• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
K1052 said:
She could set the table on fire during the hearing and the GOP would still confirm her. Let's not hear about her poise because it simply doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
It does matter because there is no constitutional argument against her confirmation if she adequately answers questions to the satisfaction of the American public and not grandstanding Senators.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
It does matter because there is no constitutional argument against her confirmation if she adequately answers questions to the satisfaction of the American public and not grandstanding Senators.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no Constitutional argument against her confirmation if she doesn't adequately answer the questions to the satisfaction of the American public. Only those grandstanding Senators matter, and that is why she will be confirmed, because the majority of Americans do not want her confirmed until the next Administration.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Actually, there is no Constitutional argument against her confirmation if she doesn't adequately answer the questions to the satisfaction of the American public. Only those grandstanding Senators matter, and that is why she will be confirmed, because the majority of Americans do not want her confirmed until the next Administration.
Click to expand...
Public opinion will dictate whether or not Democrats have the political momentum to stack the courts. If Barrett successfully deflects the partisan grandstanding of the Senate, public opinion will cool on her confirmation. So far, she hasn’t taken any bait.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Public opinion will dictate whether or not Democrats have the political momentum to stack the courts. If Barrett successfully deflects the partisan grandstanding of the Senate, public opinion will cool on her confirmation. So far, she hasn’t taken any bait.
Click to expand...

Public opinion is moot. If public opinion mattered the proceedings would not be happening. However she answers or does not answer the questions, she will be confirmed, as there are the votes. What will matter is how this changes someone’s vote in the election. That is the public opinion of record. This other stuff is pure hyperbole.

I laugh at this “stack the courts” diatribe. Like the last four years has not been a court stacking exercise. Now all of sudden the Democrats have to answer for the actions of the Republicons. I would not say a word. I think they are answering it as they should, it’s a nothing burger. Once the Democrats have the House, Senate and President, then you can ask that question and I bet it will be answered much differently. Until the results are known, it’s just a ploy by a dishonest group, that you support when you feel like it, to try and create a wedge issue.

I bet deep down you’re really a fascist.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Public opinion will dictate whether or not Democrats have the political momentum to stack the courts. If Barrett successfully deflects the partisan grandstanding of the Senate, public opinion will cool on her confirmation. So far, she hasn’t taken any bait.
Click to expand...

All I was pointing out was that public opinion does not matter at all in the confirmation of a Justice. It might matter to some of the Senators, but I doubt even that because the political calculus is going to be that voting against confirmation will lose the base and without that all the swing votes in the state won't win the election.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Public opinion will dictate whether or not Democrats have the political momentum to stack the courts. If Barrett successfully deflects the partisan grandstanding of the Senate, public opinion will cool on her confirmation. So far, she hasn’t taken any bait.
Click to expand...

Lol no it doesn’t. What dictates whether democrats can expand the court is whether or not they control the senate and the presidency. Their constitutional rights in terms on of shaping the court are clear and have nothing to do with public opinion.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol no it doesn’t. What dictates whether democrats can expand the court is whether or not they control the senate and the presidency. Their constitutional rights in terms on of shaping the court are clear and have nothing to do with public opinion.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. Political calculus comes with risk, and the ability to maintain a unified front largely depends on how each Senator decides to vote in weighing those risks. More than a few GOP Senators are now facing the implications of their decisions. Democrats are not unified in their desire to pack the courts, Biden refuses to even commit to it.
 
Grey_Beard said:
Public opinion is moot. If public opinion mattered the proceedings would not be happening. However she answers or does not answer the questions, she will be confirmed, as there are the votes. What will matter is how this changes someone’s vote in the election. That is the public opinion of record. This other stuff is pure hyperbole.

I laugh at this “stack the courts” diatribe. Like the last four years has not been a court stacking exercise. Now all of sudden the Democrats have to answer for the actions of the Republicons. I would not say a word. I think they are answering it as they should, it’s a nothing burger. Once the Democrats have the House, Senate and President, then you can ask that question and I bet it will be answered much differently. Until the results are known, it’s just a ploy by a dishonest group, that you support when you feel like it, to try and create a wedge issue.

