-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
To be absolutely 100% fair it gets the least amount of attention, especially since there isn't as much debate regarding it as their is for speech, religion, press, and assembly.
Presumably, a law professor would have a more full and nuanced understanding of ACB's shortcomings as a SCOTUS justice than say... a random English or music professor.
That's true and everyone can make mistakes with softball questions, I would just expect a law professor and sitting justice on an appeals court would have that off the dome.
Again, they aren't making a case about her qualifications? They're asking her to not let herself be nominated before november because of the potential ramifications on america's politics it might have.
Yeah, but that's just the demographics of the profession, I'd bet if you polled them, 60-75% of college professors would agree with that. Law professors would have more directly applicable concerns.
Everything she asks was like tailored to give Judge Amy a chance to blow Feinstein's mind. And then Feinstein would be all "damn your awesome and so is your family."
Okay, don't know why it has to be "suprising"? I was just trying to get at why it might have been seen as "significant", I wasn't actually saying it was, and I certainly don't care enough to argue about it
...
This is like, the test you give to idiot right wingers to trip them up into saying "right to bear arms". Un-fucking-real.
Jesus he didn't even ask her to explain them or go into what they mean to her or anything, just a simple junior high level constitution pop quiz, and she STILL fucked it up.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Why does she need to know? It's not like she's a lawyer or a sitting judge or anything...oh.
I'm assuming the answer is no, but is there any basis to the whole "I can't suggest agreement or disagreement" thing that disinengous-ass conservatives keep parroting? Regardless, her evasiveness regarding voter intimidation/Trump delaying the election should've disqualified her.
By not having the senate, yes. She does not have skeletons like Kav so it was pretty much a done deal as soon as she was the pick
I guess I'm wondering, her claim for every single question is that she can not make any claims or affirmation towards any thing. What has been precedent for past confirmation hearings? What is the point of holding these if a confirmation hearing can't actually get any positions aired out?
We have past decisions, opinions, and proclamation she's signed on to that makes me not trust she won't vote to steal my right to marriage.
We have past decisions, opinions, and proclamation she's signed on to that makes me not trust she won't vote to steal my right to marriage.
She's going way broader with her unwillingness to answer these sort of questions then past nominees have. Senator Blumenthal even pointed out quotes from prior nominees who are currently on the court, including Roberts and Thomas, who answered the exact question she was refusing to answer based on her "I can't comment on precedent" excuse.
Ah so in the past we've gotten more then. Kind of sneaky way to basically hide who she is. What was her comment when told that roberts and Thomas had answered it before?
Basically the same "I won't grade precedent" answer. It was on a case that held that married couples had a right to privacy that included a right to not be criminalized for purchasing contraception, so if I remember correctly she also said a bit how she didn't believe any American feared that buying contraception would be criminalized.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? There isn't really a ton Democrats can do here. They know Republicans have the votes to confirm Barrett, and nothing they say in these hearings is going to change that. Especially when Barrett refuses to answer almost any questions on her opinion of legal opinions/issues.
I definitely agree that she's a bad nominee and at a bad time, but disheartening to see that literal rapist Brett Kavanaugh was less unpopular.
must feel so good to be her. knowing you already had the position before this event even started. damn.
Maybe she should have notes?
For real, I really cant watch much of this because its an obvious farce, the notes thing I saw on twitter tho pisses me off so much, such a manufactured thing. She doesnt need anything because it literally doesnt matter what she says. But wow let's also make sure to ask her about the blank notepad and feign being impressed.
Popularity of a Supreme Court Justice doesn't mean anything.
Republicans went ALL IN on "No Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year" in 2016. They clearly won the public over to that argument. Now they're rushing this woman with mere weeks before the election in 2020.
I think that's the big reason why she has lower approval ratings than Kavanaugh.
election year, more focus on her being catholic then Kavanaugh, and she's a women which also has an impact i'd imagine.
Conservatives don't give a shit, they have their eyes on the prize which is something liberals should learn from.
If Democrats take the White House and the Senate and keep the House? It might!
My hope is the approval for the Supreme Court being so low opens up the country supporting adding justices.
This. In addition they are doing this all while ignoring pushing legislation to help Americans hurting due to COVID and its effects on the country.
While I'm not very hopeful myself, I'm hoping that my cynicism is dead wrong.
Well I'm not entirely sure how much pressure there needs to be for that to happen but with Biden saying "he is not a fan of that" I'm like how high are the chances of that actually happening even if Democrats win everything relevant. There is too many times where Democrats prefer to take the L just to have the moral high ground.
The problem is none of the theoretically elected officials will have the stomach for it regardless of how much the court's approval rating craters.
It's pretty obvious that we need the Democrats to take the White House and Senate (and keep the House), and then put pressure on them to fix the Courts after what the Right Wing has done.
Even if Dems take the trifecta, I seriously doubt they'll do anything about the courts other than just continue operating the system same as always while hoping they get lucky enough to get a Justice while they hold the Presidency and the Senate theoretically over the next 4 years. There is nothing to suggest they have an appetite for reckoning with the complete take over of the courts that has occurred in the past 4 years. Deciding to pack the Supreme Court would be admitting that the system is a failure as a whole, and I just don't see Dems being able to admit that on any fundamental level. When Schumer threatened nuclear options it seemed like a bluff and it still does.
Biden doesn't have to be a fan of court packing. All he needs to do is hold his nose and do what we want him to do.
I also see his tune changing very quickly when the Trumped up Supreme Court starts going after the ACA and Roe V Wade.