• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,634
1,013
126
Might as well start one.
Here, we can (and should) do the vetting of the various Trump considerations.
I will start out with the top in the running, Amy Coney Barrett.
A religious fanatic who will not answer the question whether or not Roe vs Wade is settled law.
Also, fully believes in the church interpolation on marriage being between a man and a woman.
And again, Amy Coney Barrett will not answer the question of whether or not marriage equally is settled law.
However... what I noticed that disturbs me the most is.....

Untitled.jpg

Let the vetting begin.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,012
7,758
136
Might as well start one.
Here, we can (and should) do the vetting of the various Trump considerations.
I will start out with the top in the running, Amy Coney Barrett.
A religious fanatic who will not answer the question whether or not Roe vs Wade is settled law.
Also, fully believes in the church interpolation on marriage being between a man and a woman.
And again, Amy Coney Barrett will not answer the question of whether or not marriage equally is settled law.
However... what I noticed that disturbs me the most is.....

View attachment 30322

Let the vetting begin.
Is she the one that doesn’t think poll taxes are unconstitutional?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,536
4,316
126
She's coocoo for cocoa puffs, groomed by a bunch of Catholic nutjobs for SCOTUS from college.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
"A religious fanatic" Do you actually mean she's a member of the Catholic church and you're just having difficulty being accurate? or is it You might be a little bit bigoted against other peoples religions? Or is she an actual religious fanatic?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,444
4,577
136
We already have one Boof Kavanaugh on the court...don’t need to add Buffy too.

Dems will screw this up if they focus on who the candidate is and what skeletons are in her closet or even what her legal opinions are. It really isn’t about whether or not she is qualified. Dems should be blanketing the airwaves and digital with the fact that another stolen seat means ACA is toast and 20 million will lose health insurance, and Roe v. Wade will be over. That’s what matters. Focus on the likely outcomes a 6-3 conservative court will bring... hell just start with the current docket coming up in 2 weeks.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,536
4,316
126
Yeah, the ACA thing could be devastating to GOP if Dems play it up and explain it properly.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,450
3,545
136
She's coocoo for cocoa puffs, groomed by a bunch of Catholic nutjobs for SCOTUS from college.
Yep ... Nutty as a fruitcake. She is a member of a cult within the Catholic Church called The People of Praise. Margaret Atwood said she based The Hadmaid’s Tale on this cult. Every person in the cult is assigned a head, if they’re male, or a handmaid, if they’re female. They control whom the members marry, and how they raise their children. They also believe that men have total control over their wives.

 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,484
2,061
126
We already have one Boof Kavanaugh on the court...don’t need to add Buffy too.

Dems will screw this up if they focus on who the candidate is and what skeletons are in her closet or even what her legal opinions are. It really isn’t about whether or not she is qualified. Dems should be blanketing the airwaves and digital with the fact that another stolen seat means ACA is toast and 20 million will lose health insurance, and Roe v. Wade will be over. That’s what matters. Focus on the likely outcomes a 6-3 conservative court will bring... hell just start with the current docket coming up in 2 weeks.
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,444
4,577
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Zorba

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
13,939
4,342
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
Sssssssh... seen not heard.
 

compcons

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,596
218
106
Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.
Hypocrisy is a core characteristic of conservative minds. He literally does not know he is arguing the opposite sides of the argument.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,484
2,061
126
Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.
The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,484
2,061
126
Hypocrisy is a core characteristic of conservative minds. He literally does not know he is arguing the opposite sides of the argument.
Rather than a personal attack, why not try pointing out where the law or constitutional mandate was broken? It's easy to spit out worthless hyperbole, and it's value to the discussion is exactly zero.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,444
4,577
136
Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.
When did I say RBG gets to determine her successor or when they are appointed?

I don’t think anything illegal is going on—it’s just hypocritical. What I was trying to imply is that Dems shouldn’t even be worried about the confirmation process or the nominee—they should get over that and focus on the election instead. The people don’t get to pick SCOTUS nominees but they do get to pick the President and Senate responsible. That’s why Dems should focus on the likely outcomes and ask voters to hold those responsible... accountable.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,484
2,061
126
When did I say RBG gets to determine her successor or when they are appointed?

I don’t think anything illegal is going on—it’s just hypocritical. What I was trying to imply is that Dems shouldn’t even be worried about the confirmation process or the nominee—they should get over that and focus on the election instead. The people don’t get to pick SCOTUS nominees but they do get to pick the President and Senate responsible. That’s why Dems should focus on the likely outcomes and ask voters to hold those responsible... accountable.
I agree completely with this. Take out the concept of theft and the entire plan makes sense, and is fundamentally honest.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,450
3,545
136
The argument is that it was totally different because Republicans held the Senate in 2016 and Democrats do not in 2020. It’s obviously not a good faith argument, but it just boils down to “We did it because we could, and you can’t, so you won’t.”

So, I don’t want to hear one damn argument that Democrats shouldn’t rebalance the courts. They can do it if they can. That’s the precedent now.

As Lindsay Graham made painfully clear, the precedent that they were pretending to be following said nothing about who controlled the senate and everything about an election year.

Now, we all knew this was not a good faith argument, and the fact that they immediately reneged on this bad faith precedent confirms those suspicions.

At least Trump didn’t pretend that this is more than it is. He said they are doing it because they can. That’s the most honest thing he’s ever said.

And, if that’s the precedent, I don’t want to hear any complaints when Democrats rebalance the court next year if they can. Because "they can"

Say your playing monopoly with your “friend” at his house, and after landing on go he reaches to collect $400. When you complain he says “Its a house rule. If you land on go you collect $400 instead of $200. My house my rules”.

You Grumble but the game goes on. A few turns later you land on go, and when you try to collect he says “No that rule only applies to me, not to you. Besides, I thought you didn’t like that rule.”

Is there any point in continuing the game?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
30,439
9,383
136
WRT the nominee, it will be a hardcore fundie, no questions about it. They'll claim impartial, but it will just be another lie on top of the R pile of lies for the day.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
2016 stolen seat. This year is just the fencing of stolen property
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
14,745
3,196
136
Holy mother of conflicts of interests... Trump is a stable genius at self preservation.


Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot. Just a little news, Romney's not fooling anybody, he has no principles because he is a Republican. He just went over to the dark side. There is no HOPE!
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,434
3,680
136
And Romney flipped. It's over.

With this I think the right has basically secured permanent rule. Even when the Dems hold majority power again someday, it won't matter. The court will just be able to object to any policy they pass using whatever excuses or rationalization they want. Mitch wanted to make it "unconstitutional" to repair America and succeeded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

ASK THE COMMUNITY