U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

xp

Certainly possible

This goes to a larger pet peeve about these confirmation hearings, which is that there are always questions about how someone might rule in this or that case, and the answer is always that they can't speculate about a hypothetical situation. It's a meaningless line of inquiry designed as a gotcha that no one actually cares about.

The whole notion that these are not political picks driven by an obvious agenda is so out of date and ridiculous, it would be better to drop the pretense.

Yes how can we expect lawyers and judges to speculate about hypotheticals

The point is, they don't. It doesn't matter what we expect. We've seen this game play out over and over, so expecting it to change is folly.

If you are expecting any of this to operate under a set of unwritten norms that were trashed years ago, you are being played.

my homie is seriously sharing this op ed and trying to accept Amy w an open mind and open heart so I guess he’s just a Sorkin Republican now jfc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/ive-known-amy-coney-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/

lol

also by "O. Carter Snead" a name designed to make me want to punch the person
https://www.hoover.org/research/planned-parenthoods-hostages

There is nothing to fear about Barrett’s intellect. She has an incandescent mind that has won the admiration of colleagues across the ideological spectrum.

getting Rich Lowry flashbacks

Sooooo fucking tired of SCOTUS nominees called "brilliant" as if what they do requires anything other than keeping the clerks happy as they cobble your opinion together.

I for one was worried that she was actually illiterate.

The GOP has been functionally illiterate since 1981.

Those concerns assuaged, I look forward to strapping on my legally mandated cilice every morning to get me ready to face the day.

time to invest in chastity belt manufacturers

i think i saw incandescent mind open for gene loves jezebel in '87

time to invest in chastity belt manufacturers

Clasping hands meme with BDSM nerds and Opus Dei

Xpost
Moodles, I wasn’t disagreeing with you

Whatever hearing we get out of this will be pointless

Here's the only likely way she doesn't get confirmed before Election Day:

https://i.imgur.com/HzAVTWk.png

The Hill reports:

The Senate Judiciary Committee will start a four-day hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee on Oct. 12, two people familiar with the schedule confirmed to The Hill.

Though other nominees have been confirmed in fewer days, they were further away from the presidential election. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is expected to announce the committee’s schedule later Saturday.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees, both had nearly two months between their formal nominations and the start of their hearings. Under the schedule set by Graham, Amy Coney Barrett will have little more than two weeks.

telling myself O. Carter Snead is a (well, another) Virgil Texas pseudonym.

Snead also wrote this piece of garbage. Fuck them and anybody falling for this ruse of a piece.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/planned-parenthood-will-forgo-payment-for-fetal-tissue-so-now-its-ok-because-its-free

Almost as if perhaps they're just hoping gullible, tired liberals will let their guard down so they can get their way on abortion

Democracy dies in darkness IIRC

oh no

🚨 LIMITED EDITION: Show your support for Pres. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, with your very own Notorious A.C.B. t-shirt! Claim yours here ⬇️https://t.co/qi1eWqTz17

— The Senate Majority (@NRSC) September 26, 2020

Great, offensive on two levels and counting

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who doesn't support taking up a SCOTUS nomination, now says she'll meet with Amy Coney Barrett https://t.co/jSviJQC8u9 pic.twitter.com/Mo443lGUaP

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 26, 2020

BREAKING: Contrary to theories advanced by certain credulous journalists, Lisa Murkowski is, in fact, a member of the Republican Party.

A.C.(a).B.

Isn't Question 2b for appointees "Will you invalidate the ACA?"

"do you pledge to merely dismantle the ACA, or will you pledge to completely obliterate it along with any cultural memory of its existence? and i just hope democrats and the lying media don't make a spectacle out of these serious proceedings"

"Judge Barrett, will you invalidate the ACA?"

She'll just look serious and intone that every case is different, so if such a case is argued before the court, she will read all the briefs, consider all the arguments and arrive at the decision that seems to her most in alignment with the US Constitution and established precedent. If she even says that much.

"Judge Barrett, do you believe that God's law is higher than human laws? And is God's law contained in the christian Bible?"

At least this line of questioning will require her to get off autopilot.

According to this article they won’t ask anything tough:

Senate Democrats say they want to avoid a replay of the bitter fighting that characterized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's 2018 Senate confirmation hearings, which centrist former Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) thought cost them their reelection bids that year.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/518669-senate-democrats-want-to-avoid-kavanaugh-20

So no questions re why she always rules for corporations over workers

Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.

[/i]Barrett’s August ruling in the overtime case is particularly significant: It comes as technology companies have been trying to use mandatory arbitration clauses to avoid better remunerating so-called gig workers. Those provisions often force worker disputes to be decided by private arbitrators hand-picked by the companies, rather than in an impartial court of law. [/i]

Dave Sirota website
https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

So no questions re why she always rules for corporations over workers

Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.

[/i]Barrett’s August ruling in the overtime case is particularly significant: It comes as technology companies have been trying to use mandatory arbitration clauses to avoid better remunerating so-called gig workers. Those provisions often force worker disputes to be decided by private arbitrators hand-picked by the companies, rather than in an impartial court of law. [/i]

Dave Sirota website
https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

I think senate dems would probably be more inclined to attack her rulings if they actually disagreed with them

Invalidating the ACA would at least accelerate the Single Payer debate America should’ve had 70 years ago like the rest of the industrialized world. The West Coast and New York will pass their own versions of it and then wait decades for the rest of the country to catch up

So is this 2006 open letter about Roe vs. Wade worth anything? My guess is NO.

are you surprised

The West Coast and New York will pass their own versions of it and then wait decades for the rest of the country to catch up

I have bad news for you about California's actual politics...

YO, EVERYONE. milo z has bad news for us about American politics.

not holding my breath

Neither is trump apparently

Here's the only likely way she doesn't get confirmed before Election Day:

https://i.imgur.com/HzAVTWk.png

― pplains, Saturday, September 26, 2020 5:07 PM

There's two out of seven. Shaking the monkey paw for two or three more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Q79lls1f0

Don't you know you have to ... shake the monkey.

Up to THREE out of seven! Plus a bonus one not even at the event!

https://i.imgur.com/I4MRx6S.gif

I saw Ron Johnson. Who's the 3rd Judiciary Committee member besides Lee and Tillis?

Whoops, counted Tillis twice. There's getting to be so many, it's hard to keep track!

McConnell preparing to argue that cardboard likenesses of Senators with walkie talkies attached count towards a quorum