Every Democrat Should Vote for Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation
If I were voting, I'd vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS.
I'd ask her some questions about her views on various settled cases, but that is not a litmus test for her confirmation. Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation. The only question that matters is whether she's qualified or not.
She's clearly qualified.
She should be confirmed.
We need to get far away from politicizing our SCOTUS nominees. They're either qualified or they're not. Nothing else matters.I bet a lot of 'normal' folks, (except Cred ;-) ), agree with you. I know I do.
GAI agree as well - I said elsewhere that the only two things that matter are whether she is qualified and competent and whether she has an ironclad, unshakable understanding and acceptance that her job is to decide law, not morals, not what is "right" or "good", but law.
She will not be a legislator; she will be a judge, and as such will not make the laws herself. Good laws, bad laws, good results or bad results from the law; her job is to determine lawYou mean rightwing oriented "normal folks" don't you?
I never said that she was not qualified, my concept is solely about the timing of the hearings and the confirmation process.
No, I don't agree with her legal bent, but I did NOT say that she was not qualified.Soooo . . . you would vote against her confirmation for political reasons and not her qualifications? (that was a rhetorical summation)
Political orientation seems to be more important to you than integrity and qualifications. Is that a fair statement?
And no, I meant "normal" folks, regardless of political orientation. The only possible reason I can see for her disqualification is political orientation—and that is not a characterization of "normal folks" for me, even though it appears to be so for you.
I understand your zeal for your philosophy Cred, but, recently, it has caused you to adopt the perspective of the deepest of mud-dwellers. You seem to have tossed aside any concept of right and fair in favor of whatever it takes to win. Good luck with that. Because this is not truly a 'life or death' situation, I would rather lose with integrity than win without it.
GAI did not say that I would vote against her, but I probably would abstain.
Why couldn't McConnell wait until at least the election to determine if Trump is reelected? Then, for your information, I would confirm Barrett based on her qualifications, nothing partisan there, right?
I told you from the beginning that McConnell, the poster boy of the Republican Party,is a genuine scoundrel and would take advantage of Ginsberg death to fill a seat that he himself said in 2016 that the seat vacated by Scalia should be filled by someone other than Obama, based on some sort of BS rationalization that does not hold water, and that he certainly did not apply when it was not to his advantage.
But, you thought that THEY would take the high road, but did they?
I don't understand you, Right and fair means nothing if it is expected from only one side. The side that you have buddied up with are doing ANYTHING to win. I don't like to lose particularely when the loss is because the other side cheats. What am I to do?
You have more closely associated yourself with Republican Party that rountinely wallows in the mud, while Democrats are to balance their halos and present their garments without spot?
But somehow you still only see one side of this."I don't like to lose particularely when the loss is because the other side cheats. What am I to do?"
Answer: behave in a rational and ethical manner. Do NOT follow the unethical behavior you so abhor. ("You" meaning everyone, not just you.) And when you do you can hold your head high - higher than the opposition that cheats and votes to gain political power than for the good of the country. And when THAT is accomplished your party will gain power automatically, for it was that disregard for the nation that put Trump in power: when you (your party) climbs out of the muck, leaving the other one behind, you will find voters noticing and acting on that notice.
But first you have to climb out of the muck, not remain there in a fruitless fight that the voters do not wish to see or participate in.Wilderness, I am reminded of a passage from the film "JFK"
"We were all raised with the idea that "good is its own reward", but as we grow we find that good does not always prevail because it is a threat to power. And that accumulation of power has to be fought at great cost."
We are beyond the point of folks even having any real choice to select the more virtuous course.You may well be right - I often despair, thinking that you are.
For myself, though, that is insufficient reason to condone and support what is going on in our government, and it is certainly insufficient reason to actively participate in the activity we so abhor.
To my eyes, it's like being bullied in school. We can't stop it so we bully an even smaller child in response. Not only does the problem remain unchanged we actively spread and grow it."To my eyes, it's like being bullied in school. We can't stop it so we bully an even smaller child in response. Not only does the problem remain unchanged we actively spread and grow it."
No, Wilderness, you deal with the issue the way I did back in the day, you learn to fight the bully. Otherwise cowardice, assault to your physical person and self esteem will haunt you for many years, afterwards. And as most bullies are cowards and scoundrels at their core, they will flee from you and look for easier marks if you are not afraid to resist. You want to stop the bullying not and replicate the practice, and harsh measures are sometimes necessary to do this.I believe the Republican party is finally beginning to suffer the consequences of their depravity, and not just at the ballot box, either.
Well, Panther, I surely hope so.
I just see them carrying on with their villainy without an effective challenge.That is quite a statement. So... if all conservatives are depraved, pray tell, how am I "depraved?"
Is it because I believe that children should have the opportunity to attend charter schools?
Or is it it because I believe unwanted children should not be killed immediately after birth to convenience a woman's "right to choose?"
Or is it because I believe in equal opportunity?
Or is this a general thing of comparing Trump's personal life before public office with Joe Biden's personal life in office?
Depraved: an indifference to human life; morally corrupt; wicked.
I do not fit that definition and your statement is a form of hate speech.I did not say "conservatives," I said "Republicab party."
I was going to note that point, but decided you were a Big Girl and could do it yourself. ;-0
That has been one of my constant arguments—Republicans and Conservatives are no longer synonymous. Hell, I might even have to tentatively say the same for Democrats and Liberals. (at least for Leftist Liberals)
GAI take it you are referring to "mushy moderates." No thanks. Not for me.
I was referring to the likes of Mitt Romney, and even Joseph Scaramucci and friends. They are "mushy."
True conservatives are not mushy. Independents, on the other hand, hold a middle ground. It's safer that way.Romney? Scaramuccia? Conservative is the best label I could think of for them.
As for Independents, you may be right, And "the middle of the road" might be where America needs to be—safe or not.
GAWell, GA, this thread is dead to all extents and purposes, but for the record Anthony Scaramucci (not Joseph.... my bad) is not a conservative. He has no principles at all, frankly. His nickname, “The Mooch” serves him well. As for Romney, he is a RHINO, which puts him in “mushy moderate” land.
Americans are “middle of the road” in our hearts and minds, for the most part, and that is mostly good. Our system of checks and balances has served us well. However, the Left has won the culture war due to their wide influence in media and education and because of their overwhelming bias for the Democratic Party.
If Joe Biden wins and decides to pack the courts, the “middle of the road” will go down the drain. America will cease to be free.
I choose freedom.
My sentiments and concerns are echoed in the moving speech given by Maximo Alvarez at the RNC. You may not have seen it or wish to view it and that is okay. But if ever you have time on your hands and you feel like tuning into a worthwhile 7-minute speech, you might remember Mr. Alvarez.
Have a good evening."However, the Left has won the culture war due to their wide influence in media and education and because of their overwhelming bias for the Democratic Party."
On this point, I agree. The recent hub-bub about the NY Post story is proof of that.
It is worrying that the Millennial and post-Millennial generations seem to get their news and opinions primarily from the biggest social media platforms.
I will check out your recommended speech, it may be worth a thread of its own. I agree that this thread is finished.
GA
Yes, the Republican party became "the Trump.party," a place where many conservatives no longer feel they belong. I don't think the same could be said of the Democrat party, though. It is not a one-person-driven party. On the contrary, it contains moderates like Biden as well as more extreme liberals.
Of which I am a member.... but why quibble with semantics. It gives you an out.
Oh wait. Being a Republican makes me a "deplorable!" Sure. Why not. Sign me up.
FYI: Last time I checked, the word "depraved" belonged to women like Margaret Sanger, who tried to eliminate an entire race our of sheer bigotry, or Nancy Pelosi, who would deny a good education to minority children. That's depraved.
You might want to think of another insulting word for those you strongly disagree with. The Democrats got first dibs on that one.Wow, you seem to be itching for a fight today. Good thing I am not. ;-) By "Republican party," I meant the President and his enablers in Congress: people like McConnell, et.al., who failed to hold the President accountable .
I did not use the word "deplorable" nor did I insult you.
Having a bad day? Let me recommend you take a few deep breaths and chill. There are plenty of real fights to be had and this isn't one of them. Peace.
Do you "fight back" by becoming stronger than the bully and then bullying the bully? Because that's what you're advocating...
Both our main political parties are taking that Oh-so-reasonable stance ("they did it so I will too!") and it has resulted in the swamp on the hill, where no one will work with anyone else for the good of the country. Great results, right?Of course not, I fought back to prevent my own injury. I was not interested in being a bully myself, I just did not want to come home from school bloodied every day. That is not much to ask.
So, I am not advocating what you believe is the case. From where do you get these ideas and viewpoints?
Nothing is more natural than self defense, conservatives trumpet this stuff all the time.
That is true in my evaluation of any entity that threaten the existence of others, while those threatened are told to turn the other cheek. We all only have two.
If you want no problems, then both sides had better realize that neither one can "do it" to the other and think that there will not be adverse consequences. If you really want peace, you better work for justice.
Such is the fate of any bully whether it be in the schoolyard or within the hallowed halls of Congress.
This is very strange, who can imagine that a desire to defend against a bully would lead to one becoming one? Is that your experience? Your reasoning and conclusions on this matter continue to escape me.
Who could think that the need to defend against Hitler would make them become like Hitler themselves? I can't understand that reasoning. It is not about power but about simple self defense.I remember when Trump first emerged as a possible presidential candidate, his defenders excused his insults and childish Twitter rants as him "fighting back" against those who attacked him. In fact, I heard this recently in a TV appearance from a Trump administration official.
But, it has been this way from the beginning, What others cannot do, Trump is lauded for. A strange blindness exists among his supporters.You fit well within Credence's methodology: "If he does it then I will do it back, in spades, no matter how disgusting it is."
Congratulations: you are near the front of the line to receive the "Be Like Trump" award.Excuse me, but can you point out where I said one should fight back in the same manner as Trump? Anywhere? Ever?
And, as far asI can tell, credence is only advocating measures that are perfectly acceptable, such as changing the number of SC justices. The Constitution, which many Trump supporters claim to revere, allows Congress to set the number of justices. Credence's stance on this can hardly be characterized as "disgusting."
Edit: I guess it's progress when a Trumper admits that being like Trump is a bad thing.
Panther,
I remember Wilderness saying that Trump strikes back in response to negative tweets from Hollywood celebrity. So, it is always OK for the President of the United States to banter with a celebrity? That is behavior that is beneath the dignity of the office, but again, Trump is beneath a lot of things.
He is entitled to self defense, but no one else is. Plus, Trump's reprisals were unnecessary as he could have walked away. It is tough when you get assaulted after school or when a bully political party attacks in a way that undermines its opposition's very existence. Was Trump ever threatened in such a way?
I saw a good PBS Documentary highlighting the differences between Biden and Trump starting with their childhoods, moving forward.
As a result, I have moved my opinion of Trump up a notch from malevolent beast.
I realize that Trump is what and who he is from his background starting at youth. He can't help his style, and his exaggerated sense of self importance that borders on arrogance. It is the kind of bravado one needs to be a business tycoon on his scale. His dishonest and corrupt nature were part of the skill set he needed to stay on top in that world.
But the President of the United States sets the pace and sets the example. He heralds and showcases the best about us Americans, he does not coax out the worse among us and open old wounds that American society have been trying heal and put behind us.
It is like his personality engrams have been programmed into society, bringing us all down a notch or two
There is a reason why as far as I can look into the past, Presidents have not come from the ranks of successful business tycoons. The skill sets required for success in one or the other are considerably different.
It has not worked with Trump and it will never work with his kind. Republicans, Conservatives and Rightwingers certainly need to learn that lesson, if they haven't already."But the President of the United States sets the pace and sets the example. He heralds and showcases the best about us Americans, he does not coax out the worse among us and open old wounds that American society have been trying heal and put behind us."
Yep.
GAI am delighted that we are able to see eye to eye on this point, GA.
We always have seen "eye to eye" on this point Cred. Even my so-called "defenses" of Pres Trump have never been a dispute of this point.
GAGA, Here was an interesting article from Salon, tr y to read it without pinching your nose.
https://www.salon.com/2020/10/17/undoin … overnment/
You say that you don't like the messager but embrace the message. That is where we part ways, because when it come to conservative, Trumpian, Republican philosophy both the baby and bathwater need to be thrown out.You were right Cred, that one was another Salon stinker.
GA
"Of course not, I fought back <without being a bigger bully> to prevent my own injury."
And yet, your "strategy" today (if that's the right word) means being that "bigger bully" - as GA said, get right down in the muck and do the same thing that is being done to you, but do it in spades. To not only "become like Hitler", but to become a Hitler, and a bigger one than Hitler himself was. All while exclaiming that it's all right because you're only defending yourself and anyway, they did it first.
To me, you comments are contradictory.You are being deliberately obtuse, Wilderness.
Self defense and being an aggressor are two different things.
Seems a simple concept to me, why are you making it so difficult?Perhaps because no one is interested in whether you are an "aggressor"; just whether you are using the same tactics that you profess to abhor. This time around you deplore what the Republicans did with Obama's...so you advocate doing the same thing as payback.
Nothing to do with who is classified as an aggressor, and not a difficult thing to understand, either. Truly, it appears you are the one being obtuse in refusing to acknowledge that you are willing and eager to use the same tactics you didn't like the first time around. You may couch it in terms of "They did it first", or "It's the only way" or even "it should never be done", but however you express it you are doing the same thing you didn't like. The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is not a part of your philosophy.
I even understand the philosophy here. Our political scene has become dirtier and dirtier with each passing year - each side strives, hard, to find loopholes that will allow them, ethically or not, to accomplish what they want. And when one is found it will be used against them whenever it can be done...because no one cares about ethics at all. Not in American politics. And you fall into that group as well, demanding that "If they can do it we should, too".
"Why couldn't McConnell wait until at least the election to determine if Trump is reelected? Then, for your information, I would confirm Barrett based on her qualifications, nothing partisan there, right?"
This and your entire comment are about rationalizing putting politics before integrity. As long as voters hold your perspective the situation will never change. It will just continue to get worse until there is no possible lower standard to fall to.
You are right that I more closely align with Conservative values, but that those values are more closely aligned with the Republicans than the Democrats is only coincidental relative to any party affiliation.
GA
Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation.
should....
but is the high court in the US not voted in and installed by the political institutions... And therefore the SCOTUS is in itself a political tool?In real-world terms, you are right, but our goal is to keep it as least political as possible. I think we have succeeded for the most part—as in no party affiliations or agendas. It is the ideologies that are reflected by political selection.
GAThe D's will tell you the "agenda" from Trump is to get rid of Roe v Wade and the ACA.
From the Republicans, yes, from the Justices, no. I don't have a feeling that it matters to Pres. Trump's agenda?
GA
Related Discussions
- 42
Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump
by Sharlee 3 years ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
- 38
Should Ds Filibuster Gorsuch or Wait For the Next Nominee?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats...
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 4 years ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
- 102
Telling Your Followers That McConnell Has a Death Wish...
by J Conn 2 years ago
...with all the acts committed by Trump's base that qualify as domestic terror events, at what point do we get to outright label him the leader of a domestic terror movement? Note the phrase 'death wish' in capitals to stress the thought to his followers.
- 27
When history judges McConnell
by LongTimeMother 3 years ago
I doubt history will reflect positively on Mitch McConnell’s actions during the 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump.By voting ‘not guilty’ on the grounds the impeachment of a former President was unconstitutional, he completely disregarded the Senate’s vote that the impeachment was constitutional,...
- 107
Mitch McConnell And Republicans Gunning 4 Your Social Sec And Medicare
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Are you gonna' let this republican rigor mortis looking weirdo named "Granny" Mitch McConnell who presides over one of our most impoverished states called Kentucky, take away what you've earned over the course of your life ?? I mean seriously, you must have known this was coming right ?...