Amy Coney Barrett

[JayMysteri0]

If we learn anything from recent times, it's that the flies don't lie, when it comes to bullshit
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1316117911409360896/

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think it’s quite clear she will join Alito and Thomas as pure ideologues on the court. 2 is already enough.

Oh, agreed that "two is already enough", indeed, two are more than enough.

However, as an historian, I think it important to record your dissent and disagreement with such a thing, such an action, such an appointment, in the appropriate forum, at the time.

In The Other Country (aka MR), there are those of a conservative persuasion who are attempting to argue (quite disingenuously, and pretty much in bad faith, to my mind) that the Democrats were "okay" with the Republican attempts to deny a hearing to (let alone a vote for) Mr Obama's nominee for the SC in 2016.

Therefore, it is important, and unfortunately, very necessary, to make it quite clear that the Democrats are not at all "okay" with this, the manner of the appointment, the actual appointee, her character, opinions, experience, qualifications, and the rushed manner of the actual vote.

Unfortunately, even if the outcome of such a vote is known, or clear, or inevitable, in advance, I think it necessary to have set out your reservations and concerns and thoughts in public, in a forum where nobody can subsequently argue that you didn't mean what you said, or that your words were twisted by some unscrupulous media platform, or where they vanish into the ether.

The public records of the Senate strike me as a perfectly appropriate place in which to make such an argument.

 

[SuperMatt]

Oh, agreed that "two is already enough", indeed, two are more than enough.

However, as an historian, I think it important to record your dissent and disagreement with such a thing, such an action, such an appointment, in the appropriate forum, at the time.

In The Other Country (aka MR), there are those of a conservative persuasion who are attempting to argue (quite disingenuously, and pretty much in bad faith, to my mind) that the Democrats were "okay" with the Republican attempts to deny a hearing to (let alone a vote for) Mr Obama's nominee for the SC in 2016.

Therefore, it is important, and unfortunately, very necessary, to make it quite clear that the Democrats are not at all "okay" with this, the manner of the appointment, the actual appointee, her character, opinions, experience, qualifications, and the rushed manner of the actual vote.

Unfortunately, even if the outcome of such a vote is known, or clear, or inevitable, in advance, I think it necessary to have set out your reservations and concerns and thoughts in public, in a forum where nobody can subsequently argue that you didn't mean what you said, or that your words were twisted by some unscrupulous media platform, or where they vanish into the ether.

The public records of the Senate strike me as a perfectly appropriate place in which to make such an argument.

Oh I am very supportive of the questioning. It is what makes it clear that she will be an ideologue. On one hand, she won’t say anything about how she will rule. On the other, she makes pains to point out that Roe is not untouchable. I think she would overturn it in one second, guaranteed. Funny, she did state that Brown v Board of Education is a precedent she considers untouchable. So, she’s all over the place.

 

[Alli]

Couldn't agree more, if nothing else it will educate us all on where she stands but I don't think it's any surprise to anyone. How long do these hearings last, anyone know?

Too long.

Oh I am very supportive of the questioning. It is what makes it clear that she will be an ideologue. On one hand, she won’t say anything about how she will rule. On the other, she makes pains to point out that Roe is not untouchable. I think she would overturn it in one second, guaranteed. Funny, she did state that Brown v Board of Education is a precedent she considers untouchable. So, she’s all over the place.

She is horrible.

Maizie Hirono was terrific. But so was Sheldon “Show me the money” Whitehouse.

 

[Alli]

Maizie Hirono was terrific. But so was Sheldon “Show me the money” Whitehouse.

Check this out:

WATCH: Sheldon Whitehouse masterfully exposes right-wing conspiracy to rig the courts

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) laid out a vast right-wing conspiracy to stack the courts to benefit a handful of billionaires.The Rhode Island Democrat showed how the deeply conservative Federalist Society, Judicial Crisis Network and Donors Trust spent hundreds of millions of dollars to rig the...

www.rawstory.com

 

[iLunar]

Check this out:

WATCH: Sheldon Whitehouse masterfully exposes right-wing conspiracy to rig the courts

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) laid out a vast right-wing conspiracy to stack the courts to benefit a handful of billionaires.The Rhode Island Democrat showed how the deeply conservative Federalist Society, Judicial Crisis Network and Donors Trust spent hundreds of millions of dollars to rig the...

www.rawstory.com

All of this should immediately disqualify her, but the GOP is beholden to the same dark money. It's naked corruption at it's best.

I find it really disgusting that she's even being entertained as a nominee, but completely reprenhsible that 51 senators (who represent less people than a handful of states) will approve her. Then if you take into account she was nominated by a president who ascended by losing the popular vote by one of the largest margins in history, it's all too much bear. There are more citizens that oppose her, her nomination and her political philosophy by large numbers. It makes me sad for our country that such intense injustice can occur.

I suppose two steps forward, one step back applies here. But forgive me for not being an optimist at this time. It's a really dark day for our nation and for what the framers were intending.

 

[SuperMatt]

All of this should immediately disqualify her, but the GOP is beholden to the same dark money. It's naked corruption at it's best.

I find it really disgusting that she's even being entertained as a nominee, but completely reprenhsible that 51 senators (who represent less people than a handful of states) will approve her. Then if you take into account she was nominated by a president who ascended by losing the popular vote by one of the biggest margins in history, it's all too much bear. There are more citizens that oppose her, her nomination and her political philosophy by large numbers. It makes me sad for our country that such intense injustice can occur.

I suppose two steps forward, one step back applies here. But forgive me for not being an optimist at this time. It's a really dark day for our nation and what the framers were intending.

I am for packing the courts. 2 Justices on the court got their seats in a shady way. So get 4 more justices in there and really consolidate power when the Dems win in a landslide.

 

[iLunar]

I am for packing the courts. 2 Justices on the court got their seats in a shady way. So get 4 more justices in there and really consolidate power when the Dems win in a landslide.

I'm not opposed to it. If the Dems win the Senate, I think Merrick Garland should be put on the bench. Then for balance, add an additional seat so it's an 11 judge bench.

I'm also in favor of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. There are more American citizens in DC than Wyoming and Vermont. Those people deserve federal representation.

 

[SuperMatt]

Check this out:

WATCH: Sheldon Whitehouse masterfully exposes right-wing conspiracy to rig the courts

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) laid out a vast right-wing conspiracy to stack the courts to benefit a handful of billionaires.The Rhode Island Democrat showed how the deeply conservative Federalist Society, Judicial Crisis Network and Donors Trust spent hundreds of millions of dollars to rig the...

www.rawstory.com

That is incredible, and just today you can add another to the list.

Despite the constitution requiring the counting of people during the census, the SCOTUS decided Trump can just end the counting whenever he feels like it, even if it’s not done. This cannot be good for anybody except rich interests. Pack the courts. Take it to 13 justices for a 7-6 majority and start passing important laws we should have had on the books for decades. A voting rights act that won’t get ripped up by the SCOTUS, universal health care, actual laws codifying protections of LGBTQ people instead of relying on precedent, strengthening of environmental regulations, etc.

 

[Yoused]

In The Other Country (aka MR), there are those of a conservative persuasion who are attempting to argue (quite disingenuously, and pretty much in bad faith, to my mind) that the Democrats were "okay" with the Republican attempts to deny a hearing to (let alone a vote for) Mr Obama's nominee for the SC in 2016.

What I see the crustacean saying is that if the Democrats thought it was ok to nominate a justice in an election year (2016), why do they think it is not ok now, in an election year. He is trying to make pretzels.

 

[JayMysteri0]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1316445228606337026/

 

[SuperMatt]

So, the genius judge who doesn't need a notepad got stumped... and it's unsurprising what she forgot, given she is far-right wing.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) accidentally stumped Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing on Wednesday afternoon when he asked President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to “reflect a little bit on the glories of the First Amendment” by naming “the five freedoms” it enumerates.

“Speech, religion, press, assembly,” she answered, counting them off with her right hand. “I don’t know. What am I missing?”
“Redress or protest,” Sasse answered, referring to what the Bill of Rights describes as the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yep, figures a right-winger can't seem to remember that people have a right to protest, or seek a redress of grievances. Guess we know where she would stand on teargassing protesters and also the idea of slavery reparations.....

 

[fooferdoggie]

she dodges questions better then women dodge trumps groping hands.

 

[SuperMatt]

Judge Barrett acts smart, but doesn't believe in climate change? She will be a disaster as a Supreme Court Justice. From Paul Krugman in The NY Times:

Put it this way: Charles Koch is reportedly investing millions trying to get Barrett confirmed. That’s not because he’s passionately opposed to abortion rights, or, probably, even because he wants the A.C.A. overturned. What he’s looking for, surely, is a court that will block government regulation of business — and above all a court that will hamstring a Biden administration’s efforts to take action against climate change.

Sure enough, during her hearing, Barrett, asked about climate change, uttered the dreaded words, “I’m certainly not a scientist.” At this point everyone knows what that means. It’s not an expression of humility; it’s a signal that the speaker intends to ignore the science and to oppose any attempt to avert the biggest threat facing humanity.

Here's a message for Joe Biden, and the Democrats if they win the Senate:

4 more Justices!

 

[Eric]

Judge Barrett acts smart, but doesn't believe in climate change? She will be a disaster as a Supreme Court Justice. From Paul Krugman in The NY Times:


Here's a message for Joe Biden, and the Democrats if they win the Senate:

4 more Justices!

Agreed, hoping he comes out strong for this and I don't think it will drag him down.

 

[lizkat]

she dodges questions better then women dodge trumps groping hands.

Yep...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1317661722447089668/

 

[Yoused]

Delightful bit of history,

After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.​

Breathtaking. He was not involved in doing his job, so the prison system (run, at the time, by Sheriff Dave Clarke, you know the guy) is not responsible for his use of his authority. (Admittedly, the ruling was a unanimous decision by a 3 judge panel.)

And,

Barrett penned an influential decision last year which made it easier for college students accused of sexual assault to sue their universities over the handling of investigations.​

​

She wrote the decision for a Seventh Circuit panel which ruled that Purdue University might have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for one year, costing him a spot in the Navy ROTC program. "It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," Barrett wrote in the decision.​

Because, you know, boys will be boys, and those girls are just out to get them.

 

[SuperMatt]

Delightful bit of history,

After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.​

Breathtaking. He was not involved in doing his job, so the prison system (run, at the time, by Sheriff Dave Clarke, you know the guy) is not responsible for his use of his authority. (Admittedly, the ruling was a unanimous decision by a 3 judge panel.)

And,

Barrett penned an influential decision last year which made it easier for college students accused of sexual assault to sue their universities over the handling of investigations.​

​

She wrote the decision for a Seventh Circuit panel which ruled that Purdue University might have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for one year, costing him a spot in the Navy ROTC program. "It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," Barrett wrote in the decision.​

Because, you know, boys will be boys, and those girls are just out to get them.

She was also ok with somebody calling a subordinate the n-word, reasoning that such speech didn’t necessarily create a hostile workplace. Hmm, maybe in her opinion, she could have included her vision of a magical workplace in which a white boss calling a black worker the n-word did NOT create a hostile workplace.

It is beyond obvious why the far-right are foaming at the mouth with excitement right now to have a third extreme ideologue on the court any day now. I hope this is the nail in the coffin for them. If the Supreme Court starts undoing things like gay rights and the right to an abortion, the GOP will become even less popular, and we can look forward to finally making some progress as a society.

Regarding sexual assault, it shouldn’t be surprising. Look at Kavanaugh.

 

[JayMysteri0]

She was also ok with somebody calling a subordinate the n-word, reasoning that such speech didn’t necessarily create a hostile workplace. Hmm, maybe in her opinion, she could have included her vision of a magical workplace in which a white boss calling a black worker the n-word did NOT create a hostile workplace.

It is beyond obvious why the far-right are foaming at the mouth with excitement right now to have a third extreme ideologue on the court any day now. I hope this is the nail in the coffin for them. If the Supreme Court starts undoing things like gay rights and the right to an abortion, the GOP will become even less popular, and we can look forward to finally making some progress as a society.

Regarding sexual assault, it shouldn’t be surprising. Look at Kavanaugh.

I see it as a selling point for the hard 'R's.

For them it's offensive when Black people use it amongst themselves & they can't. So why should it be offensive if a boss uses it towards an employee right? Good times.

Fortunately she didn't have to rule on a woman being called the most derogatory term possible, then it would be clear how far she'd rule to sell out.

 

[lizkat]

Here we go. Masterful unpacking of the GOP's whine about court packing. You just can't beat Robert Reich for coming up with the data when the Rs try to take it all a bridge too far. He addressed Ted Cruz in particular.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1318337561866072064/