Jump to content
IGNORED

Amy Coney Barrett: Adding a Handmaid to SCOTUS


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

ETA: Why does just the Senate need to confirm justices? We are all so screwed. It's time to stop being so nice while we get fucked over again and again.  Rethugs are determined to legislate from the bench, circumventing the entire purpose of having three branches of government. It will take ten years to undo the damage that's been done in four. I'm just sick. 

The Senate possessing the sole power to confirm justices is enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. 

Some of it is just the way the founders decided to disperse relative powers, just as the House solely impeaches federal officers. One of the theories for giving the Senate the power to confirm justices is because small states have greater power there and can then act as a check on a POTUS from a large state. 

What they are doing is constitutional. It's just stunningly hypocritical after what happened in March 2016. 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2020 at 9:35 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Rachel was talking about this on her show.  No surprise that the handmaid is against children of gay parents   
 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/21/amy-coney-barrett-trustee-private-school-anti-gay-policies/3715101001/

Even before Francis made his announcement about civil unions, he would not have supported this. Neither would any of the other popes. Yes they were more conservative , but they didn't want to bar children of gay parents. Even Bill O'Reilly (ousted a*hole of Fox News) thought it was wrong to remove children of LGBTQ parents from the school. 

I'm very emotional at this announcement. Mostly annoyed.

As a frustrated Catholic, I hope this shows the true feelings of the church. It has just as many toxic conservatives as the evangelicals do. 

When I hear her name, "Coney" makes me think of rabbits, which seem appropriate given what she stands for. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

How can any of them look at themselves in the mirror? 

I'm really not sure that McConnell or the other Republicans would actually have reflections in a mirror.

  • Haha 14
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This childish pettiness is nauseating.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 1
  • WTF 2
  • I Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fraurosena -- Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project clapped back at those assholes:

image.png.3dcc55fc636c069297e1418943bdd9e7.png

image.png.62322dfe452079eba8ef646a9de8051a.png

  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joni is such an idiot.

image.png.efb52d098ded44ff015eeee50e458b6c.png

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Joni is such an idiot.

image.png.efb52d098ded44ff015eeee50e458b6c.png

I guess she is the new GOP "saint". The only working mother EVER! The greatest female ever to sit on the SCOTUS! All hail Amy. Blech. 

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

@fraurosena -- Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project clapped back at those assholes:

image.png.3dcc55fc636c069297e1418943bdd9e7.png

image.png.62322dfe452079eba8ef646a9de8051a.png

Good for them. I want to see billboards everywhere. Really, that GOP tweet was an insult. I am getting so tired of this childish behavior! 

Edited by libgirl2
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just now heard the news , upon visiting YouTube , and seeing its breaking news section .  

Spoiler

 

  

Spoiler

 

  Now more than ever , I feel that the question is , out of the three branches of the federal government , who ultimately has the power ?    

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Marmion said:

Now more than ever , I feel that the question is , out of the three branches of the federal government , who ultimately has the power ?    

The Senate has always wielded an outsized amount of power.  I remember when I was young, we were at a presentation at school, a speaker said that anyone in the audience could become president. My mom leaned over and said that if I wanted real power, I'd need to become a senator. That was in the late 1970s. It's still true.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

That was in the late 1970s. It's still true.

Famously, Harry Truman's mother didn't want him to be Vice President, because she thought he was more effective as a Senator. That was in the 40s.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish that Senate Democrats could have successfully " Borked" her , until Biden were to be possibly inaugurated , and a new Senate elected .  But alas it was not to be .  We'll just have to see how things unfold in the coming years , as it pertains to balancing the Court .   {  https://politicaldictionary.com/words/borking/  ,  https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17896126/bork-kavanaugh-supreme-court-conservatives-republicans  }

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by Marmion
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like politicians in general shouldn’t be able to choose who is on the Supreme Court, though I don’t know who SHOULD. Some kind of internal system where other justices vote or something. I had to look up how it works with the high court here and it’s politicians choosing too - PM nominates in consultation with attorney general and cabinet, then the Governor General appoints. So I suppose the last word on whether to confirm or not is with the Queen’s representative, which doesn’t strike me as any fairer or more reasonable, although the GG’s role is symbolic 99% of the time. I don’t know, I couldn’t name a single judge on our high court and there’s only 7 of them, but I could name a few of yours. Choosing justices in the US seems to be a HUGE deal and so deeply partisan and political that I feel like neither the house nor senate should be involved. But then the president shouldn’t get to choose with no oversight either! It all just seems like a broken system. The point was checks and balances to limit power to any one person or party, and the result is consolidating power to make sure there’s more ways to hold on to it for longer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, after researching how the high court works here in Australia, this afternoon our PM announced 2 new justices starting in December and March respectively (justices retire at 70 here, which is why the positions opened).

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Smee said:

I feel like politicians in general shouldn’t be able to choose who is on the Supreme Court, though I don’t know who SHOULD. Some kind of internal system where other justices vote or something. I had to look up how it works with the high court here and it’s politicians choosing too - PM nominates in consultation with attorney general and cabinet, then the Governor General appoints. So I suppose the last word on whether to confirm or not is with the Queen’s representative, which doesn’t strike me as any fairer or more reasonable, although the GG’s role is symbolic 99% of the time. I don’t know, I couldn’t name a single judge on our high court and there’s only 7 of them, but I could name a few of yours. Choosing justices in the US seems to be a HUGE deal and so deeply partisan and political that I feel like neither the house nor senate should be involved. But then the president shouldn’t get to choose with no oversight either! It all just seems like a broken system. The point was checks and balances to limit power to any one person or party, and the result is consolidating power to make sure there’s more ways to hold on to it for longer.

Contrary to what I originally thought, Justices to our Hoge Raad, or Supreme Court, are also appointed by the government, and not by the Justices themselves as I erroneously assumed. I got it partly right though. When there is a vacancy on the Hoge Raad, the Justices nominate 6 candidates. Our Tweede Kamer, or Second Chamber (i.e. House of Representatives) then chooses 3 of those 6 candidates to nominate to the Cabinet (the executive branch). The Cabinet then appoints one of the candidates. Although there is a risk of political appointments, that risk is extremely low, because the Tweede Kamer currently is comprised of 14 different political parties, and not one of them has enough sway to get every single member of a total of 150 to vote against their political interests. The Cabinet is also comprised of more than one party, mostly two or three working together to form a majority.

  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting letter to the editor:

 

 

Full text under spoiler:

Spoiler

image.png.d417fbd8b5d0c5aa5035d2097ff015e2.png

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 2
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interesting letter to the editor:

 

 

Full text under spoiler:

  Hide contents

image.png.d417fbd8b5d0c5aa5035d2097ff015e2.png

 

I would absolutely love for this to happen.. and be a fly on the wall when McConnell finds out.  :pb_lol:

What would make it even better if the Dems then put term limits on the appointments. Oh, and just to twist the knife a little deeper, also demand minimum competency and experience of any nominees. 

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Smee said:

Ha, after researching how the high court works here in Australia, this afternoon our PM announced 2 new justices starting in December and March respectively (justices retire at 70 here, which is why the positions opened).

So many businesses have a mandatory retirement age - now that RBG has passed, I think it's time for one for the Supreme Court.

42 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

What would make it even better if the Dems then put term limits on the appointments. Oh, and just to twist the knife a little deeper, also demand minimum competency and experience of any nominees. 

Term limits would be even better. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous, IMO. 

It still galls me that there are so few actual minimums required in the highest levels of government, especially in this administration. Kiss the right ass and anyone can be appointed to anything, pretty much. 

I think the "Founding Fathers" just didn't anticipate just how stupid people could be, and how corrupt they could get. Also, they had the runner up as the Vice President in the beginning, didn't they?

Can you imagine that now? President Trump with Vice President Clinton? 

I don't want to go back to that though. God forbid we get President Biden and Vice President Cheetoh.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

I think the "Founding Fathers" just didn't anticipate just how stupid people could be, and how corrupt they could get. Also, they had the runner up as the Vice President in the beginning, didn't they?

I think in the Founding Fathers' day, the life expectancy was low 50s, so they wouldn't have expected a bunch of 80+ year old judges who've been on the bench for 35-40 years.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2020 at 5:36 PM, Smee said:

I feel like politicians in general shouldn’t be able to choose who is on the Supreme Court, though I don’t know who SHOULD. Some kind of internal system where other justices vote or something. I had to look up how it works with the high court here and it’s politicians choosing too - PM nominates in consultation with attorney general and cabinet, then the Governor General appoints. So I suppose the last word on whether to confirm or not is with the Queen’s representative, which doesn’t strike me as any fairer or more reasonable, although the GG’s role is symbolic 99% of the time. I don’t know, I couldn’t name a single judge on our high court and there’s only 7 of them, but I could name a few of yours. Choosing justices in the US seems to be a HUGE deal and so deeply partisan and political that I feel like neither the house nor senate should be involved. But then the president shouldn’t get to choose with no oversight either! It all just seems like a broken system. The point was checks and balances to limit power to any one person or party, and the result is consolidating power to make sure there’s more ways to hold on to it for longer.

Since your's is a British Commonwealth country , this process makes sense , I think .    

Quote

The Crown is the repository of sovereign authority. As such, it serves as our concept of the Canadian state. It also serves as the ultimate source of executive authority, legislative authority, and judicial authority in Canada. While a few commentators have argued that the Crown simply means ‘the Government’, this is too simplistic. The government conducts its affairs as a servant of the Crown as the executive power; accordingly, it is wrong to conflate the government and the Crown. Similarly, Parliament is, formally speaking, a body assembled by the Crown to pass legislation and fund the government. This is also why the Crown is part of Parliament: to give its assent to bills that have passed the House of Commons and the Senate. The courts, meanwhile, exist to uphold the law. Yet, in a formal sense, judges do so as agents of the Crown. Although the notion is medieval, the judiciary maintains the laws of the realm, understood as Crown as the body politic (in today’s parlance, the state.)

 https://lagassep.com/2013/07/28/the-crown-the-sovereign-and-elizabeth-ii/   

 

5 hours ago, Alisamer said:

So many businesses have a mandatory retirement age - now that RBG has passed, I think it's time for one for the Supreme Court.

Term limits would be even better. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous, IMO. 

It still galls me that there are so few actual minimums required in the highest levels of government, especially in this administration. Kiss the right ass and anyone can be appointed to anything, pretty much. 

I think the "Founding Fathers" just didn't anticipate just how stupid people could be, and how corrupt they could get. Also, they had the runner up as the Vice President in the beginning, didn't they?

Can you imagine that now? President Trump with Vice President Clinton? 

I don't want to go back to that though. God forbid we get President Biden and Vice President Cheetoh.

 

Quote

At a time when American institutions seem increasingly fragile, a compromise like term limits for Supreme Court justices would be a much-needed vote for long-term stability. If not, the politics of Supreme Court appointments will only get worse. If Democrats ever get back unified control of government, they might be tempted to expand the number of justices to 15, as payback for the “stolen” Merrick Garland seat. Republicans should strategically de-escalate while they can.

 https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/6/27/17511030/supreme-court-term-limits-retirement   States such as Ohio already have terms of office for our supreme court justices , whom are elected by the voters .  

Quote

Justices serve six-year terms and cannot take the oath of office after reaching age 70. 

 https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/31/ohio-2020-election-whos-running-ohio-supreme-court/3353757001/    However , Joe Biden has rejected the idea of placing term limits on the U.S. Supreme Court justices .   

Quote

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Monday that he opposes term limits for federal judges ― his latest comment on what he would or wouldn’t do to the court system if elected president.

As part of his plan to create a commission to study the federal courts, Biden said he would look at how long justices serve on the Supreme Court. One reporter asked the former vice president if that meant he was open to term limits, to which Biden immediately shook his head and repeated: “No, no, no.”

“No,” he said. “It’s a lifetime appointment. I’m not going to attempt to change that at all.”

The candidate’s potential commission is “just a group of serious constitutional scholars with a number of ideas about how we should proceed from this point on,” he said. “And that’s what we’re going to be doing. I’m going to give them 180 days, God willing, if I’m elected, from the time I’m sworn in to be able to make such a recommendation.”  ...  I’d] put that commission together and have them do an analysis on what if any changes should take place in how the court functions, how it’s picked, how long you stay on the court,” Biden told reporters on Monday. “For example, there’s an idea put forward by one of the scholars out of Columbia [University] saying what you should do is you go on the Supreme Court for X number of years, and then you go to a Circuit Court, and someone from the Circuit Court goes to the Supreme Court.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-opposes-term-limits-federal-judiciary_n_5f976349c5b646c70e9bb5e9  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

image.png.cb09b7c83c8930b8f2b4b2d6ed8bec51.png

I'd really, really like to wipe that horribly arrogant smug expression off her face. Ugh. It makes me ragey. :angry-teeth:

  • I Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2020 at 10:18 PM, nausicaa said:

The Senate possessing the sole power to confirm justices is enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. 

Some of it is just the way the founders decided to disperse relative powers, just as the House solely impeaches federal officers. One of the theories for giving the Senate the power to confirm justices is because small states have greater power there and can then act as a check on a POTUS from a large state. 

What they are doing is constitutional. It's just stunningly hypocritical after what happened in March 2016. 

I never said it wasn't constitutional, but the constitution can be amended, something the second amendment gun nutters never let us forget.  I'm educated, I understand all of this, but if one thing has been shown by the abuse of power that has happened during the last four years, it's that there are cracks in the system, including with so-called "constitutional: practices.  My question was somewhat rhetorical. Slavery was constitutional also. 

On 10/27/2020 at 1:51 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

The Senate has always wielded an outsized amount of power.  I remember when I was young, we were at a presentation at school, a speaker said that anyone in the audience could become president. My mom leaned over and said that if I wanted real power, I'd need to become a senator. That was in the late 1970s. It's still true.

Congress as a whole is supposed to represent the will of the people, but the Senate flattens the population differences of the various states and as such concentrates its power. It sucks balls. 

Edited by SilverBeach
remove extra period
  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.