Barrett confirmed to Supreme Court

The Senate has voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-vot...

Congrats to Barrett, a brilliant Justice with exceptional knowledge of our Constitution!

Ha Ha.

Stupid fucktarded repubs, like the assholes they are, just shot themselves in the foot. Idiots.

Dems will increase the Supreme Court to 11 members next year, maybe even 13.

I note your touching faith that Biden will be in the White House next year. Anyway, if they were to do that the court would have no legitimacy and no one would pay any attention to it.

A recent tweet:

House Judiciary GOP
@JudiciaryGOP
32m
Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed. Happy Birthday, @HillaryClinton!

>5 Carnophile: The court lost all it's legitimacy when McConnell decided to hold a vote on a supreme court nominee less than two weeks before an election. Just because it's constitutional doesn't make it a naked power grab.

>4 JGL53:
Just because Progressives are largely populated by individuals with the same sort of historically irrelevant education, does not mean that this has never happened.

Justice Minton was confirmed in 22 days, and this very situation has occurred 14 times. This is only rare in that, our education system hates the Constitution and Progressives worship science rather than truth or fact. 51pct of the public believes Barrett should be confirmed, 27 pct against and the rest have no opinion.

I say, go Toobin in front of an LBJ book and get some steam out grumpy. And, don't forget to vote on November 4th.

Bit underhanded but when needs must...

Demonrats would not be squirming that much if it wasn't good for America.

>7 jjwilson61: The court lost all it's legitimacy when McConnell decided to hold a vote on a supreme court nominee less than two weeks before an election.

No. Presidents are elected for 4 years, not 3 years and something months.

>8 Cubby.R.S.: I say, go Toobin in front of an LBJ book and get some steam out grumpy.

(Laughs.)

>10 Carnophile: No. Presidents are elected for 4 years, not 3 years and something months.

Except when it is Obama trying to appoint a Supreme Court judge many months before the election?

Google Trends showed that counties with more frequent searches for "erectile dysfunction", "how to get girls", "penis size", "impotence", and "Viagra" were more likely to have voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. (13) This correlation held even when controlling for education and racial composition, as well as for other Google search phrases, such as "breast augmentation" and "menopause". The study authors concluded that Trump appealed to men with "fragile masculinity", anxious about fitting in with the social standard of manliness. The authors suggest that the correlation between fragile masculinity and voting behavior is driven by these men's desire to associate with a strong authoritarian figure (a kind of surrogate for their own masculinity), such as Trump. The correlation between the umbrella of search terms related to fragile masculinity and voting for Republican candidates repeated in 2018 midterm elections, boosting the reliability of the results. (14)

Radicalization to terrorism : what everyone needs to know, What Are Mass Identity Manipulations?, p. 155

>11 John5918: Senators are also elected for certain terms.

>13 Carnophile:

Could you explain the relevance of that remark to an ignorant foreigner?

>14 John5918:
The Senate was given to the Republicans, because Americans got tired of Obama's reign. They weren't going to let Obama get another Justice, because they didn't have to. That, just like the Barrett confirmation, has occurred several times.

>14 John5918: He means that if the President and the Leader of the Senate have the power then they are justified in using it.

>14 John5918:
>15 Cubby.R.S.:
>16 jjwilson61:

To further this, that is the example set forth by every single occasion prior to this one. Thanks to Trump, this country just had a black Justice swear in a woman to the Supreme Court! The party of fake diversity and segregation, just doesn't like Justices that want to uphold the Constitution, so they cry foul.

>15 Cubby.R.S.: The Senate was given to the Republicans, because Americans got tired of Obama's reign. They weren't going to let Obama get another Justice, because they didn't have to.

Bingo.

>16 jjwilson61: He means that if the President and the Leader of the Senate have the power then they are justified in using it.

That's called democracy. More carefully, whatever power the people understood themselves to be granting to the elected officials, based on law, history, etc.

>18 Carnophile: So when Democrats add several new seats to the supreme court because they can, that too will be democracy.

If Biden wins and Dems take back the Senate---statehood for DC and Puerto Rico are important. They should have been done before anyway but that would almost certainly add 4 US Senators into the Democratic column and force the republican party to either start appealing to a broader based consensus or to die on the road they're on. I'm thinking it will take at least a lot of them some time to figure out then how they've marginalized themselves. The filibuster dies too. Why make it easy? They've chosen to play hardball--pay them back with the same coin. And yeah stack the court as in fuck 'em.

President nominates candidate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Senate takes up the nomination for review and approval or rejection; on a majority vote, the Senate confirms the president's appointment.

Democrats : "Wait a minute! Can he (the president) / they (the Senate) do that!?"

Flash-back: (2017) Electoral college electors ratify November ballots, elect Trump to the presidency.

Democrats: "Wait a minute! Can they even do that!?"

_______________________________

She does have the most annoying squeaky voice, however.

>20 lriley:

You're not usually this boring.

>3 Cubby.R.S.: I doubt sarcasm will make this confirmation easier to bear. Sadly.

#22--I think it will be quite exciting to welcome D.C. and Puerto Rico into our union as our 51st and 52nd states. Sad for you though that you don't agree even though they are American citizens who pay taxes and fight in our wars.

Strange that half the people in Puerto Rico don't want statehood and that according to the Constitution, DC can't be a state as it is now. It would need to be reconfigured without any of the Federal Government portions to qualify and that would not give them the tax money from Federal employees that they want.

What DC should want is the same tax breaks that Puerto Rico already has.

#25--Three paragraphs verbatim from Sabato's Crystal Ball of October 6, 2020:

'On June 26, the U.S. House voted 232-180, almost entirely along party lines, to establish Washington D.C., the nation's capital, as the 51st state. Under that proposal, the National Mall, the White House, Capital Hill, and some other federal property would remain under congressional jurisdiction, with the rest of the land becoming the new state. If Biden beats Trump and if Democrats win over the Senate, the Democrats could get D.C. statehood through the Senate too, although the filibuster remains an obstacle (comment--on that point I see the Democrats killing the filibuster). Biden has gone on record supporting statehood for the district.

Puerto Rico has been part of the U.S. since 1898, and its residents have been U.S. citizens since 1917. In 1952, Puerto Rico attained Commonwealth status with local self-government. This involved continuation of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico and its people. Residents of Puerto Rico are not permitted to vote in presidential general elections, nor do they have voting representation in the U.S. House or Senate. Puerto Rico has a 2020 population of over 3 million residents, larger than 17 states and the District.

A referendum for statehood will be held on Nov. 3, 2020, the sixth time there has been a referendum on statehood (comment--last time if I remember right it was close). It will involve a straightforward yes/no question, for or against statehood for Puerto Rico. It is non binding because the power to grant U.S. statehood lies with the U.S. Congress. If the referendum next month favors statehood, and if Puerto Rico submits a petition for statehood, and if Biden beats Trump, and the Democrats win control of the Senate, then the House and Senate could pass a resolution authorizing statehood.'

I'll point out as well that Mr. Trump was not very nice to Puerto Rico in his 4 years--pretty much neglecting to send federal aid in any kind of timely fashion after a devastating hurricane. We also have the story of him trying to trade Puerto Rico to Denmark for Greenland---Greenland seemingly some kind of obsession of his. As a state Puerto Rico if granted statehood probably could expect better treatment in the future when devastating climate events come their way. Just saying. We'll find out a lot of things on Nov. 3 though.

>19 jjwilson61: No, because that's not a power the people understood themselves to be granting to the elected officials, based on law, history, etc. The Supreme Court has been 9 people in living memory and that's how everyone understands it to be.

>27 Carnophile: So when a vacancy occurs a full year before an election we need to wait for the election so that the people can decide. But if it happens just a month before the election then we need to honor the wishes of the voters from 4 years ago.

