• 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

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,512
139
106
I'm just curious on what pending Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that would legally be considered perjury by anyone in the world besides a couple of people at ATP&N ?

I can't find any reference to perjury by her in any other place.
it's just the resident marxists/anarchists here who have their panties in a wad. Easily ignored. ACB is an outstanding judge and will make an excellent associate justice when confirmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Bullshit. Read up on what it takes to actually impeach and convict a sitting USSC Justice.
It takes a majority of the House to impeach. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove. However it's a Senate rule so they can change it to 50%+1. Just like the SCOTUS rule change
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
There are no grounds for impeachment. I assume at this point Democrats are throwing hail mary passes because Barrett did well on her job interview and under normal circumstances would coast through confirmation. She is no less contentious a choice than Sotomayor or Kagan, and will make a fine judge.
She lied under oath. Already posted the clip
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
The general american public is so grossly offended that Barrett is actually polling reasonably well, increasingly so even amongst Democrats.
Show the poll. She has not said a thing or answered a question. How can the country have an opinion. If she was so good for us, why do I need to repeated commercials on TV about how great she is? No judge needs a commercial. Really? When did Garland have a commercial? WTF?
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Show the poll. She has not said a thing or answered a question. How can the country have an opinion. If she was so good for us, why do I need to repeated commercials on TV about how great she is? No judge needs a commercial. Really? When did Garland have a commercial? WTF?
Forbes, Yahoo News and others are citing a poll from Morning Consult.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,765
3,664
136
it's just the resident marxists/anarchists here who have their panties in a wad. Easily ignored. ACB is an outstanding judge and will make an excellent associate justice when confirmed.
Yes, a cult lawyer with a few years experience as a Judge will make the most bestiest Supreme Court Justice.

Because she's a member of your team.

I guess calling out the cultist for being a cultist makes me a Marxist Trotskyist Communist Socialist Fascist Anarchist.

You got all the best arguments!
 

SaltyNuts

Golden Member
May 1, 2001
1,636
84
91
This thread is freaking hilarious. She is totally owning those guys at every level. About to be announced. But if you watch this thread, she's a demon who has no chance. You guys are freaking FUNNY. In a pathetic way. She will be announced over your tears soon lol...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,765
3,664
136
This thread is freaking hilarious. She is totally owning those guys at every level. About to be announced. But if you watch this thread, she's a demon who has no chance. You guys are freaking FUNNY. In a pathetic way. She will be announced over your tears soon lol...
Watching you point and laugh at a mirror is funny.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
BS...as if Repubs wouldn't backtrack on any agreement in order to "win". The fact that only ONE GOP senator had the integrity to hold Trump accountable in his impeachment shows what the "law and order" party are all about. Biden should definitely do it. SCOTUS shouldn't be politicized but it's too late for that...the constant 5-4 partisan judgments lays that bare for everyone to see. And the more partisan in favour of Repubs it gets, the less and less it reflects the will of the people (ie. the most universally popular policies are the Democrat ones). So Biden should ABSOLUTELY stack the courts (this is assuming Dems also have the Senate at some point).
How many Democrat Senators held Clinton accountable for perjury? If 5-4 partisan decisions indicate SCOTUS is broken, you do realize its the 4 liberal justices that hardly break ranks. For all the cry wolf alarmism and ample opportunities to do so, a conservative leaning court has yet to deliver the judicial apocalypse you fear.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
How many Democrat Senators held Clinton accountable for perjury? If 5-4 partisan decisions indicate SCOTUS is broken, you do realize its the 4 liberal justices that hardly break ranks. For all the cry wolf alarmism and ample opportunities to do so, a conservative leaning court has yet to deliver the judicial apocalypse you fear.
In the Senate none, but in the house many. You continue to bring revisionist stories up on things. What does the impeachment of a President have to do with the testimony given over the last few days for a SCOTUS nominee? Judges are impeached all the time. Presidents not so much.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,306
5,322
136
This thread is freaking hilarious. She is totally owning those guys at every level. About to be announced. But if you watch this thread, she's a demon who has no chance. You guys are freaking FUNNY. In a pathetic way. She will be announced over your tears soon lol...
The easily impressed routine while biting and kicking at a pile of straw, look at you go. I suppose I agree with you on things getting hilarious.

