Senate Judiciary votes on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Any time you haave an opportunity to put a constitutional textualist and originalist on the Supreme Court, you take advantage of that opportunity.

 

This is a great day for women and young ladies across the country. If you work hard, and have a dream, you too can make the SCOTUS

 

The real American's serving our nation showed up to vote! The rest were playing video games with AOC once again demonstrating how useless they really are.

 

Isn’t that bipartisan then

 

Nope, never a question in my mind.

I would not have been greatly surprised had a nominee been submitted on 2020/09/19.

 

Good point, GM.

Even after Trump LOST, if RBG died in December--McConnell would have rammed one through in the Lame Duck Session.

 

One issue with the national campaign, is this idea that some States mean more than others in our current 'scoring system'. Which is why I propose reform where 1 State=1 EV Vote. If every State is worth just one point, there won't be such a thing as a conservative state or a blue state. Every State is up for grabs.

 

No doubt, McConnell would have pushed it to a final vote on 2021/01/19 if he had an opportunity.

 

I'm curious if you think the democrats would behave differently if the positions were reversed. They tried to nominate Garland in an election year, they didn't have the votes to get him confirmed. Do you think they walked away from that experience and thought, "that was wrong, we shouldn't have done that. We'll never try to confirm a justice in an election year again." Or do you think they'd gleefully confirm a dem president's SCOTUS nominee in January 2021 if they had the votes to do it?

 

Sigh.

Some people seem to require a novel instead of brevity. I hope I never have to vote for another R, either. I. Hate. Them. All.

I'm not going through every statement made by every politician to parse it out for you. Ten years of watching Jon Stewart do his flip flop segments was enough for me. Here's what the candidate said then. Here's what he said, now. BOTH parties do it, and it is purely, 100% based on what is convenient for their team at the time.

I'm not responding to the rest - you think to think most of DC politicians are paragons of virtue, except for that one guy. Nothing is further from the truth.

 

Ew

 

First of all I'd say that the whole election year issue is not a thing.

All McConnell needed to say back in 16 was that the Senate would deny seating any other Obama judges.

However, now, all of that needless rhetoric only comes back to expose their agenda to change the courts in a wonderfully detrimental fashion to faith in the motives behind the actions of the Senate.

Not that there is any faith left, having been eroded by far more egregious issues than seating Federalist Society selected judges.

Whether or not the votes were there to confirm Garland isn't known since the Senate didn't do its job, although it certainly exploited a Constitutional loophole by not doing so.

I certainly do not think they walked away saying "that was wrong, we shouldn't have done that. We'll never try to confirm a justice in an election year again."

Nor would I expect them to have done so, see my first sentence above.

Of course they'd be pleased to confirm their own choice for a seat on the SC.

You seem to think this gangster like behavior by McConnell back in 2016 is within bounds of accepted Senate norms.

It simply is not, and it was this same behavior that led Reid to go nuclear to end the Rs attempt to block *every* D judicial nomination by Obama.

Here is a list of R Presidential nominees approved by the majority controlled D Senate in modern history:



Your assertion that the Dems would do it if they had a chance is not supported by these confirmations.

Pretty simple stuff....

 

Why do you believe they didn’t have the votes to nominate him? He was backed by members of both parties and was fairly centrist.

 

Meh.

 

Republicans still have a grudge based on what happened to Bork, so there's that.

 

Republican logic was once to take what Democrats had done and amplify it, now it seems they are taking what they think Democrats would do to justify their actions. The absurdity of it is astounding.

 

I picked him out of the Obama list back then, but I also figured his anti-gun position(in much the same way as Barrett's current positions now, ironically) would make him not a fan for the Republicans on the Supreme Court. I figured that Obama wanted to force some tough votes, but McConnell preempted him and said "nah, we weren't going to confirm this nominee and we both know it so why bother."

If Trump were politically stout, he should've used one of the three openings on Garland, as a fig leaf to Democrats and if he had done so, he would have given himself leverage to where a Barrett would've been like "eww, but he did put in Garland so okay" for Liberals.

 

Why bother?
Because it is their job, literally written in the constitution.

The “not enough votes” is not based on evidence.

A balanced court (right of center anyway) would have been Garland, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh
Amy is ultra conservative sitting just to the left of the most ideological and partisan justice currently sitting on the court.

The court is now partisan and is rapidly loosing the confidence of the average American, I fully expect Biden — should he have the votes in the Senate — to add two additional judges to correct this imbalance.

 

Acting like the Dems of the past are anything like the current crop is pretty dishonest.. something like the Nuclear rule is recent for example. So is the Bork rule.

And yet Obama got in 329 Judges so please explain how he was being blocked forcing Reid to go nuclear....

( This should be interesting)

Would you like to for example compare the Senate votes for Obama's and Trumps picks for the Supreme Court?

 

Your comment was sexist.

 

Well at least the Dem Party's leadership didn't promise an insane person money or favors to accuse ACB of rape while presenting a host of 'witnesses' who said that what Ford claimed they saw . . . never actually happened. So perhaps that explains the differences between the nature of responses between Kavenaugh and ACB.

 

Do you mean Monica or perhaps -- if Biden wins -- Kamala?

 

Sure, as dishonest as acting like the Rs of the past are anything like the current crop.

You are correct, I got a bit carried away there apparently. The data do not support Reid going nuclear Nov 21, 2013.

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

Sure, let's compare the votes.

Sotomayor 68:31
Kagan 63:37

Gorsuch 54:45
Kavanaugh 50:48

 

Dont forget the assumption of "gang rape" because she might have seen him pass around red solo cups at a college party!

Imagine that people drinking at college!

 

True, and it deserves noting that the Dems destroyed their ability to kill this nomination when they deployed the nuclear option years ago. Had they not done that Barrett wouldn't be sailing towards Monday's confirmation.