she were a Muslim with these extremist views, the right would lose their minds.

    Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

    But the group has also been portrayed by some former members, and in books, blogs and news reports, as hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.

    Her mother, Linda Coney, has served in the branch as a “handmaid,” a female leader assigned to help guide other women, according to documents reviewed by the AP.

     A 2007 issue discusses how the 17 single women who live together in a household, called the Sisterhood, had their paychecks direct deposited into a single bank account. One member said she had “no idea” what the amount of her paycheck was.

    The pooled money was managed by one woman, who budgeted for everyone’s clothing and other expenses, including $36 weekly per person for food and basics like toilet paper. All women were expected to give 10% of their pay to People of Praise, another 1% to the South Bend branch and additional tithes to their churches.

    Married couples and their children also often share multifamily homes or cluster in neighborhoods designated for “city building” by the group’s leaders, where they can easily socialize and walk to each other’s houses.

    As part of spiritual meetings, members often relay divine prophecies and are encouraged to pray in tongues, where participants make vocal utterances thought to carry direct teachings and instructions from God. Those utterances are then “interpreted” by senior male leaders and relayed back to the wider group.

    A 1969 book by Kevin Ranaghan, a co-founder of People of Praise, dedicates a chapter to praying in tongues, which he describes as a gift from God.

    “The gift of tongues is one of the word-gifts, an utterance of the Spirit through man,” Ranaghan wrote in “Catholic Pentecostals.” “Alone, the gift of tongues is used for prayer and praise. Coupled with the gift of interpretation it can edify the unbeliever and strengthen, console, enlighten or move the community of faith.”

    In a blog entry on the group’s website from March of this year, a mother described taking her children to pray in tongues as the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

    “My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission of women,” recounted Theill, who is now 65.

    Theill, who converted to Catholicism after getting married, said in her People of Praise community women were expected to live in “total submission” not only to their husbands, but also the other male “heads” within the group.

    In a book she wrote about her experience, Theill recounts that in People of Praise every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job, buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership. Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing correctly, she said.

    Theill says her “handmaid,” to whom she was supposed to confide her innermost thoughts and emotions, then repeated what she said to the male heads, who would consult her husband on the proper correction.

    “There’d be open meetings where you just have to stand for the group and they’d tell you all that was wrong with you,” Theill recounted to the AP last week. “And I would ask questions. I was a critical thinker.”

    When she told her husband she wanted to wait to have more children, Theill said, he accompanied her to gynecological appointments to ensure she couldn’t get birth control.

    “I was basically treated like a brood mare,” she said, using the term for a female horse used for breeding. During her 20-year marriage, Theill had eight children from 11 pregnancies.

    Theill, who says she declined to take the covenant, described being dominated and eventually shunned because of the doubts she expressed about the group

    https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-1be61f7c3427e41326038e5cdab54839
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,004
    No
    dignin said:
    She isn't just a normal Catholic though. She belonged to, or still does, a cult group. She has no business being considered for the supreme Court. If she were a Muslim with these extremist views, the right would lose their minds.

    Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

    But the group has also been portrayed by some former members, and in books, blogs and news reports, as hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.

    Her mother, Linda Coney, has served in the branch as a “handmaid,” a female leader assigned to help guide other women, according to documents reviewed by the AP.

     A 2007 issue discusses how the 17 single women who live together in a household, called the Sisterhood, had their paychecks direct deposited into a single bank account. One member said she had “no idea” what the amount of her paycheck was.

    The pooled money was managed by one woman, who budgeted for everyone’s clothing and other expenses, including $36 weekly per person for food and basics like toilet paper. All women were expected to give 10% of their pay to People of Praise, another 1% to the South Bend branch and additional tithes to their churches.

    Married couples and their children also often share multifamily homes or cluster in neighborhoods designated for “city building” by the group’s leaders, where they can easily socialize and walk to each other’s houses.

    As part of spiritual meetings, members often relay divine prophecies and are encouraged to pray in tongues, where participants make vocal utterances thought to carry direct teachings and instructions from God. Those utterances are then “interpreted” by senior male leaders and relayed back to the wider group.

    A 1969 book by Kevin Ranaghan, a co-founder of People of Praise, dedicates a chapter to praying in tongues, which he describes as a gift from God.

