jedrider wrote:Amy Coney Barrett .... Climate Denier
jedrider wrote:A climate denier is about to join the Supreme Court. Barrett belongs to the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal network with ties to climate deniers and polluting interests like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. She used to work at a firm representing Exxon and Shell. Fossil fuel money wins again.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-not-scientist-climate-denier-supreme-court-federalist-society
I don't need to read the blog or thread in order to uncertain just what Amy is all about. It is clear to me and to you, too, I suspect.
Senate Judiciary Committee to hold vote on Amy Coney Barrett on Oct. 22
Senate Republicans scheduled a vote in the Judiciary Committee next week on Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, overcoming Democrats’ attempts to scuttle the quick pace to confirmation.
The committee voted 12-10 on Thursday to lock in a vote for 1 p.m. on Oct. 22. If Judge Barrett clears that hurdle — and it’s virtually certain she will — then she’ll move to the Senate floor for a full vote in the last week of October.
Republicans beat back Democrats’ motion to adjourn the committee to stall Judge Barrett, and Chairman Lindsey Graham also ignored Democrats’ attempts to deny the committee a quorum.
He said he’s prepared for more tactics ahead of next week’s final vote.
Thursday marked the fourth and final day of the confirmation hearing on Judge Barrett, with outsiders invited to give their thoughts.
The American Bar Association, which rated her “well qualified” for the high court, testified, as did four supporters, picked by Republicans, and four opponents, picked by Democrats.
Two of those Democratic witnesses honed in on Obamacare, bolstering Judge Barrett’s opponents who say she will be a key vote in a looming case that could gut the 2010 health law.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
jedrider wrote:A climate denier is about to join the Supreme Court. Barrett belongs to the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal network with ties to climate deniers and polluting interests like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. She used to work at a firm representing Exxon and Shell. Fossil fuel money wins again.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-not-scientist-climate-denier-supreme-court-federalist-society
I don't need to read the blog or thread in order to uncertain just what Amy is all about. It is clear to me and to you, too, I suspect.
evilgenius wrote:It makes you wonder if the ideology reflected on the right does have a control mechanism? Would Amy Barrett simply rattle off decisions like a Q fanatic? I don't think so.
jedrider wrote:A climate denier is about to join the Supreme Court. Barrett belongs to the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal network with ties to climate deniers and polluting interests like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. She used to work at a firm representing Exxon and Shell. Fossil fuel money wins again.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-not-scientist-climate-denier-supreme-court-federalist-society
I don't need to read the blog or thread in order to uncertain just what Amy is all about. It is clear to me and to you, too, I suspect.
evilgenius wrote:You can see how long it took to get a confirmation. It's almost election day. I was not in favor of holding the confirmation proceedings immediately. I heard about RBG's death after being away for the weekend. Right away, when I got back, there was a candidate for her place. Her body was not even cold. Society has always had rules about moving too fast on these things. Taboos exist for reasons. I think there are very good reasons for this sort of taboo. I believe, mostly, they protect us from our own haste, when we have single vision. So much about what we do as humans is emotional. When it comes to how we may overstep from time to time, we probably do that more in the emotional realm towards each other than otherwise. That being said, I don't know that they have anything to say about the actual candidate proposed. ACB got grilled in ways I have never heard any candidate get grilled. She did not get softballs, and held up pretty well.
My worries, now that ACB is confirmed, are not about her. They are for the role ideology may play during the short-term. Now, would be the wrong time for her vote to be the deciding vote in a tough presidential race that came down to that. It would be so because of the emotional reasons. Not because I would feel it that hard, but because the country would. Those are things you can't take back. Things you can't take back sometimes come back to haunt you.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:evilgenius wrote:You can see how long it took to get a confirmation. It's almost election day. I was not in favor of holding the confirmation proceedings immediately. I heard about RBG's death after being away for the weekend. Right away, when I got back, there was a candidate for her place. Her body was not even cold. Society has always had rules about moving too fast on these things. Taboos exist for reasons. I think there are very good reasons for this sort of taboo. I believe, mostly, they protect us from our own haste, when we have single vision. So much about what we do as humans is emotional. When it comes to how we may overstep from time to time, we probably do that more in the emotional realm towards each other than otherwise. That being said, I don't know that they have anything to say about the actual candidate proposed. ACB got grilled in ways I have never heard any candidate get grilled. She did not get softballs, and held up pretty well.
My worries, now that ACB is confirmed, are not about her. They are for the role ideology may play during the short-term. Now, would be the wrong time for her vote to be the deciding vote in a tough presidential race that came down to that. It would be so because of the emotional reasons. Not because I would feel it that hard, but because the country would. Those are things you can't take back. Things you can't take back sometimes come back to haunt you.