I bet deep down you’re really a fascist.
Click to expand...
Fascism, yawn
 
Grey_Beard said:
Public opinion is moot. If public opinion mattered the proceedings would not be happening. However she answers or does not answer the questions, she will be confirmed, as there are the votes. What will matter is how this changes someone’s vote in the election. That is the public opinion of record. This other stuff is pure hyperbole.

I laugh at this “stack the courts” diatribe. Like the last four years has not been a court stacking exercise. Now all of sudden the Democrats have to answer for the actions of the Republicons. I would not say a word. I think they are answering it as they should, it’s a nothing burger. Once the Democrats have the House, Senate and President, then you can ask that question and I bet it will be answered much differently. Until the results are known, it’s just a ploy by a dishonest group, that you support when you feel like it, to try and create a wedge issue.

I bet deep down you’re really a fascist.
Click to expand...
He’s not, he’s just a dedicated concern troll.

No matter the issue he will always wring his hands and worry that the Democrats are overreaching or that whatever horrible thing conservatives are doing is somehow the Democrats’ fault.

For example with judges, he tried to blame Democrats for eliminating the judicial filibuster despite this being the terms of the agreement that REPUBLICANS forced both sides to agree to!
 
Did anyone watch the presentation from Sen Whitehouse regarding the chain of dark money, donors, conservative judicial activism networks and nominee pipelines, and the string of SCOTUS decisions under Roberts?

It was really, really good, and probably won't get the attention it deserves.
Overall makes a compelling case of how badly the court system has been corrupted by dark money and how organized and successful the campaign to pack the courts with conservative activist judges has been.

I'd challenge anyone to watch.
 
Bitek said:
Did anyone watch the presentation from Sen Whitehouse regarding the chain of dark money, donors, conservative judicial activism networks and nominee pipelines, and the string of SCOTUS decisions under Roberts?

It was really, really good, and probably won't get the attention it deserves.
Overall makes a compelling case of how badly the court system has been corrupted by dark money and how organized and successful the campaign to pack the courts with conservative activist judges has been.

I'd challenge anyone to watch.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. This is the thing people don't get - I'm not actually super worried about this lady overturning decisions on gay marriage and things like that. The decisions the conservative bloc in the supreme court have consistently made over the last several decades has been to expand corporate power, remove corporate accountability, undermine regulations, and attack the right to vote so it's harder to change those things bac. THAT is the legacy of modern SCOTUS.

You want to know why you can't sue your cable company in court if they screw you over? Thank SCOTUS. Want to know why gerrymandering destroyed democratic accountability in so many states? Thank SCOTUS. Why we had a blizzard of voter suppression across the whole south? SCOTUS again. That is their number 1 concern - corporate power.
 
fskimospy said:
Oh absolutely. This is the thing people don't get - I'm not actually super worried about this lady overturning decisions on gay marriage and things like that. The decisions the conservative bloc in the supreme court have consistently made over the last several decades has been to expand corporate power, remove corporate accountability, undermine regulations, and attack the right to vote so it's harder to change those things bac. THAT is the legacy of modern SCOTUS.

You want to know why you can't sue your cable company in court if they screw you over? Thank SCOTUS. Want to know why gerrymandering destroyed democratic accountability in so many states? Thank SCOTUS. Why we had a blizzard of voter suppression across the whole south? SCOTUS again. That is their number 1 concern - corporate power.
Click to expand...

Yep. There are a few issues that capture the headlines and the public conversations, but the real issues are more complex and not discussed publicly. It all roots back to enabling the powerful to gain more power. Win in courts when they can win elections on those issues.

The conservative SCOTUS has played a heavy hand in the corruption and disintegration of our democracy.

But muh abortion and muh guns.
 
Bitek said:
Yep. There are a few issues that capture the headlines and the public conversations, but the real issues are more complex and not discussed publicly. It all roots back to enabling the powerful to gain more power. Win in courts when they can win elections on those issues.

The conservative SCOTUS has played a heavy hand in the corruption and disintegration of our democracy.

But muh abortion and muh guns.
Click to expand...
Also related to corruption they have gutted federal anti-corruption statutes making it basically impossible to prosecute corrupt officials.
 
