Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Hearings

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 11, 2007
4,633
2,031
1,743
Oklahoma City
#81
"Not one Democrat voted to confirm Justice Barrett, making it the first time a Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed without a single vote from a major minority party since December 1869"
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,744
9,998
1,743
Earth
#82
Sorry, that is simply a huge rationalization.
Once the gamesmanship has begun, why would one side just stop?
The democrats would not need to break any rules to pack the court. Enacting legislation is not third world. We already look third world with a corrupt government. Lying outright to the American people is third world. Does lying like this promote goodwill? You've created a distinction that doesn't make a difference. Manipulate traditional rules to do something that hasn't been done in our country or manipulate legislation to do something that hasn't been done. It is all the same. One seems more corrupt to you because it isn't in your favor.

You know, it is all about "winning" now. That is what has been said for the past four years. And, if the dems win, they are going to do the same damn stuff just on the other side. Those of us in the middle simply look at both sides with pure disgust. And, the way that somehow people can come up with ways to tell themselves the pathetic actions of their side are OK but the similar national unity harming actions of the other side are not are a huge part of the problem. We need statesmen who do the right thing. We are not electing them.
I agree with this mostly and didn’t want them to proceed, however I’m very happy with the choice and confirmation because I think she will be honorable and uphold the law in each case. It’s a real shame that RBG passed away when she did and it forced this action IMHO. Republicans understandably felt abused in the last hearings so they broke their word from the end of Obama’s term. They, imho, should have kept their word even at the cost of not having a confirmation. I sincerely believe this would have won them the election and enabled the choice anyway. Now, who knows. Also, I agree, overall we need more cooperation in government, but that conflicts with the fact that I don’t want the feds doing much except to serve and protect as I think the general welfare should be mostly left up to local governances and private charity....an interesting dilemma that enables me to be ok with deadlock as long as its civil. Lack of civility is, however, escalating and needs to be squelched. God speed in your efforts to save lives today!!
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2006
2,652
1,345
1,743
#83
The way I look at it the gamesmanship didn't start here; it started long ago and I didn't find this particularly appalling.

If the Democrats would've had control of the Senate and refused to vote they would've delayed the vote just like Republicans did. They couldn't so that is just how it goes.

RBG could've also stepped down in 2016 at 80 years old as was discussed to make way for another Democratic nominee.

Changing the number of justices to modify the balance of power feels very different to me. I hope we're better than that as a nation. If not, I fear it will begin an undoing that we'll never stop.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,844
31,796
1,743
oklahoma city
#85
The way I look at it the gamesmanship didn't start here; it started long ago and I didn't find this particularly appalling.

If the Democrats would've had control of the Senate and refused to vote they would've delayed the vote just like Republicans did. They couldn't so that is just how it goes.

RBG could've also stepped down in 2016 at 80 years old as was discussed to make way for another Democratic nominee.

Changing the number of justices to modify the balance of power feels very different to me. I hope we're better than that as a nation. If not, I fear it will begin an undoing that we'll never stop.
In other words, you are fine with the politicians that you support behaving in a new and divisive manner because you believe you know the unknowable, that the other side would have behaved the same. But, if the other side gets a chance to behave in a new and divisive manner, you don't feel your people would have done that and it "feels different" to you.

The primary difference is it is something you do not want to happen while what occurred is something you did want to happen. That fact makes it seem correct to you. It is just like reading one team's message board and having the fans complain about the refs then read the opposing team's message board and their fans also felt the refs were unfair to them. They all watched the same game but the concerns are biased by their feelings.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,074
16,980
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#86
Anybody who was expecting honor or honesty out of the political parties hasn't been paying attention. Neither side has one shred of either. Of course the reps were going to behave differently this time.

Let's not forget that the escalation started with Reid using the nuclear option to ensure judges would be easier to confirm. That move ended any need for compromise on judges and this is what we have.... had the Dems just kept that in place, the Reps couldn't have confirmed ACB....hell they couldn't have confirmed any of Trump's nominee's.

Still waiting for Biden to release his list of potential nominee's the way Trump has....I think we the people should demand that from every presidential candidate. I also think some of the people claiming to be Republicans who are voting for Biden would find it hard to justify that vote with such a list.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
4,406
3,663
1,743
#87
Sorry, that is simply a huge rationalization.
Once the gamesmanship has begun, why would one side just stop?
The democrats would not need to break any rules to pack the court. Enacting legislation is not third world. We already look third world with a corrupt government. Lying outright to the American people is third world. Does lying like this promote goodwill? You've created a distinction that doesn't make a difference. Manipulate traditional rules to do something that hasn't been done in our country or manipulate legislation to do something that hasn't been done. It is all the same. One seems more corrupt to you because it isn't in your favor.

You know, it is all about "winning" now. That is what has been said for the past four years. And, if the dems win, they are going to do the same damn stuff just on the other side. Those of us in the middle simply look at both sides with pure disgust. And, the way that somehow people can come up with ways to tell themselves the pathetic actions of their side are OK but the similar national unity harming actions of the other side are not are a huge part of the problem. We need statesmen who do the right thing. We are not electing them.
I disagreed with what McConnell did. He shouldn't have held up Garland's nomination and allow the SCOTUS to be unbalanced for several months. But everything he did, he did within the rules of existing legislation.

What Democrats are proposing is very different. They're proposing legislation that will manipulate the structure of the judicial branch of government in an attempt to gain political power. This is an extremely dangerous precedent that tears at the fabric of our democracy. How long will it be until one side starts trying to pass legislation to stop the opposing party from existing? As crazy as it sounds, this pathway could end in war.

Turnabout is fair play. I hope that Democrats do the same thing to Republicans if they hold the Senate late in a Republican president's term. But manipulating the structure of our government is something I can't support.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,844
31,796
1,743
oklahoma city
#88
I disagreed with what McConnell did. He shouldn't have held up Garland's nomination and allow the SCOTUS to be unbalanced for several months. But everything he did, he did within the rules of existing legislation.

What Democrats are proposing is very different. They're proposing legislation that will manipulate the structure of the judicial branch of government in an attempt to gain political power. This is an extremely dangerous precedent that tears at the fabric of our democracy. How long will it be until one side starts trying to pass legislation to stop the opposing party from existing? As crazy as it sounds, this pathway could end in war.

Turnabout is fair play. I hope that Democrats do the same thing to Republicans if they hold the Senate late in a Republican president's term. But manipulating the structure of our government is something I can't support.
With the current judicial choice based on young age not other qualifications, the chance of "turnabout" using the exact same lie/manipulation of the rules anytime in the next decade or two is extremely unlikely.

McConnell "followed the rules" because it was not considered necessary to put in legislation that not doing your job for nearly 25% of a president's term would be something that a Senate Majority Leader would do. I'm sure there are millions of ways that our leaders can "follow the rules" by not doing their jobs as putting in a "you must do your job" rule was probably never considered for a leadership position. Unfortunately, since he did choose party over country, the dems are left with no choice but to escalate the situation. They wouldn't be doing it to gain political power. They would be doing it to restore back to normal the typical splitting that has occurred. From the NYT:

A new Supreme Court
Over the past 32 years — a period that includes the naming of every current Supreme Court Justice — Democrats and Republicans have each held the White House for four terms. In six of those eight elections, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.


Those two facts offer a pretty good summary of the country’s political makeup. It is split fairly evenly between Democratic and Republican voters, with a modest lean toward Democrats.

The Supreme Court, however, now has a very different makeup.

With the confirmation last night of Amy Coney Barrett, Republican-appointed justices hold a 6-to-3 majority and will probably control the court for years to come. The current six-member majority also happens to be sharply conservative and often quite aggressive, willing to substitute its own judgment for that of Congress, the president or state governments — on voting rights, campaign finance, health care, consumer protection, workplace law and more.

How did the Supreme Court end up so disconnected from a generation of election results? Circumstance — when justices happen to have died — plays a role. But so does the unprecedented 2016 move by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, to refuse to let Barack Obama fill a vacancy.

And so does the insistence by Ruth Bader Ginsburg to stay on the court in 2010, when she was in her late 70s and fighting cancer, rather than allowing a president who shared her political views to replace her. Instead, Barrett, who has many opposite views, now holds Ginsburg’s seat.

I know that different people will put different weight on these factors, with many willing to defend either McConnell’s or Ginsburg’s decisions. But regardless of how we got here, the country has arrived at a tricky place.

The Supreme Court has asserted itself in recent years as arguably the country’s single most powerful institution, handing down the last word on many of the most hotly debated issues. At the same time, the court has developed a strong outlook that most Americans do not share. That outlook is the result less of any election outcomes than of circumstance and political tactics.

It’s a combination that has the potential to cause widespread voter frustration and ultimately a constitutional showdown. “In America today,” the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, recently wrote in The Times, “the majority does not govern.” They added, “This is minority rule.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the court’s six Republican appointees, seems worried about how this situation could threaten the court’s legitimacy. That helps explain why Roberts has voted against his own apparent views in some (but not all) high-profile recent cases.

Of course, Barrett’s confirmation means that Roberts is no longer the swing justice. There is a conservative majority even without Roberts. How daring will it be?
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
4,406
3,663
1,743
#89
With the current judicial choice based on young age not other qualifications, the chance of "turnabout" using the exact same lie/manipulation of the rules anytime in the next decade or two is extremely unlikely.

