• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Amy Coney Barrett

ImTheCaptain said:
sort of assumes the current process of election(s) is fair and representative
Click to expand...

Right. There's twice as much time between the election and inauguration than there is between now and election day. They could hold off and do this after the election. But Trump specifically said he wanted her in place to rule on the election.
 
demondeacfreak said:
I think people should worry a lot less about who is doing the nominating and just focus on who the nominee is. Souter, John Paul Stephens, Kennedy, and Roberts were all nominated by Republicans, and none of them wound up being great enemies to liberal legislation or social objectives. You never know how these people are going to turn out once they sit down on the court. Sure, this lady seems to be a female version of Scalia, but that's not all bad. Scalia was a great judge and his influence on the legal field can hardly be overstated.

I don't really buy the argument that the President has some duty to wait until the election is decided to fill the seat, and I also don't think the Republicans are being hypocrites by going forward with the nomination. They have the power, they aren't using it in a way that is counter to the Constitution, and to me that's just the end of the debate. Democrats should just console themselves with the knowledge that once the shoe is on the other foot someday they will do the same, and I think we all know the Democrats would do exactly what the Republicans are doing now if they were in the same circumstances. They weren't able to in 2016 because they didn't have the votes in the senate; if they had, Garland would be on the court instead of Kavanaugh and I don't think anyone would think twice about that.

I personally think the Republicans were out of line in 2016 by refusing to fill a seat for 8 months, but I guess the American people had a chance to decide whether it bothered them at the ballot box and it seems like it didn't (or at least it didn't bother them more than the idea of Hillary being President). Then again, maybe that's just indicative that the court is a bigger deal to extremists on either side and not that big a deal to the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Well, well. said. :rock:
 
Obviously the hijacking of Obama’s authority after Scalia died almost 9 months before the election was technically allowable under the constitution but it was obviously in bad faith then under the “rule” they made up on the spot. And it’s definitely fair to call it hypocritical for them to not follow the rule they invented last time, especially since this seems like the exact kind of situation it was designed for as opposed to in 2016 (since votes were already taking place). Bosiding it with hypotheticals is a pretty weak defense.

It seems like you’re saying holding the senate is required to get a justice seated. Which doesn’t seem like the intent of the constitution. More like an abuse of the “advise and consent” when politically favorable.
 
I'm fine with the GOP putting Barrett on the Court, but I don't want to hear any complaining with the Blue Wave sweeps Congress and the WH this fall and we turn America into a Socialist utopian with a five new Democratic leaning states, a 15 person Supreme Court with six new liberal justices, government financed abortions, the end of tax exempt statuses for churches, and a 70% income tax rate with no loopholes for the richest Americans that can't be repealed for a decade because we changed the voting rules to require a 75% vote to overturn any congressional legislation passed in the last 10 years.

No complaining GOP, because tough shit you lost one election.
 
BillBrasky said:
I'm fine with the GOP putting Barrett on the Court, but I don't want to hear any complaining with the Blue Wave sweeps Congress and the WH this fall and we turn America into a Socialist utopian with a five new Democratic leaning states, a 15 person Supreme Court with six new liberal justices, government financed abortions, the end of tax exempt statuses for churches, and a 70% income tax rate with no loopholes for the richest Americans that can't be repealed for a decade because we changed the voting rules to require a 75% vote to overturn any congressional legislation passed in the last 10 years.

No complaining GOP, because tough shit you lost one election.
Click to expand...

 
BillBrasky said:
I'm fine with the GOP putting Barrett on the Court, but I don't want to hear any complaining with the Blue Wave sweeps Congress and the WH this fall and we turn America into a Socialist utopian with a five new Democratic leaning states, a 15 person Supreme Court with six new liberal justices, government financed abortions, the end of tax exempt statuses for churches, and a 70% income tax rate with no loopholes for the richest Americans that can't be repealed for a decade because we changed the voting rules to require a 75% vote to overturn any congressional legislation passed in the last 10 years.

No complaining GOP, because tough shit you lost one election.
Click to expand...

Ha; good luck.
 
Why do old people care so fucking much about voting and what will happen to the country. You had your peak years, in the bell curve of life you are at the tail end so why does it matter?
 
You’d think senators would act fast to address COVID-19 to help them win the election. Nope. They’re acting fast to win the election in the Supreme Court.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Why do old people care so fucking much about voting and what will happen to the country. You had your peak years, in the bell curve of life you are at the tail end so why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Ageism isn't an admirable attribute

https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/41/5/576/596571

"Ageism can be seen as a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this with skin color and gender. Old people are categorized as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old-fashioned in morality and skills… Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different from themselves; thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings."
 
It's fun listening to conservatives, now that they've successfully packed the Court with a hard-right 6-3 majority (and Barrett is a good deal more conservative than Kennedy or Souter), and having done so by refusing to give Garland a hearing and then completely flip-flopping four years later, now rather condescendingly tell liberals to just suck it up and chill because it will be OK. That's easy to say when your side has successfully rigged the system (and not just the Supremes, but lower federal courts) in their favor. Some of Trump's appointees to the lower courts have been appalling. And I disagree totally that Scalia wasn't that bad - if he had his way gays still couldn't marry in most states, Roe would be dead, and he was vociferously opposed to nearly everything liberals believed in, and that's not at all an exaggeration. Even most of the "moderates" mentioned in the above post voted for Citizens United. "Oh, it won't be so bad! Having a majority of dogmatic Scalia types on the Court won't change things all that much! We promise! And who cares if we wouldn't give Garland a hearing and made sure that believers in originalism now dominate the Courts, that's not a bad thing at all! And if you liberals don't like it, don't worry, in another 20 or 25 or 30 years you may get a chance to finally get a majority on the Court (once all of these deliberately younger justices we're appointing to lifetime terms finally retire or die) and things will swing your way. Just calm down guys! And whatever you do, don't you dare try to reform the Court in some major way if you get a Senate majority, because that would be really, really unfair and unconstitutional!"
 
Last edited:
WFU71 said:
Ageism isn't an admirable attribute

https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/41/5/576/596571

"Ageism can be seen as a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this with skin color and gender. Old people are categorized as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old-fashioned in morality and skills… Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different from themselves; thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings."
Click to expand...

His post was not ageist
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Why do old people care so fucking much about voting and what will happen to the country. You had your peak years, in the bell curve of life you are at the tail end so why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Especially when Trump is going to decimate social security and they're fucking up the world for their children, grandchildren, etc. Height of selfishness, but that's who they are.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Especially when Trump is going to decimate social security and they're fucking up the world for their children, grandchildren, etc. Height of selfishness, but that's who they are.
Click to expand...

I want a better world for my kids and grandkids and if that means sweeping changes to social security Mx Medicare, then so be it. You are such a self important, presumptive, fucking asswipe.
 
Sorry you were triggered - I didn't personally attack you like you did me, but I hit a nerve. After Trump, I'm sure you will be going back to voting for climate change deniers who do nothing for the earth to "make a better world" for your children and grandchildren.

And LOL at any notion that Trump or any Republican is making changes to SS to make a better world for our children and grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top