I don't know what reality you are living in but over here on Earth ACB was not nominated until RCB had been dead for 5 days. If you don't think every President has a list of who they want next for major posts like the Supreme Court Justices then your view of how politics work is naive at best. Claiming the full court should not vote on a problematic decision is silly, you might as well say none of the appointments for the last four years should be allowed to vote which would put the ball overwhelmingly in the D side of the power structure. That is not going to happen, nor should it.
Up until Robert Bork was named as a nominee way back in 1987 under Reagan nominees by any President got a pretty standard hearing and treatment. Ted Kennedy then an elderly bitter Senator decided to make Bork a living symbol of his anger at the system which had put a relatively conservative President in office to make the appointment. That decision has lead to 33 years of rancor where Democratic President appoint justices who are treated generally with respect and voted on based on their capability to do the job while Republican President appointment to Justice are subjected to extreme public attacks and now are only accepted if they can be passed on a party line vote.
The Democratic Party is the one who made the Supreme Court a war zone and who continue to treat it as such. Instead of judges who are neutral and interpret the law from that perspective the Democratic Party wants justices who align in lockstep with their litmus test ideologies and who will enforce those ideologies no matter what the actual law says.
jedrider wrote: The era of bipartisanship is clearly over.
Tanada wrote:evilgenius wrote:You can see how long it took to get a confirmation. It's almost election day. I was not in favor of holding the confirmation proceedings immediately. I heard about RBG's death after being away for the weekend. Right away, when I got back, there was a candidate for her place. Her body was not even cold. Society has always had rules about moving too fast on these things. Taboos exist for reasons. I think there are very good reasons for this sort of taboo. I believe, mostly, they protect us from our own haste, when we have single vision. So much about what we do as humans is emotional. When it comes to how we may overstep from time to time, we probably do that more in the emotional realm towards each other than otherwise. That being said, I don't know that they have anything to say about the actual candidate proposed. ACB got grilled in ways I have never heard any candidate get grilled. She did not get softballs, and held up pretty well.
My worries, now that ACB is confirmed, are not about her. They are for the role ideology may play during the short-term. Now, would be the wrong time for her vote to be the deciding vote in a tough presidential race that came down to that. It would be so because of the emotional reasons. Not because I would feel it that hard, but because the country would. Those are things you can't take back. Things you can't take back sometimes come back to haunt you.
I don't know what reality you are living in but over here on Earth ACB was not nominated until RCB had been dead for 5 days. If you don't think every President has a list of who they want next for major posts like the Supreme Court Justices then your view of how politics work is naive at best. Claiming the full court should not vote on a problematic decision is silly, you might as well say none of the appointments for the last four years should be allowed to vote which would put the ball overwhelmingly in the D side of the power structure. That is not going to happen, nor should it.
Up until Robert Bork was named as a nominee way back in 1987 under Reagan nominees by any President got a pretty standard hearing and treatment. Ted Kennedy then an elderly bitter Senator decided to make Bork a living symbol of his anger at the system which had put a relatively conservative President in office to make the appointment. That decision has lead to 33 years of rancor where Democratic President appoint justices who are treated generally with respect and voted on based on their capability to do the job while Republican President appointment to Justice are subjected to extreme public attacks and now are only accepted if they can be passed on a party line vote.
The Democratic Party is the one who made the Supreme Court a war zone and who continue to treat it as such. Instead of judges who are neutral and interpret the law from that perspective the Democratic Party wants justices who align in lockstep with their litmus test ideologies and who will enforce those ideologies no matter what the actual law says.
vtsnowedin wrote:The idea that a conservative six to three court would install a candidate that had obviously lost the electoral college is ludicrous.
They might bring an end to the debate as they did with Gore Vs. Bush but they would always come down on the side of the candidate that had carried the most electoral college votes.
They are conservative. They do not change the rules. They go by them.
evilgenius wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:The idea that a conservative six to three court would install a candidate that had obviously lost the electoral college is ludicrous.
They might bring an end to the debate as they did with Gore Vs. Bush but they would always come down on the side of the candidate that had carried the most electoral college votes.
They are conservative. They do not change the rules. They go by them.
Sure they do. You have too much faith that the definition of conservatism is also the definition of the American Way. If push comes to shove, they will pick conservative over American. They'll do it because they can't see that the thing they detest is the thing they should love. All they need is the letter of the law, they don't need the spirit.
vtsnowedin wrote:evilgenius wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:The idea that a conservative six to three court would install a candidate that had obviously lost the electoral college is ludicrous.
They might bring an end to the debate as they did with Gore Vs. Bush but they would always come down on the side of the candidate that had carried the most electoral college votes.
They are conservative. They do not change the rules. They go by them.
Sure they do. You have too much faith that the definition of conservatism is also the definition of the American Way. If push comes to shove, they will pick conservative over American. They'll do it because they can't see that the thing they detest is the thing they should love. All they need is the letter of the law, they don't need the spirit.
Well let us agree to disagree on that one as it is just my opinion against your opinion. In just a couple of weeks or so we can see what they actually do in real time and then we can have more then idle speculation to discuss.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests