Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 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 confirmation. I also strongly disagree with the political, (read Republican), machinations that got her the nomination.
   
   But, I asked my friend Google why she shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice, and nothing presented by that search disqualified her for the position.
   
   I am in awe of this woman; a successful family life with biological and adopted, (multi-racial), kids, a very successful and lauded professorial career as a Constitutional scholar, and an unblemished judgeship record.
   
   So, I ask, if you can put aside the political objections of timing and maneuvering, do you have a problem with her confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Like you, I find her qualifications, both professional and personal, to be beyond reproach and feel she is exactly what we need.
      
      But I'm not clear on those "machinations"; while I would certainly agree that Republican machinations 4 years ago were reprehensible beyond belief, and said so then, I don't find that doing their job in vetting and accepting a nominee is wrong at all.  On the other hand Democrat attempts to silence the voice of the people and choose someone else I would consider to be political "machinations" (even though they failed) and wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         You are right, it was the Republican shenanigans of four years ago that I should have been clear about. Although I think this current nomination was completely legitimate, it was the Republicans' failure to live by their own standards that caused me to refer to "machinations" relative to this nomination.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "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"
      
      I can't .........

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Sad that the requirements for serving on our highest court, representing 1/3 of the Constitutional bodies, is so enmired in politics that a possibility cannot even be considered without putting politics first.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that is true, in regards to both sides.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Speak for yourself.  Not for me, and not for the Republican party as far as I can see for all of her judgements seem to have been according to law, not party politics or wishes.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, i guess I will, speaking for me, the Republicans are certainly not innocent in regards to all these political problems surrounding the court and confirmations, etc.
                  
                  So, you have your opinion and I definitely have mine...
                  
                  I am not speaking about Barrett's qualifications. I wouldn't disqualify her due to her ideological bent as she is otherwise fully qualified. I just would have found a similar qualified judge that did not have a case of rightwing lockjaw.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you realize that you are placing party ideology above true qualifications?
                     
                     Do you understand that you are disparaging a candidate on purely partisan reasonings? As a transitional thinking individual is that really where you want to be?
                     
                     Come on bud, politics is one thing, but ignoring reality in favor of those politics is just dumb. The woman is qualified, your opposition is purely political, and it doesn't reflect well on you.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        No, and you are not hearing me.
                        
                        There are plenty of more centrist jurors that are equally qualified, who would have Obama or Clinton nominated? Are they assumed to be less qualified because they are more liberal or centrist? I don't make that assumption and those that conservative, obviously do.
                        
                        As I said the issue is not about her qualifications, but the entire process and dirty slights of hand that got us here. Is that so difficult to understand?
                        
                        So what do we see?  Totally party line votes from both sides, so don't go just blaming the Democrats as that gets nowhere with me.
                        
                        I am not disparaging the candidate, but the treacherous way that she got nominated and confirmed.
                        
                        Maybe, when the Republicans stop playing politics in this regard, I can be persuaded to see things in a different manner.
                        
                        If you  and adversarial conservatives don't like how my opinion reflects or glare, may I suggest that you and they get a pair of Foster Grants?

                        replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         But you do expect that of others . . . .
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I told you guys before that I did not like the way this all went down and that if I had a vote, I would abstain in protest to the way the GOP rammed this seat down everyones throat so close to the election.
            
            This has nothing to do with her Barrett's qualification.
            
            You asked me about her qualifications as a juror being acceptable it is but, the "process", how we got there is unacceptable and I can't play along.
            
            Susan Collins of Maine did the same thing as GOP senator, abstain, so what is the big deal?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The "big deal" is that you are so obviously placing political partisanship above the reality of qualifications.
               
               You don't seem to have a problem with her qualifications for the position, but because the "politics" of her nomination disagrees with your politics you can't support her nomination. Geesh, how much more starkly can the polarization of the process be illustrated?
               
               That is the problem Cred. You are the problem. Politics above all else is the problem. That is why we are where we are. To folks like you, the "politics" is all that matters. And that sucks. It is to our national detriment that positions such as yours carry any weight at all.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  What the Republicans did to ram this thing through was unethical, so it is more than about politics. That turn the other cheek nonsense is only going so far.
                  
                  But as Chuck Schumer said, the Republicans will regret this action. What was taken must be restored. And with a Biden presidency, that matter will be first on the docket.

                  replyreport
               2. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You can be consider d just as guilty as accommodating abuses from one side and ignoring them from the other. And you folks are talking to me about considering the integrity of the "process". That has got to be a joke.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     What would suggest GA or I should have done 5 years ago, rather than "accommodating abuses"?  I know I took real exception to the shenanigans and believe he did to, so what else should we have done?
                     
                     Yes, the integrity of the "process" was intact this time around.  I have no doubt that it would not have been had the Democrats controlled the Senate...just as happened with the Republicans.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        "Yes, the integrity of the "process" was intact this time around.  I have no doubt that it would not have been had the Democrats controlled the Senate...just as happened with the Republicans."
                        
                        I am not confident about that, this is just your opinion..... it has been almost 5 years, hasn't it, where does the time go?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Judging by your response, and the repeated calls from Democrats in House and Senate, it would have been the same thing.  There is zero chance, had the Democrats held another half dozen Senate seats, that there would have been a vote at all.  Consider how many Democrats in the committee voted at all, and how many voted in the full Senate for confirmation.
                           
                           Yep.  Time flies when you're old and with one foot in the grave.  Ask me - I know.

                           replyreport
   3. 77

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I have no problems with ACB being appointed to the Supreme Court. Her education, work record, are wonderful. She's clearly a well rounded human being.
      
      She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who may just bring the argument to the court that is potentially and contrary to the views of the other three sitting women justices. I  am hoping she will represent the views and ideals of conservative women.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I am hoping she will interpret the constitution, and render any judgements, according to what the Constitution and other law says, whether that "represents" the views and ideals of conservative women or not.  Or any other group.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that goes without saying. She took an oath to uphold the Constitution,  her judicial history shows her to be faithful to the Constitution. I was just sharing my thoughts as a woman that we now have a conservative woman on the court that will uphold the Constitution. I certainly do not speak for all women. Just sharing my excitement and pleasure in regard to ACB confirmation.   I must point out one might consider Conservatives as a whole a"group".  It's made up of men and women that respect the Constitution.

            replyreport
   4. 61

      Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What “political, (read Republican), machinations that got her the nomination” ?
      
      Read this and you might understand there were no Republican “political machinations” involved.
      
      https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me … hypocrisy/
      
      And the idea that constitutionalists being appointed to the court is political is pure hogwash! Every justice on any court in the land should be an originalist or constitutionalist (which liberals clearly are not) so it is obvious the only justices on the court who politicize the court by their very presence are non-originalist justices, eg liberal justices (like those who believe hogwash that the constitution is a living document and can be read into to fit liberal agendas!

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I explained what I meant by "Republican machinations" in a response to Wilderness.
         
         I also prefer textual Originalist readings of the Constitution and constitutionality of our laws.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   In addition, I should state the naivety belongs to those who don't recognize that government and politics are inseparable. Such is the case across the globe and in this country as far back as you wish to look.One cannot exist without the other no more than one can go swimming without water.
   
   It is only the rules of decorum and process that allow disparate views and ideologies represented by the political parties to co-exist and functionally work toward a common goal.
   
   The institutions and  "process" that is supposed to be so inviolate is only as good as those human beings that are to be its guardians.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "The institutions and  "process" that is supposed to be so inviolate is only as good as those human beings that are to be its guardians."
      
      Too true.  And you, and the Democrats in Congress, have made it clear that neither is fit to be the guardians of the Constitution.  Same as those Republicans of the past that refused to protect it, all are cut from the same cloth - "The ends justify the means, as long as those ends result in advancement of my political party and the goals I set for the country".

      replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Kayode beat me to the punch.
   Every single Supreme Court Justice is to adhere to the specific guidelines they are sworn to uphold, that being the U.S. Constitution! If Originalist or Constitutionalist cannot be applied to every single Justice, then someone ROYALLY messed up in that particular nomination/confirmation.

   replyreport