Seriously though, being more reserved with details than Gorsuch is not owning people, it's performing a dance. I'd say the Dems have made their cases quite eloquently, while the Rs want to pump their victim complex when not talking about kids or baseball. I'm not sure how you are conflating reservations regarding her bias and threat to American liberty with the odds of her getting in. Most everyone seems pretty resigned to it at this point, the discussion on needing extra justices somehow didn't clue you in I see. That's a fierce grasp on situational awareness you got there, sure hope you don't work with heavy equipment or deep fryers.

If there are any tears involved, they're likely for personal liberty and civil rights being very much in danger. If that causes you laughter, you're probably a member of the un-American douchebag cult and should avoid using the word 'pathetic.' If only not caring about hypocrisy actually removed the egg from your face, right? But yeah, no, not the case. Go ahead, cheer judicial seat theft and another partisan choice who lacks democratic legitimacy. Your contempt for America and her institutions is duly noted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,977
2,509
126
This thread is freaking hilarious. She is totally owning those guys at every level. About to be announced. But if you watch this thread, she's a demon who has no chance. You guys are freaking FUNNY. In a pathetic way. She will be announced over your tears soon lol...
I doubt anyone here thinks she has no chance, in fact I'm betting almost everyone here is in agreement that she is going to get confirmed almost exactly down party lines.
She is not a demon, she is a very young judge that has almost no real experience wielding the gavel. Which means we know almost nothing about her judicial style, if she can even be said to have one after only 3 years. Her religious views are extreme, even for the Christian conservatives, and it sure seems that she was nominated to be a single issue judicial appointment, something that is very shortsighted in a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the world.

So, yes, we have some problems with her. Some of them are partisan, but there are some good reasons to be wary of her. I personally think that in a sane Senate she would not be confirmed, that the Senate would tell the President to find someone just as conservative but with a little more experience and more balanced in their views.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
How many Democrat Senators held Clinton accountable for perjury? If 5-4 partisan decisions indicate SCOTUS is broken, you do realize its the 4 liberal justices that hardly break ranks. For all the cry wolf alarmism and ample opportunities to do so, a conservative leaning court has yet to deliver the judicial apocalypse you fear.
It did in Bush v Gore
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
It did in Bush v Gore
This assumes you believe that SCOTUS ruled incorrectly. The judiciary can only rule what the law says, not what you wish it to be, and if you want to know the origin of my ire towards Democrats, it is the voter suppression obstacles in front of absentee military ballots at a time when the military tended to consistently vote GOP.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
In the Senate none, but in the house many. You continue to bring revisionist stories up on things. What does the impeachment of a President have to do with the testimony given over the last few days for a SCOTUS nominee? Judges are impeached all the time. Presidents not so much.
The poster I responded to mentioned Trump’s impeachment specific to the Senate, yet we have two impeachments during my lifetime where the narratives literally flip. You can direct your concern towards that poster, I was simply responding.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,381
3,172
126
This assumes you believe that SCOTUS ruled incorrectly. The judiciary can only rule what the law says, not what you wish it to be, and if you want to know the origin of my ire towards Democrats, it is the voter suppression obstacles in front of absentee military ballots at a time when the military tended to consistently vote GOP.
Meanwhile the Republicans are 100x at suppressing the democratic vote. What happened to both sides much less weighing the relative dimensions of the crimes? The bias in your thinking is very transparent to others if not to you.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Meanwhile the Republicans are 100x at suppressing the democratic vote. What happened to both sides much less weighing the relative dimensions of the crimes? The bias in your thinking is very transparent to others if not to you.
This is why I am voting for Joe Biden and have increasingly supported Democrats, especially those who consistently opposed the war in Iraq or who are veterans. The GOP is dead to me. You don’t have to agree with my criticisms, I don’t always agree with you but I respect your intellect. Our biases are shaped by our life experiences.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
This assumes you believe that SCOTUS ruled incorrectly. The judiciary can only rule what the law says, not what you wish it to be, and if you want to know the origin of my ire towards Democrats, it is the voter suppression obstacles in front of absentee military ballots at a time when the military tended to consistently vote GOP.
SCOTUS stopped a legal recount being conducted by the state of Florida because Bush objected.

Turns out Gore had more votes then Bush so you do the math.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,327
2,851
126
ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?
  • Did ADF pay you to speak at training seminars?
  • Yes.
  • Are you aware of ADF's efforts to criminalize homosexuality?
  • No.

:thinking:
Suppose it depends on what those seminars entailed. Were they efforts to criminalize LBG?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY