Kansas Crimson

She is unfortunately unqualified, ignorant and intellectually lazy as one tends to be when religion informs and protects every action.

There is not a single person trump could pick that you wouldn't think was unqualified and ignorant. It is all so transparent.

Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.

I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?

She is twisting herself in knots trying not to answer even the simplest legal question: she doesn’t know or doesn’t want to answer if it’s illegal to intimidate voters. Incompetent, coward or both.

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:14 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:51 pm She appears to be an incompetent hack. A nice, religious, incompetent hack.

I'm unsure how I feel in terms of her competence.
In YOUR eyes (and brain) what makes her incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice?

She is twisting herself in knots trying not to answer even the simplest legal question: she doesn’t know or doesn’t want to answer if it’s illegal to intimidate voters. Incompetent, coward or both.

I understand why you would use “coward,” but it’s not quite right.

What it is, is calculated. She knows the confirmation is in the bag. There’s no reason for her to be committal on even the simplest shit.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:31 pmI doubt you were saying the same thing about Merrick Garland.

The lefts willingness/eagerness to character assassinate ANYONE who doesn't do what they want or believe exactly what they believe is nauseating. ACB by all accounts is a good person.

This political circus is embarrassing.

There's just so much wrong in here, and the root cause remains your (very understandable) desire to find equivalence where it's not.

First - it's hardly character assassination to call Barrett's motivations (prestige and power) what they plainly are, and to identify what she is not (someone whose principles - good or bad! - would lead her to pass on this opportunity). Barrett is revealing her own character here; the only "attacks" on it are the straw man attacks being invented by the GOP to make the Democrats look (for example) anti-Catholic.

Second - the Garland nomination and the Barrett nomination are fundamentally different.

* Garland was nominated seven months prior to an Election Day, not two.

* Garland was nominated by a lame duck president, not one quite literally up for vote as of the nomination and possible confirmation.

* Garland was not nominated by a president who quite openly anticipated needing his vote on the Court in resolving a contested election involving that president (or even his party).

* Garland was not nominated by a president who quite openly anticipated needing his vote on an incredibly-consequential matter then pending in front of the Court.

* Garland was not nominated by a president who lost the popular vote by several million votes, and whose campaign clearly sought and benefited from untoward foreign assistance in order to win the Electoral College (and this is the charitable description).

To say nothing of the obvious moral, ethical, political and leadership failures of the nominating president in this case.

A person motivated by different principles would turn down this nomination, because that person would know that the cost of accepting it is an indelible taint on that person's reputation.

Barrett doesn't care. That's not character assassination - it's the math she did. And it will be remembered.

well said, fish

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:27 am well said, fish

Yet illy will still be a dunce

Two years on the bench and a “see and say” legal vocabulary. It is so dangerous replacing an intellectual giant like RBG with a Heritage Foundation Dunning-Krueger narcissist.

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:13 am Two years on the bench and a “see and say” legal vocabulary. It is so dangerous replacing an intellectual giant like RBG with a Heritage Foundation Dunning-Krueger narcissist.

You weren't impressed by her parlor tricks?

I think an awful lot of people would be awful impressed if ACB came out and said something like, “maybe we should follow our own precedent and wait until the American people finish voting, and in the meantime, let’s all try to generate the few vote’s worth of bipartisan good faith it would take to not jeopardize my own confirmation.

But, LOL never mind.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:14 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:31 pmI doubt you were saying the same thing about Merrick Garland.

The lefts willingness/eagerness to character assassinate ANYONE who doesn't do what they want or believe exactly what they believe is nauseating. ACB by all accounts is a good person.

This political circus is embarrassing.

There's just so much wrong in here, and the root cause remains your (very understandable) desire to find equivalence where it's not.

First - it's hardly character assassination to call Barrett's motivations (prestige and power) what they plainly are, and to identify what she is not (someone whose principles - good or bad! - would lead her to pass on this opportunity). Barrett is revealing her own character here; the only "attacks" on it are the straw man attacks being invented by the GOP to make the Democrats look (for example) anti-Catholic.

Second - the Garland nomination and the Barrett nomination are fundamentally different.

* Garland was nominated seven months prior to an Election Day, not two.

* Garland was nominated by a lame duck president, not one quite literally up for vote as of the nomination and possible confirmation.

* Garland was not nominated by a president who quite openly anticipated needing his vote on the Court in resolving a contested election involving that president (or even his party).

* Garland was not nominated by a president who quite openly anticipated needing his vote on an incredibly-consequential matter then pending in front of the Court.

* Garland was not nominated by a president who lost the popular vote by several million votes, and whose campaign clearly sought and benefited from untoward foreign assistance in order to win the Electoral College (and this is the charitable description).

To say nothing of the obvious moral, ethical, political and leadership failures of the nominating president in this case.

A person motivated by different principles would turn down this nomination, because that person would know that the cost of accepting it is an indelible taint on that person's reputation.

Barrett doesn't care. That's not character assassination - it's the math she did. And it will be remembered.

Lots of stuff in there i agree with (although it is pure conspiracy theory that she will just do whatever the president wants when nobody can really know that)...but at the same time:

1) Popular vote doesn't matter.
2) if the polls are even remotely correct, this election won't need to be decided in the courts because it will be a landslide. And there is ZERO reason to assume those viewed as "conservative" justices will abandon their responsibility of supreme court justice and just do whatever the president wants because he says so.
3) 7months or 2months really makes no difference imo. Presidents are elected for 4 years. Not 3 years. Not 3 years and 5months.
4) i simply do not believe ANY of those sitting on the supreme court will just ignore if Trump broke laws. Until proven otherwise i am not going to assume none of them have any integrity and are beholden to trumps every command.

I do agree if she cared about her legacy then she would have considered passing this up....but at the same time a portion of the country wants her to accept the nomination....so no matter what she wasn't going to make everyone happy....and let's be honest year 1 2 3 or 4, dems weren't going to approve of ANYONE trump nominated to the supreme court. So it is hard to take a lot of these criticisms in good faith.

Either way, it is a done deal. ACB is going to be on the supreme court for most of the rest of our lives. I am not all that happy about it, but i hardly think the she is this terrible person people who don't know her are suddenly saying she is. The left would do this with ANYONE.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:28 am I think an awful lot of people would be awful impressed if ACB came out and said something like, “maybe we should follow our own precedent and wait until the American people finish voting, and in the meantime, let’s all try to generate the few vote’s worth of bipartisan good faith it would take to not jeopardize my own confirmation.

But, LOL never mind.

LOL

There is no "precedent". That was simply a cop out excuse to do nothing because the Republicans hated Obama. It was a lie and everyone knew it was a lie at the time. ZERO Dems were like "okay that makes sense, we agree to do it this way forever."

ZERO chance the Dems were EVER going to follow that fake "precedent" if they were in the position the Republicans are in now....and none on the left would care (and neither would I). It is such a fake act to try pretend that anyone on the left is surprised that the Republicans didn't follow their fake "precedent" that they used to stall out the Garland vote.

yeah, ZERO chance the Dems do that when the pubs are the ones in power

why does it seem like the dems ask questions, while the pubs do political ads during their 5 minutes?

They also read mean tweets, in fairness to the GOP

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:51 am why does it seem like the dems ask questions, while the pubs do political ads during their 5 minutes?

You didn't watch the opening day i assume?

They switched their strategy up, and rightfully so.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:02 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:51 am why does it seem like the dems ask questions, while the pubs do political ads during their 5 minutes?

You didn't watch the opening day i assume?

They switched their strategy up, and rightfully so.

i’ve only listened to bits and pieces to and from work

heard Feinstein twice, Grassley and Cruz

but my sentiment was echoed by my ~85 year old boss, who had listened to nearly all of it, so...

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:34 amLots of stuff in there i agree with (although it is pure conspiracy theory that she will just do whatever the president wants when nobody can really know that) [1]...but at the same time:

1) Popular vote doesn't matter. [2]
2) if the polls are even remotely correct, this election won't need to be decided in the courts because it will be a landslide. [3] And there is ZERO reason to assume those viewed as "conservative" justices will abandon their responsibility of supreme court justice and just do whatever the president wants because he says so. [4]
3) 7months or 2months really makes no difference imo. Presidents are elected for 4 years. Not 3 years. Not 3 years and 5months. [5]
4) i simply do not believe ANY of those sitting on the supreme court will just ignore if Trump broke laws. [6] Until proven otherwise i am not going to assume none of them have any integrity and are beholden to trumps every command.

I do agree if she cared about her legacy then she would have considered passing this up....but at the same time a portion of the country wants her to accept the nomination....so no matter what she wasn't going to make everyone happy....and let's be honest year 1 2 3 or 4, dems weren't going to approve of ANYONE trump nominated to the supreme court. So it is hard to take a lot of these criticisms in good faith. [7]

Either way, it is a done deal. ACB is going to be on the supreme court for most of the rest of our lives. I am not all that happy about it, but i hardly think the she is this terrible person people who don't know her are suddenly saying she is. [8] The left would do this with ANYONE.

1. There is not a single rational reason (including in Barrett's record) to expect she's not in the bag on all major GOP positions. She was picked because of this.

2. From a legal standpoint, it obviously does not. But it is broadly indicative of the will of the people. And now we're going to be in a position where a majority of the Court will have been appointed by a president who failed to win a majority of the popular vote. Make of that what you might, but it is certainly not a good thing.

3. Maybe? But if you assume, as you must, that the results will be closer than the polling suggests, then it is certainly possible that a couple well-located challenges could, by the math of it, swing the outcome. There is also the spectre of more sinister maneuvers like replacing electors, etc. It is more likely than not that the Court will have some role in entertaining and then hearing challenges. That will encourage deviant behavior.

4. You're sort of missing the point of the Federalist Society judge mill. It is not that Barrett would, like, say to herself, "You know what, I will break from the GOP because not doing so would be abandoning my responsibility as a justice." It's that people like Barrett are conditioned and selected for seeing the entrenchment of GOP positions as their responsibility as a justice. They wouldn't word it that way, and may not even actively think about it that way. But it's what they are.

5. You really can't see the difference between a nomination during primary season, and one made while votes are being cast in the general election? And, particularly a general election that the nominating president openly anticipates ending up in front of the Court? I'm sorry, if you can't see a difference here, you're in the desert and need to find your own way out.

6. Among many easy examples, a counterpoint from just yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

I would note, further, that a party line confirmation - when the confirming party has, itself, a long and ugly history of ignoring/enabling the nominator's criminal and unethical conduct - sort of makes this official.

7. So any criticisms, including mine here, are in bad faith? That's...quite a leap.

8. This is what I'm talking about when I ask you to understand the distinction between commentary on her positions and principles, versus attack on her character. As I said, and as you've shown, what's really happening is that her critics' critics are conflating the two. They're just not the same thing (as much as you'd like them to be).

i tried with illy on the federalist society already

his head is in the sand

Illy sometimes attempts to sound reasonable as he is loading up the crap to fling.