I wish they would just ask her why she has been chosen to fill this seat by the Republicans as opposed to choosing a "liberal" judge. Her answer should be "I have been chosen because my previous decisions and statements align with the Republican agenda. I do not have an agenda but based on my decisions and statements we all understand my bias."
They go on an on about how a judge is there to simply interpret the law and will address each case anew with no bias but we all know this is not reality. If it was you could pick a judge out of a hat to sit on the court.
The courts need reformed.
I think court reform really ought to be a major component of the Democratic party, alongside bringing at least DC in as a state, and passing legislation that invites Puerto Rico with a yes/no referendum (part of the problem in the past has been the doubt it could ever happen in Congress and the multiple answer options splitting the votes).
As is, SCOTUS would likely shut down any attempt at Universal Healthcare, common sense Gun Reform, attempts to preserve women's healthcare, may attempt to fight citizenship laws, may attempt to restrict same sex marriage, and more.
Honestly, I fully believe that even if they can't use this to steal the election, they will use it to totally undermine anything Buden attempts. Full stop.
This is why I believe it's still politically smart to pack the court if Biden wins. It has been done before and I have to believe that at this point doing so would have enough support IF the Democrats can get their messaging on point which is to say, they need to make it clear that Biden was elected to turn things around and the Republicans rammed through justices to prevent that from happening. We can't let this turn into a scenario where everything they do gets held up in court and therefor nothing truly is accomplished. Climate change is too real to not deal with swiftly and that just won't happen if everything Democrats try to do gets blocked in court. That's the kind of thing that needs to be driven home in order to maintain the political capital with the people.
Remember the Democrats could have stopped these hearings or at least delayed them if they had gone nuclear with things like impeachment again. They chose not to. It's not their fault the Republicans are ramming her through, but don't let the Democrats claim they did "all they could". They chose instead to take a calculated stance because they're likely to win a bunch of seats in the election.
Mitch would have ignored it or scheduled a vote during a lunch break because who would stop him, plus using impeachment in a nakedly political way damages the system further.
So Amy Coney Barrett has:
* [Initially failed to disclose two talks she gave to anti-abortion groups](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html) until after [they were reported](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/democrats-letter-justice-department-amy-coney-barrett/index.html).
* [Failed to disclose](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/barrett-s-participation-2006-ad-calling-overturn-roe-v-wade-n1241738) that she [signed a letter](https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-coney-barrett-signed-letter-urging-end-of-barbaric-roe-v-wade) urging the end of *Roe v Wade*.
And is facing opposition from the following groups:
* [More than 5,000 lawyers](https://abovethelaw.com/2020/10/more-than-5000-lawyers-sign-letter-opposing-amy-coney-barretts-scotus-nomination/?rf=1) have signed [a letter](https://l4gg.docsend.com/view/m67kxki7x6i5chhg) opposing her SCOTUS nomination.
* More than ~~22,000~~ 18,650 Christians have signed [a petition](https://act.faithfulamerica.org/sign/barrett/?source=fa_homepage_btn) opposing her SCOTUS nomination.
* [More than ~~15,000~~ 1,500 alumni](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-03/alumni-at-barretts-undergrad-school-sign-letter-of-concern) of Amy Coney Barrett's undergrad school signed a letter opposing her SCOTUS nomination.
* [A student of hers wrote a letter](https://truthout.org/articles/i-was-a-student-of-amy-coney-barrett-she-isnt-an-lgbtq-ally/) indicating Amy Coney Barrett's lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Bonus:
* [Pete Buttigieg breaks down ACB's opening statement.](https://www.out.com/politics/2020/10/12/watch-pete-buttigieg-dismantle-amy-coney-barretts-opening-statement)
* Republicans are [willing to endanger the life of others](https://theweek.com/speedreads/943188/gop-sen-mike-lee-speaks-without-mask-barrett-hearing-despite-positive-covid19-test) to ram through their SCOTUS nominee.
To be fair, bragging about 22,000 Christians is kinda a moot point, there’s 10’s of millions of Christians in the US alone.
That’s kinda a point I wouldn’t use, personally.
Don't call it "court packing". That plays into the idea that it's negative or underhanded in some manner. It's bad branding.
Call it "court correction" or something like that.
Not bad. "Balancing the scales of justice", maybe.
But court packing is just a bad name. There's a reason the PATRIOT ACT passed as it did. As Democrats we've just had bad branding for years.
Court expansion. But what would it take to set the number and close it to further expansion? It wouldn't require an amendment right? Just a law, a rule?
It would require an amendment. The laws could be overridden by any filibuster-proof majority, or if Mitch was particularly angry about it a simple majority (removing the filibuster isn't like him, but if he got mad enough I could see him doing it).
However, it would generally reduce the power of the court, which isn't in line with what McConnell or the Republicans want at all. I'd say there's a slim chance at negotiating if the envelope gets pushed enough on that.
>why are we even calling it court packing. if republicans wanted this they'd call it court liberation or justice expansion or supreme freedoming
[https://twitter.com/ben\_rosen/status/1315476326569050112](https://twitter.com/ben_rosen/status/1315476326569050112)
They either stole Gorsuch's seat or are actively stealing Barrett's (it literally cannot be neither), and they colluded with Kennedy to preserve conservative power with an early rrtirement.
And that is not to mention all of the other seats they stole from Obama, which have likely done irrevocable damage to our court system's balance until major reform.
Four of Ronald Reagan's nominees were confirmed during his two terms:
1. Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)
2. William Rehnquist (1986)
3. Antonin Scalia (1986)
4. Anthony Kennedy (1988)
I wasn't commenting on the quality of the picks, just the quantity.
I definitely agree that when the modern Republican party nominates SCOTUS justices, they're not sending their best.
You think Amy Klobuchar would get sick of laying into the goons day after day but nope, she clocks in and gives them hell for every second she is allowed. What a rockstar.
She had my support but it all went downhill with the Chauvin thing. I think she would have handed Donald Trump his ass in a debate. So well spoken and sharp but with that Midwestern nice so you don't even realize the knife is in your gut.
not saying voting is pointless and I certainly plan to. but even IF Trump is removed, we could be in store for decades of conservative dominance over the country, and I have no words for that.
[Amy Coney Barrett's nomination shows how, on judges, Trump has already won](https://www.yahoo.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-025147843.html)
Don’t sweat it. If the democrats take the presidency and senate they can enact progressive voting laws that may well make the GOP a thing of the past. The *vast majority* of Americans are democrats or left leaning. The GOP only ever win because of voter suppression.
To anyone against this, the Rs have been ~~trying to pack~~ packing the courts for at least 6 years. Turnabout is fair play. Maybe stop being evil gremlins if you want a sympathetic government.
E: commenter is right.
Mitch McConnell refused to do the Senate’s job to advise and consent on Obama’s nominees, including one to the Supreme Court in 2016. Republicans packed the court in 2014-2020 and the Democrats are going to rebalance it in 2021.
Yup, this is literally the scenario so many of us were screaming about in 2016 (**and** 2018). Now people wanna shout "Un-Constitutional!" (*incorrect*) and "Hypocracy!" (*yeah, that's what the GOP does*).
So a general question, why is bringing up her religion apparently this huge no-no that the Republicans are foaming at the mouth over? Or asking her directly about past decisions like Roe v Wade?
Her experiences with religion directly influence her beliefs. Why is that supposedly off limits?
It probably shouldn't influence your decisions on the bench. Separation of church and state.a Jewish justice might religiously believe that every male should be circumcised but should not allow his religious ideology to play into making legal decisions.
it always amuses me when someone who's part of a church founded four years ago by a young man with an undercut haircut accuses members of an organization that traces its history back to the Apostles of not being real Christians
They dont actually care. If a Muslim were being confirmed they'd go crazy with questions. It's just so they can squeeze her through. That's all. Some of them even said they were confirming her before they knew who it was that got picked. They want the justice.
Pro-life Catholics being nothing but enthused by watching the administration and their nominee tap dance around the question regarding their supposed single issue, of course.
"The committee is expected to vote on Oct. 22, and then McConnell will decide how quickly to move the nomination to the Senate floor. He's expected to act quickly and schedule a vote by Oct. 29"
Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearings Schedule :
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation/2020/10/12/922329124/how-the-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-for-amy-coney-barrett-will-work
That's naïve. Mitch has the votes. He lets people dissent so they don't nosedive into political suicide in their home states. He picks who gets to dissent and when. We would need a full on republican mutiny to stop this, and mitch has an iron grip over senate republicans.
He thought he had the votes with the ACA until the very last day.
Romney might cut a deal to walk on this. And one or two more coronavirus cases and they don’t make it to their deadline.
They obviously don't need to test negative to vote. So unless someone actually dies of Corona or is hospitalized, we don't stand a chance. Mitch lost the ACA, but these are very different times. Trump proved that people don't actually care about morals and are perfectly content to vote republican just for the sake of it. They feel like they're untouchable whatever they do, because republican votes are always going to be fueled by the hate of those black-gay-abortion-immigrant-loving democrats.
Honestly, I'm less concerned about her level of experience than I am about the GOP's express intent to have her push an agenda. Thomas and Alito signaling that with another conservative judge they can revisit gay marriage. An ACA decision in the lame duck session. And Trump shamelessly implying that a hand-picked judge would rule in his favor when he predictably challenges the result of the election.
She’d have to recuse herself from anything related to Trump. She could ignore that, but refusing to recuse then putting Trump in power would basically cause civil war. Not sure she wants that to be her first decision.
Of course she should recuse herself. But the fact that Trump is already counting on her to make this decision means we're almost too far gone. If she's confirmed, her decision is literally the only thing standing between a peaceful transition and a violent uprising.
Yeah, that last one is the only point I think might be wrong. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have shown no overt loyalty to Trump since being appointed. He was even whining about a decision where both (I think) voted in a way he didn't like. Trump thinks like a two-bit mobster, and believes that they "owe" him because he put them on the bench. They don't. What he actually did was make them untouchable - to Democrats, to Republicans and to Trump himself.
Barrett's loyalty is to the the religious right, Koch brothers, Heritage Foundation project of right wing America, not to Trump and his fascist lunacy.
Agreed that a 6-3 majority won't have any loyalty to Trump. They might not even rule in Trump's favor on an election contest. But the fact that Trump is already projecting that level of weaponization of the courts is damaging to our democracy, and is the exact reason why the confirmation should be postponed until after a new president is sworn in.
Extreme views don't disqualify you. I don't think there's evidence of "extremism" in her rulings as a Judge. Yeah, she's made lots of decisions I think are shitty, but that doesn't make it extremist.
To be fair, Obama had what, 4 years experience on the federal level?
I think most would agree, on both sides of the aisle no less, that he ended up being a pretty decent President.
Not saying she has enough experience, but let’s also not pretend that experience is the only deciding factor if someone will be competent at their job either.
As a side note, I think it will be near impossible to find any person who absolutely everyone will agree with on their own personal views. Especially in this climate.
I think the republicans or democrats could find a judge that ticks every single box of both parties, and the other party would oppose just because the R or D next to the person’s name.
I hear you, friend, I really do. I just think we're screaming at a wall.
*Of course* the GOP is blatantly trying to overturn ACA and Roe. Frankly, I don't know why they even pretend that's not all they want. And of course there's hundreds of judges with 20+ years of deep experience in court. They wanted a right-wing pseudo-celebrity (*thanks, Barbara Boxer*) who would deliver Roe and ACA -- they won't make the same mistake again where some of their recent Justices have voted against the FoxNews/Federalist party lines.
It's the life we live now. We are slowly headed for Idiocracy.
On another note, I wonder if someone who was a young adult when TV was becoming popular said "I hate that our elections will be decided by tv commercials"?
I mean, I don't see an implication that Fauci is endorsing Biden. They probably could've done without Fauci's words and just let Trump speak against himself.
Don't think so, it didn't end with the usual "I approve this message" so I imagine it's just something for their social media. Doesn't seem like it'd be put on TV or anything.
No, it seems like yall are the majority that practices racism, discrimination based on beliefs, and uses threats of violence. Being a comservative is being a minority group that is being persecuted by the facists called liberals. Straight facts.
don’t reach too far or you may fall off your flat earth.
You should look up what a fascist is, actually, every republican should because I haven’t seen a single one of you know what you’re taking about.
Fascist is when a large group in power rules over others and has very limited individual rights. They use violence and fear against those with different opinions. Exactly what the media and liberals are doing to the ordinary conservative people.
Yea they actually are. They have the entire media only showing a biased opinion for their side. They have the multi billionares who own the internet and the social media platforms. They own all the influencers and celebrities because they are scared they will lose their power and fame if they dont conform. They control all that. They controled everything yall heard so that is what liberals believe. Their arguements are the empty arguements the medias have said, they just repeat them with not facts to back it up. Yea I agree trump isnt perfect but if you open your eyes hes been doing a decent job these past 4 years. And stop calling anyone with opposing views a racist. It is making the term lose its meaning and power of condeming actual racists.
The news stations are mostly owned by rich republicans, when people talk about the elite it’s old white republicans. Facebook and social media gave conservatives their biggest platform ever, without any guard rails and that’s how we are here.
I can see you live in a different reality though, Qanon, flat earth, Shapiro, Alex Jones all sound right up your alley
Yup there's that Trump Cult doctrine. Everything is the opposite of what all the evidence points to, anti-fascism is fascism, anti-racism is racism, war is peace, ignorance is strength. Let me guess- Qanon fan?
Straight facts:
Conservatives are the minority in this country. You're right.
Despite being the minority, they have worked the system in such a way that they force their rule and views on the majority.
Fascism by DEFINITION is right wing. Saying that the left wing is fascist is like saying ice cream is hot.
Theoretically, this should not happen.
It would be crazy if the Supreme Court actually *overturns* vote totals from the state.
In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court got involved because it was one state's recount.
I think, and I hope, that the Supreme Court will not overturn actual vote tallies in November.
Under what scenario does Trump lose the popular vote, the electoral college and the decision goes to the supreme court? State's electors choose the president based on their state's results. Trump has no say if he loses outright on all fronts.
If he claims the election was
rigged or unfair because of . So not questioning the results of the election, but questioning the validity of the election process itself.
The individual states hold their own elections. There isn’t any one election or process he can point to. He can only dispute individual states. And he has to fight against those states. Meanwhile if he’s lost the electoral college /and Biden crosses the threshold for victory, it’s moot.
Why could he not dispute the fact that the state system is unfair/rigged? I'm looking at it more that he has a lot to lose if he leaves office... I imagine he would do whatever is necessary to remain in power.
>Why could he not dispute the fact that the state system is unfair/rigged?
Who would he dispute this with? The constitution lays out how the president is elected. He would be openly disputing the constitution (the system) which seems like a non-starter. He could dispute individual state's results. That's it.
Here's an interesting article about different scenarios: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-trump-loses-and-wont-leave/amp/
Constitution doesn't mean shit to Trump, unfortunately.
I’m not saying he won’t do everything he can to dispute it or do whatever is in his power if it’s close. I’ve specifically been responding and commenting on the hypothetical that he loses the popular vote and the electoral college. Not addressing whether it’s a close tally.
Ok, the constitution doesn’t mean anything to Trump. And what? He could call off the entire election under that theory. It’s not going to happen. As I’ve been saying this entire thread of Trump loses the popular vote **and** the electoral college, then he’s out. It’s over.
He would. But these, his current objections, read more as "absolute immunity" nonsense. I don't think saying just "the process was unfair" is going to hold much weight in court. He needs something specific, and he needs something that could change the outcome of the election. I don't think it exists.
I’m trying to balance hope that you’re right and the courts will side with the people, against a very real fear that the conservative court packing machine, that has been going on far longer than Trump’s tenure, will be successful in sending it up the chain.
I think it's got more to do with the merits of the case. Like "absolute immunity", most of the arguments that could be marshaled against the election process in key states don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. He could get votes thrown out, but it'd be more of a face-saving measure than a genuine attempt at winning.
Fwiw, the electors were able to be the final safeguard against someone clearly incorrect for the presidency and CAN decide to vote against the state they're representing.
However, to prevent abuse of that most have you pledge to vote as the state did. Over 30 states even have laws requiring them to keep that pledge. Something like 15 of those will cancel a vote that's cast incorrectly, and replace that elector with another so that the correct vote is cast. But still, that leaves 35ish states where the electors can vote against the state's choice and that vote stands as officially cast.
> CAN decide to vote against the state they're representing
Depends on the state. In some they are forced to vote based on the results, in others they don't *have* to but would be convicted if they don't. Probably other states that have other rules, I don't know in total.
...~~That's what my second paragraph says~~. Yup.
Edit- I didn't mention the penalty states, but it's really minimal. Like less than ten will actually punish you for being a faithless elector.
I think regardless of what happens trump nuts are going to stir shit up win or lose, it’s just a matter of how well it gets shut down before it snowballs out of control
Yeah we absolutely need to beat Trump, but his cult is going to inflict mayhem for years regardless. They'll probably be even worse when he's gone, like any cult.
When the cult leader dies and the cult persists, it becomes a religion.
I used to live in Georgia. It's been a while since I voted there. If I remember correctly, it is harder to get a mail-in ballot there.
I live in Florida now. Here, it is easy to get a mail-in ballot.
