Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15121699
https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/most-amer ... sion-poll/

Marquette law school (usually Democrat leaning, I think?) shows that a strong majority of Democrats, Republicans and Indepedents want a SCOTUS justice confirmed before the election.

I'm surprised that a majority of Democrats polled feel this way. I suspect there is a desire from people to get past the drama.
#15121703
Doug64 wrote:Whereby giving Republicans permission to do the same as soon as they again take complete control of the presidency and Congress.


Considering the fact that the POtUS and the Senate both conspired to ignore congressional oversight, thereby ignoring checks and balances needed for a healthy democracy, it does not seem like Republicans need or want “permission” to do undemocratic things when they control those two institutions.
#15121718
Mitch may have a bit of trouble with this one. Up here in Maine for example folks like to actually think for themselves and Susan Collins, who is already down 5 or 10 points, may as well withdraw from the election if she takes orders from Mitch. "Bye Bye Susan" bumper stickers are not uncommon here.
#15121720
jimjam wrote:Mitch may have a bit of trouble with this one. Up here in Maine for example folks like to actually think for themselves and Susan Collins, who is already down 5 or 10 points, may as well withdraw from the election if she takes orders from Mitch. "Bye Bye Susan" bumper stickers are not uncommon here.


Aren't the bumper stickers because she wouldn't play along with the Christine Blasey Ford's rape hoax on Brett Kavanaugh?
#15121743
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that the POtUS and the Senate both conspired to ignore congressional oversight, thereby ignoring checks and balances needed for a healthy democracy, it does not seem like Republicans need or want “permission” to do undemocratic things when they control those two institutions.


Democracitic institutions and the rule of law are obstacles that the Republicans rightly recognize must be overcome in order to enact their unpopular views. This is why they are crippling the USPS.

I no longer send clients anything by the USPS. It now takes 13+ days for them to return documents to me when they are one county over.

They hate America and hate Americans and are literally killing people who depend on the post office to receive medication. They are actual monsters.
#15121745
maz wrote:Aren't the bumper stickers because she wouldn't play along with the Christine Blasey Ford's rape hoax on Brett Kavanaugh?


folks up here aren't that dumb. I suggest you go back to your buddies and discuss Hillary eating dead babies in the rear of a pizza parlor.
#15121746
Image

And the latest insanity:

Nancy Pelosi doesn't rule out impeachment to delay Trump's SCOTUS pick

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday would not rule out launching impeachment proceedings to try to block President Trump and Senate Republicans from quickly filling the vacancy left on the Supreme Court by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” the California Democrat said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    Host George Stephanopoulos had asked her about the possibility of launching impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump or Attorney General William P. Barr in the post-election lame-duck session of Congress as a way to stall a high court confirmation process.

    “We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “When we weigh the equities, protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

    However, Mrs. Pelosi suggested that Democrats would not try to use the end-of-month deadline to fund the federal government past September as leverage in the Supreme Court fight.

    “Well, none of us has any interest in shutting down government,” she said. “There is some enthusiasm … on the left to say let’s use that, but we’re not going to be shutting down government.”

    Mr. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have indicated they intend to move quickly to fill the vacancy.

    Justice Ginsburg died Friday of pancreatic cancer at the age of 87.

    Democrats say moving before voters have a chance to weigh in via the Nov. 3 election would violate Mr. McConnell’s own standard from 2016, when he blocked hearings and votes on Judge Merrick Garland, who former President Barack Obama nominated to the high court in March 2016.

    Mr. McConnell says the situation was different then because the White House and the U.S. Senate were controlled by different parties.

    The Democrat-led House already impeached Mr. Trump in December, accusing him of improperly strong-arming Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joseph R. Biden, who is now the Democratic presidential nominee.

    The GOP-led Senate voted to acquit the president earlier this year.
#15121756
jimjam wrote:folks up here aren't that dumb. I suggest you go back to your buddies and discuss Hillary eating dead babies in the rear of a pizza parlor.


People do horrible evil things. Would it absolutely bake your noodle to find out that some powerful people-including some that you like a whole lot-were engaged in terrible evil acts?

