Watch live: Senate votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

My wife and I watched the vote and swearing-in ceremony at the White House last night - historic evening - and in case you missed it, there were a lot of long faces on MSNPC this morning.

In parting, I would like to say thanks to RBG for making this possible. If it wasn't for her and her decision not to retire while Dims controlled the WH and the Senate none of this would have happened. : beer:

 

Not their intelligence, their ignorance (or lack of knowledge).

I don't have issues with the Senate confirming judges. What I have an issue with is that the last three judges have been confirmed by a Senate that represents a substantial minority of the population. They could have taken that into account by going for moderates. But, no, they have to go for right wing judges, or political hacks like Kavanaugh. You could never expect any goodwill from the GOP.

 

I think your party has gone so far left, you've lost sight of what "moderate" is ---- you think moderates and moderate views are "rightwing".

I'm a moderate Independent and I have no problem with Trump's SC nominations ---- in fact I support them.

One of the reasons I support Trump is because he's one of our last defenses against the Democrats pushing us so far left we can't even see the middle anymore, much less the right. Trump and his SC nominations are about balance, and improving our odds of maintaining any semblance of balance in the midst of the current radical leftwing attempted takeover of the country. And I say this as a lifelong Independent moderate voter and someone who voted for your beloved Obama in 2008. I'm no rightwinger and no extremist, but what the left is trying to do to my country is shameful and a little scary.

 

You have this guy to thank for that:



Demokrats were warned not to go Nuclear. Did they care?

As for good will, Demokrats don't deserve what they've refused to extend to Republicans, particularly in the past 4 years.

 

How about if Trump wins and the Republicans get back the House they vote to expand the court by two more seats for Trump to nominate and they approve?

 

So if Trump wins and they can get back the House you'll be OK if they increase the SCOTUS by two more seats he can nominate and the Senate confirms?

 

Sure. Nothing like a SC Justice who's Never overseen a case. Literally. From law school/teaching to the appeals court to the SC.

Like what in the actual F?

 

Might as well, the court is already stacked, him stacking it more matters very little.

 

Figures it would be you spamming the report button — not surprised in the slightest.

 

How is a 6-3 extreme conservative court any different than a 8-3 one?

 

I'm not the one advocating to "burn it down" if Trump is re elected. I did not make you post it.

 

Like I said. Not surprised. Fits the MO

What is your opinion on censorship and whining I wonder? Scratch that. Don’t care

Cheers

 

I can message you my list of infractions and you decide.

 

How you take burning down our institutions as violent while trump is doing the exact same thing and you cheer shows just how devoid of reasoning this has become,

Like I said take care. Please don’t message me again as I wont see it — or do, I don't care, but feel free to whine away like the leftwing snowflakes.
Cancel culture fits you. Tata

 

LOL, @ "institutions" you know others can read your post, right?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html
(CNN)Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden said that, if elected, he would nominate former President Barack Obama to the highest court -- if Obama would accept it.

During an event in Washington, Iowa, over the weekend, Biden was asked if he would nominate Obama, his former boss, to the Supreme Court.
"If he'd take it, yes," Biden replied.
He continued to explain that he would appoint to the court the kind of people who see the Constitution as a "living" document, highlighting that "I said years ago, I'll be satisfied when half the court is women."

The idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court has come up before, with 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton calling it a "great idea" when she was on the campaign trail. He would also not be the first president to switch branches -- former President William Howard Taft was the 27th president before serving as the 10th chief justice of the Supreme Court.
But Obama himself has questioned whether he would have the temperament for the monastic life of sitting in chambers writing opinions.
"When I got out of law school, I chose not to clerk," he told CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in a 2014 story in The New Yorker. "Partly because I was an older student, but partly because I don't think I have the temperament to sit in a chamber and write opinions."
"I love the law, intellectually," Obama continued. "I love nutting out these problems, wrestling with these arguments. I love teaching. I miss the classroom and engaging with students. But I think being a justice is a little bit too monastic for me. Particularly after having spent six years and what will be eight years in this bubble, I think I need to get outside a little bit more."

 

Stupid idea. And I highly doubt he would take it.

 

Which post, care to quote it?

I am not surprised you cheer and giggle at the destruction and damage being done to our institutions and is further reasoning that they simply need to be demolished (don’t want to use hyperbole because some trolls — no one here of course — might get upset) and reformed.

 

Now you ask me to "quote you"? lol. We can all read your post and know what you said, you said nothing about an institution.

 

There's no stacking in court. All the justices were proper nominated and confirmed. The Dems want to PACK the court and entirely different matter. So you won't complain if a Trump second term and a Rep Senate add to more seats for him to nominate and them to confirm, I got that right?

 

Would remain so longer, and its a more constitutionalist court, so you won't complain if the Republicans preempt the Democrats if they retain the Senate and Trump get reelected?

 

Judges are not required to be or have to have been practicing attorneys. Several SCOTUS justices were never lawyers including Earl Warren.

 

Yeah? That's insane and stupid AF. Your literally the highest court in the land. Your experience should be as all encompassing as possible with a record a mile long so that those entrusting you with the privilege of sitting on that court can be safe in knowing that you know what your doing.

 

So a tax attorney should be appointed to interpret constitutional law? Are you kidding?

 

What? Where in any of what I posted did I say tax attorney? Do they have experience in constitutional law? No? Then they wouldn't fall under the bracket of "all encompassing experience". Should they have 'some' experience in tax law? Yes, so they have an understanding of tax based cases that come before them.

But no, let's go with the theologian who's never tried a case of her own. That's the ticket.