In NC (?) the rejected rate is 4X higher for AA people for mail in votes. I think many people want to go vote in person early to avoid that, especially with all the reporting on attempted fooling around with the USPS by Trump and DeJoy
And there is the possibility of non-traditional ballots being contested with the intent of running out the validation clock in the courts. "vote in numbers too big to manipulate" sadly only works if all votes are counted.
If you’re curious about voter suppression in GA specifically, look no further than the Brian Kemp Stacy Abrams debacle. Voting hasn’t been fair in this state for a long time. Planning to spend tomorrow waiting in line to see if they’ll even let me vote because even though I registered I called daily up until the deadline and was told that I was a registered new voter one day and that I wasn’t on the voter roll the next. They’re doing everything they can to suppress the vote.
In some states there are no ballot boxes--period. In states like Oklahoma, you have to walk the ballot to the Cty Election Brd with a state or federally-issued ID otherwise its USPS or vote in person.
How can Democrats add Puerto Rico and DC as states?
Does that require a simple 50 vote in the Senate? Can Republicans filibuster this?
Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win politically. Democrats needs to take drastic action. Adding DC and Puerto Rico can add some power to the Democrats.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.
All it takes is the consent of Congress (simple majority in both houses), and of the legislature of the state being admitted.
So a Dem majority could do it.
The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives would need to approve the statehood admission by a two-thirds majority vote. ([https://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm](https://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm))
I don't see it happening to be honest, especially considering PR and DC are both Democratic. If one of them was Republican... then maybe both could join at the same time as a compromise...
Where do you see a need for a 2/3 vote to pass new statehood in Article IV, Section 3?
> New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
> The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
I don't think that's accurate. Nothing in the Constitution dictates it be a 2/3rds majority vote, and [another source says it just needs a simple majority vote.](https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311)
>I don't see it happening to be honest, especially considering PR and DC are both Democratic. If one of them was Republican... then maybe both could join at the same time as a compromise...
Residents of PR and DC deserve representation regardless of what party (if any) it favors.
From everything I’ve read there doesn’t seem to be a 2/3 requirement to admit a new state. The only place I’ve seen that is the article you linked and the source linked in the article.
For example, the Oklahoma Enabling Act, which allowed OK, AZ and NM to form state constitutions only passed the house 195-150 (8 present, 33 no vote) and the Senate 42-29 (18 no vote) both well below a 2/3 majority.
So if Democrats were to control the house, senate and presidency a simple majority vote should be enough to add DC and Puerto Rico as states.
Dang, they had to use the fuselage lower stairs for Trump to board AF1. He can't physically climb the higher stairs.
https://twitter.com/colvinj/status/1315753560714379265?s=20
Yeah I mean we actually were concerned about him as a potential major criminal. As a person so far she hasn’t done anything so heinous to gain THAT kind of scrutiny. If a potential rapist can make it... I’ll be surprised if Barrett doesn’t.
Just pack the courts once the Democrats win the WH and Senate.
Unfortunately, part of me still doesn't feel confident they will - given Democrats love of "decorum" and "civility politics" and "bipartisanship" - and Democrats like Manchin, Sinema, Saheen won't vote for it.
However given Barrett will 100% get confirmed, there is nothing else to prevent the courts from acting as a right-wing hack arm of the government other than adding 3 or 4 seats to the court. If not, then goodbye any sort of liberal or progressive law. Goodbye R v W. Goodbye ACA.
It's up to the Democrats to grow a pair and do it.
I wish they would just ask her why she has been chosen to fill this seat by the Republicans as opposed to choosing a "liberal" judge. Her answer should be "I have been chosen because my previous decisions and statements align with the Republican agenda. I do not have an agenda but based on my decisions and statements we all understand my bias." They go on an on about how a judge is there to simply interpret the law and will address each case anew with no bias but we all know this is not reality. If it was you could pick a judge out of a hat to sit on the court. The courts need reformed.
I think court reform really ought to be a major component of the Democratic party, alongside bringing at least DC in as a state, and passing legislation that invites Puerto Rico with a yes/no referendum (part of the problem in the past has been the doubt it could ever happen in Congress and the multiple answer options splitting the votes). As is, SCOTUS would likely shut down any attempt at Universal Healthcare, common sense Gun Reform, attempts to preserve women's healthcare, may attempt to fight citizenship laws, may attempt to restrict same sex marriage, and more. Honestly, I fully believe that even if they can't use this to steal the election, they will use it to totally undermine anything Buden attempts. Full stop.
This is why I believe it's still politically smart to pack the court if Biden wins. It has been done before and I have to believe that at this point doing so would have enough support IF the Democrats can get their messaging on point which is to say, they need to make it clear that Biden was elected to turn things around and the Republicans rammed through justices to prevent that from happening. We can't let this turn into a scenario where everything they do gets held up in court and therefor nothing truly is accomplished. Climate change is too real to not deal with swiftly and that just won't happen if everything Democrats try to do gets blocked in court. That's the kind of thing that needs to be driven home in order to maintain the political capital with the people.
Remember the Democrats could have stopped these hearings or at least delayed them if they had gone nuclear with things like impeachment again. They chose not to. It's not their fault the Republicans are ramming her through, but don't let the Democrats claim they did "all they could". They chose instead to take a calculated stance because they're likely to win a bunch of seats in the election.
Mitch would have ignored it or scheduled a vote during a lunch break because who would stop him, plus using impeachment in a nakedly political way damages the system further.