Take the example of Gilles de Rais, who was a French war hero and comrade to Joan of Arc;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

However, it's pretty evil to make false and unproven accusations about public figures too, is it not?
#15121803


Biden is refusing to name any SCOTUS nominees because they would be subjected to "unfair attacks". Considering what the historical context here is, regarding which side accuses the other's nominees of being rapists, this strikes me as a really spineless, hypocritical thing to do. It's more of the purely negative, zero actual leadership campaigning that has typified Biden thus far. I think I'm done posting about politics for a bit, there's a thin line between clown world and cringe and I don't like cringe.
#15121807
Biden is refusing to name any SCOTUS nominees because they would be subjected to "unfair attacks".


Because he is both smart and wise. Trump released his list and now he is stuck with it.

He will choose the candidate who will cause the most outcry because he is not raising money very well and needs to get the news media to pay for his publicity. Never mind that it will, quite possibly, give the senate to the democrats. Imagine. Donald as president for four years and being unable to fire anyone requiring confirmation. It will be hilarious.
#15121808
Huh. On Moscow Mitch:

Why do theses tactics of denying Obama his nominee even a hearing whilst not using the same guidelines for his president's pick seem like something Putin would do.

Moscow Mitch. Good call, Scarborough.
#15121868
Drlee wrote:Because he is both smart and wise. Trump released his list and now he is stuck with it.

He will choose the candidate who will cause the most outcry because he is not raising money very well and needs to get the news media to pay for his publicity. Never mind that it will, quite possibly, give the senate to the democrats. Imagine. Donald as president for four years and being unable to fire anyone requiring confirmation. It will be hilarious.


Lol like Trump reads anything presented to him.
#15121938
annatar1914 wrote:People do horrible evil things. Would it absolutely bake your noodle to find out that some powerful people-including some that you like a whole lot-were engaged in terrible evil acts?

Take the example of Gilles de Rais, who was a French war hero and comrade to Joan of Arc;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

However, it's pretty evil to make false and unproven accusations about public figures too, is it not?

I must sadly agree ……. human behavior at it's worst? One hardly need to look further that the Nazi holocaust. The prevailing circumstances of the Hillary drinking the blood of babies in a back room of a pizza parlor make the veracity of the tale, at best , questionable. The danger that this trash poses is illustrated by what I believe was a bombing or a drive by shooting at said pizza parlor by a feeble minded fanatic.
#15121970
jimjam wrote:I must sadly agree ……. human behavior at it's worst? One hardly need to look further that the Nazi holocaust. The prevailing circumstances of the Hillary drinking the blood of babies in a back room of a pizza parlor make the veracity of the tale, at best , questionable. The danger that this trash poses is illustrated by what I believe was a bombing or a drive by shooting at said pizza parlor by a feeble minded fanatic.


It's not necessary to believe that she or others in the establishment for that matter are cosmic-level evil with these tales-although there is the matter of people like Jefferey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.... It suffices for now for me to know that Hillary Clinton is demonstrably a very bad person on the ordinary and even banal scale of things.
#15121971
Well thank god for the courts in this case:

Marshall Cohen, Paul P. Murphy, Katelyn Polantz and Sonia Moghe of CNN wrote:The US Postal Service must prioritize election mail and reverse some key policy changes imposed by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a federal judge ruled on Monday, saying that "managerial failures" at the agency undermined the public's faith in mail-in voting.

US District Judge Victor Marrero in New York's Southern District became the second federal judge to side against USPS in the past week. A judge in Washington state ordered many similar changes on Friday and blasted the Trump administration for what he called a "politically motivated attack" on USPS.

In the Monday ruling, Marrero said USPS will be required to treat all election mail as first-class mail or priority mail express, and that USPS will need to "pre-approve" all overtime requests for the two weeks surrounding Election Day, to make sure absentee ballots are processed properly.
"The right to vote is too vital a value in our democracy to be left in a state of suspense in the minds of voters weeks before a presidential election, raising doubts as to whether their votes will ultimately be counted," Marrero wrote.

"While the court has no doubts that the Postal Service's workforce comprises hardworking and dedicated public servants, multiple managerial failures have undermined the postal employees' ability to fulfill their vital mission," he added.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/politics ... index.html
#15121972
jimjam wrote:The prevailing circumstances of the Hillary drinking the blood of babies in a back room of a pizza parlor make the veracity of the tale, at best , questionable.


Yeah, because those emails weren't creepy as fuck, the weird fuckers that run that pizza parlor aren't creepy as fuck, Podesta doesn't have a creepy as fuck pedo art collection, Weiner wasn't doing creepy as fuck shit with minors on the internet, Bill Clinton wasn't jet-setting around with creepy as fuck child trafficking billionaires, and Hillary's whole circle definitely isn't just a bunch of creepy as fuck sexual deviants. It's all just a conspiracy theory, right? :knife:
#15121976
Getting back to RBG and the appointment of her successor ... while in the case of Garland, Senator McConnell was careful to give himself wiggle room in case just this situation occurred, Senator Graham was not—he flatly stated several times in 2016 and 2018 that if there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the presidential election confirmation would be put off until the election is over, and now has to explain why he has reversed himself. He has apparently fastened on the attempt by the Left to destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life in a desperate attempt to prevent his confirmation as the reason:

Lindsey Graham: Dems who tried to 'destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life' must 'reap what you sow' post-RBG

    Sen. Lindsey Graham said Democrats searching for Republican allies in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death should have thought twice about trying “to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

    The South Carolina Republican isn’t swayed by Democrats’ calls to honor Ms. Ginsburg’s “most fervent” deathbed wish about delaying her replacement, given how they treated Judge Kavanaugh when he was accused — without corroborating witnesses or evidence during his nomination hearings — of attempted rape at an unspecified place in the summer of 1982.

    “Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department,” Mr. Graham tweeted over the weekend. “Democrats chose to set in motion rules changes to stack the court at the Circuit level and they chose to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat open.”

    Republicans overwhelmingly balked at the idea that college professor Christine Blasey Ford’s uncorroborated claims were enough to sink his nomination.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren also warned Americans that placing Mr. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court may result in “back-alley abortions” despite his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade set an “important precedent” in 1973 before being “reaffirmed many times.”

    “We cannot go back to the time of back-alley abortions,” the Massachusetts Democrat tweeted Sept. 12, 2018. “But that could happen if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court and helps overturn Roe v. Wade. We must #StopKavanaugh the lives and futures of countless American women are at stake.”

    President Trump told Democrats over the weekend that he has every intention of filling the vacant seat on the high court.

    “We won,” he said. “And we have an obligation, as the winners, to pick who we want.”

And here’s a look at Amy Coney Barrett:

High court front-runner hailed by right, feared by left

    A front-runner to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a federal appellate judge who has established herself as a reliable conservative on hot-button legal issues from abortion to gun control.

    Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic, is hailed by religious conservatives and others on the right as an ideological heir to conservative icon Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice for whom she clerked.

    Liberals say Barrett’s legal views are too heavily influenced by her religious beliefs and fear her ascent to the nation’s highest court could lead to a scaling back of hard-fought abortion rights. She also would replace the justice who is best-known for fighting for women’s rights and equality.

    President Donald Trump has said he’ll nominate a woman and Barrett is thought to be at the top of his list of favorites. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge was considered a finalist in 2018 for Trump’s second nomination to the high court, which eventually went to Brett Kavanaugh after Justice Anthony Kennedy retired. Barrett’s selection now could help Trump energize his base weeks before Election Day.

    At just 48, Barrett would be the youngest justice and her tenure could last for decades. She’s made her mark in law primarily as an academic at the University of Notre Dame, where she began teaching at age 30. She first donned judges’ robes in 2017 after Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit.

    But she wouldn’t be the only justice with little prior experience as a judge: John Roberts and Clarence Thomas spent less time as appellate judges before their Supreme Court nominations and Elena Kagan had never been a judge before President Barack Obama nominated her in 2009.

    Barrett mentioned Kagan when asked in a White House questionnaire in 2017 about which justices she admired most, saying Kagan brought to the bench “the knowledge and skill she acquired as an academic to the practical resolution of disputes.”

    When Barrett’s name first arose in 2018 as a possible Trump pick, even some conservatives worried her sparse judicial record made it too hard to predict how she might rule. Nearly three years on, her judicial record now includes the authorship of around 100 opinions and several telling dissents in which Barrett displayed her clear and consistent conservative bent.

    She has long expressed sympathy with a mode of interpreting the Constitution, called originalism, in which justices try to decipher original meanings of texts in assessing if someone’s rights have been violated. Many liberals oppose that strict approach, saying it is too rigid and doesn’t allow the Constitution to change with the times.

    Barrett’s fondness for original texts was on display in a 2019 dissent in a gun-rights case in which she argued a person convicted of a nonviolent felony shouldn’t be automatically barred from owning a gun. All but a few pages of her 37-page dissent were devoted to the history of gun rules for convicted criminals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    And, all indications are that Barrett is staunchly opposed to abortion, though she has often side-stepped answering questions about the topic.

    In the 2017 White House questionnaire, Barrett was asked if it was her view that abortion was always immoral. She didn’t answer the question directly but said: “If I am confirmed (to the 7th Circuit), my views on this or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

    In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett listed fewer than 10 cases she said are widely considered “super-precedents,” ones that no justice would dare reverse even if they believed they were wrongly decided. Among them was Brown vs. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional.

    One she didn’t include on the list: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that affirmed a woman’s right to abortion. Scholars don’t include it, she wrote, because public controversy swirling around it has never abated.

    Abortion and women’s rights were the focus of a bruising 2017 confirmation process after Barrett’s nomination to the 7th Circuit.

    Others pointed to Barrett’s membership of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life” group - and that she had signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops affirming the “value of human life from conception to natural death.”

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett her views suggested religious tenets could guide her thinking on the law, the California Democrat telling Barrett: “The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

    Barrett responded that her views had evolved and that she agreed judges shouldn’t “follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case, rather than what the law requires.”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, criticized Democrats for pressing Barrett on her faith, saying it could be seen as a “religious test” for the job.

    The Senate eventually confirmed her in a 55-43 vote, with three Democrats joined the majority.

    Her nearly three-year stint as a judge has included at least one abortion-related case.

    An 2018 ruling by a 7th Circuit panel declared unconstitutional an Indiana law requiring the burial of fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage, and prohibiting clinics from treating the remains as waste. The law, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, also barred abortions on the basis on the race, sex or disabilities of the fetus.

    Barrett joined three conservative judges in asking for the ruling to be tossed and for the full court to rehear the case. They didn’t have the votes to force a rehearing. But they issued a joint dissent on the rehearing decision, clearly suggesting they thought the Indiana law was constitutional.

    The dissent, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, argued that Indiana’s law would have been upheld “had it concerned the remains of cats or gerbils.”

    Barrett was raised in New Orleans, the eldest child of a lawyer for Shell Oil Co. She earned her undergraduate degree in English literature in 1994 at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. She and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, both graduated from Notre Dame Law School. They have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs.

    Before her clerkship with Scalia from 1998 to 1999, Barrett served as law clerk for Laurence Silberman for a year at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Between clerkships and entering academia, she worked from 1999 to 2001 at the Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin law firm in Washington, D.C.
#15121988
@Doug64 said: ....Amy Coney Barrett


Not a bad choice. Certainly not one that should scare Democrats too much. Two reasons:

She is a self styled originalist. She like Scalia's philosophy. She has written that she did not think that Roe V. Wade should be overthrown but rather that the question really is who pays for abortions. That is the first thing.

The second reason that she should not scare democrats is that nothing serves to energize their base like a threat to Roe V. Wade.

A smart republican would not want Trump to appoint someone before the election just for this reason. Sadly there aren't any smart republicans to speak of and Trump sees everything in the light of his poll numbers with his base.

It is time for the democrats to realize that the US is essentially a conservative country and will be for about another 25 years or so. They need to stop the barn burning and go at republicans on two fronts; integrity and white middle class values. They won't to their peril.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 23

A max speed of 400 km/h - A Chinese train maker r[…]

Election 2020

@colliric , right now, give Trump all the states […]

@blackjack21 , and @Potemkin , what's an oddba[…]

Joe Biden

@Julian658 Trump is orange because he paints his[…]