main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Senate The Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. Cobra Kai

    Cobra Kai Jedi Master star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Is this your first supreme court hearing? The judges NEVER speculate, grade other opinions, or answer questions on hypothetical cases that may come up before them in the future, in order to maintain their impartiality and independence.

    This goes back to RUTH BADER GINSBURG who said during her hearing:
    ELENA KAGAN also refused to answer questions on Roe-Wade:
    SONIA SOTOMAYOR:
    STEPHEN BREYER:
    JOHN ROBERTS:
    And the Democrats know all this before they ask the questions. They're not looking for actual answers when they ask about transfer of power, abortion, etc... They are just trying plant that seed of doubt into the public's mind in order to score political points and get in a few jabs on Trump before the election, which is expected. If the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be asking the tough questions, just to score political points.
     
    MasterP likes this.
  2. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Don't type in caps. It's annoying.

    Yes politicians play political games, but it's kind of hard to general false outrage against the Democrats' questioning of ACB after the whole Merrick Garland thing. The fact that they're ramming this nominee through while voting is actually taking place after the whole 'let the American people decide' shtick back in 2016 when a vacancy occurred 7 months before the election poops on any sympathy I have for this judge, or the operators who nominated her.

    I certainly have no sympathy for Trump.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  3. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Also, I don't recall those Justices having authored ex-officio writings against those cases (let alone active cases they will have to sit on), let alone teaching those doctrines or actively participating in religious activity against those items.
     
  4. Cobra Kai

    Cobra Kai Jedi Master star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2012
    I'm not outraged at their questioning at all. They were respectful for the most part, and it was exactly as I expected. I was just stating the fact of why Judges don't answer those type of questions.

    And I disagree that they are "ramming through" anything. Democrats would certainly do the same if they controlled the white house and senate.
    Historically, judges have been confirmed in election years (by both repubs and dems) when one party controls the Senate & Presidency and not confirmed when parties are split. Both parties have flip-flopped on this over the years, while always trying to claim the moral high ground. Republicans were just using their Constitutional power to not give consent in 2016, while trying to Use Biden's own words against him, from 1992, when he argued that judges should not be confirmed in an election year.
     
    MasterP likes this.
  5. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    This is a blatant lie.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...th-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court/

    Again, I refer to the chart that the closest a Justice has been nominated and confirmed was almost five months before the election (1916); there was one case of nomination sooner than that and not confirmed because... too close to the election (1852). Scalia's seat was stolen, and was ridiculous. This is even more ridiculous. Don't come in here with BS and try and pass it off as fact...
     
  6. Cobra Kai

    Cobra Kai Jedi Master star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Huh? I didn't say anything about specific times. I just said "election year." I didnt lie about anything. And it wasn't stolen. As I said both parties have flip-flopped on this in the past. The constitution gives the senate the right to give consent or not to a nominee. Personally I thought they should've voted Garland in. But in the 10 times that a judge has been nominated in an election year, when the parties were split like they were in 2016, only 2 of those justices were confirmed. Its all about who controls the senate.
     
  7. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Guess who controlled the Senate and Presidency in 1844 (the Whigs). No vote (six months before election). And Democrats and Republicans split in 1888 (they voted to confirm). If sufficiently before an election, you vote -- if too close, you don't vote. This is a sham of a confirmation.

    By the standards set by history, theoretically five months (Democrats, when they were racist as hell) was the cut-off point -- and nothing prior to that.
     
  8. Cobra Kai

    Cobra Kai Jedi Master star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2012
    John Tyler was not a whig that year. They kicked him out of the party years before that because he kept voting against them and basically tried to supersede the authority of the congress. (it's actually an interesting little story in our history). He nominated several different judges and they blocked all of them as the senate can do.
    I don't see how the current situation is a "sham" just because you don't like it. There is nothing in the Constitution that would restrict the senate from confirming this close to the election.
     
  9. Yodaminch

    Yodaminch Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 6, 2002
    @Cobra Kai - I referred to one specific question as disqualifying. Because it is so clearly outlined in the constitution. The executive branch cannot unilaterally move or postpone an election. That takes an act of Congress. The correct answer would that this issue is clearly addressed in the constitution. You don’t even need to answer a yes or no, just defer to the constitution. For someone claiming to be an originalist, that omission is a cause for concern.

    The fact a nominee would even be willing to “look at it” is the cause for concern. Some parts of the constitution are open for interpretation. This one is pretty clear cut. That to me is different from what you are citing with Ginsberg, Kagan, etc.

    And yes, starting with Alito and Roberts, I have watched the nominee hearings. I understand what you are saying. But that question is simply too easy to answer and the choice not to given the circumstances of this nomination are cause for concern.
     
  10. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    "But but but the other guys would do it!" is not an argument. Falling back on this line of reasoning is nothing more than an invitation to further smash norms. That's where we headed, and it's terrible for the country.

