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

NWRMidnight

Senior member
Jun 18, 2001
471
190
116
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.
Oh? Judicial can only rule what the law says.. IF that is true, then why all this talk about over turning Roe vs Wade? I mean, if the law says only one thing, then how can it be over turned? Answer: Because rulings are not just about what the law says, but how a judge's personal bias beliefs, party pressure, which influence their interpretation of what the law says. It shouldn't be that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws are influenced in ways they shouldn't be. The very fact that Barrett is evasive on answer questions that are clearly and concretely spelled out in the constitution should worry everyone, not just the left, but the right as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and hal2kilo

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
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.
Did Bush have legal grounds to do so within the boundaries of the law as written? SCOTUS said yes.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Oh? Judicial can only rule what the law says.. IF that is true, then why all this talk about over turning Roe vs Wade? I mean, if the law says only one thing, then how can it be over turned? Answer: Because rulings are not just about what the law says, but how a judge's personal bias beliefs, party pressure, which influence their interpretation of what the law says. It shouldn't be that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws are influenced in ways they shouldn't be. The very fact that Barrett is evasive on answer questions that are clearly and concretely spelled out in the constitution should worry everyone, not just the left, but the right as well.
Other SCOTUS nominees have chosen not to answer questions, and she has made it clear that she will evaluate the law with originalism to guide her decisions. She is a protege of Scalia, who RBG seemed to get a long with just fine.
 

NWRMidnight

Senior member
Jun 18, 2001
471
190
116
Other SCOTUS nominees have chosen not to answer questions, and she has made it clear that she will evaluate the law with originalism to guide her decisions. She is a protege of Scalia, who RBG seemed to get a long with just fine.
funny how she refused to answer nearly every question related to the constitution.. you keep drinking the Orange Kool-Aid and wearing your rose colored glasses. We won't even get into the missing information that she was required to summit.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,977
2,509
126
This assumes you believe that SCOTUS ruled incorrectly.
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.
Did Bush have legal grounds to do so within the boundaries of the law as written? SCOTUS said yes.
Your argument just became SCOTUS Ruled correctly because SCOTUS Ruled correctly.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: pmv and hal2kilo

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Your argument just became SCOTUS Ruled correctly because SCOTUS Ruled correctly.
No, I stated that Bush challenged the recount, and SCOTUS agreed with the challenge, the judiciary can’t magically change election laws to handle a wild outlier scenario like what happened in 2000. It’s become increasingly clear that people are evaluating SCOTUS depending on their emotional response to the outcome of its decisions.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,059
917
126
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.
Clinton lied about a bj, meanwhile Trump was trying to get political favours from a foreign country to help his re-election campaign. IMO it's not even in the same league. If Clinton or Obama had done something similar you bet the Dems would hold them accountable. Heck Al Franken got kicked to the side for some sexual assault allegations because Dems held him accountable.

That kind of thing is not even a blip on the radar for GOP at this point (despite credible allegations against Trump and he himself saying he could/would sexually assault women "because he can"). Take Jim Jordan as another example...where's the accountability?

Regarding the courts, the more conservative it leans, the more likely to have IMO good (maybe not perfect) policies (ACA, Roe Wade, voting rights, etc) overturned.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
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.
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.
I have added all of the pertinent information so I can outline your dishonesty.

You continue to tout BothSiderism. Every time you are confronted with a GOP action, you mention a Democratic one. Somehow you fold time and space to make your point, then when I or someone confronts you with these facts, you say I was responding to the poster; therefore, you cannot answer another’s points no matter how factual or how they destroy your BothSiderism manipulation of how things are different than your folding of space and time.

Do you not see that you flip flop like a fish out of water? How much energy do you need for that? Asking fir a friend.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
I have added all of the pertinent information so I can outline your dishonesty.

You continue to tout BothSiderism. Every time you are confronted with a GOP action, you mention a Democratic one. Somehow you fold time and space to make your point, then when I or someone confronts you with these facts, you say I was responding to the poster; therefore, you cannot answer another’s points no matter how factual or how they destroy your BothSiderism manipulation of how things are different than your folding of space and time.

Do you not see that you flip flop like a fish out of water? How much energy do you need for that? Asking fir a friend.
Your friend sounds disingenuously concerned and not worth my time
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Clinton lied about a bj, meanwhile Trump was trying to get political favours from a foreign country to help his re-election campaign. IMO it's not even in the same league. If Clinton or Obama had done something similar you bet the Dems would hold them accountable. Heck Al Franken got kicked to the side for some sexual assault allegations because Dems held him accountable.

That kind of thing is not even a blip on the radar for GOP at this point (despite credible allegations against Trump and he himself saying he could/would sexually assault women "because he can"). Take Jim Jordan as another example...where's the accountability?

Regarding the courts, the more conservative it leans, the more likely to have IMO good (maybe not perfect) policies (ACA, Roe Wade, voting rights, etc) overturned.
Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice to cover up his predatory sexual infidelity, and Senate Democrats failed to do their duty in holding him accountable.

Trump obstructed justice, lied and abused the powers of his office to prevent Congress from performing his Constitutional duty, and Senate Republicans failed to do their duty in holding him accountable.

Neither has a leg to stand on.

Barrett, at this point the arguments against her are straws.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
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
Ummm no, you really should read up on it.
The Impeachment Clause

Give it a shot.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
funny how she refused to answer nearly every question related to the constitution.. you keep drinking the Orange Kool-Aid and wearing your rose colored glasses. We won't even get into the missing information that she was required to summit.
It was OK when it was the Ginsburg rule

"
When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees.
Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts.
Sens. Leahy, Durbin and Schumer already have announced they won't honor the Ginsburg Rule for Republican nominees."

Kagan and Sotomayor followed it in their own hearings, but now that Barrett did it, it becomes perjury or some other bull fucking shit?
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
Your friend sounds disingenuously concerned and not worth my time
Interesting that you avoid the repeated points I have made. Seems that we can now expect - Yawn*, Edgy*, Goalposts*, the Democrats did it first* or bbbbut tRump*. LOL! You are consistent.

Edit: I adjusted my response to include one of the word salad say nothing responses I missed.
 
Last edited:

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,051
1,007
136
Do you think Sen . Hirona is going to ask Uncle Joe Biden :
"
“Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” Hirono asked.
“No, Senator Hirono,” Barrett replied.
“Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?” Hirono then asked. "

I doubt it, you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY