[yellowcanoe]

The Ds have a long tradition of anti-Catholic bias and sadly now its back again.

Hmm... anti-birthcontrol, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-assisted dying and very insistent that their moral views be imposed on everyone else -- guess I'd have to classify myself as anti-Catholic because I sure as hell would not want to be pro-Catholic!

[jedrider]

The Ds have a long tradition of anti-Catholic bias and sadly now its back again.

Hmm... anti-birthcontrol, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-assisted dying and very insistent that their moral views be imposed on everyone else -- guess I'd have to classify myself as anti-Catholic because I sure as hell would not want to be pro-Catholic!

I'm anti-catholic, too, despite having done my 'communion'. Now I only visit churches for their architecture and, sometimes for their solemn nature - in third-world countries, I enjoy it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Nor for the Senate to confirm or just outright decline to take it up (as they have already done once). It's obvious they can work in concert, so that argument doesn't hold water. And, it's the same Senate, too, considering they have six year terms.

About a third of the senate comes up for election every 2 years. So unless no incumbent lost and no one resigned, it's not the same senate as it was in 2016.

Isn't it clear that all pretenses of "logic" etc. aside, that BOTH SIDES want SCOTUS control as much as possible, and BOTH SIDES will push for any advantage they can get?

In 2016, the dems went bonkers when the Senate refused to move quickly, because they wanted a liberal appointment.

In 2020, the dems are going bonkers because the senate is moving quickly, because they want a liberal appointment.

And of course, the GOP is taking very opposite approaches in 2020 vs. 2016 because in each case, THEY want conservative appointments.

This is how politics work. What I find amusing is how the dems try to pretend it's some big matter of principle, vs. them wanting more power in the SCOTUS.

[Subjectivist]

Obama's proposals didn't 'cripple the economy', quite the contrary--it initiated the longest recovery (from the obliteration of the economy that GWB brought about) in the history of the country, iirc...

Wow what a pile of excrement you spew. Why oh why do you think the industrial states on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin flipped from Blue to Red in 2016? I will give you a hint, the administration of President Obama crippled the economy in this region pretty badly. I dare say outside of your comfort zone in Minnesota that was also true, but you never noticed because the big media outlets are in NYC/LA/Atlanta and they never reported on it.

[jedrider]

Isn't it clear that all pretenses of "logic" etc. aside, that BOTH SIDES want SCOTUS control as much as possible, and BOTH SIDES will push for any advantage they can get?

It didn't use to work like that, so No!

[Plantagenet]

It didn't use to work like that, so No!

Quite true. The president used to appoint SCOTUS justices and the Senators of both parties would vote in large majorities to seat them.

But thats ancient history now.

Starting in the 60s the Ds rejected R SCOTUS nominees on four different occasions.

And in 2016 the Rs rejected their first D SCOTUS nominee.

And thats how we got we where we are.

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Donald Trump is well within his rights to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's only out of common decency that he would stop himself..

I don't see how "common decency" would require Trump to not name a SCOTUS judge.

The Constitution REQUIRES the President to name a replacement SCOTUS judge when a seat falls vacant, so its actually Trump's Constitutional duty as president to make the appointment and thats what he's done. It makes no sense at all to expect Trump not to carry out his official duties as President of the United States.

Cheers!

Oh, well, have it the way you want. Her body wasn't even cold. Common decency is when the bank waits for the person to be buried before they take the house from the surviving family. In this case, she would have finished lying in state before a decent person would have even brought the subject up. And, when asked, they would have said that was an answer they would give later.

What sort of thing did you say you did again? Are you a bill collector? Maybe you come from a family of bill collectors? What did the bank do for you back then? Because, as with so many things in this world, it matters who you know more than how good you are. When you consider Merrick Garland, and the switch in rhetoric by the Republicans, that is the substance of your argument.

[Ibon]

What sort of thing did you say you did again? Are you a bill collector? Maybe you come from a family of bill collectors? What did the bank do for you back then? Because, as with so many things in this world, it matters who you know more than how good you are. When you consider Merrick Garland, and the switch in rhetoric by the Republicans, that is the substance of your argument.

Decorum and fair play?

Americans do still have underneath all this ugly tribalism a sense of that fair play even if the R Party has sold their soul to Trumps degeneracy. R's underestimate this.

[vtsnowedin]

People can pound the decency argument all they want but the fact remains that if Obama had a Democrat majority in the Senate they would have seated Garland reguardless of the time remaining in Obama's term. It has always been who has the power and Obama did not have the Senate that year. Any pretension that their party is more decent or fair playing then the other is the purest sort of apple sauce.

[jedrider]

People can pound the decency argument all they want but the fact remains that if Obama had a Democrat majority in the Senate they would have seated Garland reguardless of the time remaining in Obama's term. It has always been who has the power and Obama did not have the Senate that year. Any pretension that their party is more decent or fair playing then the other is the purest sort of apple sauce.

The Supreme court is going to reflect the current President and the current Senate and I suspect not where the US would like to go. The point being that all this bickering is going to go on for quite some time with no end in sight, as a common ground is never arrived at, and the friction with the judicial branch could stay as bad as Trump is experiencing now.

[vtsnowedin]

I doubt that having a conservative court will be any more disruptive then having a liberal one has been for the last few decades. For one thing they will not try to legislate from the bench and will leave that up to congress.

[jedrider]

I doubt that having a conservative court will be any more disruptive then having a liberal one has been for the last few decades. For one thing they will not try to legislate from the bench and will leave that up to congress.

You mean changing the Constitution? A lot of laws revolve around the Constitution. That is a difficult thing to do and you know that.

The application of the Constitution does change and you know that, too, unless you prefer living in the 18th century when, in fact, you are in the 21st century.

[vtsnowedin]

I doubt that having a conservative court will be any more disruptive then having a liberal one has been for the last few decades. For one thing they will not try to legislate from the bench and will leave that up to congress.

You mean changing the Constitution? A lot of laws revolve around the Constitution. That is a difficult thing to do and you know that.

The application of the Constitution does change and you know that, too, unless you prefer living in the 18th century when, in fact, you are in the 21st century.

Amending the constitution is a long and drawn out process that was deliberately set up that way to prevent rash spur of the moment changes. The justices determine if laws are constitutional but do not them selves change it. As to interpreting the meaning or intend of the words in the constitution justices need to have a firm understanding of the intentions of the framers when they hammered out the document.
For example the word Militia appears several times not just in the second amendment as the framers were opposed to standing armies and wanted to rely on the Militia as the bulk of the National defense. It mentions post roads in deference to Ben Franklin's postal system which needed support and improvement but leaves all other road building to the states. That is something Eisenhower got around by declaring the interstate highway system the "National defense" highway system so that troops and tanks could be moved faster then by rail.

[jedrider]

And, may I add, that separation of church and state was in the constitution AFAIK and the new Supreme Court nominee doesn't believe in that and will be, in fact, legislating from the bench if one takes her at her word. She is all set out to be one of the foremost judicial activists taking us back to a time before the Constitution when the Vatican ruled the western world (taking her at her word(s), of course).

[vtsnowedin]

And, may I add, that separation of church and state was in the constitution AFAIK and the new Supreme Court nominee doesn't believe in that and will be, in fact, legislating from the bench if one takes her at her word. She is all set out to be one of the foremost judicial activists taking us back to a time before the Constitution when the Vatican ruled the western world (taking her at her word(s), of course).

Do you actually have a quote from any of her writings or court decisions that supports your assertion? Being devote in any religion is protected by the constitution and as long as one does not try to use the power of the government or their office to impose ones religion on others holding such beliefs are nobodies business but her own.
We have freedom of religion not no religion allowed.

[jedrider]

I'm almost empty handed on Barrett as I mostly scan the headlines. But, I found two items: 1. She firmly anti-abortion on the record and 2. she's also on record as saying that overturning previous decisions is on the table and 3. where is she from? Utah? (I do have my biases.)

This adds up to a judicial activist to me. The scientific community is very worried about government transparency being another conservative casualty. There are many Catholics in the world, and Catholicism does have a history of denying the prerogative of science, so which set do you think she belongs in, pro-science or pro-belief?

I find it very interesting that conservative nominees are completely reluctant to reveal any of their biases. I don't think Ginsburg was afraid of admitting where she comes from.

And the last thing, is she really a noted legal scholar or was she chosen because of the pigeon hole she fit?

[vtsnowedin]

She has also put forth that she thinks Roe vs. Wade will stand and explained her reasoning.
On overturning previous decisions did you ever hear of the Dread Scott decision?
So of course Supreme court decisions can be overturned by later courts and to say otherwise would show an ignorance of the constitution and the law.
As to her being a "noted legal scholar" I have not heard any criticism from her detractors on that score and I would expect them to have thoroughly aired any shortcomings in that regard and even make some up if none exist.
The hearings will probably get quite nasty but will probably be better viewing the that debate debacle we just witnessed.

[dohboi]

Two repub senators (so far) have tested positive for covid, and that could throw a spanner in the works for the SCOTUS nomination process

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics ... index.html

[Tanada]

Two repub senators (so far) have tested positive for covid, and that could throw a spanner in the works for the SCOTUS nomination process

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics ... index.html

The key being, they sit on the Judicial Committee which will if things proceed normally hold hearings and interviews of the candidate associate justice.

[vtsnowedin]

The Judiciary hearings were set to begin on October 12th just ten days from now which is less then the 14 day quarantine period. The Senate could change it's rules to allow remote voting which has up until now resisted that change from tradition.
They, if they could get a quorum present, could just sit for one day then vote to recommend to the full senate as she has already been fully vetted by this congress for her current appellate court seat.
The old rule applies." If you have the votes vote, if not delay and debate."