*sees 5th Circuit in action lately*

Yeah. Biden might not have to pack SCOTUS right off the bat but expanding the federal judiciary by 200ish seats is going to be required rather quickly. It's been decades since we've expanded it anyway and caseload is up like 40% since.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Sure it does. Political calculus comes with risk, and the ability to maintain a unified front largely depends on how each Senator decides to vote in weighing those risks. More than a few GOP Senators are now facing the implications of their decisions. Democrats are not unified in their desire to pack the courts, Biden refuses to even commit to it.
Click to expand...

Yes they are facing consequences for their decisions. To put it another way, the deed has already been done, the implications are irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
Oh absolutely. This is the thing people don't get - I'm not actually super worried about this lady overturning decisions on gay marriage and things like that. The decisions the conservative bloc in the supreme court have consistently made over the last several decades has been to expand corporate power, remove corporate accountability, undermine regulations, and attack the right to vote so it's harder to change those things bac. THAT is the legacy of modern SCOTUS.

You want to know why you can't sue your cable company in court if they screw you over? Thank SCOTUS. Want to know why gerrymandering destroyed democratic accountability in so many states? Thank SCOTUS. Why we had a blizzard of voter suppression across the whole south? SCOTUS again. That is their number 1 concern - corporate power.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. What we've seen with the attack on oversight, the push for privatization of key institutions, Citizens United, PACs, the rise of modern PMCs, it's all a strategy to consolidate power and money while avoiding personal liability. It's tribal delivery form has been able to infect the last remaining branch to resist it. Soon, 2/3 of the highest court in the land will be activist judges, with half of that number not possessing any democratic legitimacy. We have a lot of work cut out for us.

Def disagree with Biden's disdain for 'court packing,' and hope he finds greater disdain in females becoming 2nd class citizens. People who think Roe v Wade is safe make me sick. With people like Trump and Moscow Mitch paving the way for younger traitors, in addition to a litany of additional laws on election interference and voter suppression, I support returning the Supreme Court back to it's original count of 13 justices. Also, DC gets to be a state. Puerto Rico if they want to. Fillibuster needs to go away too of course.




 
I think it’s odd that originalist claim to say that they interpret the constitution to mean what it meant at the same time the law was written and that changes to the law must be done by congress and yet there are many examples were that is blatantly not true. The heller case being the most notable where the meaning of the 2nd was reinterpreted. The ACA mandate would be another example along with citizens United.

I think there should be a new political party and its name and its ideology would be the same, the hypocrisy Party.
 
kage69 said:
I couldn't agree more. What we've seen with the attack on oversight, the push for privatization of key institutions, Citizens United, PACs, the rise of modern PMCs, it's all a strategy to consolidate power and money while avoiding personal liability. It's tribal delivery form has been able to infect the last remaining branch to resist it. Soon, 2/3 of the highest court in the land will be activist judges, with half of that number not possessing any democratic legitimacy. We have a lot of work cut out for us.

Def disagree with Biden's disdain for 'court packing,' and hope he finds greater disdain in females becoming 2nd class citizens. People who think Roe v Wade is safe make me sick. With people like Trump and Moscow Mitch paving the way for younger traitors, in addition to a litany of additional laws on election interference and voter suppression, I support returning the Supreme Court back to it's original count of 13 justices. Also, DC gets to be a state. Puerto Rico if they want to. Fillibuster needs to go away too of course.
Click to expand...

I also think people underestimate how popular these changes could be too. I'm not saying they WILL be popular, but there's a powerful message there where you point out that like 18% of the population can dominate the country in the current situation.

The argument needs to be that we're a democracy and that means when you get the most votes you should generally win control of government. Let the Republicans try and make these mealy-mouthed defenses of minority rule. People like democracy and they agree that the winner should win.
 
ivwshane said:
I think it’s odd that originalist claim to say that they interpret the constitution to mean what it meant at the same time the law was written and that changes to the law must be done by congress and yet there are many examples were that is blatantly not true. The heller case being the most notable where the meaning of the 2nd was reinterpreted. The ACA mandate would be another example along with citizens United.

I think there should be a new political party and its name and its ideology would be the same, the hypocrisy Party.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if when you have a group of people who strongly disagreed with each other you can mine the historical record to mean basically whatever you want it to mean in order to justify the position you already wanted to take! Scalia wrote the book on this.

Originalism is stupid. The purpose of judges is not to use a Ouija board to find out what people dead for two centuries intended when they wrote purposefully vague language. The purpose of judges is to use their own judgment as to what those words mean to them, today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top