    “The gift of tongues is one of the word-gifts, an utterance of the Spirit through man,” Ranaghan wrote in “Catholic Pentecostals.” “Alone, the gift of tongues is used for prayer and praise. Coupled with the gift of interpretation it can edify the unbeliever and strengthen, console, enlighten or move the community of faith.”

    In a blog entry on the group’s website from March of this year, a mother described taking her children to pray in tongues as the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

    “My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission of women,” recounted Theill, who is now 65.

    Theill, who converted to Catholicism after getting married, said in her People of Praise community women were expected to live in “total submission” not only to their husbands, but also the other male “heads” within the group.

    In a book she wrote about her experience, Theill recounts that in People of Praise every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job, buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership. Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing correctly, she said.

    Theill says her “handmaid,” to whom she was supposed to confide her innermost thoughts and emotions, then repeated what she said to the male heads, who would consult her husband on the proper correction.

    “There’d be open meetings where you just have to stand for the group and they’d tell you all that was wrong with you,” Theill recounted to the AP last week. “And I would ask questions. I was a critical thinker.”

    When she told her husband she wanted to wait to have more children, Theill said, he accompanied her to gynecological appointments to ensure she couldn’t get birth control.

    “I was basically treated like a brood mare,” she said, using the term for a female horse used for breeding. During her 20-year marriage, Theill had eight children from 11 pregnancies.

    Theill, who says she declined to take the covenant, described being dominated and eventually shunned because of the doubts she expressed about the group

    https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-1be61f7c3427e41326038e5cdab54839
    I do agree with you there. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 8,080
    No
    Separation of church and state
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 23,959
    That’s a freaking cult and she & family belong to it, she gets the nod say bye bye to Roe v Wade! She has def been nominated for that sole reason to get rid of women’s reproductive rights.
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,585
    Accepted money from a hate group that promotes forced sterilization of transgender people and believes destroying an egg during invitro fertilization should be a crime. Just what ‘Murica needs in these times. She’ll fit right in.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 7,195
    No
    No, I don't believe Darlene Snell should be a SC Justice.
    Maybe we should see what Jacob thinks first. She is very self motivated.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 15,822
    No
    tbergs said:
    No, I don't believe Darlene Snell should be a SC Justice.
    Maybe we should see what Jacob thinks first. She is very self motivated.
    Ha, touche!
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 32,318
    No
    Saw the following on FB.  A great idea!

    This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE

    **********
    If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

    Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. “Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”

    Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

    Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”

    Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
    Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”

    “Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

    Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”

    Taking this approach does a number of things:

    1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

    2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

    3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

    Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

    Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,004
    No
    brianlux said:
    Saw the following on FB.  A great idea!

    This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE

    **********
    If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

    Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. “Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”

    Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

    Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”

    Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
    Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”

    “Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

    Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”

    Taking this approach does a number of things:

    1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

    2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

    3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

    Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

    Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

    that is pure genius. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • cutzcutz Posts: 9,522
    brianlux said:
    Saw the following on FB.  A great idea!

    This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE

    **********
    If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

    Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. “Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”

    Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

    Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”

    Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
    Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”

    “Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

    Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”

    Taking this approach does a number of things:

    1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

    2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

    3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

    Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

    Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

    that is pure genius. 
    That's how it comes across to me too.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 23,004
    No
    cutz said:
    brianlux said:
    Saw the following on FB.  A great idea!

    This BRILLIANT idea was written by Bill Svelmoe, Professor of American History at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN. Please pass this on to your senators and give Bill a follow: bit.ly/30A4WBE

    **********
    If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

    Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. “Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”

    Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”

    Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

    Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
    “Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”

    Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
    Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”

    “Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

    Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”

    Taking this approach does a number of things:

    1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

    2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

    3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

    Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

    Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

    that is pure genius. 
    That's how it comes across to me too.
    because honestly, we all know how these confirmation hearings go when asked what they would do in the future. total non answers and deflections citing precedent or not wanting to comment on similar cases currently before the court. it's all a load of BS
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 8,080
    No
    Will there be consequences?
    NOPE

     Amy Coney Barrett failed to disclose talks on Roe v. Wade hosted by anti-abortion groups on Senate paperwork
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 18,979
    article on barrett and people of praise


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 23,959
    She will be confirmed with ease..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,715
    She will be confirmed with ease..
    Yup.  
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 18,979
    am now in the no camp.....



    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,431
    No
    I hate these questions. It’s a dumb political process for a position that is not supposed to be political. 

    I do not think she should be confirmed only due to the fact that I do not think they should vote this close to an election for president. Otherwise though, if it wasn’t an election year, vote away and confirm her.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,585
    Why not, what is there to lose?


