2020 SCOTUS Nomination...

[jamil]

Justices are judicial, but the nomination and confirmation process is political, so that political considerations are a part of who is selected when. I suspect that, for republicans, since democrats always go after their nominees like rabid dogs, the nomination process is even more discussed in a political sense.

The best qualified potential nominee may not be the best qualified nominee that the President believes the team can get through the senate, two different things. That a President may actually believe a particular candidate is more qualified, but believes that candidate will serve the greater goals of the President, if held back in anticipation of a particular justice leaving the court is just good politics. And nominations of justices is political...

Absolutely. Republicans have to pick candidates that are hard to Bork. Bork was a very qualified candidate. There was no reason to have turned that into the circus it was.

 

[BugI02]

Absolutely. Republicans have to pick candidates that are hard to Bork. Bork was a very qualified candidate. There was no reason to have turned that into the circus it was.

Yep, they fight tooth and nail to maintain a progressive lean to SCOTUS, which was a relatively recent development which they nevertheless found useful in advancing their agenda

But a conservative attempting to restore the court to its historic conservative lean is ‘politicizing’ the court and ignoring the arc of (recent) history

 

[jwamplerusa]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Time to start your encouragement! Write to your Senate critters!

For myself, I am starting off kind and gentle, and will ramp up the degree of direction on the appropriate course of action weekly.

Judge Barrett does not need to be subjected to what Judge Kavanaugh was subjected too. The best way to prevent that is to strike first, fast, and hard. Give the Dems no opportunity to attack another citizen with baseless accusations.

 

[chipbennett]

Is this the current thread, since the RBG thread was closed?

 

[foszoe]

Chip: Yes

To All: 2 Democrats have said they will not meet with Amy. If that speeds the nomination along, I am hoping they all refuse! Bunch of sore losers.

 

[Tombs]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Time to start your encouragement! Write to your Senate critters!

For myself, I am starting off kind and gentle, and will ramp up the degree of direction on the appropriate course of action weekly.

Judge Barrett does not need to be subjected to what Judge Kavanaugh was subjected too. The best way to prevent that is to strike first, fast, and hard. Give the Dems no opportunity to attack another citizen with baseless accusations.

Can only benefit us in the long run if the democrats attempt to assassinate Barrett's character.

 

[Doug]

Republicans pick SCOTUS judges by how they interpret the constitution.
Democrats, by how they promise to vote on specific issues.
Republicans want jurists who interpret law, Democrats want nobles who decree new law.

 

[bwframe]

Wasn't it SCOTUS judicial activists who ruled in favor of Roe vs Wade in the first place?

 

[jamil]

Republicans pick SCOTUS judges by how they interpret the constitution.
Democrats, by how they promise to vote on specific issues.
Republicans want jurists who interpret law, Democrats want nobles who decree new law.

Well, that's not altogether true. Republicans tend to nominate justices who are anti-you know, the word that tends to get INGO threads shut down. And let's not let this be about that word, but about how that word influences judicial nominees on both sides.

 

[foszoe]

That one and 2A issues if I can believe all my GOA/NRA mailers/emails. It will end up in a never ending spiral though as both sides will tell you those positions are a result of a CORRECT interpretation of the constitution.

Well, that's not altogether true. Republicans tend to nominate justices who are anti-you know, the word that tends to get INGO threads shut down. And let's not let this be about that word, but about how that word influences judicial nominees on both sides.

 

[Leadeye]

I think after the fiasco over the last SCOTUS pick, this one will prove to be less wild. We can only hope that they go after her like meth crazed pit bulls, condemning the Catholic church and conservative mothers in general, maybe senator Harris will have a bad hair day.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, that's not altogether true. Republicans tend to nominate justices who are anti-you know, the word that tends to get INGO threads shut down. And let's not let this be about that word, but about how that word influences judicial nominees on both sides.

Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. It is without question by anyone evaluating objectively that the SCOTUS decision in you-know-who v you-know-who, that created federal law-by-judicial-fiat regarding you-know-what, was terrible jurisprudence and wholly extra-constitutional.

 

[Doug]

Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. It is without question by anyone evaluating objectively that the SCOTUS decision in you-know-who v you-know-who, that created federal law-by-judicial-fiat regarding you-know-what, was terrible jurisprudence and wholly extra-constitutional.

Oh,THAT word.
Yeah, let's not go off on that tangent.

 

[Phase2]

I think after the fiasco over the last SCOTUS pick, this one will prove to be less wild. We can only hope that they go after her like meth crazed pit bulls, condemning the Catholic church and conservative mothers in general, maybe senator Harris will have a bad hair day.

There will be a fair amount of that, but likely far more just delaying tactics of all types. If you made a drinking game of the 10 types of delay tactics at the link, I suspect you would be in serious trouble of alcohol poisoning.

 

[OakRiver]

I think after the fiasco over the last SCOTUS pick, this one will prove to be less wild. We can only hope that they go after her like meth crazed pit bulls, condemning the Catholic church and conservative mothers in general, maybe senator Harris will have a bad hair day.

The blue check marks on Twitter have been questioning her fitness as a mother because she has a career, and questioning the adoption of her children from Haiti, and whether they experienced trans-racial bias during the adoption process.

The gentleman who wants to have a government department filled with unelected bureaucrats to strike down any laws passed for not complying with his antiracism dogma was keen to point out, in gneral terms of course, that racist white colonizers often adopt Black children to use as props.

So, just another day of rational opposition to the GOP.

 

[Alpo]

Well the SCOTUS swimsuit calendar will be an improvement. RBG just never looked good in a thong.

 

[Trigger Time]

Democrats have their first star witness ready

 

[KG1]

Democrats have their first star witness ready

 

[KittySlayer]

Democrats have their first star witness ready

The Democratic Trifecta

ROCK ~ Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson endorses Biden/Harris
PAPER ~ NY Times gets Trump's tax returns
SCISSORS ~ Well covering Blasey Ford's face is a step in the right direction

 

[Mikey1911]

Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. It is without question by anyone evaluating objectively that the SCOTUS decision in you-know-who v you-know-who, that created federal law-by-judicial-fiat regarding you-know-what, was terrible jurisprudence and wholly extra-constitutional.

You must be referencing “The Eighth ‘Sacrament’ of Highly Progressive ‘Catholics’ such as Biden and Pelosi.”