• 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

DeaconCav06

DeaconCav06

Dickie Hemric
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
30,799
Reaction score
4,912
Putting aside whether or not Trump should have put forward a nominee or the Senate should hold a vote on a nominee, I’d like to have a thread on the qualifications (or not) and the publicly available positions of the candidate (whether academic or judicial).

I anticipate that this will go terribly wrong very quickly, but I’d like to have some level of civil discourse about a person who will likely shape the future of this country’s jurisprudence for decades to come.
 
Last edited:
BarcaDeac said:
Not optimistic about the discussion or about her?
Click to expand...

I’m not optimistic about the discussion and edited to clarify.

I haven’t formed an opinion yet.

Her judicial experience is a concern but she has a lot of academic experience.

I plan on reading some of her opinions over the weekend to get a better idea.
 
Not a legal opinion perhaps, but her comments on the appropriateness of Obama replacing Scalia with a more liberal justice in an election year make her appear hypocritical at least. So she fits right in.
 
She would be the third justice who participated in the 2000 recount battle along with Kavanaugh and Roberts. So she has experience for the job Trump wants her to do.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Not a legal opinion perhaps, but her comments on the appropriateness of Obama replacing Scalia with a more liberal justice in an election year make her appear hypocritical at least. So she fits right in.
Click to expand...

I had not seen those. Do you have a link to the comments?
 
I think her qualifications are borderline. She needs a few more years on the bench, in my opinion. Having said that, I’ve always believed in “to the victor goes the spoils”, so if I was a senator and she wasn’t nominated a month before an election, I would probably vote to confirm.
 
She’s going to be confirmed, and I normally wouldn’t have an issue with nominating her or having a vote a month before the election. Trump was elected for 4 years. What I have a huge problem with is the GOP making up a rule in 2016 and totally and hypocritically abandoning it four years later.
 
wakelaw13 said:
She’s going to be confirmed, and I normally wouldn’t have an issue with nominating her or having a vote a month before the election. Trump was elected for 4 years. What I have a huge problem with is the GOP making up a rule in 2016 and totally and hypocritically abandoning it four years later.
Click to expand...

I could not possibly agree with this more. The hypocrisy is disgusting and I hope the electorate holds them accountable. Actions have consequences.
 
wakelaw13 said:
She’s going to be confirmed, and I normally wouldn’t have an issue with nominating her or having a vote a month before the election. Trump was elected for 4 years. What I have a huge problem with is the GOP making up a rule in 2016 and totally and hypocritically abandoning it four years later.
Click to expand...

Yes. I should have clarified my position to reflect what you said. Up until 2016, I would not have had an issue even if it was a month before the election.
 
That People of Praise group that Barrett and her husband belong sounds weird as fuck. It's not the inspiration for Handmaid's Tale like originally reported, but still sounds damn extreme. Men are head of households and have authority over wives, personal advisors that tell you who to marry , where to live, what job to take (former called, wait for it....handmaids if they were women). Barrett seems like one of those highly successful , independent women who support the idea that other women need to submit to their husbands.
 
To be fair, that’s about as deep as 99% of “conservatives” including the president are digging into her qualifications.
 
And we have plenty of other threads for that. Don’t lower yourself to their level. Be better.
 
SC DEAC said:
That People of Praise group that Barrett and her husband belong sounds weird as fuck. It's not the inspiration for Handmaid's Tale like originally reported, but still sounds damn extreme. Men are head of households and have authority over wives, personal advisors that tell you who to marry , where to live, what job to take (former called, wait for it....handmaids if they were women). Barrett seems like one of those highly successful , independent women who support the idea that other women need to submit to their husbands.
Click to expand...

Why isn't this bitch in the kitchen?
 
Yeah, it's definitely odd that she's part of a group that believes that women should submit to the rule and authority of their husbands, and that women generally should submit to the rule of men, yet she clearly doesn't seem to subscribe to that belief herself. Do as I say, not as I do type of thing. I'm wondering how much of that "do as I say, not as I do" attitude spills over into her judicial decisions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top