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 10,863
    No
    Why not, what is there to lose?


    exactly...and some of the "yes" votes from republicans will be from Senators that do not win re-election in a few weeks.

    This whole process is fucked up.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 13,223
    The process isn’t as much f’d up as are the people currently in government. Government is an extension of the people though too. 
  • cutzcutz Posts: 9,522

    https://thegrio.com/2020/10/14/barrett-workplace-discrimination/


    Amy Coney Barrett ruled n-word use does not make a workplace hostile

    A supervisor calling an employee that word wasn't proof of an abusive environment, Barrett wrote.

    Using the “n-word” does not create “a hostile or abusive working environment,” according to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. 


    A report from The Independent notes that just last year, serving on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett wrote an opinion upholding the dismissal of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation, a case in which fired Black state employee Terry Smith filed a workplace discrimination lawsuit. Among Smith’s assertions is that Lloyd Colbert, his White supervisor, called him the n-word.


    Smith didn’t make a strong enough case that harassment was occurring, Barrett asserted.  


    “The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered,” she wrote. “He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”


    Ironically, even Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a previous appointee of President Donald Trump, disagreed with her ruling on the matter — before it materialized. 


    Back in 2013, while a Washington D.C. federal appeals court judge, Kavanaugh wrote: “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment.” 


    Barrett is the mother of two Black children adopted from Haiti and five biological children. 


    The confirmation process to appoint Barrett to the highest court in the land is currently underway. Barrett was tapped by Trump to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court less than two months before the national Election Day. 


    Barrett, a staunch conservative, has been pressed on her personal views about abortion, gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act, all cases soon to appear before the court. 

    Further, Barrett was asked if she would recuse herself if a case contesting the U.S. election appeared before her in the coming months.


    In her avoidance of an actual response, she noted the word of the late Justice Ginsburg, replying, “Justice Ginsburg, in explaining the way recusal works, said that it’s always up to the individual justice, but it always involves consultation with the colleagues — with the other eight justices. So that’s not a question that I could answer in the abstract.”

  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,585
    cutz said:

    https://thegrio.com/2020/10/14/barrett-workplace-discrimination/


    Amy Coney Barrett ruled n-word use does not make a workplace hostile

    A supervisor calling an employee that word wasn't proof of an abusive environment, Barrett wrote.

    Using the “n-word” does not create “a hostile or abusive working environment,” according to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. 


    A report from The Independent notes that just last year, serving on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett wrote an opinion upholding the dismissal of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation, a case in which fired Black state employee Terry Smith filed a workplace discrimination lawsuit. Among Smith’s assertions is that Lloyd Colbert, his White supervisor, called him the n-word.


    Smith didn’t make a strong enough case that harassment was occurring, Barrett asserted.  


    “The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered,” she wrote. “He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”


    Ironically, even Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a previous appointee of President Donald Trump, disagreed with her ruling on the matter — before it materialized. 


    Back in 2013, while a Washington D.C. federal appeals court judge, Kavanaugh wrote: “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment.” 


    Barrett is the mother of two Black children adopted from Haiti and five biological children. 


    The confirmation process to appoint Barrett to the highest court in the land is currently underway. Barrett was tapped by Trump to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court less than two months before the national Election Day. 


    Barrett, a staunch conservative, has been pressed on her personal views about abortion, gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act, all cases soon to appear before the court. 

    Further, Barrett was asked if she would recuse herself if a case contesting the U.S. election appeared before her in the coming months.


    In her avoidance of an actual response, she noted the word of the late Justice Ginsburg, replying, “Justice Ginsburg, in explaining the way recusal works, said that it’s always up to the individual justice, but it always involves consultation with the colleagues — with the other eight justices. So that’s not a question that I could answer in the abstract.”

    White nationalism is on the march.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 21,883
    Courtney Barnett should be appointed to the SCOTUS
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 8,080
    No
    Does that mean she can be called the "C" word?
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,585
    Crying Chuck Schumer is going to deny the senate judiciary committee a quorum by having all dem committee members boycott the committee vote in a largely symbolic move. Moscow Mitchy Baby will break another rule with a 51 vote floor vote. All for a nominee who sat on a school board that denied children of gay parents to attend the private school or allow gays to teach there. Meanwhile, the Pope is advocating that countries allow and recognize same sex marriage. ‘Murica, land of freedumb.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.