The Republican party decided to do court packing--how they've parsed that out to the public since the death of Scalia is what's most interesting--their language and their values change to fit the moment. Now that they've gotten what they set out to achieve they've become defenders of the court again.

Well they are going to be defending with most likely a minority now and having forced the ball over the goal line with a majority before in the most partisan of ways--now that the other team will likely have the ball and the majority all I can say to them is good luck. The majority in the Senate can change rules to suit them whatever way they feel. Now that the other team is likely to have the numbers and the ball look out.

>28 jjwilson61:
>29 lriley:

Ridiculous argument based on a lie. Nobody but the people on your side are going to be convinced that you even believe this argument, especially if the shoe was on the other foot. The fucking idiots in the Senate were mostly all on the other side of this argument 4 years ago. Really stupid argument, stupid fucking illegitimate point and complete and utter nonsense.

#30---excuse me as I belch through your blah, blah, blah, rev.

>30 Cubby.R.S.: That post is uncontaminated by any facts. Apologies to Monty Python.

>28 jjwilson61: So when a vacancy occurs a full year before an election we need to wait for the election so that the people can decide. But if it happens just a month before the election then we need to honor the wishes of the voters from 4 years ago.

I didn't say anything about year versus month. I pointed out that the people vote for Senators as well as Presidents.

>29 lriley: The Republican party decided to do court packing

No they didn't! Trump nominates judges to fill vacancies, not to add more judges.

>33 Carnophile: So you were appalled and disgusted when McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland? Good to know.

>34 jjwilson61:

No, I was delighted. Democrats blocked Bork's nomination and approved others. Republicans blocked Garland's nomination and approved others.

I get that you don't like the outcome here - just as I don't like it when the left wins. But don't yap about principles or I'll vomit all over your shoes. The left turned our politics, including Supreme Court nominations, into a gutter knife fight. Well, here we are.

Bork at least got a hearing and Senators had to go on record with their votes.

#33--Semantics on your part. Obama nominates a judge--McConnell refuses to take it up. Court packing.

In hockey terms you were on the power play. Looks like now you're going to be shorthanded and the democrats are going to be on the power play. Sucks to be you.

>36 jjwilson61: Bork at least got a hearing and Senators had to go on record with their votes.

So what? Irrelevant.

>37 lriley: Semantics on your part.

It's not goddam semantics. Nominating a justice to fill a vacancy that has opened up is not "court packing." And if it were, then any time any President ever nominates any justice to any court, it's "court packing." Also, if it were, then Obama was guilty of it (Sotomayor, Kagan).

McConnell refuses to take it up. Court packing.

Oh, so now NOT shepherding an appointment through is court packing. Right.

#38--'it's not goddamn semantics'---whoah, touchy! It's almost as if you don't think your guy is going to prevail tomorrow. Personally I think Biden is going to win but it ain't over until it's over.

Your guys play hardball you know. I'm just saying---someone plays hardball with you--you should play hardball back. Everything's fair that you can make fair as pertaining (if you have the power) to your definition of fair---this is how McConnell does shit--he takes no prisoners. I suggest the democrats do the same. Will they?--that's the big question. Schumer and Pelosi have had more than their fair share of weak moments IMO. They've always wanted the world to look at them as good or nice guys. That's the last fucking thing I'd worry about. I guess we'll see.

So, it's not a religious motivation, her focus is on how this individual right would affect commerce. She betrays her prejudice in favor of capitalism. How constitutional is that?

Amy Coney Barrett's Surprising Remarks in Supreme Court Religion Case

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-surprising-remarks-supreme-court-reli...

Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked questions during oral arguments in a religious rights case on Tuesday.
The case involves a postal carrier who says he can't work Sundays because of his religious beliefs.
Barrett suggested that providing the requested religious accommodation could have a negative effect on other employees' morale

Whatever happened to Earthling? I guess he isn't missed because I forgot all about him.

I actually wondered if he were Barney in disguise. Barney did have a cute dog picture.