• 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!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

She's incredibly evasive and seemingly contradicting her past statements, but she's doing it with a sociopathically calm demeanor, so let's get her confirmed.
 
She’s absolutely going to be confirmed, 100%. The only chance to stop it was for multiple Republican Senators to be hospitalized or quarantined with the Rona
 
Love how Harris continues to try to bait ACB and if falls by the way side.

I guess she is used to being aound idiots.
 
So Harris is asking relevant questions and Barrett is saying nothing in response. And you think that’s a good thing?
 
And somehow also means that a sitting Senator as well as the Democratic nominee for VP is "an idiot."
 
PhDeac said:
So Harris is asking relevant questions and Barrett is saying nothing in response. And you think that’s a good thing?
Click to expand...

Barrett continues to remind all who ask (and they do continue to ask) that she will not comment on past or present decisions made by the Courts or its Members or any topic that she may, in the future, have to rule on.

Why is that so hard to understand? Any competent jurist would respond exactly that way.
 
DeacsPop said:
Barrett continues to remind all who ask (and they do continue to ask) that she will not comment on past or present decisions made by the Courts or its Members or any topic that she may, in the future, have to rule on.

Why is that so hard to understand? Any competent jurist would respond exactly that way.
Click to expand...

Following up on my earlier post, what exactly is the role of the Senate's "advice and consent"?
 
I don't understand why you similarly don't understand that it's the Senate's job to try and get answers to that. It's not grandstanding to ask, it's their role in the process.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't understand why you similarly don't understand that it's the Senate's job to try and get answers to that. It's not grandstanding to ask, it's their role in the process.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against what the Senate is trying and have the right to do.
I simply find it amusing they continue to fail in their strategy.

I am defending, from the constant attacks here, that ACB is doing something different that every competent jurist would do and have done, in the past.
 
Thank you for the analysis Deacspop, renowned legal scholar and trump lover
 
DeacsPop said:
I am not arguing against what the Senate is trying and have the right to do.
I simply find it amusing they continue to fail in their strategy.

I am defending, from the constant attacks here, that ACB is doing something different that every competent jurist would do and have done, in the past.
Click to expand...

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is a competent jurist?
 
06deacon said:
Thank you for the analysis Deacspop, renowned legal scholar and trump lover
Click to expand...

Cute; I do love when Dems lose; they just lash out and bite anything in their path.

48 year old Amy Coney Barrett will be on the Supreme Court for at least the next 30-35 years.

Get over it.
 
DeacsPop said:
Cute; I do love when Dems lose; they just lash out and bite anything in their path.

48 year old Amy Coney Barrett will be on the Supreme Court for at least the next 30-35 years.
Get over it.
Click to expand...

And if Democrats decide to expand the Court to add two young progressive jurists to the court for the next 30-35 years, the GOP can similarly get over it too right?
 
she's beholden to her religious cu... uh tradition. Not sure if you've ever been around cultists or read anything about them but they keep to themselves. She would not answer honestly about anything. Its all about getting there and then her decisions, fully... informed... by said tradition, will be obvious beforehand and consistent afterwards. Bad enough that religion is no longer separate from law making. Its now poisoning the judicial branch.
 
DeacsPop said:
I am defending, from the constant attacks here, that ACB is doing something different that every competent jurist would do and have done, in the past.
Click to expand...

RGB would say otherwise. Unless you don’t consider her a competent jurist.

“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”
 
DistrictDeacon said:
RGB would say otherwise. Unless you don’t consider her a competent jurist.

“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”
Click to expand...

Justice Ginsburg with her characteristic pithiness used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her. But everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely.
 
Look at DeacsPop the “social liberal” who is worried about his liberties evaporating under a court with this woman on it sitting back all proud of the great job she is doing avoiding questions in a hearing made up of questions he believes is totally necessary and whatnot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top