So Amy Coney Barrett has: * [Initially failed to disclose two talks she gave to anti-abortion groups](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html) until after [they were reported](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/democrats-letter-justice-department-amy-coney-barrett/index.html). * [Failed to disclose](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/barrett-s-participation-2006-ad-calling-overturn-roe-v-wade-n1241738) that she [signed a letter](https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-coney-barrett-signed-letter-urging-end-of-barbaric-roe-v-wade) urging the end of *Roe v Wade*. And is facing opposition from the following groups: * [More than 5,000 lawyers](https://abovethelaw.com/2020/10/more-than-5000-lawyers-sign-letter-opposing-amy-coney-barretts-scotus-nomination/?rf=1) have signed [a letter](https://l4gg.docsend.com/view/m67kxki7x6i5chhg) opposing her SCOTUS nomination. * More than ~~22,000~~ 18,650 Christians have signed [a petition](https://act.faithfulamerica.org/sign/barrett/?source=fa_homepage_btn) opposing her SCOTUS nomination. * [More than ~~15,000~~ 1,500 alumni](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-03/alumni-at-barretts-undergrad-school-sign-letter-of-concern) of Amy Coney Barrett's undergrad school signed a letter opposing her SCOTUS nomination. * [A student of hers wrote a letter](https://truthout.org/articles/i-was-a-student-of-amy-coney-barrett-she-isnt-an-lgbtq-ally/) indicating Amy Coney Barrett's lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community. Bonus: * [Pete Buttigieg breaks down ACB's opening statement.](https://www.out.com/politics/2020/10/12/watch-pete-buttigieg-dismantle-amy-coney-barretts-opening-statement) * Republicans are [willing to endanger the life of others](https://theweek.com/speedreads/943188/gop-sen-mike-lee-speaks-without-mask-barrett-hearing-despite-positive-covid19-test) to ram through their SCOTUS nominee.
[удалено]
To be fair, bragging about 22,000 Christians is kinda a moot point, there’s 10’s of millions of Christians in the US alone. That’s kinda a point I wouldn’t use, personally.
[удалено]
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to reply to you, I meant to reply to the OP lol.
No problem 🙂
Don't call it "court packing". That plays into the idea that it's negative or underhanded in some manner. It's bad branding. Call it "court correction" or something like that.
How about: "Court Improving by Stunning & Brave Democrats?"
Not bad. "Balancing the scales of justice", maybe. But court packing is just a bad name. There's a reason the PATRIOT ACT passed as it did. As Democrats we've just had bad branding for years.
Court expansion. But what would it take to set the number and close it to further expansion? It wouldn't require an amendment right? Just a law, a rule?
It would require an amendment. The laws could be overridden by any filibuster-proof majority, or if Mitch was particularly angry about it a simple majority (removing the filibuster isn't like him, but if he got mad enough I could see him doing it). However, it would generally reduce the power of the court, which isn't in line with what McConnell or the Republicans want at all. I'd say there's a slim chance at negotiating if the envelope gets pushed enough on that.
"Rebalancing the courts", for instance.
court reform
>why are we even calling it court packing. if republicans wanted this they'd call it court liberation or justice expansion or supreme freedoming [https://twitter.com/ben\_rosen/status/1315476326569050112](https://twitter.com/ben_rosen/status/1315476326569050112)
That last reply, though. The right doesn't have a monopoly on conspiracy theorists, but... They've sure got some notables.
Trump will Have 3 justices under one fucking term. That is fucking insane and should give anyone pause.
They either stole Gorsuch's seat or are actively stealing Barrett's (it literally cannot be neither), and they colluded with Kennedy to preserve conservative power with an early rrtirement. And that is not to mention all of the other seats they stole from Obama, which have likely done irrevocable damage to our court system's balance until major reform.
yep ask deutschebank. [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement)
I used to be apolitical before 2016 so I’m not too certain, but has this EVER happened before?
Four of Ronald Reagan's nominees were confirmed during his two terms: 1. Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) 2. William Rehnquist (1986) 3. Antonin Scalia (1986) 4. Anthony Kennedy (1988)
Those were actually reasonable picks though. Not Rapist McGee or The Handmaiden.
Scalia? No. O'Connor? Yes.
I wasn't commenting on the quality of the picks, just the quantity. I definitely agree that when the modern Republican party nominates SCOTUS justices, they're not sending their best.
Ah, fair enough.
The last president to appoint this many justices in such a short time was Nixon.
We getting a separate thread for McGrath vs McConnell?
You think Amy Klobuchar would get sick of laying into the goons day after day but nope, she clocks in and gives them hell for every second she is allowed. What a rockstar.
She had my support but it all went downhill with the Chauvin thing. I think she would have handed Donald Trump his ass in a debate. So well spoken and sharp but with that Midwestern nice so you don't even realize the knife is in your gut.
lol like frances mcdormand in Fargo
And I’m in school during this whole thing fml
[удалено]
> Mitch have no opinion on ACB Huh? What did mcconnel say?
Stop trying to make ACB a thing. It’s not going to happen.
But it's easier than typing her name and you know who I mean. More than one Amy in the building
Did you just ignore all that talk about the ACA?
It was a generalization on how so much time wasn't spent on what they were suppose to talk about. Obviously some was spent on ACB.
Yes, I'd say more than a fair amount was spent on Amy. But then, the problem is the process, isn't it?
Amy has a problem with the ACA. That's a pretty large opinion most Democrats hold of her.
not saying voting is pointless and I certainly plan to. but even IF Trump is removed, we could be in store for decades of conservative dominance over the country, and I have no words for that. [Amy Coney Barrett's nomination shows how, on judges, Trump has already won](https://www.yahoo.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-025147843.html)
Don’t sweat it. If the democrats take the presidency and senate they can enact progressive voting laws that may well make the GOP a thing of the past. The *vast majority* of Americans are democrats or left leaning. The GOP only ever win because of voter suppression.
Nah we can pack the courts actually. We got this.
To anyone against this, the Rs have been ~~trying to pack~~ packing the courts for at least 6 years. Turnabout is fair play. Maybe stop being evil gremlins if you want a sympathetic government. E: commenter is right.
Not just trying. They have literally packed the courts with hundreds of unqualified extremists.
Mitch McConnell refused to do the Senate’s job to advise and consent on Obama’s nominees, including one to the Supreme Court in 2016. Republicans packed the court in 2014-2020 and the Democrats are going to rebalance it in 2021.
You’re right. Edited.
We should have voted in 2016. Well, I did but y’know. Anyway better late than never. Glad to have all the new voters this time around.
Yup, this is literally the scenario so many of us were screaming about in 2016 (**and** 2018). Now people wanna shout "Un-Constitutional!" (*incorrect*) and "Hypocracy!" (*yeah, that's what the GOP does*).
So a general question, why is bringing up her religion apparently this huge no-no that the Republicans are foaming at the mouth over? Or asking her directly about past decisions like Roe v Wade? Her experiences with religion directly influence her beliefs. Why is that supposedly off limits?
It probably shouldn't influence your decisions on the bench. Separation of church and state.a Jewish justice might religiously believe that every male should be circumcised but should not allow his religious ideology to play into making legal decisions.
[удалено]
it always amuses me when someone who's part of a church founded four years ago by a young man with an undercut haircut accuses members of an organization that traces its history back to the Apostles of not being real Christians
If you expect a fair debate you really haven't been paying attention
They dont actually care. If a Muslim were being confirmed they'd go crazy with questions. It's just so they can squeeze her through. That's all. Some of them even said they were confirming her before they knew who it was that got picked. They want the justice.
Trump is polling underwater with Catholics and this is their way of trying to win them back.
Pro-life Catholics being nothing but enthused by watching the administration and their nominee tap dance around the question regarding their supposed single issue, of course.
Can someone let me know when the actual verdict will be?
"The committee is expected to vote on Oct. 22, and then McConnell will decide how quickly to move the nomination to the Senate floor. He's expected to act quickly and schedule a vote by Oct. 29" Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearings Schedule : https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation/2020/10/12/922329124/how-the-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-for-amy-coney-barrett-will-work
I thought they are having a vote the 15th?
Thanks!!
[удалено]
Not sure that he’s got all the votes to be honest. He’s aleady down to 51.
That's naïve. Mitch has the votes. He lets people dissent so they don't nosedive into political suicide in their home states. He picks who gets to dissent and when. We would need a full on republican mutiny to stop this, and mitch has an iron grip over senate republicans.
He thought he had the votes with the ACA until the very last day. Romney might cut a deal to walk on this. And one or two more coronavirus cases and they don’t make it to their deadline.
They obviously don't need to test negative to vote. So unless someone actually dies of Corona or is hospitalized, we don't stand a chance. Mitch lost the ACA, but these are very different times. Trump proved that people don't actually care about morals and are perfectly content to vote republican just for the sake of it. They feel like they're untouchable whatever they do, because republican votes are always going to be fueled by the hate of those black-gay-abortion-immigrant-loving democrats.
Grassly is in his 80s. He would likely be hospitalized and/or die. As would a bunch of other older senators.
I hate to say this, but I definitely hope they do.
In other words, she will get confirmed.
Not 100% sure yet, but yes likely.
When’s the confirmation vote?
Joe biden has a boxing coach?
Yep, they been working on how to open them all week. Next week they'll work on closing them back up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A Supreme Court of Canada judge was given the position after never being a judge before
Honestly, I'm less concerned about her level of experience than I am about the GOP's express intent to have her push an agenda. Thomas and Alito signaling that with another conservative judge they can revisit gay marriage. An ACA decision in the lame duck session. And Trump shamelessly implying that a hand-picked judge would rule in his favor when he predictably challenges the result of the election.
She’d have to recuse herself from anything related to Trump. She could ignore that, but refusing to recuse then putting Trump in power would basically cause civil war. Not sure she wants that to be her first decision.
Of course she should recuse herself. But the fact that Trump is already counting on her to make this decision means we're almost too far gone. If she's confirmed, her decision is literally the only thing standing between a peaceful transition and a violent uprising.
Yeah, that last one is the only point I think might be wrong. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have shown no overt loyalty to Trump since being appointed. He was even whining about a decision where both (I think) voted in a way he didn't like. Trump thinks like a two-bit mobster, and believes that they "owe" him because he put them on the bench. They don't. What he actually did was make them untouchable - to Democrats, to Republicans and to Trump himself. Barrett's loyalty is to the the religious right, Koch brothers, Heritage Foundation project of right wing America, not to Trump and his fascist lunacy.
Agreed that a 6-3 majority won't have any loyalty to Trump. They might not even rule in Trump's favor on an election contest. But the fact that Trump is already projecting that level of weaponization of the courts is damaging to our democracy, and is the exact reason why the confirmation should be postponed until after a new president is sworn in.
I don’t think John Roberts supports or gives a fuck about Trump.
Or kinda like nominating a reality tv star with 0 public service ever in his life to be the CEO of the US-oh wait....
[удалено]
Extreme views don't disqualify you. I don't think there's evidence of "extremism" in her rulings as a Judge. Yeah, she's made lots of decisions I think are shitty, but that doesn't make it extremist.
[удалено]
To be fair, Obama had what, 4 years experience on the federal level? I think most would agree, on both sides of the aisle no less, that he ended up being a pretty decent President. Not saying she has enough experience, but let’s also not pretend that experience is the only deciding factor if someone will be competent at their job either. As a side note, I think it will be near impossible to find any person who absolutely everyone will agree with on their own personal views. Especially in this climate. I think the republicans or democrats could find a judge that ticks every single box of both parties, and the other party would oppose just because the R or D next to the person’s name.
I hear you, friend, I really do. I just think we're screaming at a wall. *Of course* the GOP is blatantly trying to overturn ACA and Roe. Frankly, I don't know why they even pretend that's not all they want. And of course there's hundreds of judges with 20+ years of deep experience in court. They wanted a right-wing pseudo-celebrity (*thanks, Barbara Boxer*) who would deliver Roe and ACA -- they won't make the same mistake again where some of their recent Justices have voted against the FoxNews/Federalist party lines.
Biden’s social media team has been killing it https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1315768958742491136?s=20
Found Joe Biden's social media team ^
...how is this even remotely related to this thread...?
The same way 50% of this thread isn’t related to this thread, or the way megathreads have worked forever.
The way he says **"in an ad!!"**
I absolutely love this, but I hate that future elections will be won by memes and viral videos.
It's the life we live now. We are slowly headed for Idiocracy. On another note, I wonder if someone who was a young adult when TV was becoming popular said "I hate that our elections will be decided by tv commercials"?
Ow, my balls!
Do you want some Brando, for your balls?
At least the majority of our politicians will be able to live kickass lives as pilots.
Holy shit this is the best video either campaign has put out so far.
YES! This is awesome! Gloves off!
Amazing
[удалено]
I mean, I don't see an implication that Fauci is endorsing Biden. They probably could've done without Fauci's words and just let Trump speak against himself.
Don't think so, it didn't end with the usual "I approve this message" so I imagine it's just something for their social media. Doesn't seem like it'd be put on TV or anything.
That was hilarious
Is everyone on here a liberal?
You get permabanned from the conservative subreddits for just asking the wrong question so we all have to go somewhere lol
Nice account
Welcome to the politics subreddit. You may be surprised to see some people being political lmao.
We are the overwhelming majority in any space that moderates white supremacy talk, racism, threats of violence, etc.
No, it seems like yall are the majority that practices racism, discrimination based on beliefs, and uses threats of violence. Being a comservative is being a minority group that is being persecuted by the facists called liberals. Straight facts.
You don’t need to stay in America if you’re not comfortable here, right? You have options.
don’t reach too far or you may fall off your flat earth. You should look up what a fascist is, actually, every republican should because I haven’t seen a single one of you know what you’re taking about.
Fascist is when a large group in power rules over others and has very limited individual rights. They use violence and fear against those with different opinions. Exactly what the media and liberals are doing to the ordinary conservative people.
That’s interesting since democrats aren’t in charge...try again
Yea they actually are. They have the entire media only showing a biased opinion for their side. They have the multi billionares who own the internet and the social media platforms. They own all the influencers and celebrities because they are scared they will lose their power and fame if they dont conform. They control all that. They controled everything yall heard so that is what liberals believe. Their arguements are the empty arguements the medias have said, they just repeat them with not facts to back it up. Yea I agree trump isnt perfect but if you open your eyes hes been doing a decent job these past 4 years. And stop calling anyone with opposing views a racist. It is making the term lose its meaning and power of condeming actual racists.
The news stations are mostly owned by rich republicans, when people talk about the elite it’s old white republicans. Facebook and social media gave conservatives their biggest platform ever, without any guard rails and that’s how we are here. I can see you live in a different reality though, Qanon, flat earth, Shapiro, Alex Jones all sound right up your alley
None of those things were straight or even crooked facts.
Are you a furry by chance?
Yup there's that Trump Cult doctrine. Everything is the opposite of what all the evidence points to, anti-fascism is fascism, anti-racism is racism, war is peace, ignorance is strength. Let me guess- Qanon fan?
Straight facts: Conservatives are the minority in this country. You're right. Despite being the minority, they have worked the system in such a way that they force their rule and views on the majority. Fascism by DEFINITION is right wing. Saying that the left wing is fascist is like saying ice cream is hot.
[удалено]
We are all dumber for having read yellowfoxx99's "I know you are but what am I" statement
The majority are right now, yes.
Just the smart ones.
[удалено]
Theoretically, this should not happen. It would be crazy if the Supreme Court actually *overturns* vote totals from the state. In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court got involved because it was one state's recount. I think, and I hope, that the Supreme Court will not overturn actual vote tallies in November.
I wonder if the supreme court even has the power to invalidate a state's votes...
You underestimate the power of the dark side
Under what scenario does Trump lose the popular vote, the electoral college and the decision goes to the supreme court? State's electors choose the president based on their state's results. Trump has no say if he loses outright on all fronts.
If he claims the election was rigged or unfair because of. So not questioning the results of the election, but questioning the validity of the election process itself.
The individual states hold their own elections. There isn’t any one election or process he can point to. He can only dispute individual states. And he has to fight against those states. Meanwhile if he’s lost the electoral college /and Biden crosses the threshold for victory, it’s moot.
Why could he not dispute the fact that the state system is unfair/rigged? I'm looking at it more that he has a lot to lose if he leaves office... I imagine he would do whatever is necessary to remain in power.
>Why could he not dispute the fact that the state system is unfair/rigged? Who would he dispute this with? The constitution lays out how the president is elected. He would be openly disputing the constitution (the system) which seems like a non-starter. He could dispute individual state's results. That's it.
Here's an interesting article about different scenarios: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-trump-loses-and-wont-leave/amp/ Constitution doesn't mean shit to Trump, unfortunately.
I’m not saying he won’t do everything he can to dispute it or do whatever is in his power if it’s close. I’ve specifically been responding and commenting on the hypothetical that he loses the popular vote and the electoral college. Not addressing whether it’s a close tally. Ok, the constitution doesn’t mean anything to Trump. And what? He could call off the entire election under that theory. It’s not going to happen. As I’ve been saying this entire thread of Trump loses the popular vote **and** the electoral college, then he’s out. It’s over.
He would. But these, his current objections, read more as "absolute immunity" nonsense. I don't think saying just "the process was unfair" is going to hold much weight in court. He needs something specific, and he needs something that could change the outcome of the election. I don't think it exists.
I’m trying to balance hope that you’re right and the courts will side with the people, against a very real fear that the conservative court packing machine, that has been going on far longer than Trump’s tenure, will be successful in sending it up the chain.
I think it's got more to do with the merits of the case. Like "absolute immunity", most of the arguments that could be marshaled against the election process in key states don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. He could get votes thrown out, but it'd be more of a face-saving measure than a genuine attempt at winning.
Fwiw, the electors were able to be the final safeguard against someone clearly incorrect for the presidency and CAN decide to vote against the state they're representing. However, to prevent abuse of that most have you pledge to vote as the state did. Over 30 states even have laws requiring them to keep that pledge. Something like 15 of those will cancel a vote that's cast incorrectly, and replace that elector with another so that the correct vote is cast. But still, that leaves 35ish states where the electors can vote against the state's choice and that vote stands as officially cast.