McConnell "followed the rules" because it was not considered necessary to put in a rule that not doing your job for nearly 25% of a president's term would be something that a Senate Majority Leader would do. I'm sure there are millions of ways that our leaders can "follow the rules" by not doing their jobs as putting in a "you must do your job" rule was probably never considered for a leadership position. Unfortunately, since he did choose party over country, the dems are left with no choice but to escalate the situation. They wouldn't be doing it to gain political power. They would be doing it to restore back to normal the typical splitting that has occurred. From the NYT:

A new Supreme Court
Over the past 32 years — a period that includes the naming of every current Supreme Court Justice — Democrats and Republicans have each held the White House for four terms. In six of those eight elections, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.


Those two facts offer a pretty good summary of the country’s political makeup. It is split fairly evenly between Democratic and Republican voters, with a modest lean toward Democrats.

The Supreme Court, however, now has a very different makeup.

With the confirmation last night of Amy Coney Barrett, Republican-appointed justices hold a 6-to-3 majority and will probably control the court for years to come. The current six-member majority also happens to be sharply conservative and often quite aggressive, willing to substitute its own judgment for that of Congress, the president or state governments — on voting rights, campaign finance, health care, consumer protection, workplace law and more.

How did the Supreme Court end up so disconnected from a generation of election results? Circumstance — when justices happen to have died — plays a role. But so does the unprecedented 2016 move by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, to refuse to let Barack Obama fill a vacancy.

And so does the insistence by Ruth Bader Ginsburg to stay on the court in 2010, when she was in her late 70s and fighting cancer, rather than allowing a president who shared her political views to replace her. Instead, Barrett, who has many opposite views, now holds Ginsburg’s seat.

I know that different people will put different weight on these factors, with many willing to defend either McConnell’s or Ginsburg’s decisions. But regardless of how we got here, the country has arrived at a tricky place.

The Supreme Court has asserted itself in recent years as arguably the country’s single most powerful institution, handing down the last word on many of the most hotly debated issues. At the same time, the court has developed a strong outlook that most Americans do not share. That outlook is the result less of any election outcomes than of circumstance and political tactics.

It’s a combination that has the potential to cause widespread voter frustration and ultimately a constitutional showdown. “In America today,” the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, recently wrote in The Times, “the majority does not govern.” They added, “This is minority rule.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the court’s six Republican appointees, seems worried about how this situation could threaten the court’s legitimacy. That helps explain why Roberts has voted against his own apparent views in some (but not all) high-profile recent cases.

Of course, Barrett’s confirmation means that Roberts is no longer the swing justice. There is a conservative majority even without Roberts. How daring will it be?
Roberts has proven to be more of an independent than a Republican, so Democrats only need to flip 1 seat to restore balance. Alito & Thomas are both in their 70's, so it might not be this way for very long.

The political ideology of the SCOTUS has varied throughout the history of our country. It was very liberal during the 60's and the world didn't end. It won't end now. There's no need for Democrats to start manipulating the structure of our government to seize control.
1603806641107.png
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,081
1,949
1,743
#90
Let's not forget that the escalation started with Reid using the nuclear option to ensure judges would be easier to confirm. That move ended any need for compromise on judges and this is what we have.... had the Dems just kept that in place, the Reps couldn't have confirmed ACB....hell they couldn't have confirmed any of Trump's nominee's.
THIS
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,744
9,998
1,743
Earth
#91
I do think this confirmation "needed to be done now" because of an election next week and I also think that if a disputed election happens they will make the fair and balanced choice based on the electoral college vote. Unfortunately a ton of people will be upset about that on either side (Yet likely more so if it's Trump they choose, especially since the media this year has once again not prepared the masses for this possibility because of the way they conduct polling). This is the first year in my lifetime that I actually think people will violently take to the streets if the current POTUS retains office.

Once again, with the election a week away we need to totally understand that we are NOT a Democracy but a Republic and the way we fill our seats is modified from being a Democracy on purpose. It keeps the cities from dominating the rest of the country yet still giving higher populations a larger voice in terms of their electoral ability. It's a brilliant system for fair and balanced governance and keeps us from swinging too far too extremes and overwhelming the minority voice (by minority I mean less power in any particular cycle, not race).

We "the people" also NEED to understand that it's JUST a freaking National election, our States and Local Communities are far more important to our daily lives but no one bats an eye when we elect a bad mayor or a bad governor. We, as a nation, have made this FAR too big and have put to much of our emotional selves into it. We ALWAYS find a balance, so Trump fan or Biden fan...CHILL, no matter the outcome...Sun will rise on Wednesday the 4th of November just as it has every day since Creation...trust our system...it's gotten us far.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,844
31,796
1,743
oklahoma city
#92
Roberts has proven to be more of an independent than a Republican, so Democrats only need to flip 1 seat to restore balance. Alito & Thomas are both in their 70's, so it might not be this way for very long.

