Justice Clarence Thomas to swear in Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court tonight

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I think Trump is likely to win this election. But if Biden does win it will have been worth it to confirm three justices that are going to make decisions based on the law. The dems could pack the court but I am not sure they will. It is unpopular.

If the decisions that come out of this Republican led Supreme Court are unpopular enough (taking health insurance from millions, overturning Roe v Wade, overturning Obergefell v Hodges, gutting Title IX protections), adding seats could be done with little political cost.

 

[Yttrium]

If the decisions that come out of this Republican led Supreme Court are unpopular enough (taking health insurance from millions, overturning Roe v Wade, overturning Obergefell v Hodges, gutting Title IX protections), adding seats could be done with little political cost.

Conversely, if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn some or all of those things, it's going to be difficult to justify the expansion.

I have a hunch that they won't be so quick to overturn them, although I could very well be wrong about that.

 

[SeventyOne]

Justice Clarence Thomas to swear in Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

“Justice Clarence Thomas will administer the official Constitutional Oath to Judge Amy Coney Barrett at the White House tonight,” a senior White House official told The Washington Times.​

Cool.

I know the libs are upset another conservative is on the court, but their threats in packing the court in the future show they are more than willing to play the same political game they are screaming on opposition against. They threatened the same thing after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Childish, all the time.

 

[Triumvirate]

Cool.

I know the libs are upset another conservative is on the court, but their threats in packing the court in the future show they are more than willing to play the same political game they are screaming on opposition against. They threatened the same thing after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Childish, all the time.

"It's only childish when they play the game!"

 

[Gene2memE]

Cool.

I know the libs are upset another conservative is on the court, but their threats in packing the court in the future show they are more than willing to play the same political game they are screaming on opposition against. They threatened the same thing after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Childish, all the time.

I think they're more concerned at the naked hypocrisy displayed by Republican party leadership on this issue.

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,'" [...] "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

- Lindsey Graham, 2016.
​

 

[Fantine]

If the decisions that come out of this Republican led Supreme Court are unpopular enough (taking health insurance from millions, overturning Roe v Wade, overturning Obergefell v Hodges, gutting Title IX protections), adding seats could be done with little political cost.

I just read a Gallup poll showing 80% of Americans disapprove of the Citizens United decision.

How many supported gutting the Voting Rights Act?

We need a vast media campaign showing how the courts have worked against the people whose rights they should protect, becoming just another tool of big business exploitation

 

[disciple Clint]

So what? Her nomination to the Supreme Court is the biggest travesty of justice that has occurred in this country for a long, long time. She is the result of extremely corrupt, partisan politics.

Hopefully, Vice President Biden will be President in January and will increase the number of Justices to balance the Court to reflect the will of all the people.

can you explain how it is a travesty of justice to follow the Constitution and fulfill the responsibilities of your office? Explain the corruption if you can.

 

[Vylo]

Disgusting. One of the least qualified justices rammed through a week before an election after the GOP stalled and killed Scalia's replacement for over a year screaming about it being an election year. I hope the dems stack both the court and the house and drive the current GOP into extinction.

 

[Speedwell]

Cool.

I know the libs are upset another conservative is on the court, but their threats in packing the court in the future show they are more than willing to play the same political game they are screaming on opposition against. They threatened the same thing after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Childish, all the time.

I agree with Yttrium--we should probably not yell 'till we're bit. It's not always possible to predict how being on SCOTUS will affect a person. Consider Earl Warren, hard-core right wing governor of California who was appointed Chief Justice by Eisenhower. The Left whined about it, but Warren went on to lead the decision in Brown v. Board, one of the most serious blows the court has ever struck the Christian Right. He also lead other anti-conservative decisions such as Loving v. Virginia and Miranda v. Arizona. So, it goes to show you never can tell.

 

[Speedwell]

Disgusting. One of the least qualified justices rammed through a week before an election after the GOP stalled and killed Scalia's replacement for over a year screaming about it being an election year. I hope the dems stack both the court and the house and drive the current GOP into extinction.

Impeachment is also a possibility; it's been done before.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Disgusting. One of the least qualified justices rammed through a week before an election after the GOP stalled and killed Scalia's replacement for over a year screaming about it being an election year. I hope the dems stack both the court and the house and drive the current GOP into extinction.

There is a difference between it being a presidents second term, and it being a first, and the Senate and the Presidental administration being of two different parties, and being the same party.

Obama was on his way out, period. He wasn't running again.

The Senate didn't agree with his pick, so they could have wasted everyone's time and the government's money and held hearings and then all voted against... and because they held majority the nominee wouldn't get through the process...

It would have been a waste of time and money all the way around.

However, if Clinton had gotten in, they may have been more inclined to vote for her pick because elections DO have consequences, and one of those consequences is that the majority of the people wanted the type of justice she might nominate in, verses the type their constituents would want...

So they were holding their breath and needing to know what to do, from the populace in a time when it may have gone either way... but wasn't going to Obama regardless.

Was it wrong? In some ways I think they should have held hearings and just voted against - they obviously didn't want that nominee in... but in other ways it would have been a waste of time and money so why bother...

It is, in the end up to the Senate to hold hearings... Obama did his job he nominated a potential appointee. The Senate's advice was, to wait for the next president so we know what the will of the people is, going forward as a nation.

The difference between the two candidates was stark enough to warrant that position at that time. The republicans were nominating someone the republicans never thought would be nominated, and the whole nation didn't know what was going to happen next.

The republican Senate learned the will of the people, and have done their job ever since.

 

[Kentonio]

Impeachment is also a possibility; it's been done before.

Never successfully. Two thirds of the senate is a pretty impossible bar over a partisan issue.

 

[Kentonio]

However, if Clinton had gotten in, they may have been more inclined to vote for her pick because elections DO have consequences, and one of those consequences is that the majority of the people wanted the type of justice she might nominate in, verses the type their constituents would want...

So they were holding their breath and needing to know what to do, from the populace in a time when it may have gone either way... but wasn't going to Obama regardless.

Oh give me a break, the idea that they'd have confirmed an extremely liberal candidate just because Hillary had won an election is laughable.

Obama deliberately picked an extremely middle of the road moderate justice because he knew there was zero chance of the GOP confirming anyone remotely liberal. All McConnell proved was that they wouldn't accept anything other than a hard right candidate.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

There is a difference between it being a presidents second term, and it being a first, and the Senate and the Presidental administration being of two different parties, and being the same party.

Obama was on his way out, period. He wasn't running again.

The Senate didn't agree with his pick, so they could have wasted everyone's time and the government's money and held hearings and then all voted against... and because they held majority the nominee wouldn't get through the process...

It would have been a waste of time and money all the way around.

However, if Clinton had gotten in, they may have been more inclined to vote for her pick because elections DO have consequences, and one of those consequences is that the majority of the people wanted the type of justice she might nominate in, verses the type their constituents would want...

So they were holding their breath and needing to know what to do, from the populace in a time when it may have gone either way... but wasn't going to Obama regardless.

Was it wrong? In some ways I think they should have held hearings and just voted against - they obviously didn't want that nominee in... but in other ways it would have been a waste of time and money so why bother...

It is, in the end up to the Senate to hold hearings... Obama did his job he nominated a potential appointee. The Senate's advice was, to wait for the next president so we know what the will of the people is, going forward as a nation.

The difference between the two candidates was stark enough to warrant that position at that time. The republicans were nominating someone the republicans never thought would be nominated, and the whole nation didn't know what was going to happen next.

The republican Senate learned the will of the people, and have done their job ever since.

Republicans were already talking about blocking any Supreme Court pick by Clinton for four years if she was elected. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/01/republican-senators-oppose-clinton-supreme-court-nominee
Republicans are acting like it has been determined that Democrats aren’t allowed to appoint judges.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Republicans were already talking about blocking any Supreme Court pick by Clinton for four years if she was elected. Republican senators vow to block any Clinton supreme court nominee forever
Republicans are acting like it has been determined that Democrats aren’t allowed to appoint judges.

Republicans have never blocked democrats supreme court picks just because they are democratic picks. not ever.

They usually overwhelmingly support the picks of any democrat in office, much to the chagrin of their constituency at times.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Republicans have never blocked democrats supreme court picks just because they are democratic picks. not ever.

They usually overwhelmingly support the picks of any democrat in office, much to the chagrin of their constituency at times.

They were openly planning on doing it in October 2016. Why would they be openly talking about it if they weren’t planning on doing it?

 

[Speedwell]

Never successfully. Two thirds of the senate is a pretty impossible bar over a partisan issue.

Difficult, yes, but it will depend on the issue at hand as well as how ideological Trump's appointees turn out to be. Some of the things the Christian Right wants the court packed for are not widely popular in the country as a whole. What do you suppose the reaction would be should the court confirm a sentence of life imprisonment or lethal injection for a woman who has taken a morning-after pill?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

And many people are saying He is really unhappy with some folks down here.

And that is why He is going to give Trump more opportunity to finish his work making America Great again. You should be happy, you are a Christian, you benefit the most from this Glorious plan of God.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Disgusting. One of the least qualified justices rammed through a week before an election after the GOP stalled and killed Scalia's replacement for over a year screaming about it being an election year. I hope the dems stack both the court and the house and drive the current GOP into extinction.

Rammed through? Nominated on September 26th and sitting on the bench a month later, sounds more like God’s hand fulfilling Prophecy.

 

[Desk trauma]

Rammed through? Nominated on September 26th and sitting on the bench a month later, sounds more like God’s hand fulfilling Prophecy.

Indeed, as for told in the book of ‘Merica chapter five.