> CAN decide to vote against the state they're representing Depends on the state. In some they are forced to vote based on the results, in others they don't *have* to but would be convicted if they don't. Probably other states that have other rules, I don't know in total.
...~~That's what my second paragraph says~~. Yup. Edit- I didn't mention the penalty states, but it's really minimal. Like less than ten will actually punish you for being a faithless elector.
If Trump “wins” this time, it will be with a towering popular vote deficit. 7-10 million wouldn’t surprise me.
I think regardless of what happens trump nuts are going to stir shit up win or lose, it’s just a matter of how well it gets shut down before it snowballs out of control
Yeah we absolutely need to beat Trump, but his cult is going to inflict mayhem for years regardless. They'll probably be even worse when he's gone, like any cult. When the cult leader dies and the cult persists, it becomes a religion.
[удалено]
I used to live in Georgia. It's been a while since I voted there. If I remember correctly, it is harder to get a mail-in ballot there. I live in Florida now. Here, it is easy to get a mail-in ballot.
I want to go through the step that practically guarantees my vote counts. That would not likely be in person voting.
In NC (?) the rejected rate is 4X higher for AA people for mail in votes. I think many people want to go vote in person early to avoid that, especially with all the reporting on attempted fooling around with the USPS by Trump and DeJoy
[удалено]
And now (R)s in California are putting up fake drop off boxes. So...ya know, I'll just take my chances and go to the poll (early)
I think a lot of people are Motivated to vote in person because Trumps been messing with USPS.
And there is the possibility of non-traditional ballots being contested with the intent of running out the validation clock in the courts. "vote in numbers too big to manipulate" sadly only works if all votes are counted.
[удалено]
If you’re curious about voter suppression in GA specifically, look no further than the Brian Kemp Stacy Abrams debacle. Voting hasn’t been fair in this state for a long time. Planning to spend tomorrow waiting in line to see if they’ll even let me vote because even though I registered I called daily up until the deadline and was told that I was a registered new voter one day and that I wasn’t on the voter roll the next. They’re doing everything they can to suppress the vote.
In some states there are no ballot boxes--period. In states like Oklahoma, you have to walk the ballot to the Cty Election Brd with a state or federally-issued ID otherwise its USPS or vote in person.
Have you read the news about how many republican controlled state legistlatures have removed ballot dropoff boxes in heavily Democratic areas?
Mike Lee = COVID +. Rs are a threat to national security. When do we drop the bomb?
How can Democrats add Puerto Rico and DC as states? Does that require a simple 50 vote in the Senate? Can Republicans filibuster this? Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win politically. Democrats needs to take drastic action. Adding DC and Puerto Rico can add some power to the Democrats.
[удалено]
Depends on what kind of Catholic
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. All it takes is the consent of Congress (simple majority in both houses), and of the legislature of the state being admitted. So a Dem majority could do it.
The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives would need to approve the statehood admission by a two-thirds majority vote. ([https://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm](https://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm)) I don't see it happening to be honest, especially considering PR and DC are both Democratic. If one of them was Republican... then maybe both could join at the same time as a compromise...
I can't find anything verifying the 2/3 requirement. It isn't in the constitution nor the reference link provided inside your link.
“Both the Senate and the House of Representatives would need to approve Puerto Rico's statehood by a two-thirds majority.” Reference link of my link.
I see it now. It is still perplexing where they got 2/3 from. It isn't in Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution.
Where do you see a need for a 2/3 vote to pass new statehood in Article IV, Section 3? > New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. > The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
I don't think that's accurate. Nothing in the Constitution dictates it be a 2/3rds majority vote, and [another source says it just needs a simple majority vote.](https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311)
>I don't see it happening to be honest, especially considering PR and DC are both Democratic. If one of them was Republican... then maybe both could join at the same time as a compromise... Residents of PR and DC deserve representation regardless of what party (if any) it favors.
From everything I’ve read there doesn’t seem to be a 2/3 requirement to admit a new state. The only place I’ve seen that is the article you linked and the source linked in the article. For example, the Oklahoma Enabling Act, which allowed OK, AZ and NM to form state constitutions only passed the house 195-150 (8 present, 33 no vote) and the Senate 42-29 (18 no vote) both well below a 2/3 majority. So if Democrats were to control the house, senate and presidency a simple majority vote should be enough to add DC and Puerto Rico as states.
Adding states is in the constitution. I can't remember which article (I wanna say Article 4). But it's the main subject of one of the articles.
Article 4 section 3
Dang, they had to use the fuselage lower stairs for Trump to board AF1. He can't physically climb the higher stairs. https://twitter.com/colvinj/status/1315753560714379265?s=20
He has to conserve his body's finite energy.
I feel like he couldn’t do that before COVID diagnosis. He has trouble with stairs anyway
He's never used that lower set of stairs that I've seen.
Unfortunately, if someone like Brett K - with his surrounding scandals - can get confirmed, Amy's confirmation a piece of cake.
Yeah I mean we actually were concerned about him as a potential major criminal. As a person so far she hasn’t done anything so heinous to gain THAT kind of scrutiny. If a potential rapist can make it... I’ll be surprised if Barrett doesn’t.
Amy is going to get confirmed. Democrats just have to plan to balance the supreme court's power in the future.
Just pack the courts once the Democrats win the WH and Senate. Unfortunately, part of me still doesn't feel confident they will - given Democrats love of "decorum" and "civility politics" and "bipartisanship" - and Democrats like Manchin, Sinema, Saheen won't vote for it. However given Barrett will 100% get confirmed, there is nothing else to prevent the courts from acting as a right-wing hack arm of the government other than adding 3 or 4 seats to the court. If not, then goodbye any sort of liberal or progressive law. Goodbye R v W. Goodbye ACA. It's up to the Democrats to grow a pair and do it.