Barrett Confirmation Hearing

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Oct 12, 2020.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Barney Frank got away with it
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  2. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    Now, now...just because there was a gross misunderstanding of the phrase "turn the page"...
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  3. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    The size of the court wasn't set by the framers. In the early days the number of justices varied from 6-10. Then Congress set the number to nine in 1869 and its been that way for the last 150 years. I suppose Congress could change it again if it wanted to. Let's hope the Repubs hold the Senate to prevent such a fiasco.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Yep, a bill from Congress, signed by the POTUS, and the number of justices on the SCOTUS can be changed. Unlike the desire by liberal activists to give statehood to PR and DC or abolish the Electoral College, this wouldn't require any votes from the States. It would likely cause a sharp flip of Congress in the midterms though. Then again, progressives don't care as much about the SCOTUS as the Republicans allowing for the hypocrisy of holding a seat open for 9 months to ensure an R POTUS nominates while doing so again in weeks to ensure a conservative justice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    I think, given the chance and under the same circumstances they would/will do it too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    So are you attempting to claim that everybody just knew Trump was going to beat Hillary? That doesn't sound right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Nope, they held out hope that Trump would win. In ACB's case, they are taking no chances and if you believe Graham he thinks there is a very good chance that that Biden wins.

    In both cases, it was about trying to ensure R influence of the court. If the D's choose to waste political capital on increasing the number of judges they'll be doing so to ensure D influence in the court.

    This board often likes to lean on precedents, like the D's reducing the required votes for needed for Fed Judiciary nominees to a simple majority. The McConnell precedents will bring significant howling from the Right when the left does the same. The R's have been much smarter though. They've focused on younger less accomplished judges to ensure locking in their picks for 30 years. What goes around will come around, eventually. Just like this ACB example, both parties will demonstrate their hypocrisy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2020
  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Politicians play politics to wield power? Who would have thought?

    Senators should play by the constitutional rules but other than that they should fight to exert as much influence as they can. That is how I see the SCOTUS nomination and confirmations over the last 4 years.

    I think that is exactly how the game has been played for the last 200 years.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The Constitution isn't the only rule. Like courts, the Senate has its own rules of procedure and decorum, which the Constitution authorizes. It has its own precedents for how it handles certain issues and dilemmas. For the sake of predictability and fairness, it should generally follow its own precedents and should not change its rules of procedure for short-term political expedience. There's a reason why courts generally try to follow precedent and rules.

    The game hasn't always been played this way. Until 1917, the Senate was a body of unlimited debate. (Originally the House was too.) They didn't vote on anything until everybody got a chance to talk about it as much as they wanted. There was no process to invoke cloture (limit debate). That included judicial nominations. We eroded that with a 2/3 requirement, later reduced that to 60 votes, and now to a simple majority. The judges we confirm now (beginning with Harry Reid's change and going forward) are being confirmed in a process that is unlike any before, because the minority (even if it's barely a minority) can be completely shut out of the process.

    Two things screwed this up. First, the Supreme Court decided it was going to be the final arbiter of all cultural and social issues even when it has no textual basis for doing so. That made the stakes for judicial nominations ridiculously high. If you're a social conservative, how the hell can you tolerate a Democrat getting a seat on the Court when you know that Democrat will completely disenfranchise you on every issue you care about? This is 90 percent of the problem, and it's massively ****** up. The founding fathers would truly be horrified at it - not because they'd always agree with social conservatives but because they'd never support a virtually unaccountable branch of government wielding that kind of power. Why get rid of a king only to have a system like that? At least King George III had to deal with Parliament.

    Second, the other 10 percent of the problem is the Senate. It was designed for unlimited debate, but it also wasn't designed to be run by political hacks who have to worry about every urge that their political party primary voters have at a given moment and therefore feel the need to filibuster everything under the sun. It was designed to be run by intelligent adults who answered to their state legislatures - more like the British House of Lords than the House of Commons. For example, Gary Peters, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Casey, and Jon Tester will almost surely vote against ACB as they voted against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Why? Because they'd get primaried if they didn't. That's the epitome of what the founding fathers didn't want when they designed the Senate. What if they answered to their state legislatures instead? It would be wildly different dynamic.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    hahahahaha, have we ever left that notion behind!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Mitch says the Barrett confirmation vote will be on Monday
    (which means a Sunday session)
     
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Republicans' support for Barrett's nomination is also higher than any other nominee dating back to 1987. Nearly nine in 10 Republicans (89%) support her compared with 76% who were in favor of Kavanagh and Gorsuch," Gallup said in a release. "Independents' 52% support for Barrett's confirmation is identical to what it was for the woman who she would be replacing, Ginsburg. It is also on par with independents' views of the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts, but it is higher than the last two nominees to the high court -- Gorsuch (44%) and Kavanaugh (38%)."

    Gallup Poll Shows That Judge Barrett's Favorability Breaks Records
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 500+ Posts

    This nomination has gone the way they should have. No big issues, some huffing and puffing but just tantrums by the losers.

    Now remember, the replacement of Ginsburg with Barrett was supposed to be WWIII, a battle the likes had never been seen before. Instead there was more drama with Alito’s confirmation that this one. On that one Biden made an *** out of himself as usual and ended up wearing a cap from Alitos college to try to make up for it.

    Many reasons for it - I listed them in a older post. Still, it’s a bad loss by the Dems. All that huffing and puffing and it’s smooth sailing instead.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    How dare Dianne Feinstein not act like a total ***** during the Barrett hearings! Link.

    She should seriously consider changing parties or at least becoming an independent at this point. She's not going to seek another term, so she has nothing to lose. She's liberal as hell, but basically anybody who doesn't behave like their hair is on fire all the time is unacceptable to the base. The Sunrise Movement incident is becoming the norm for them. Why not just tell them all to screw off?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. WillUSAF

    WillUSAF 500+ Posts

    So are you still a Ben Sasse fan?
     
  16. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Politico is preparing us for court packing. They're rebranding it. It's now called "rebalancing the court". That sounds so much nicer than "court packing".
     
    • poop poop x 4
  17. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  19. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    You catch on quick.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    The Dem senator from AL - what is he going to do? Vote against it one week before his election? Hahahahahahahahahabaha? My advice - just leave town quietly.
     
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    To be fair, he'd lose anyway.
     
  22. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Democrats not showing up for the hearing and vote. Throwing a tantrum like 4 year olds. Oh, how the media would be outraged of the Republicans did that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    That's no surprise. The Texas Democrats left the state multiple times a few years ago to avoid a vote.

    They don't believe in anything but power. Certainly not a Democracy. Majority vote is not what they believe in; it's only something to demagogue.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  24. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    The committee advances ACB unanimously (i.e. all present voted aye) 12-0. All Dems boycott.
     
  25. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    The cardboard cutouts ARE getting rave reviews...it was the most productive showing by the Dems in a long time. More work, less pay required...and none of them voting against the motions on the floor.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 500+ Posts

    If the late night comics weren't tools, they'd have a field day with this. The R's would never hear the end of it if they did this.

    Instead they sift through Slow Joe's diaper looking for undigested seeds, then brag on Twatter about how who got the tomatoes seeds.
     
  27. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 500+ Posts

    Oh, and this hearing was a total disaster for the Democrats. All that talk about how this was going to be WWIII, and all they could do was play hooky from work and have their staffer put some poster in their seats. I was hoping for more screaming Harpies like in Kaughvan's hearings, but maybe that'll come when the vote is held Monday.

    Most of the time Graham and Cocaine Mitch don't do much to actual advance conservative ideas, but on judges they are a Boss. To have managed the hearings without any issues, due in large part to the quality of the nominee but Kaugahn was good too, speaks highly of Graham. Helps that Flaky Flake isn't on the Conference so his vote doesn't have to be pandered to.

    Still, to be on the cusp of a problem free confirmation, done in what, 3 weeks since Ginsburg kicked the bucket (I wound't slam on her but old girl let the pop culture love go to her head and then boxed herself into having to try to stay alive one more day, after Trump won), is a huge accomplishment for Graham, and Mitch. Getting Wille on board right from the start helped nail things down and keep any drama from building up about this being accomplished. Great job by them all around.

    Now the Coward John Roberts can just vote every time with his fellow leftist, to no avail, as a true conservative majority rights the wrongs of various court decisions.
     
  28. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 500+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  29. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 500+ Posts

    Very good article on the Barrett confirmation, by Molly Hemingway of the Federalist, one of the best and most accurate reporters in Washington.

    It does leave out the aspect of having a much more solid R lineup in the Judiciary Committee. Last time they had Flaky Flake, and had to humor him lest he vote against the nominee and throw a big monkey wrench in it. His worthless *** is gone - another reason why the R wins in the Senate in 2018 were so important. While the net was +2, in reality it was plus 3 as the loss of Flake in AZ wasn't that big of a deal.

    Barrett Will Be Confirmed Because GOP Shut Down Democrat Dirty Tricks
     
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    He was replaced by a Democrat who would never vote for a Republican nominee and votes to put Chuck Schumer in charge of the Senate. Not sure how that's a gain.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page