    Also, if you think that a judge's prior writings in the academic community have absolutely nothing to do with how they'll rule as a SCOTUS justice, then I have a bridge to sell you.
     
  11. Glitterstimm

    Glitterstimm Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2017
    It's off-putting how she seems to have only one facial expression all the time: like she's on the verge of tears. Very fake/disingenuous vibes emanating off her imo
     
  12. Lordban

    Lordban Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    You know who refused to hear a Democrat-nominated justice explaining less than a year was too close to the election? McConnell.
    You know who rushed the hearing of a Republican-nominated justice in complete contradiction with his own prior stance? McConnell.

    It's indefensible. Don't even try to defend it.
     
  13. Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid

    Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 13, 2014
    It's politics. Is it hypocritical. YES. Does it follow the rules. YES. McConnell will meet his fate with the voters. And while he might be secure on his perch, others in his party will face consequences from the voters.

    Really? I see Barrett showing quite the range of contained subdued expressions. It's like watching a poker game with subtle tells. Barrett is a shoe-in for confirmation but she has to weather this hearing. She has the winning hand, everyone knows that. So the grilling is more about forcing a mistake or pushing issues that will effect the election in three weeks more than this hearing.

    I think confirming a justice now is backfiring on the Republicans. It's motivating Democrats even more to vote the GOP out of office. I guess Trump thought this bold move would help him in the election. Why didn't they just wait until November and push this through in the lame duck session? It would look bad, but wouldn't effect the election and the GOP would have two years for voters to forget this.

    People will vote today because of these hearings. That direct cause and effect on the politicians is not what they want.
     
  14. MotivateR5D4

    MotivateR5D4 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 20, 2015
    I was thinking that too, that they still have almost three months in office after the election, so why the rush at this very moment? But I think they are doing it specifically so they can contest the election results, which is why they need her in prior to it.
     
  15. Princess_Tina

    Princess_Tina Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    May 10, 2001
    Strictly speaking, they shouldn't need her to contest the election results, without her they'd still have a 5-3 majority.
     
  16. MotivateR5D4

    MotivateR5D4 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 20, 2015
    But with her in it makes them all the more able to do so.
     
    Rew likes this.
  17. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett PT Interview Host/All-Around Good Guy star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Correct just precedent. Something that should become law. Whoever wins come November should make it law that an SC cannot be appointed in the last 6 months. You must agree at least that the Republicans are hypocrites for doing the same exact thing to Obama?
     
  18. Princess_Tina

    Princess_Tina Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    May 10, 2001
    The Republicans are hypocrites for everything they do.
     
  19. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
  20. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett PT Interview Host/All-Around Good Guy star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Oh I agree but I was asking if they themselves are
     
    Princess_Tina likes this.
  21. Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid

    Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Was rushing Barrett through a show of power that could back fire? Was it to end ObamaCare? Isn't there a Supreme Court vote on ACA like a week after the election? With Barrett it could be over ruled.
     
  22. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    No. They’re hearing oral arguments in the case the week after the election. A decision likely won’t come until June, with the conservative six’s jet fueled and waiting to go at Reagan International Airport once they’ve ruled.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  23. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Question for @GrandAdmiralJello—

    Can Congress pass so-called ‘trigger legislation’ in relation to the Supreme Court? As in “If the ACA is invalidated by the Supreme Court, either in whole or in part, the eligibility age for Medicare shall automatically be lowered to 55”?

    Asking for a friend.
     
  24. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I'm not @GrandAdmiralJello and I don't know the answer... but that would be really weird. If you have the votes for that, you have the votes to just do it. Medicare age is also a very odd thing to tie to the ACA being struck down, the biggest losers of it would be those on expanded Medicaid at 100%-200% of federal poverty level, those under 26, and those with pre-existing conditions. It probably wouldn't influence the justices either.
     
  25. Rogue1-and-a-half

    Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Okay, so as always with these things I am playing catch-up. Yesterday, I was listening to all the opening statements; today I was listening to the first round of questioning. And, yeah, since all I did yesterday was make fun of Whitehouse's name, I gotta give him his props. He is doing the Lord's work out there, I'm telling you. That presentation of his was a bloody curbstomping. I am going to be passing that around to friends for sure. He just blows it all wide open. I knew it was going to be amazing when he had the balls to just name Josh Hawley while everybody else was saying, "one of my colleagues on this committee" every time they talked about his comments. And he just straight up called out Shelby for exactly what it was, which was a BS "fact" finding and not a ruling on the law. The cutaways to Barrett during that whole presentation were comedy gold. You could just read the "oh ****" in her eyes. Because this guy knows that the Court is broken and he just told the American people how it got that way, who did it, why they did it and who is complicit in it. And he didn't just say all of that. He backed it up. That was one of the best political speeches I've seen in a long time. If I'd been in that room, I would have leapt to my feet applauding at the end. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

    I keep my FB political posting to a minimum for a lot of reasons. But I'm posting that presentation. Everyone needs to see it.
     
    Vaderize03, heels1785 , Rew and 2 others like this.