[jedrider]

Welcome to the science-deniers of America:

Amy Coney Barrett, Liar and Climate Denier, Disqualifies Herself for Any Position Involving Factual Evaluation
https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-liar-and-denier.html

But that makes her 'super' qualified to be on our Supreme Court, I suppose.

[Newfie]

Huh,

Some place worsen than Zero Hedge.

[Plantagenet]

Amy Coney Barrett .... Climate Denier

What nonsense.

If you listen to what Judge Barrett actually said, she didn't "deny climate" In actuality she refused to comment on Climate Change just like she refused to comment on everything else that might be material to potentials cases that might come before the SCOTUS.

This is what EVERY nominee to the court has done since Ruth Bader Ginsberg did it when she was nominated to the court decades ago.

In fact, the decision of SCOTUS nominees not to comment on anything is know as the "GINSBERG RULE", after Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Personally, I saw Judge Barrett's strict and principled adherence to the GINSBERG RULE as a kind of homage to RBG and the impact she's had on the SCOTUS over the last several decades.


Whatever you do, Amy, take my advice.....don't answer no questions no how at the hearings. Just follow my rule and you'll be OK, OK?

Cheers!

[jedrider]

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.

[vtsnowedin]

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.

Oh sure because she did not have all the evidence before her she must come down on the left PC side of the argument. By Monday the left will have her throwing minority babies into the furnace if they can't think of anything more odious.

[Tanada]

Linky

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.

Much more text at link above this quote.

[vtsnowedin]

I agree with those that feel the ACA is actually unconstitutional in spite of the Chief justice Roberts opinion that it is a tax law.
If a six to three court did throw it out the next (probably majority Democratic) congress will surely start work on a new better bill that will pass muster and perhaps people will actually get to read the bill before it is passed.
ACA being overturned will not be the end of the world and might actually create progress much faster then letting it stand.

[evilgenius]

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.

You know what's funny, the Koch brothers are actually proponents of science. They fund many PBS programs concerning science. I understand that at least one of them has made statements supporting the scientific method and things like basic research. But they make money by taking advantage of selling exactly the opposite to the public.

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. The real danger probably lies with how labor laws will be constructed. If too much attention is drawn to that, then, maybe, they will go after abortion. Artificial intelligence is about to threaten the types of jobs it never has before. Those people are going to want a safety net. I have a hunch the right is lining up to tell them all to go stuff themselves.

[Plantagenet]

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.

The Ds have gone off the beam on this one. ACB is a brilliant legal scholar and an experienced jurist. She is very well qualified to be on the court.

The Ds insistence that any SCOTUS judge rubber stamp the D agenda is nonsense.

The duty of the SCOTUS is to judge the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws......not to vote the way Joe Biden tells them to vote each day.

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

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.

If you don't know uncertain from ascertain, that says a lot. But political opinion stating is your right in the US, highly biased or not. For both sides.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It's kind of ironic, in that SUPPOSEDLY what the dems are most concerned about re a pre-election vote, is the years long unsubstantiated screeching claim that Trump will try to illegally remain president if he loses.

If only the dems could be trusted to be reasonable, they could hold the final confirmation vote after the election results are settled, say in late November or so.

But just as the dems have kept up the nonstop tirade against Trump on every issue (whether warranted or not), and they want to control the SCOTUS no matter what, they can't be trusted to be reasonable after the election.

So the GOP is going to go ahead and force the SCOTUS senate vote before the election, to ensure their win is safely in the bag.

Of course, Biden will almost assuredly win easily (polls still have meaning, even if imperfect), so there will be no issue where Trump has some claim requiring a mustache twisting evil interference by the SCOTUS. So in a month or two, we'll be in the same situation regardless.

Of course, the dems can constantly whine that ACB isn't a "valid" member of the SCOTUS, just as they falsely frequently STILL whine that Gore won the 2000 POTUS race.

Ironically, if the GOP were making a similar false claim for their side, there would be NO END of outrage and editorials denouncing it from the likes of the NYT.

The dems don't know it, but endless empty screeching about issues they lose isn't helping their credibility in the center on issues it's important that are won -- like dealing with the reality of well established scientific facts, re policy decisions.

[evilgenius]

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.

[Tanada]

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]

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.

I wonder why? Turn that around Tanada and tell me how ideological the right wing of the Supreme Court has been. I think Bork is perhaps an interesting case. I don't know much about him, but I suspect that he would have been a good replacement for Thomas or the current Amy as I can't imagine any worst replacement for a Supreme Court justice. The era of bipartisanship is clearly over. Yes, those in power can use it and Democrats must learn to use it if they acquire it and keep it (by any means they can if they by chance follow Repuplican precedence). Although, I truly doubt that they actively inhibit the vote although I suspect at one time they were not so enthusiastic about allowing everyone to vote, but that has perhaps changed. A lot of things have changed. How a democracy works in a technological age, certainly, needs some work. The Supreme Court can't always hide behind originalism.

[vtsnowedin]

The era of bipartisanship is clearly over.

That you think fifty years of a five to four liberal courts was and era of bipartisanship is amusing.

[evilgenius]

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.

I said what I said because the country doesn't listen any better than you do! This country is finished if the Supreme Court votes to install a candidate who the country knows has lost the election. That's a statement of how I feel about it. It's not a fact, but it is not far off of what it appears. It may be that the country could survive such a thing. I just don't think that's in the cards. If we go there and the Court decides for their majority candidate rather than the country's it would signal an unraveling. Everybody who is on the Court's side will probably be in your camp. Everybody else will probably be trying to figure out how to bring back the American way. Ten minutes later, when they get what they want, they will be trying to figure out what the American way was. They'll feel free to leave out things like the freedom to start your own business, or enjoy scathing profits. That is why taboos are best left untouched. It would be far better to admit there was a deadlock, should there be, and re-run the election, but that's another thing Americans can't do.

[vtsnowedin]

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]

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]

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.

[evilgenius]

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.

Yes. I don't want to push this. I only bring it up because I feel badly about the situation. That's enough to mention it, but not to stress it.