The political ideology of the SCOTUS has varied throughout the history of our country. It was very liberal during the 60's and the world didn't end. It won't end now. There's no need for Democrats to start manipulating the structure of our government to seize control.
View attachment 86620
Roberts is still clearly a conservative even if he isn't quite as conservative as the others. He is listed more conservative than Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. It is a 6-3 court.

And speaking of no reason, there was no reason for McConnell to not do his job for a year on SCOTUS justices and federal court judges but he did just that to seize control. You can't play dirty then expect the other side to play less dirty.
If Republicans want to prevent the dems from responding to what they have done, then they need to win elections by having the American people agree with it. But, people do not like being lied to as they have done. So, I suspect they will reap what they have sown.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,406
3,663
1,743
#93
Roberts is still clearly a conservative even if he isn't quite as conservative as the others. He is listed more conservative than Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. It is a 6-3 court.
That chart is a little outdated. The most recent chart show Roberts almost completely neutral. Most Republicans consider Roberts a RINO. I don't know of any Democrats that feel that way about Kagan & Sotomeyer.

1603809025279.png
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,653
4,697
1,743
33
Keller, Texas
#94
That chart is a little outdated. The most recent chart show Roberts almost completely neutral. Most Republicans consider Roberts a RINO. I don't know of any Democrats that feel that way about Kagan & Sotomeyer.

View attachment 86622
I think you just look at the way the liberal 'block' votes. is there ever a decisive vote that Sotomayor for example will side with a conservative block for any reason? You see the conservatives following constitutional law more and are more even handed than the 'straight ticket' liberals on the court we have today.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,074
16,980
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#96
Roberts is still clearly a conservative even if he isn't quite as conservative as the others. He is listed more conservative than Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. It is a 6-3 court.

And speaking of no reason, there was no reason for McConnell to not do his job for a year on SCOTUS justices and federal court judges but he did just that to seize control. You can't play dirty then expect the other side to play less dirty.
If Republicans want to prevent the dems from responding to what they have done, then they need to win elections by having the American people agree with it. But, people do not like being lied to as they have done. So, I suspect they will reap what they have sown.
You may be right. McConnell chose not to hold hearings on Garland and it could have backfired if Hillary won because she might not have nominated someone quite as moderate. The reps could have reaped what they had sown back then and maybe it did affect some races. I can't imagine anybody who didn't switch votes over not confirming Garland to now switch votes for confirming Barrett.....as you point out, the more egregious act of the two was Garland. But there are plenty of reasons already to not vote for McConnell, I've been wanting him gone for a long time

If this causes them to lose the senate then they have nobody to blame but themselves....and there will be plenty of consequences to that. But what the reps have done here is nowhere close to increasing and stacking the number of justices like we are discussing. I can't imagine the Dems would go that far...that's not a nuclear option, it's outright armageddon.
 

naffigator

I am SuperKing!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 2, 2008
16,119
13,282
1,743
In a burnin' ring of fire.
#97
People on both sides act like ACB will go in on day one and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and it the other conservative justices will follow suit. It doesn't work that way, a case involving RvW has to work its way to the SCOTUS and then they MIGHT overturn it. SCOTUS saw cases that could have overturned RvW in 1992, 2016 and 2020 and all three times the court had a conservative majority and all three times they upheld RvW. Even with a 6-3 balance, it is unlikely that it gets overturned.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,827
40,925
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#99
People on both sides act like ACB will go in on day one and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and it the other conservative justices will follow suit. It doesn't work that way, a case involving RvW has to work its way to the SCOTUS and then they MIGHT overturn it. SCOTUS saw cases that could have overturned RvW in 1992, 2016 and 2020 and all three times the court had a conservative majority and all three times they upheld RvW. Even with a 6-3 balance, it is unlikely that it gets overturned.
Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan appointee) wrote the majority opinion in PP v Casey in 1992. Justices Blackmun (Nixon appointee), Stevens (Ford appointee), Kennedy (Reagan appointee), and Souter (GHW Bush appointee) both voted in the majority. Rehnquest (Reagan), Scalia (Reagan), White (Kennedy), and Thomas (GHW Bush) dissented. So, no, it isn't automagical somehow that on day 1 ACB is going to overturn RvW or, more importantly, PPvCasey.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,074
16,980
1,743
Tulsa, OK
People on both sides act like ACB will go in on day one and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade
Of course they are, they're both pandering to their base just before the election. Even if it were overturned, which is doubtful any time soon, all that would do is let the states decide....it will still be legal in many places. I swear, some Dems I've spoken to think overturning it would make abortion illegal under federal law.

Maybe just the threat of it will remind people that state and local elections are important.

Edit: What will happen I believe is several states will pass anti abortion laws for the very purpose that they will bring a legal challenge...be something to keep an eye on.
 
Last edited: