Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.

[Worgen]

So as the tile says, sounds like trump will be naming conservative federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court. Apparently she was appointed by trump to 7th US circuit court of appeals and is known for her conservative religious views. Which is super. >.>

Trump plans to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

President Donald Trump plans to announce conservative federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday as his Supreme Court nominee, two sources said on Friday, as he moves to shift it further to the right and sets up a heated Senate confirmation fight with Democrats...

www.reuters.com

So we pretty much have a solidly cemented conservative supreme court for the foreseeable future.

 

[tstorm823]

Fun story: Amy Coney Barrett was considered the front runner for the last open seat. Kavanaugh was on the short list, but the political experts really expected Barrett to get the nod. As mentioned already, she's known for being very Catholic. (Yay!) Many commentators on the left, including those ready to protest the appointment outside the Supreme Court building, had prepared their statements and slogans ahead of time so they could just fill in the appropriate name on the spot and get their disapproval going. But they expected Barrett, so their statements didn't quite fit Kavanaugh, at least one prepared statement claimed "she represents an assault on justice."

There is exceptionally little reason to think Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v Wade. Not necessarily saying he wouldn't, but there's nothing about him or his statements that would indicate such an intention. It turns out, political points are very hard to wipe from the public consciousness, whether true or false, so all the claims that Kavanaugh would ban abortion carried onward, because the left was so prepared to protest Barrett, not Kavanaugh.

Lessons learned. First: people really hate a pro-life woman. Second: wait for the announcement.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Fun story: Amy Coney Barrett was considered the front runner for the last open seat. Kavanaugh was on the short list, but the political experts really expected Barrett to get the nod. As mentioned already, she's known for being very Catholic. (Yay!) Many commentators on the left, including those ready to protest the appointment outside the Supreme Court building, had prepared their statements and slogans ahead of time so they could just fill in the appropriate name on the spot and get their disapproval going. But they expected Barrett, so their statements didn't quite fit Kavanaugh, at least one prepared statement claimed "she represents an assault on justice."

There is exceptionally little reason to think Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v Wade. Not necessarily saying he wouldn't, but there's nothing about him or his statements that would indicate such an intention. It turns out, political points are very hard to wipe from the public consciousness, whether true or false, so all the claims that Kavanaugh would ban abortion carried onward, because the left was so prepared to protest Barrett, not Kavanaugh.

Lessons learned. First: people really hate a pro-life woman. Second: wait for the announcement.

Wait so did he instead nominate Kavanaugh?

 

[tstorm823]

Wait so did he instead nominate Kavanaugh?

Yes. That was the last Supreme Court appointment. I don't think Kavanaugh will be nominated again, but you never know.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Yes. That was the last Supreme Court appointment. I don't think Kavanaugh will be nominated again, but you never know.

Plot twist, Kavanaugh gets 2 seats.

 

[Avnger]

Plot twist, Kavanaugh gets 2 seats.

Do you think that'll give him enough room to boof with Thomas? Or maybe he'll finally be able to devil's triangle with Gorsuch and Alito?

 

[Trunkage]

Wait so did he instead nominate Kavanaugh?

No. Kennedy mentored Kavanagh and had a working relationship. He had a hand in the nomination

It's like RBG wanted to wait for Clinton to take up the presidency so she could influence the pick because she didn't like Obama's choices

 

[lil devils x]

So Trump is essentially putting a female Pence on the supreme court. Like I said in the other thread, there are no good options here, they all suck. You can thank those encouraging people not to vote or to vote 3rd party for this. So when they complain about how much worse everything got because all progressive agenda was deemed unconstitutional for the rest of their lives, they only have themselves to thank for it because somehow they wanted to believe some BS propaganda about how much worse Clinton was going to be than the reality of how much worse the GOP actually is. Even 1/4 of Clinton's first years budget for her first year in office was a billion times better than anything the GOP has done in office. For those who complain about democrats never getting anything done, they only have to look in the mirror for nothing to ever be done about it by anyone now.

Anyone who thinks that US are suddenly going to have American underprivileged rise up and overthrow the government in the US are beyond delusional at this point. The military and police already work for the wealthy, and they seriously think that they are going to be able to take any of that on? LOL they won't even get as far as those dumb arse ranchers who took over the nature reserve. This line of thought only serves to make everything worse for the rest of their lifetimes an ours.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Like I said in the other thread, there are no good options here, they all suck.

The Democratic House could just fill the Senate agenda with impeachment-related stuff if they wanted, stop passing funding bills, and generally grind everything to a halt. But they don't actually want to be effective. They'd rather be ineffective and have people think:

You can thank those encouraging people not to vote or to vote 3rd party for this.

 

[lil devils x]

The Democratic House could just fill the Senate agenda with impeachment-related stuff if they wanted, stop passing funding bills, and generally grind everything to a halt. But they don't actually want to be effective. They'd rather be ineffective and have people think:

How would that block the Senate from confirming? The house doesn't stop the Senate from confirming. Most of what the house passed is just collecting dust in the senate anyhow. Not passing a relief bill means millions of Americans are going to be homeless really fast.
Mitch can just choose his own order for what he is doing. It would be nice, but I am guessing Mitch would just work around it anyhow.

 

[Seanchaidh]

How would that block the Senate from confirming?

The Senate is required to hold inquiries in the case of impeachments sent from the House. They already have precious little time.

Here’s What Democrats Can Actually Do To Stop Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

The Democratic Party has long made a habit of preemptively surrendering major fights with Republicans before they even begin. They’ll have to change that right now if Democrats want to block a Supreme Court replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

www.jacobinmag.com

 

[lil devils x]

The Senate is required to hold inquiries in the case of impeachments sent from the House. They already have precious little time.

Here’s What Democrats Can Actually Do To Stop Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

The Democratic Party has long made a habit of preemptively surrendering major fights with Republicans before they even begin. They’ll have to change that right now if Democrats want to block a Supreme Court replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

www.jacobinmag.com

They are required to do so, however, they do get to determine their own order of business do they not? It is speculating as to how Mitch or the GOP Senate would actually respond. Holding up the relief package or the budget OTOH, people can become homeless, suffer and die from that so I am not seeing that as a viable option. RBG would not want people to die to block her seat being filled.

 

[Worgen]

The Senate is required to hold inquiries in the case of impeachments sent from the House. They already have precious little time.

Here’s What Democrats Can Actually Do To Stop Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

The Democratic Party has long made a habit of preemptively surrendering major fights with Republicans before they even begin. They’ll have to change that right now if Democrats want to block a Supreme Court replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

www.jacobinmag.com

It sounds like that would only buy a little time. I'm pretty sure that even if the republicans definitively lose the senate and the presidency they still have up till January of next year to just shove someone through. I don't think there are any rules preventing a lame duck senate or president from doing that.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It sounds like that would only buy a little time. I'm pretty sure that even if the republicans definitively lose the senate and the presidency they still have up till January of next year to just shove someone through. I don't think there are any rules preventing a lame duck senate or president from doing that.

There aren't. The House and Senate Democrats should make it as difficult as possible to do so anyway.

 

[SilentPony]

Just so everyone is clear, Trump couldn't care less about the abortion debate or women in general. This is only to get a 3rd loyalist on the court so when he sues to either stop the election or overturn the results, they'll side with him. He's not picking her because she's a conservative, he's picking her because she's going to be loyal.

 

[Worgen]

There aren't. The House and Senate Democrats should make it as difficult as possible to do so anyway.

There is more to it than just throwing a tantrum to try and delay things. Like if the republicans want this, it will happen, you can't stop that and delaying will probably only make the republicans look better. People seem to ignore the fact that democrats like to actually govern, republicans are perfectly fine with things grinding to a halt as long as they aren't blamed too badly for it.

 

[lil devils x]

Just so everyone is clear, Trump couldn't care less about the abortion debate or women in general. This is only to get a 3rd loyalist on the court so when he sues to either stop the election or overturn the results, they'll side with him. He's not picking her because she's a conservative, he's picking her because she's going to be loyal.

I didn't think anyone was under the delusion that trump cares about anything or anyone other than himself and he has to have their support for self preservation so he does what he believes will keep him from being prosecuted. If he stacks the court with people who his supporters love and will be loyal to him, he is counting on them protecting him because he put them there as a favor returned in his mind.

 

[lil devils x]

There is more to it than just throwing a tantrum to try and delay things. Like if the republicans want this, it will happen, you can't stop that and delaying will probably only make the republicans look better. People seem to ignore the fact that democrats like to actually govern, republicans are perfectly fine with things grinding to a halt as long as they aren't blamed too badly for it.

Republicans know they will still be elected no matter how bad they behave due to their supporters being worked into a frenzy about fear of socialism and Democrats coming for their guns and all the fringe conspiracy and religious crap they have their heads filled with. Democrats are relying on the educated , scientists, doctors, educators, so they don't use conspiracy " alternative facts" to make their arguments and instead hope that people will actually read their policies and check their math instead. Democrats rely on people not falling for the conspiracy and lies and seeing who is actually most beneficial to them. Logic would dictate looking at a public healthcare option, $8,000 per child tax credits and making rent+ utilities to be 30% or less of your income would be helpful to so many as being a huge improvement over what Trump has planned, but for some reason people just tend to ignore all that and think that means " they are both the same" or some other madness when they are anything but the same.

Biden Holds 21 Point Lead Among Voters With A College Degree In Six Key States

Among white voters with at least a college degree, Joe Biden holds a 55%-34% lead over Donald Trump in six battleground states, all of which Trump won narrowly in the 2016 presidential election.

www.forbes.com

Educators affirm their support for Biden

During Tuesday night’s virtual Educators for Biden convention watch party, speakers—including AFT President Randi Weingarten, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jahana Hayes—affirmed their support for a candidate who exhibits kindness, humility and empathy. And they showed their unbounded enthusiasm...

www.aft.org

Scientists and climate experts endorse Joe Biden for president

"Joe Biden will respect, collaborate with, and listen to leaders in the scientific community..." they write.

www.axios.com

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

www.scientificamerican.com

Eighty-one Nobel winners back 'pro-science' Biden for president

US laureates endorse Democrat in part because he respects ‘the contribution immigrants make to [America’s] intellectual life’

www.theguardian.com

 

[gorfias]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...nR266hSMelxs7yj94cIc6VAmqJXfvdG_qGViamXrH4-w8

"Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute. "

I hope this signals the start of people realizing they need to talk to and convince their fellow citizens of the correctness of their opinions rather than having a bunch of elites with guaranteed upper class incomes for life, having come from elite backgrounds impose laws upon us as if they are a super legislature.

 

[lil devils x]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...nR266hSMelxs7yj94cIc6VAmqJXfvdG_qGViamXrH4-w8

"Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute. "

I hope this signals the start of people realizing they need to talk to and convince their fellow citizens of the correctness of their opinions rather than having a bunch of elites with guaranteed upper class incomes for life, having come from elite backgrounds impose laws upon us as if they are a super legislature.

Your primary concern right now should be the people looting the coffers who actually WANTED people to be fore closed on so they could profit, installing people who rule in favor of banks over the people and making it so you can't prosecute them for any crime's they commit.

Having experts trying to come up with a solutions to help save as many lives as possible and having a court who will allow us to do so would be a massive improvement over what we have going right now. I am hoping democrats are able to restructure the courts the second they are able to do so to get rid of this mess so we can actually build something better.