Senate Judiciary votes on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett

One of the more fascinating things was that she actually became an instant millionaire after the fact through a Gofundme effort . . . and the political Left never said a word about that. Essentially it was the DNC's means of paying her for her blatantly false testimony.

 

They are leaving out that Obama was a lame duck President when he nominated the "moderate" Garland...

Which is not the case now.

Also keep in mind Dems ( and some RHINOS ) called the rebels in Syria who kept joining ISIS moderate as well.

 

Senate Judiciary votes on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett
The Supreme Court is supposed to be politically neutral, but this nominee is the latest in a long line of nominees selected specifically to pack the courts across the nation with right wing radical justices & judges, whose political & judicial perspectives are far off base from the general public. This nominee clinches the final victory for Republicans in their decades long effort to hijack the nation's courts & force it to backtrack on human rights & personal freedoms earned painfully slowly over generations. As a Progressive, who believes in human rights & equality under the law, I am saddened & disheartened to see this nominee gain her seat on the Supreme Court under the conditions surrounding her approval. It harkens dark days ahead, from both a Constitutional challenges perspective & for concerns pertaining to human rights under law in this country. I fear we'll experience a serious dismantling of individual American rights under this new court, at least until Congress can counter the Ultra-Right-Wing rulings with new legislation.

 

You really think Republicans were going to vote in a clearly anti-2nd amendment judge to the highest court? That'd be like saying a Democratic Senate would confirm Barrett. They're literally mirrors of each other, except in Barrett's case, she has the majority Republican side and will thus be confirmed.

 

I don't think you understood my assertion. Here, this is from Congress.gov:

If there had been 51 votes to approve a motion to proceed (or whatever the judicial nomination process equivalent is) on Garland's nomination, they could have done so, over McConnell's objections. There weren't 51 votes for that though.

 

As though progressive judges are politically neutral? You are correct about one thing and one thing alone: The stalwart of conservatism will force progressive legislation to be passed and signed, that's as it should be if we are indeed a progressive country. The aims should be possible on a legislative level. If they're not, then they're not meant to be.

 

We will never know because they were not allowed to vote.

To say that Garland is a mirror of Barrett is laughable. Garland was slightly left of the center of the court. Barrett is slightly left of the extreme right of the court.

They are really not comparable

 

Lefties and Democrats are leaving out a lot of things, like the comity that Republicans extended to Obama on the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations that were sent to the Senate earlier in his term. Aside from two exceptions Demokrats have been unwilling to reciprocate that.

 

They are entirely comparable, both have an 'issue' that both sides would never vote for under normal circumstances. I don't care what you think, if Garland had been through the traditional nomination process, you would've gotten a BUNCH of NRA ads and other conservatives speaking out against him, in the same fashion that Liberals are speaking against Barrett due to Roe V Wade.

I know for a fact that Garland would've been voted down, likely along party lines. Although the one possible outlier would be if Garland were to commit himself to Heller and to other decisions affirming the 2nd Amendment. That might have won some conservative votes. But that's unlikely, his judicial history was strongly on the progressive side of the 2nd Amendment issue.

And if it were a Democratic Senate, this Democratic Party has made it abundantly clear it would have rejected Barrett in the same fashion. So yeah, totally the same type of candidate.

 

She will be a moderate right at best. I suspect she will be a moderate left globalist. Roe V Wade will not be overturned. I suspect she is the type to ok Critical Race Theory to be taught in the school system. If she is, that will probably be the ball game.

If you can get at the children of conservatives, you own the future. The day is coming when the left outlaws keeping your children out of the public school system. This is what they are doing in parts of Europe as we speak (it is banned in Germany). The CRT theorists are baying to ban it in America. This is even with the documented evidence that home schooled children score higher on standardized tests. The problem as overtly stated in the attached article is the leftist concern that the children are not indoctrinated into leftist ideology if they are home schooled. They ASSUME their values are superior to conservative values.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ys-there-may-be-a-dark-side-of-homeschooling/

 

You not caring what I think deeply wounds me, I hold your opinion in such high regards! As to your belief that they are the same because one candidate holds a single view that might be untenable to the opposition party vs one that holds every view that is untenable to the opposition party is just inane.

So you know for a fact but their are circumstances where you acknowledge you would be wrong... Which means you have no idea what would have happened...

Again, false.

 

Money or favors - you have some proof of this?

Seems like some folks supported Ford's assertion that Kavanaugh was a rapey high school kinda dude.

https://kslnewsradio.com/1891897/brett-kavanaugh-witnesses/

He comported himself miserably in my opinion and it was sad to see the Senate confirm him.

Gorsuch and Barrett at least managed to keep the composure required to hold a seat on the SC.

But poor Brett, so unfair, rape, in high school, accusations that led him to behave the way he did in the hearings?

Sorry, not buying it, wouldn't have flown in normal times among real Rs.

 

I read the confirmation (or seating?) will fall on Oct. 26 Hillary Clinton's birthday!

 

Bull. They didn't waste their time holding a vote because they weren't going to confirm Garland.

The Senate either consents to a pick or it doesn't. There is no gray matter or uncertainty in between.

 

I prefer not to think about the travesty that was the Kavanaugh hearings. Essentially, it was a slander show and no I would not have comported myself if I had faced that slander. In fact, it's likely I would have withdrawn my name from consideration because, as much as sitting on the Court would please me, it would displease me even more to sit across the table from those who accuse me without evidence.

 

Incorrect, as already shown on the prior page:

I guess it is easier to paint “Demokrats” as being the partisan hacks regressives are when one has alternative facts on their side.

 

I suppose that is the bottom line, yes.

 

Seven Republicans endorsed him including the chief justice. You can prognosticate all you want about what would have happened should a vote not been blocked by a single hyper partisan but it remains a prediction at best. But Republicans operate best when they can simply block votes instead of win on merits so the tactic shouldn’t be surprising.

 

As a Progressive Democrat, I've been frustrated at times by conservative Republicans, but since Trump took over the Republican Party, I've watched all connections between that Party & what I regard as moral or human values disintegrate. Watching Mitch McConnell & Lindsey Graham devolve from men who appeared to stand for individual honesty & integrity & honor, into men who lost all concern about either, and became pawns in Trumpian politics whose sole purpose was to win at all costs, & ignore any ethical or moral issues connected with that process. Compared to that, I DO feel my values are superior.

 

I'm not buying your narrative, either, Grey.

First of all, Gorsuch and Barrett weren't subjected to the malicious and completely unsubstantiated slander that Kavanaugh was subjected to.

Secondly, it's risible that you would have us believe that a man should take that lying down instead of "comported himself miserably" and defending himself.

Once again, a person is guilty until proven innocent.

That wouldn't have flown in normal times among real Ds, but back then we weren't a pack of Alinskyites who cared about nothing but power.

 

That feeling of superiority is a necessary component of every genocide and every terrorist act. Unfortunately a feeling of superiority is evidence of only a feeling of superiority and nothing else. When you use that sense of moral superiority to justify the threat of violence to prevent conservatives from home schooling their own children, I would suggest that perhaps your morality is not universal and perhaps not objective.

 

Sure, because of course the Cohnites are selfless and care nothing for power....

Squeeee, I'm a keg is half full kinda guy.

 

John Roberts' opinion is beyond irrelevant, and the vast majority of Republicans opposed the Garland nomination, not just "a single hyper partisan". You can guess or assert how the seven Republicans would have voted IF they weren't operating under the political cover of knowing there wouldn't be a vote but the fact remains that Obama could not obtain the Republican support needed to obtain the Senate's consent. Had he nominated a more conservative judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia he probably would have been able to do that but he didn't, and I don't blame him for trying to do so even though he knew there was a Quixotic chance of getting such a nominee confirmed.

 

I was a public school teacher for six years, & support that system, but home schooling is not an issue for me. I'm not using any sense of moral superiority over anyone. That came from you, not me.