Amy Coney Barrett: A Dream For The Right, Nightmare For The Left

I want a constitutionalist judge, not someone who supports anyone's agenda, be it Trump or Biden. Let's conduct legislation from the legislative chambers.

 

Wow.....Justice Amy is talking about the "Rule of Law"--- she's lost the left....that concept gets them confused

 

I understand. It's wonderful that we still have the freedom to support whom best represents our principles but we shouldn't kid ourselves that the supreme court has not been politicized. That's why both parties fight so fervently for their nominations.

 

The point is, court decisions do not ever, nor should ever, hang on their popular support.
If they do then there's no need for a court.

 

Then why do we have juries?

 

The President has a Constitutional Duty, WHILE! he's in office to nominate Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy, because this means there are only 8 Supreme court Justices. There is VERY! likely to be a contested Presidential Election on November 4th, so it is imperative that there is a Full supreme court to render a decision on the Election. As much as Liberals might not like the Constitution and the timing of this event, it IS! the United States Constitution and it needs to be adhered to.

 

"the intent of the framers" is their mantra

 

juries are charged with following the laws of the case that the Judge instructs them on....if the jury doesn't...the Court can toss out the verdict

 

Yeah, you go with that......

 

don't you know. 2008 was a harbinger of things to come. democrats were going to control Washington forever. Republicans would never be in power again.

12 years later, and we're about to make Brett Kavanaugh the swing vote on the SCOTUS and John Roberts is going to be a "liberal" justice.

 

So what is your opinion on the Seat left open for 422 days(longest vacancy since 9 seats) starting in 2016 during an election year. Didnt seem to be that important then. Conservatives never can give a good answer to this and want to play dodgeball

 

There's no jury in a district, appeals, or supreme court case.

 

I will the record is clear, from Earl Warren to Justice Roberts, Conservative Justice follow what they feel the law allows....not ideology...you can't say about Stevens, RGB, Kagen et al....we know what they'll do before they even hear the evidence

 

NO. I said RELIGION has no place on the court. If she bases her decision on her religion, or if she has a religious litmus test, that doesn't belong.

 

McConnell rolled the dice and won,

 

So it actually isnt important and your entire post was useless..thank you. Dont need to lie and give justifications.

 

"Activist" is a term to throw when you disagree with something, but cant actually show proof.

 

-My- entire post was useless?
The GOP does exactly what the Dems would do in the same situation, and it upsets you.
You'll excuse me if I don't care.

 

That IS ideology.

You know no such thing. You try to figure out based on their political bent which way they will rule, which is why their political affiliation determines who gets nominated. I actually believe that most of them actualy rule based on the laws as they are written. See: John Roberts

 

nope...ideology might be that I feel taxes should be lower....but... the law states that the Dems can raise it....if the law is challenged, I have to follow the law and say yes, they can rise taxes.

Now I suppose it's true in the large sense that my ideology, as well as those of Conservatives, look to follow the the law, and Liberals looks to do whatever they want....I guess you can say that

 

one of my fav memes going around right now about her

 

So when you said "There is VERY! likely to be a contested Presidential Election on November 4th, so it is imperative that there is a Full supreme court to render a decision on the Election. As much as Liberals might not like the Constitution and the timing of this event, it IS! the United States Constitution and it needs to be adhered to."

You really just meant..for TRUMP and the GOP NOW it is imperative but in 2016..it was just simply...a chance and a roll of the dice. Care to answer why it is SO IMPERATIVE now with a possible close election but in 2016 leaving it open as an 8 seat court for over a year was ..merely...an option..not a big deal..

My contention isnt that they shouldnt have a right to nominate or get her through btw, just that Conservatives should stop being liars and trying to come up with BS excuses and justifications and just tell the truth

I have seen many people say it is important and imperative we get that seat filled for the election, so a fair question would be why wasnt it important at all in the 2016 election and it was left open for more than a year. Seems Republicans were fine with an 8 seat court for over 400 days only a few years back

 

I didn't. Ever. Not once.

And so:
The GOP does exactly what the Dems would do in the same situation, and it upsets you.
You'll excuse me if I don't care.

 

Sorry you are correct... I thought you were the original poster I was responding to so that was my mistake

Through a few different forums and places I have seen many people say it is important and imperative we get that seat filled for the election, so a fair question would be why wasnt it important at all in the 2016 election and it was left open for more than a year. Seems Republicans were fine with an 8 seat court for over 400 days only a few years back

 

Well you didn't specify until now and in truth both our comments can be construed as too broad or too narrow depending on which court. (grin)