Amy Coney Barrett - let the games begin

smallfil said:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ultimate partisan was thinking that if she retired, President Donald Trump will appoint a more conservative judge to replace her which is why she stayed in the US Supreme Court, hoping for a Democrat victory on November 3, 2020. You would think, spending the last days with your loved ones matter more in the greater scheme of things but, she was just a rabid partisan who did not care. That US Supreme Court seat mattered to her more than anything else in life. A sad choice really but, she made her choice and she failed.
More...

According to the dems these days the alleged (but probably bogus) dying wishes of Ruth Ginsberg supersede anything that that nasty ole white man constitution says.

Yeh, I can see it all now. Spoze Clarence Thomas is dying and says that he does not want Joe Biden to appoint a liberal to the court. I am pretty sure the lefties will feel that that is a wish that must be honored. OR NOT.

The dems argue and fear that Amy Barrett represents a complete repudiation of all things Ginsberg. And she does.
 
My wife asked me why I was pleased that ACB was confirmed.
I told her that it is because she’s a Constitutionalist, a great judge, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, it makes Libtards cry.

A great victory for the wimpy Republicans.

542FD797-674E-4BEC-99B3-C28E880179B4.jpeg
 
Nine_Ender said:
Might be time for Americans to take responsibility for what Americans are doing stop blaming it on the left or right or assorted other "enemies". It is an objective assessment that the US is a mess right now riddled with corruption and many social systems are breaking down. Trump has made it much worse. Is this woman a good candidate for Supreme Court ? Maybe if you want to roll back to the 1950s. Of course, Trump's been trying to do that rollback and your two Presidential candidates are both in their 70s. Hardly inspiring.
More...


Also no one has any idea if Amy is a good candidate because they are too busy swallowing their political dick to be able to speak clearly.

She is not a good candidate simply because she spent most of her legal career teaching and only 2+ years in the position of a judge at the Appellae level. I prefer they have more judicial experience because that is what they are being asked to do for life. There is no need to rush an inexperienced person into the highest position. Same with Kagan by the way.

She is not a good candidate because Trump nominated her to hopefully decide in his favor on 2 issues. she is being appointed for life and will decide thousands of cases but the GOP picked her for their short sighted immediate goals as a pawn. There was no real though put into this at all because of the timing.

All of you who bitch about how bad Trump's other appointment was because he did not vote they way you wanted just proved everything I said is true. You could care less about the law, just that your position wins. I care about the law.

She is not a good candidate because she has no real precedent or history to analyze if she is a true legal scholar or is swayed by politics and personal opinion.

Anyone who says otherwise is just bullshitting themselves. 2+ years on the Appellate Court does not make you immensely qualified for the SC when you have been mainly teaching for most of your career.
 
LacesOut said:
My wife asked me why I was pleased that ACB was confirmed.
I told her that it is because she’s a Constitutionalist, a great judge, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, it makes Libtards cry.

A great victory for the wimpy Republicans.

View attachment 242542
More...

How is she a Constitutionalist... are you just spitting out what you were told or you have years of decisions to demonstrate her judicial style and her reputation as a judge for the past 2 years.

Hoenst question because all of you just parrot what you are told.

I know nothing about her because she is really young and only has 2 years of Appellate experience after teaching for many more. Her confirmation hearings had her spit out what every judge says in every hearing..non committal bullshit because they cannot comment on cases not before them.
 
I am not sure we can really read the tea leaves on a new justice when a Republican nominates a justice...
Its seems like quite a few flip... some early some later

When I lived in D.C. I was friends with someone who knew Kennedy and Brennan very well.

When Kennedy got to the court he really was a conservative.
My friend was not so sure he said wait an see.
My friend was correct.


Roberts
Kennedy
Brenan
Souter...
Breyer

so I looked it up... and found this...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-more-liberal-as-they-get-older/


"A typical justice nominated by a Republican president starts out at age 50 as an Antonin Scalia and retires at age 80 as an Anthony Kennedy. A justice nominated by a Democrat, however, is a lifelong Stephen Breyer.

The current nine justices haven’t been shielded from these westward winds. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined the court in 1988, has historically had a score solidly to the right of center, but last term he found himself slightly to the left for the first time. Justice Stephen Breyer has drifted from just left of center to solid liberal. Even Justice Antonin Scalia has liberalized somewhat from his extremely conservative positions in the late 1990s."



El OchoCinco said:
How is she a Constitutionalist... are you just spitting out what you were told or you have years of decisions to demonstrate her judicial style and her reputation as a judge for the past 2 years.

Hoenst question because all of you just parrot what you are told.

I know nothing about her because she is really young and only has 2 years of Appellate experience after teaching for many more. Her confirmation hearings had her spit out what every judge says in every hearing..non committal bullshit because they cannot comment on cases not before them.
More...
 
jem said:
I am not sure we can really read the tea leaves when a Republican nominates a justice...
Its seems like quite a few flip... some early some later

Roberts
Kennedy
Brenan
Souter...
Breyer

so I looked it up... and found this...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-more-liberal-as-they-get-older/


"A typical justice nominated by a Republican president starts out at age 50 as an Antonin Scalia and retires at age 80 as an Anthony Kennedy. A justice nominated by a Democrat, however, is a lifelong Stephen Breyer.

The current nine justices haven’t been shielded from these westward winds. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined the court in 1988, has historically had a score solidly to the right of center, but last term he found himself slightly to the left for the first time. Justice Stephen Breyer has drifted from just left of center to solid liberal. Even Justice Antonin Scalia has liberalized somewhat from his extremely conservative positions in the late 1990s."
More...


Because the bullshit that you can put in a judge to answer to your whim and beck and call is bullshit. Every president tries to put in a judge that will decide their one case their way and ignore studying their judicial history to truly see their style and approach.

There is no SWITCHING or DRIFTING......the labels put on judges are by politicians who understand nothing of Constitutional law so they use the labels to say "This judge was conservative but now has drifted to the left"

Bullshit....a judge did not vote a narrow minded way you wanted politically so it is easier to blame the judge for drifting or changing rather than being a true judge and taking the case on its merits and precedent.

Politicians write the law but then spend every waking moment fucking it up.
 
You can argue with 538... also.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-more-liberal-as-they-get-older/



roeder-scoutusaging.png







roeder-scotusaging-2.png






El OchoCinco said:
Because the bullshit that you can put in a judge to answer to your whim and beck and call is bullshit. Every president tries to put in a judge that will decide their one case their way and ignore studying their judicial history to truly see their style and approach.

There is no SWITCHING or DRIFTING......the labels put on judges are by politicians who understand nothing of Constitutional law so they use the labels to say "This judge was conservative but now has drifted to the left"

Bullshit....a judge did not vote a narrow minded way you wanted politically so it is easier to blame the judge for drifting or changing rather than being a true judge and taking the case on its merits and precedent.

Politicians write the law but then spend every waking moment fucking it up.
More...
 
El OchoCinco said:
All of you who bitch about how bad Trump's other appointment was because he did not vote they way you wanted just proved everything I said is true. You could care less about the law, just that your position wins. I care about the law.
More...

I couldn't care less about the other judge. If there are 9 and Trump brought in 3 of them I doubt that it's good long term. He's not a good judge of anything look at the motley crew of people he surrounded himself and how many he fired within 2 years. I have no position in this other then the world being a better place. In Canada, legal abortions aren't even a topic anymore.
 
How do you objectively measure the liberalism or conservatism of a judge?

it is bullshit.

A justice might be conservative but on a specific issue side with what some would call liberal side due to precedent and interpretation of the facts.

One paper said all judges become more liberal or conservative over time.

Considering a justice can serve an average fo 25 to 30 years the issues that come before the Court change significantly over a generation and the interpretation of the public changes as well....

For example, if a conservative justice decides in favor of marriage eequality for gay couples does that make them more liberal? Or are they simply applying the law to an issue finally being addressed before the court in the same way simlar issues have that has nothing to do with conservative or liberal.

Don't just cite a graph or stats...read the study and methodology. If I can find an example that refutes it, then it was shaky to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top