Barrett is "widely viewed to be well qualified for this position...that is going to be a tough thing for Democrats to overcome."
Amy Coney Barrett - let the games begin
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed in a bipartisan manner by both Republicans and Democrats when she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It just makes it much harder for Democrats to claim she is not qualified. Let us see what BS the Democrats come out with.
ACB is well qualified for a seat in SCOTUS. There’s nothing Democrats can do to prevent it, won’t stop them from publicly castrating themselves in the attempt.
You can see one little piece of faux outrage shaping up with the dems:
A lot of the dems are saying that aside from roe v. wade that they absolutely want to grill Barrett to see where she stands on the Obamacare ruling.
C'MON MAN!!! The next court session begins the week after next, and bam!, that case is right there on the docket. They are all lawyers and know full well that neither she nor any other nominee of either party can comment on that, and if they did it would be a disqualifier for being a judge.
But they are all prepared to go out butt hurt to their constituents saying that they are voting against her because she would not answer the question and senators will be confirming her without any assurances knowledge of what her position will be. Helloooooo everyone. That is how the system is spozed to work and they know that.
Whatever, they are just mining the process for campaign material now. They already acknowledge defeat on the nomination.
On, and I won't replay the two previous posts I did on the topic, but Lisa Murkowski is eventually going to vote to confirm. Garrroonnnnteeed as they say in Loooozzyanna.
A lot of the dems are saying that aside from roe v. wade that they absolutely want to grill Barrett to see where she stands on the Obamacare ruling.
C'MON MAN!!! The next court session begins the week after next, and bam!, that case is right there on the docket. They are all lawyers and know full well that neither she nor any other nominee of either party can comment on that, and if they did it would be a disqualifier for being a judge.
But they are all prepared to go out butt hurt to their constituents saying that they are voting against her because she would not answer the question and senators will be confirming her without any assurances knowledge of what her position will be. Helloooooo everyone. That is how the system is spozed to work and they know that.
Whatever, they are just mining the process for campaign material now. They already acknowledge defeat on the nomination.
On, and I won't replay the two previous posts I did on the topic, but Lisa Murkowski is eventually going to vote to confirm. Garrroonnnnteeed as they say in Loooozzyanna.
Trump is going for the SCOTUS hat-trick bitches!
Given the abysmal record of your prognostications and the inability to run your own life I would say you are incorrect.
The riots are creating thousands upon thousands of shiny new republicans jackass.
Maybe you should create a few new accounts so you can reply to yourself in support... again.
Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court:
What a brave, wonderful Supreme Court pick by President Trump! President Trump has once again stood up for the U.S. Constitution with his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a demonstrated record of applying the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench. Her record shows that she will not only respect but apply the U.S. Constitution as written and intended by our Founding Fathers. And it would be a wonderful milestone that Judge Barrett would be the first conservative woman member on the Supreme Court. She seems to be a full spectrum conservative who is likely to be a force on the Supreme Court for years to come.
This nomination is another great victory for constitutional government and a blow to politicized decision-making on the Supreme Court. Most Americans agree with Judge Barrett that the Supreme Court should apply the law as it is written and leave the legislating to the people’s elected representatives.
The U.S. Senate should move quickly to work with President Trump to consider and approve Judge Barrett before Election Day. There is not much radical liberals can do to stop this excellent Supreme Court pick. Leftist threats of violence and court-packing should not slow the Senate one bit. And all Americans should reject the growing un-American campaign by the radical left to attack her family and oppose Justice Barrett because of her religious faith.
Judge Barrett cannot be confirmed soon enough.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court:
What a brave, wonderful Supreme Court pick by President Trump! President Trump has once again stood up for the U.S. Constitution with his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a demonstrated record of applying the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench. Her record shows that she will not only respect but apply the U.S. Constitution as written and intended by our Founding Fathers. And it would be a wonderful milestone that Judge Barrett would be the first conservative woman member on the Supreme Court. She seems to be a full spectrum conservative who is likely to be a force on the Supreme Court for years to come.
This nomination is another great victory for constitutional government and a blow to politicized decision-making on the Supreme Court. Most Americans agree with Judge Barrett that the Supreme Court should apply the law as it is written and leave the legislating to the people’s elected representatives.
The U.S. Senate should move quickly to work with President Trump to consider and approve Judge Barrett before Election Day. There is not much radical liberals can do to stop this excellent Supreme Court pick. Leftist threats of violence and court-packing should not slow the Senate one bit. And all Americans should reject the growing un-American campaign by the radical left to attack her family and oppose Justice Barrett because of her religious faith.
Judge Barrett cannot be confirmed soon enough.
It looked like the hill that the dems were choosing to die on was going to be Roe v. Wade. But now, it looks more like they think the winning issue is Obamacare. As discussed, they can't stop the confirmation. They just want to make hay with the political fall-out.
Not sure how that will work out. The dems have a nominee who lives in his basement, makes a couple quick runs to the 7-11 a couple times a week. Now they are going to tie their VP Candidate/Skankala and other senators up in DC with hearings and procedural games when they need to be out on the trail? Not sure how smart that is. Especially since their skanky vp candidate is not likely to be able to do her kavanaugh thing against Barrett and will end out looking worse.
By the end of the weekend, Ginsburg will be a distant memory for a lot of people. And by the end of end of the weekend, even Barrett will be secondary to the focus on the debate coming up Tuesday. The debate will take us into a a whole 'nuther news cycle. Most likely either Trump or Joe will disgrace himself at the debate and then round and round we go on that.
All the games that can and will be played:
Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation
Here's how Democrats can make life hard for Mitch McConnell.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849
Not sure how that will work out. The dems have a nominee who lives in his basement, makes a couple quick runs to the 7-11 a couple times a week. Now they are going to tie their VP Candidate/Skankala and other senators up in DC with hearings and procedural games when they need to be out on the trail? Not sure how smart that is. Especially since their skanky vp candidate is not likely to be able to do her kavanaugh thing against Barrett and will end out looking worse.
By the end of the weekend, Ginsburg will be a distant memory for a lot of people. And by the end of end of the weekend, even Barrett will be secondary to the focus on the debate coming up Tuesday. The debate will take us into a a whole 'nuther news cycle. Most likely either Trump or Joe will disgrace himself at the debate and then round and round we go on that.
All the games that can and will be played:
Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation
Here's how Democrats can make life hard for Mitch McConnell.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849
Last edited:
I see lots of articles about the dems wanting to demand that Barrett recuse herself from any decisions regarding the outcome of the elections.
But I don't see any arguments in the articles as to what the exact legal rationale would be there. Yeh sure, she was nominated by Trump and so allegedly owes him a favor or something. But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were also nominated by Trump. What is the legal argument there?
Barrett has definitely not participated in campaign activities so that is not legal reason. Having liberal or conservative views such that you can probably figure out which president a judge might support has never been a disqualifying factor or reason for any justice recuse - whether they have on the bench for a day or a decade. And no justice arrives at the court without being in favor with the president who appointed him/her but knowing that half of their caseload or more consists of issues with the executive branch the day they arrive.
I don't see what their argument is legally. I mean I am not naive. There is no legal or constitutional reason it is all political. BUT C'MON MAN!! You are supposed to play the game right and at least put a legal ruse.
Nope. If she is confirmed and cases arise from the election, she is good to go. And as I have said, probably some of those cases will go against Trump and some will go against Biden because there will be dozens of cases and if she rules against Trump on some and not on some, just do it. Justices are always a roll of the dice but most likely Barrett's view will be closer to the law and the constitution than Ruthie's would have been. Ya think?
Of course, Supreme Court Justice decide all by their lonesome whether to recuse or not and there is nothing you can do short of impeaching them if you disagree. But there should at least be a good legal reasoning behind calls to recuse. I have not seen it yet.
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett would have final say on recusal calls
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...have-final-say-on-recusal-calls-idUSKBN26I0D8
But I don't see any arguments in the articles as to what the exact legal rationale would be there. Yeh sure, she was nominated by Trump and so allegedly owes him a favor or something. But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were also nominated by Trump. What is the legal argument there?
Barrett has definitely not participated in campaign activities so that is not legal reason. Having liberal or conservative views such that you can probably figure out which president a judge might support has never been a disqualifying factor or reason for any justice recuse - whether they have on the bench for a day or a decade. And no justice arrives at the court without being in favor with the president who appointed him/her but knowing that half of their caseload or more consists of issues with the executive branch the day they arrive.
I don't see what their argument is legally. I mean I am not naive. There is no legal or constitutional reason it is all political. BUT C'MON MAN!! You are supposed to play the game right and at least put a legal ruse.
Nope. If she is confirmed and cases arise from the election, she is good to go. And as I have said, probably some of those cases will go against Trump and some will go against Biden because there will be dozens of cases and if she rules against Trump on some and not on some, just do it. Justices are always a roll of the dice but most likely Barrett's view will be closer to the law and the constitution than Ruthie's would have been. Ya think?
Of course, Supreme Court Justice decide all by their lonesome whether to recuse or not and there is nothing you can do short of impeaching them if you disagree. But there should at least be a good legal reasoning behind calls to recuse. I have not seen it yet.
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett would have final say on recusal calls
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...have-final-say-on-recusal-calls-idUSKBN26I0D8
Last edited: