5 ms·

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed to US Supreme Court

19 points by ancarda 6y ago

stanrivers 6y ago
Surprising - I never would have guessed...
artpop 6y ago
US on track for another civil war
- senectus1 6y ago
  It hasn't degraded enough yet. Another 4 years + a refusal to leave after 8 years might get it to a point for Civil war though.
tamaharbor 6y ago
What would Schumer do?
JohnTHaller 6y ago
Nothing like pushing through a Supreme Court pick 52-48 during a presidential election.
- thrill 6y ago
  That silly Constitution, you know, giving clear direction on the structure of government.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    This is the same irrational mentality used to defend businesses or the wealthy from doing immoral or harmful things by arguing only that the behavior is legal.
    - koolba 6y ago
      Complaints about the size or make up of the court, the electoral college vs popular vote, or really any other issue based on the current state of affairs would have significantly more weight if the people complaining weren't complete hypocrites. Case in point, the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. After Trump sprayed WD-40 on in it and loosened up those voters, Democrats cried foul in unison solely because they lost. If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS picks and they'd all be loving the electoral college. But she didn't so here we are. Elections have consequences.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        Reforming the electoral college is not new at all, or partisan, but that's not to say that it's not political. Here are some links regarding historical[0] and present[1] efforts to reform the apportionment of elector votes: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_S... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
        newfriend 6y ago
        > In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement. > And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you. > So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result. You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.
  - JohnTHaller 6y ago
    The same one that was ignored about 4 years ago, yes, that one.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      How was it ignored?
      - JohnTHaller 6y ago
        That whole "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part in Article II Section 2 that the Republicans refused to follow.
        rbecker 6y ago
        You mean they did not give their consent for a judicial appointment? Does the constitution require them to? Because "consent" implies they can refuse.
        JohnTHaller 6y ago
        You're being selective. It's "Advice and Consent". The "Advice" part. They refused to do their job as laid out in the constitution.
        rbecker 6y ago
        I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution. You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"? Edit reply due to rate limit: > Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes". Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
  - yokaze 6y ago
    Then court packing is perfectly okay, you say? Not everything that is allowed to be done, has to our even should be done. The judicial system needs to be perceived as impartial as their decision are to be respected by all sides regardless of majorities. And that is not guaranteed simply by the letter of the word.
  - imustbeevil 6y ago
    > The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 Yeah, about that. https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070 https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070
ck2 6y ago
Last gasp before they plunge over the cliff. There are 13 federal circuit courts where the supreme court has to manage them, so get ready for 13 judges. It's not going to be hard to argue this to the public after they get a taste of the rulings over the next few months.
threatofrain 6y ago
> The Kentucky senator said: "We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be confirming. You can't win them all, and elections have consequences."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- taylodl 6y ago
  I think that Kentucky senator is going to regret those words. Time will tell.

19 points by ancarda 6y ago

stanrivers 6y ago

Surprising - I never would have guessed...

artpop 6y ago

US on track for another civil war

senectus1 6y ago
It hasn't degraded enough yet. Another 4 years + a refusal to leave after 8 years might get it to a point for Civil war though.

tamaharbor 6y ago

What would Schumer do?

JohnTHaller 6y ago

Nothing like pushing through a Supreme Court pick 52-48 during a presidential election.

thrill 6y ago
That silly Constitution, you know, giving clear direction on the structure of government.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  This is the same irrational mentality used to defend businesses or the wealthy from doing immoral or harmful things by arguing only that the behavior is legal.
  - koolba 6y ago
    Complaints about the size or make up of the court, the electoral college vs popular vote, or really any other issue based on the current state of affairs would have significantly more weight if the people complaining weren't complete hypocrites. Case in point, the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. After Trump sprayed WD-40 on in it and loosened up those voters, Democrats cried foul in unison solely because they lost. If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS picks and they'd all be loving the electoral college. But she didn't so here we are. Elections have consequences.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Reforming the electoral college is not new at all, or partisan, but that's not to say that it's not political. Here are some links regarding historical[0] and present[1] efforts to reform the apportionment of elector votes: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_S... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.
      - newfriend 6y ago
        > In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement. > And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you. > So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result. You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.
- JohnTHaller 6y ago
  The same one that was ignored about 4 years ago, yes, that one.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    How was it ignored?
    - JohnTHaller 6y ago
      That whole "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part in Article II Section 2 that the Republicans refused to follow.
      - rbecker 6y ago
        You mean they did not give their consent for a judicial appointment? Does the constitution require them to? Because "consent" implies they can refuse.
        JohnTHaller 6y ago
        You're being selective. It's "Advice and Consent". The "Advice" part. They refused to do their job as laid out in the constitution.
        rbecker 6y ago
        I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution. You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"? Edit reply due to rate limit: > Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution. Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes". Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.
- yokaze 6y ago
  Then court packing is perfectly okay, you say? Not everything that is allowed to be done, has to our even should be done. The judicial system needs to be perceived as impartial as their decision are to be respected by all sides regardless of majorities. And that is not guaranteed simply by the letter of the word.
- imustbeevil 6y ago
  > The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 Yeah, about that. https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070 https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

ck2 6y ago

Last gasp before they plunge over the cliff. There are 13 federal circuit courts where the supreme court has to manage them, so get ready for 13 judges. It's not going to be hard to argue this to the public after they get a taste of the rulings over the next few months.

threatofrain 6y ago

> The Kentucky senator said: "We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be confirming. You can't win them all, and elections have consequences."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
taylodl 6y ago
I think that Kentucky senator is going to regret those words. Time will tell.