Why liberals hate Amy Coney Barrett

[Counselor706]

This week, Democrats struggled to explain why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

That’s because, in the view of the political left, the court ought to be merely another weapon in its political arsenal. Conservatives see the judiciary as Alexander Hamilton characterized it in Federalist No. 78: as the “least dangerous” branch, capable of “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” an institution whose legitimacy rests on its unwillingness to “exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT.”

Liberals see the court as a super-legislature, designed to act as moral arbiters on behalf of progressive values. That’s why former President Barack Obama stated that judges ought to be selected for the quality of “empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

And they are angry that Barrett’s nomination has moved the court away from that progressive, oligarchic rule. That’s why they’re threatening to pack the court—because they wish to restore that oligarchy to power.

Source

 

[badbabysitter]

Republicans packing the court = good

Democrats packing the court = bad

Got it

 

[Lazaran]

.
Citizens United.

GMAFB

 

[FescueFan]

Republicans packing the court = good

Democrats packing the court = bad

Got it

Republicans filling vacant seats = good.

Democrats packing the court = bad.


Filling seats =/= packing the court.....you should research the topic before showing everyone you don't know what the topic is.

.
Citizens United.

GMAFB

Why would liberals be upset about that? They won.

Leftist =/= liberal.

 

[badbabysitter]

Republicans filling vacant seats = good.

Democrats packing the court = bad.


Filling seats =/= packing the court.....you should research the topic before showing everyone you don't know what the topic is.

Merrick Garland

you should research the topic before showing everyone you don't know what the topic is

 

[PaxNurgle]

BOTH sides seem to want the supreme court to be a political weapon in their arsenal. Both sides condemn "activist justices" while seeking to nominate activist justices who will actually be "Activist" in their favor.

In the Republicans view, justices that seek to take away health care, ban abortion, grant unchecked power to the executive branch, grant unchecked powers to corporations, undermine the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the second amendment) are "Strictly interpreting the Constitution" whereas justices that uphold ALL of the Bill of Rights (Freedom from search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishments, etc) and believe in a system of checks and balances are "Activist justices" who ought to be opposed.

And why, I have YET to hear a valid coherant explanation for this, are they now trying to rush through Barret as a justice, when most of these SAME CONGRESSPEOPLE were saying five years earlier "We shouldn't approve a supreme court justice with only a year before the election." (but apparently when it's only a month before the election, then it's okay. Sure.)

 

[FescueFan]

Merrick Garland

you should research the topic before showing everyone you don't know what the topic is

Isn't relevant to the fact that you clearly don't know what packing the court is.

Nice fail trying to use my own line on me LOL

BOTH sides seem to want the supreme court to be a political weapon in their arsenal. Both sides condemn "activist justices" while seeking to nominate activist justices who will actually be "Activist" in their favor.

*Insane partisan fantasy rant edited out*

You are right about that. (D) have largely had the upper hand been rubbing (R)'s noses in it for years.

Now to expect the (R)'s to do anything short of returning the favor is just laughable. Now you'll have to actually pass legislation and amendments to create laws and rights.

I REALLY hope the next time (D)'s have power they're fucking retarded enough to pack the court.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

BOTH sides seem to want the supreme court to be a political weapon in their arsenal.

I don't normally comment on these threads about the US SCOTUS justices, but you bring up a great point. Both the Dems and the Reps say they are tying to keep politics out of the Court, but push politics on the court through their appointing actions.

From my view, I don't really see a political slant in the rulings I have bothered to read up on.

I think that the quality of late of the Judges appointed or under consideration may leave a bit to be desired in terms of the Judicial experience you would want on your highest ruling court. But, they are determined by your duly elected Senate and President.

Which rolls back to my point of , "you get the Government you deserve".

 

[Lady2020]

It's her fucking hypocrisy. And her stupid originalism.

 

[BadBabySittersDaddy]

Republicans packing the court = good

Democrats packing the court = bad

Got it

Oh, no, my baby girl doesn't know what court packing is. I taught you better than that, or is it another spanking from daddy you're looking for?

 

[badbabysitter]

Isn't relevant to the fact that you clearly don't know what packing the court is.

Nice fail trying to use my own line on me LOL






Now to expect the (R)'s to do anything short of returning the favor is just laughable. Now you'll have to actually pass legislation and amendments to create laws and rights.


I REALLY hope the next time (D)'s have power they're fucking retarded enough to pack the court.

I bolded your self own




Its like you're intentionally too stupid to notice your own hypocrisy

 

[badbabysitter]

I'm a 50 year old virgin

.......

 

[bobb_sledd]

The blame for any and all outcomes of ACB being confirmed to the SCOTUS falls at the foot of RBG. RBG gambled that Hillary Clinton would be elected and/or that she’d live through to the next democratic president. Sadly, she lost that bet. To assure the “balance” of the court RBG should have retired while Obama was still in office and the democrats held the senate. (Elections have consequences.)

The appointment process is proceeding as the Constitution allows regardless of past comments or statements made by lawmakers; or deathbed wishes of RBG.

Can the left honestly say that if the roles were reversed, they wouldn’t be proceeding by filling the vacancy with a nominee of their choosing?

 

[BadBabySittersDaddy]

Daddy, can I use your cock as a stomach plunger tonight? I've got too much cum in my belly.

You're just like your mother, baby.

 

[Bikesandfires2018]

The blame for any and all outcomes of ACB being confirmed to the SCOTUS falls at the foot of RBG. RBG gambled that Hillary Clinton would be elected and/or that she’d live through to the next democratic president. Sadly, she lost that bet. To assure the “balance” of the court RBG should have retired while Obama was still in office and the democrats held the senate. (Elections have consequences.)

The appointment process is proceeding as the Constitution allows regardless of past comments or statements made by lawmakers; or deathbed wishes of RBG.

Can the left honestly say that if the roles were reversed, they wouldn’t be proceeding by filling the vacancy with a nominee of their choosing?

100% correct!

 

[WillJ8787]

"BOTH sides seem to want the supreme court to be a political weapon in their arsenal. Both sides condemn "activist justices" while seeking to nominate activist justices who will actually be "Activist" in their favor. "

I agree. As a Progressives, I'm fine with her as the pick. I listened to hear at the hearing....she will do fine. I especially appreciate hear comments about the George Floyd case and how she and her family is impacted by it and the racism against black people. Her rational and logical along with her heart is in a decent enough place for me.

I total disagree with the political process around the nomination starting with the low character Repubs pushing this through and going back on their words. It's based in lies so as fuzzy said...you get what you deserve.

In addition to the Repubs low character behavior, he Dems also are behaving very badly asking absurd questions at this hearing. I don't agree with their approach at all.

 

[FescueFan]

It's her fucking hypocrisy. And her stupid originalism.

What's wrong with originalism???

I bolded your self own




Its like you're intentionally too stupid to notice your own hypocrisy

There's no self own.

There was no hypocrisy....it's like you couldn't handle the L over your not knowing what packing the court is and in your desperation you went with this sad attempt. LOL

Look the "hypocrisy" up....you don't seem to have any clue what that means either.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Packing the court is not just Garland it’s also the more than 100 vacancies that landed in Trump’s lap thanks to McConnell. You can talk about the constitution all you want, but McConnell had no problem not voting on Obama’s nominees. You can also bring up RBG all you’d like that will not change what McConnell did, or didn’t do as it were.

 

[ThePlumTiger66]

Packing the court is not just Garland it’s also the more than 100 vacancies that landed in Trump’s lap thanks to McConnell. You can talk about the constitution all you want, but McConnell had no problem not voting on Obama’s nominees. You can also bring up RBG all you’d like that will not change what McConnell did, or didn’t do as it were.

I really wish you Lefties understood what court-packing was.

If you're going to use the term, use it correctly.

 

[FescueFan]

Packing the court is not just Garland it’s also the more than 100 vacancies that landed in Trump’s lap thanks to McConnell. You can talk about the constitution all you want, but McConnell had no problem not voting on Obama’s nominees. You can also bring up RBG all you’d like that will not change what McConnell did, or didn’t do as it were.

LOL you don't know what packing the court is either....I was actually a bit surprised by that, you're usually one of the ones who is on their political game.

Filling vacancies =/= packing the court.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Packing the court is not just Garland it’s also the more than 100 vacancies that landed in Trump’s lap thanks to McConnell. You can talk about the constitution all you want, but McConnell had no problem not voting on Obama’s nominees. You can also bring up RBG all you’d like that will not change what McConnell did, or didn’t do as it were.

100% agreed. Republican court packing defined. The dopes have no clue as to what has been happening for the last 12 years in the Senate and now they have their talking point.

IF Biden/Schumer POTUS/Senate were to legislate the SC to be 13 justices and use the nuclear option to appoint 4 during the first year of the Biden presidency then I would see it as no more or less the use of Constitutional power as McConnell and the rest of the disloyal opposition has been doing in the Senate since 2008.

 

[FescueFan]

100% agreed. Republican court packing defined. The dopes have no clue as to what has been happening for the last 12 years in the Senate and now they have their talking point.

IF Biden/Schumer POTUS/Senate were to legislate the SC to be 13 justices and use the nuclear option to appoint 4 during the first year of the Biden presidency then I would see it as no more or less the use of Constitutional power as McConnell and the rest of the disloyal opposition has been doing in the Senate since 2008.

That would be actually packing the court.....unlike what Trump and the (R)'s have been doing, which is filling vacant seats. Not the same thing.

This is how (D)'s wind up actually doing the terrible shit they accuse Trump and (R)'s of doing, without Trump and the (R)'s having ever actually done the heinous shit they accuse them of.

Progressives....truly taking hypocrisy and lack of self awareness to new heights.

What a bunch of lunatics.

 

[YDB95]

I really wish you Lefties understood what court-packing was.

If you're going to use the term, use it correctly.

It's really nothing more than a derogatory term for a practice that is perfectly legal if agreed upon by Congress. But if you don't approve of using that term for the way McConnell blocked Obama from filling so many vacancies on the courts, what do you call it?

 

[ThePlumTiger66]

It's really nothing more than a derogatory term for a practice that is perfectly legal if agreed upon by Congress.

And yet 99.9% of Lefties are referencing the word incorrectly.

Filling vacant seats isn't court packing.

But if you don't approve of using that term for the way McConnell blocked Obama from filling so many vacancies on the courts, what do you call it?

It's called not confirming Obama's nominees, which is, as you say, legal.

 

[FescueFan]

It's really nothing more than a derogatory term for a practice that is perfectly legal if agreed upon by Congress. But if you don't approve of using that term for the way McConnell blocked Obama from filling so many vacancies on the courts, what do you call it?

Senate privilege.