ACB Confirmed.

The New York Times ✓
Twitter › nytimes

Breaking News: Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court
by a divided Senate, a vote that promised to reshape the court for years to come.

25 minutes ago
 
I'll just repost my original comment here (though I was wrong about them being reluctant to do this before the election) ...



If the Republicans ram through a nomination now (unlikely) or during the lame duck after Trump loses (very likely), I suspect a lot of Americans are going to become very surprised to learn that the Constitution doesn't say you can only have 9 justices at a time.
 
They will be known as Trump’s Dozen

Like a Baker’s dozen

Twelve on a jury plus some extras works across America in all the small courts

“Let It Be”
 
Aaron Rupar ✓
Twitter › atrupar

Trump paid lip service to RBG's legacy while officially disrespecting her final request:
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

1 hour ago
 
In strange move Clarence Thomas – not Chief Justice Roberts – to administer oath to Amy Coney Barrett

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not officiate the swearing in of soon-to-be confirmed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Monday night. Instead, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife is a close Trump ally, will do the honors.

Did Roberts refuse to seat an unqualified upstart political toady on the Court? Did they have to find an Uncle Thomas to do it?:eek:
 
Did Roberts refuse to seat an unqualified upstart political toady on the Court? Did they have to find an Uncle Thomas to do it?:eek:

I wouldn't be shocked if it was Barrett's own request. She wanted to be aligned with the most senior right-winger on the court from square one.
 
As Common Dreams reported earlier Monday, Democrats held a talkathon ahead of the vote
in which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) declared on the chamber's floor that the GOP "is
a party beholden to billionaires and extremists that is desperate to keep its grasp on power
and willing to break any rule, any precedent, or any principle to hold onto that power just
a little longer."

"You can't spell shameful without SHAM and that's what Senate Republicans have turned
this nomination process into ... a SHAM...

This is the outright theft of another seat on the Supreme Court." -
@SenMarkey #OurCourt

(pic)

— Kristen Clarke 866-OUR-VOTE (@KristenClarkeJD) October 26, 2020

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...enators-confirm-third-trump-nominee-amy-coney
 
That Barrett would choose to get sworn in at a campaign-style event at the White House 8 days before an election, and appearing with a president who has repeatedly stated he expects her to rule in his favor on anything election-related, does seem like a preview of coming attractions.
 
.
Any nominee with sound "judgement" would have realized how politicized and rushed this process was and removed their name from consideration or turned down the nomination. If Amy Coney Barrett had one shred of dignity and grace, she would have honored RBG's wish and encouraged Trump to wait until after the election. She obviously doesn't.

Poetic justice would be if Biden and the Dems control the senate and the White House and reduce the number of justices from 9 to 7. That would get rid of ACB and Kavanaugh but still leave a 4-3 conservative majority that has shown itself to be reasonably moderate. Then see how things go the next couple of years before deciding if the court needed to be expanded or contracted again.

JMTCW
 
.
Any nominee with sound "judgement" would have realized how politicized and rushed this process was and removed their name from consideration or turned down the nomination. If Amy Coney Barrett had one shred of dignity and grace, she would have honored RBG's wish and encouraged Trump to wait until after the election. She obviously doesn't.

Poetic justice would be if Biden and the Dems control the senate and the White House and reduce the number of justices from 9 to 7. That would get rid of ACB and Kavanaugh but still leave a 4-3 conservative majority that has shown itself to be reasonably moderate. Then see how things go the next couple of years before deciding if the court needed to be expanded or contracted again.

JMTCW

What I wish would be dropped from this is honoring what RBG wished to be done. There's no basis for a dying (or leaving) judge to have a say in who replaces them.

Yes, rushing this rather than taking up vital business to give relief to the American people and picking someone so short of qualifications on the basis of extreme dogma trumpets that the Republicans in office should all be tossed out, even if replaced with fresh Republicans--hopefully ones with some semblance of principles and decency.
 
Holy shit, Carnal...

1 - You're stuck saying Brad now so you don't feel so stupid...

2 - You made that error on the 24th and today is the 26th: You haven't been able to let the sting of your fuck-up go! :D

LOL!

Big Brain Brad.....

Just to remind you...

lol. check out the big brain on Brad!

:rolleyes:

The quote is: "Check out the big brain on BRETT."

You couldn't even handle a simple pop culture reference to an Iconic Movie, it's clear to see that anything beyond that is too hard for you comprehend.

:)

Carnal, the fact that you can't correct yourself lets the world know how myopic (I know, you have to look that word up) you are.

Later, loser...have fun following me around.

:)
 
Of course, it's not for her qualifications, but extreme partisanship. She's not exactly bright, interesting, compassionate, or even experienced.

Nope, they couldn't even try to get someone more moderate and aligned with most Americans' views, because that's how these modern day Repugs roll.


If they think they will take this country back to the Gilded Age, they are in for deep trouble. Too many people have fought and died for that to happen.

They may have won the battle but they haven't won the war. Democrats need to balance that Supreme Court full of rapists, sexual harassers, and religious batshit zealots. Stop playing nice with these evil cretins, they want to destroy this country.
 
Sure, Brad.

How long did you spend on this post?

You just went and looked me up on old threads and cut and paste and formatted and did more work than I ever would for a rando shitpost with an asshole on a porn board.

What kind of luzer is so concerned with his "rep" on forum like this?

Later, loser...have fun following me around.

:)
 
How long did you spend on this post?

About a minute, compared to the two days you spent following me around, trying to come up with something to say and then coming up short.

Lol.

I'll be around, just you keep on following.

:)
 

Had you bothered to tune in on the hearings you would have heard her put several Democrats and Republicans to shame on the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of just about every point of Law they could think off.

They grilled her like a cheap stake and she shook herself off and politely asked if there was anything else she could explain to them that they did not understand.

Neither side may be happy with her renderings but they will damn sure be hard to argue with!:eek:

You sound Racist.
 
Had you bothered to tune in on the hearings you would have heard her put several Democrats and Republicans to shame on the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of just about every point of Law they could think off.

They grilled her like a cheap stake and she shook herself off and politely asked if there was anything else she could explain to them that they did not understand.

Neither side may be happy with her renderings but they will damn sure be hard to argue with!:eek:

You sound Racist.

Ol' DJ Franzia who made the tweet? Yea...racist as fuck, "woke" they hate white people for being white.
 
She didn't know/wouldn't say whether voter intimidation was a crime.

She didn't know/wouldn't say whether a POTUS can call off an election.

Yeah, she really schooled people.

Had you bothered to tune in on the hearings you would have heard her put several Democrats and Republicans to shame on the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of just about every point of Law they could think off.

They grilled her like a cheap stake and she shook herself off and politely asked if there was anything else she could explain to them that they did not understand.

Neither side may be happy with her renderings but they will damn sure be hard to argue with!:eek:

You sound Racist.
 
No, here's how it works on the internets: you click on a thread that is interesting to you. You respond/shitpost to posts in that thread.

Only a delusional narcissist thinks someone is "following" them as a result.

About a minute, compared to the two days you spent following me around, trying to come up with something to say and then coming up short.

Lol.

I'll be around, just you keep on following.

:)
 
Back
Top