Amy Coney Barrett confirmed

Post Reply New Topic

There's quite a lot of progressive laws that will likely never see the light of day thanks to Trump's selfishness. Keep in mind he has no stake in these issues, he's just wanting insurance that the supreme court is stacked with his cronies in case there is a hung decision following the election.

As opposed to the selfishness of those who felt their "side" was entitled to the seat (and, probably, a "progressive" leaning court)?



Intersting: Do you have some secret source that has provided this information to you, or is this simply delusions packaged in a way that hopes to make them appear credible? I don't recall seeing any evidence produced, for example, that Ms Barrett is his "crony", nor that she is guaranteed of voting a given way\favoring a particular side.

Well where does this story start Bric....

Lets go back to 2016 when a certain Judge Amy Coney Barrett sided with Republicans who refused to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat in 2016 until after the election because, in her view, it would "dramatically flip the balance of power" on the Court. Given that position, you would expect that Barrett would ask that her nomination not be considered until the completion of the election.
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/t ... of-scotus/

She certainly is a good pick, she shares Trump's propensity for shady conduct

Ah yes, now we get to the dishonest use of "selective" portions of an article, only taking a small line, and blowing it up to try and show it as the basis of the article.

Let's have a look at the tiny portion you focussed upon and see what it looks like in context:


So, looking at this in an objective manner: She stated (based on recent history) that there was nothing wrong with things occurring as they did recently with her nomination, and noted that the "Balance of power" was related to replacing a justice in a "divided government" (Executive and Senate are different parties). Given that this is NOT a "divided government", your selected excerpt does nothing to support your argument or credibility on the topic...And neither does the snide remark at the end which demonstrates your lack of even an attempt at impartiality on the subject under discussion.

I'm sorry Bric but apart from your underlining parts of the article for dramatic effect I fail to understand how her earlier decision to support waiting for the 2016 election to be finished to avoid "dramatically flip the balance of power" on the Court to suddenly accepting Trump's nomination with great gusto/enthusiasm despite the current imbalance in favour of the republicans.

She comes across as a conservative with views that hark to the 1950s and has an axe to grind on certain laws that she will likely now have influence over as a member of the supreme court.

BTW have you considered a career in ballet Bric? you have a penchant for dancing around a topic that you don't want to answer because it confronts your values.

Just to clarify:
1) She indicated in the article that there was no problem with the senate deciding to proceed (or not to proceed) with a nomination.
2) She indicated that a Justice being replaced in an election year was not an anomoly.
3) She indicated that there had only been one "divided government" in an election year in recent times, where there was a vacancy filled, and it was by someone with a similar "lean" to the person being replaced.
4) She indicated that the replacement of Justice Scalia with Mr Garland would affect the alignment of the court.
5) She indicated how 4) conflicted with 3), rather than aligned with it.
6) she did not discuss whether the alignment of the court was altered in 2)
7) She indicated that not proceeding as permitted in 1) would not be reasonable given 5)

Not sure how hard it is to understand...

The fact she comes across as "conservative", or that you assume she "has views that hark to the 1950s", "an axe to grind on certain laws", that "she will likely now have influence over as a member of the supreme court" has no bearing on what was presented in the article.

As a side note (related to 6) above), of the 5 Justices replaced in election years prior to this year, where there was not a "divided government":
1 - Republican nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Mahlon Pitney, 1912)
2 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Louis Brandeis, 1916)
3 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (John Hessin Clarke, 1916)
4 - Republican nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Benjamin N. Cardozo, 1932)
5 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Frank Murphy, 1940)

Working on the assumption that a judge would be selected because their reading\method of interpreting the constitution would be in alignment with that of the party nominating, there would have been 3 "changes in balance" (all in favor of the Democrats) in election years in the past (from the 6 previous election year nominations), with none in favor of the Republicans. This would therefore also provide precedent for a Justice being nominated and confirmed in an election year where they may not have held the same "views" as the Justice that they replaced.

Not sure what you were meaning in your last paragraph, but it seems like some form of projection, given the only "facts" to support what you have been saying have been cherry-picked, and presented out of context to give a different impression to that in their original source.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have ruled against Trump several times already. Supreme Court Justices owe no allegiance to the presidents that appointed them.

People want to complain that Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite fine. People want to complain Coney Barrett is too religious that's their prerogative. People want to lament that the conservative majority is now 6-3 instead of 5-4 because their sensibilities run in a different direction that's ok.

But people need to stop panicking. The supremes are all exceptionally qualified jurists and will rule on the law. I would be shocked if major established precedent is overturned.

Well I forgot to add that ballet is a noble art-form shared by monocle wearing conservatives all the way to communists in Russia so apologies to any practitioners for my throw away comment.

The point I wanted you to address Bric was the reasons behind Trump's decision to choose her as a supreme court nominee. Despite her rhetoric that she wants to serve the American people, I think she is smart enough to know why Trump nominated her.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/ ... r/12814366

I am sure Brett Kavanaugh also knew why Trump chose him despite his flaws.

Both Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett are self serving. Coney-Barrett and Trump have come to a mutually favourable agreement that serves both their interests. Well that's my interpretation based on what I have read.

I am sure you will continue to say everything is above board and follows legal precedence, but that's the art of war isn't it

I doubt those 6 got together and said, now's our big chance to overturn this and that.

The proof of the pudding is still in the eating....rather than listening to people say how great it tastes. I'll wait to see if trump is caught in a stalemate after the election and needs to call up his "Trump card" (sorry couldn't help myself )

When the time comes I am sure they will reach consensus when the moment requires it.

Last edited by cyberdad on 28 Oct 2020, 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

In all honesty Health Insurance should be something everyone should have available to them and have. Thats what the NHS is. FORCED health insurance paid through National Insurance contributions.
Not having healthcare is NOT an option.

As for the lady who has been voted in, it seems likely she will try to judge using her conscience and try to be fair. Of course her politics are what they are but they 'should' have little impact.

I might be wrong, but I doubt it. People seem to not understand that the judiciary operates on a different wavelength than the other two branches. Supremes have lifetime appointments. It makes them as immune to political pressure as possible. They'll rule as they see fit and all of them are steeped in legal tradition.

9-0 decisions by the Supreme Court are more common than any other kind of ruling. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... re-common/

Just because you would act (or expect others to act) in a given way were you in their position, doesn't mean that is how they will act...Your projection in this situation is a disappointing thing to see.



The important thing is that research (and facts) are more appropriate in a discussion than delusions ("supported" by small sections of text presented out of context). Had you bothered to do even a minute amount of research (or read the article you linked, rather than just selectively quote from it), you would have been aware of what was being presented in the article, had knowledge of historical precedent related to it, and realised what you were trying to claim was not credible, nor supported in any way by facts.

The minor detail that the "side" which has historically "gained" through the practice is now complaining about it when it works against them certainly demonstrates a high degree of hypocracy on their part, too.

In America, citizens are free to buy their health insurance if they want it.

Historical precedence might inform those willing to research it, but we are talking about voters who are using their guts/feelings and for around half of Americans they like what they hear from the current POTUS.

BTW just because there is a historic or legal precedence doesn't change the strategy or the POTUS or his allies in the supreme court. Her nomination was rushed hastily and we both know why Bric.