Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Confirming an New Supreme Court Judge

Recommended Posts

I have decided that the whole of all the arguments are mostly meaningless.  Trump has not broken any laws by appointing a new judge.  The Senate will not break any laws by approving a new Judge even if it is done in a lame duck session.  As for the morality of such an appointment just before an election - it certainly is not any less moral than presenting unsubstantiated allegations that could not justly be presented as evidence in a court of law as reason not to allow the appointment.  In fact if we are to value levels of morals - it is definingly much more moral to allow appoint a qualified and legal candidate  than to make a unproven accusation. 

Why are Democrats so lacking in the moral category?  I understand that Republicans have their own moral problems - but someone else's moral indiscretions are an excuses for one's own indiscretions and especially not an excuse for worse indiscretions - if one is to hold to any honor or morality.   I found the statement that the previous appointment made by Trump was accused for not being moral and that the current appointment will be accused for being too moral.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One key point I think in Biden will be a response I did NOT hear tonight.  Will the Democrats want to stack the courts or raise the number of justices if he becomes President.  There are some heavy pushes by some on the Left to do so, and if he decided that was what he would do, I would be opposed to it.

I think I lean heavily to Biden (he's a pretty centrist character in his political leanings) but that could be a make it or break it issue to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

One key point I think in Biden will be a response I did NOT hear tonight. Will the Democrats want to stack the courts or raise the number of justices if he becomes President.

Unfortunately none of us heard his response because Biden absolutely refused to answer the question.
Immediately after the debate, Kamala Harris was asked the same question on CNN, she dodged it as well.
From CNN.com -

Quote
CNN - Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don't want to talk about changes to the Supreme Court
Biden's running mate, Harris, also dodged the query in an interview after the debate.
"We are 35 days away from an election ... probably the most important election of our lifetime and our children's lifetime, and there is nothing about these next 35 days that Joe or I will take for granted," Harris told CNN's Jake Tapper. "The focus right now is on reminding people that we have this election that is very much in play ... we are in the midst of an election."
Harris added that she and Biden would "deal with that later."

In 2019 during the Democratic Presidential Debates when asked if he would seek to add justices to the supreme court to protect women's reproductive rights, Biden stated, "I would not get into court packing"
Now, he absolutely refuses to answer the question.

Why the refusal now?

From last night:

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History is important.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Quote

During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government. Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan.

 

Why Are There Nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Quote

...the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been politically manipulated over the years.  Take Congress’s beef with President Andrew Johnson. (He was Abraham Lincoln’s vice president and successor.) Congress wasn’t too fond of Johnson, since its members thought that he had abused his presidential power by removing the respected secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton, from office. Congress wanted to limit Johnson’s power as much as it could. It passed legislation in 1866 decreasing the number of judges from 10 to 7 so that Johnson wouldn’t be able to appoint a new justice. Congress’s decision was short-lived, however; SCOTUS shrank only to eight justices before the 1869 decision to set the number to nine. Not coincidentally, this was the same year that Andrew Johnson ceased to be president.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 10:15 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

The Democrats say they hate Amy Coney Barrett because she is against abortion.  But they really hate her because she believes in the Constitution and wants to support the Bill of Rights.  This empowers the people and takes power away from the Federal government.  Progressives want to expand Federal power and empower themselves.

FIFY.

Note the following article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/amy-coney-barrett-bad-choice-women?ref=hvper.com

Basically, the point she makes is that because she's a devout Catholic who actually lives her beliefs she shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.  Of course, it is couched in the fact that she's pro-life and actually addresses people by their biological sex rather than by the vain imaginings of a person's mind.

But all that is evil in this author's mind (as well as all the leftists in the country) because -- how dare she actually want some sanity in the country and actually want to save babies lives!  And it is all because of that @%)(# Catholic upbringing, which the author was BTW wise enough and strong enough to shun for better, more just, ideologies.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why executing Constitutional authority (the President nominating a justice to fill an existing vacancy) is now called unConstitutional court-packing, while Democrats increasing the number of justices because they don't like the political makeup of the court is considered "justice."

Oh, I remember, right is wrong, wrong is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't understand why executing Constitutional authority (the President nominating a justice to fill an existing vacancy) is now called unConstitutional court-packing

Oh, that's easy to understand.  The dems are trying to weaken the phrase "court packing", so if Biden wins and starts doing it, the phrase will have lost it's oomph with the American people.  And, calling foul on the other side is always what's expected when the other side is doing something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2020 at 2:09 AM, JohnsonJones said:

One key point I think in Biden will be a response I did NOT hear tonight.  Will the Democrats want to stack the courts or raise the number of justices if he becomes President.  There are some heavy pushes by some on the Left to do so, and if he decided that was what he would do, I would be opposed to it.

I think I lean heavily to Biden (he's a pretty centrist character in his political leanings) but that could be a make it or break it issue to me.

It seems reasonable to believe that if the former VP is strongly opposed to SCOTUS-packing he would say so, and relieve fears. Instead, he is leaving his options open. Further, in the debate, he responded to the question by saying we should let him know how we feel by our votes. Thus, a vote for Biden-Harris will be interpreted as a vote for packing the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is an appropriate thread to bring up the following (if no one else has addressed it already).

Senator Harris pointed out that Lincoln (a Republican) chose NOT to nominate a supreme court justice during an election year because he was so principled that he wanted to wait until the people had spoken.  False history.  Fake news.  Or... a lie.

Lincoln really WANTED to nominate a new justice.  But there was no point because... The Senate was already out of session.  As soon as the Senate came back into session, he couldn't make the nomination fast enough.  He absolutely hated the departed Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

False history.  Fake news.  Or... a lie.

FactCheck.org states:

Quote

A: There’s no evidence that Lincoln said he delayed the nomination to let voters choose the next president, as Harris said.  

I agree with @Vort, liar is as liar does.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of trying to fight this idea that court packing is evil.  Instead, let's just go with it.

The latest argument is that, historically, the number of justices should reflect the number of District Courts.  That number is currently 13.

So, when Repubs win the three segments required then pass a law to raise it up to 13.  Have Trump nominate another four originalists.

Nope, nothing wrong here.  We're just having the SCOTUS match the District Courts.  Why are the Dems crying about it?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, neither side is innocent of such nonsense.  

Quote

 'What do we have, a republic or a monarchy?'  Benjamin Franklin replied, 'A republic, if you can keep it.' 

I find politically-motivated tinkering with our founding documents to be in the same camp of a rowdy teenager trying to get around mom's "no tattoos" rule.  Push hard enough, for long enough, and you end up with a tattoo.  Either because mom is worn out, or you've semantically invalidated any reasonable meaning of the word. 

So I fight against tinkering with the supreme court seats, out of a desire to preserve the republic.  Because I think it's the best form we humans have available to us.  And it scares the bejeezus out of me to think of the great American experiment as just another in a long line of empires, following similar paths regarding lifespan and inevitable decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&C 101:80 The Lords says the following, referring to himself:

Quote

80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood.

The Lord established the Constitution of the United States.
Those that tinker with it, ultimately are tinkering/altering/manipulating the Lord's work.
Why should we fight so hard for the Constitution? In reality we are defending the Lord and his desired goals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 9:15 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

The Democrats hate Amy Coney Barrett because she believes in the Constitution and wants to support the Bill of Rights. 

Srsly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes, neither side is innocent of such nonsense.

False equivalency. Yes, the Republicans are corrupt and many of their works are evil. They do not hold even a dim candle to the Democrats, however. The manifest (and manifold) deficiencies of the Republican Party and its members should not be excuse to equate it and them to the Democratic Party and its adherents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s an easy way to fix politicization of the supreme court:  Congress has the constitutional prerogative to determine SCOTUS’s jurisdiction.  They can pass a statute clarifying that judicial review is outside the purview of the federal judiciary’s power; or defining “political questions” and barring SCOTUS from asserting jurisdiction over political questions.

The fact that Congress hasn’t done this is a reflection of the fact that, in their heart of hearts, both parties *want* a super-tribunal of lawmakers that is even less accountable to the people than Congress is.

The choice isn’t between freedom or tyranny.  The choice is how the tyrants will be chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s an easy way to fix politicization of the supreme court:  Congress has the constitutional prerogative to determine SCOTUS’s jurisdiction.  They can pass a statute clarifying that judicial review is outside the purview of the federal judiciary’s power; or defining “political questions” and barring SCOTUS from asserting jurisdiction over political questions.

I doubt that would work. Madison v. Marbury decided 200 years ago that judicial review is Constitutionally given to the Supreme Court. I'm sure the SC would rule that it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The fact that Congress hasn’t done this is a reflection of the fact that, in their heart of hearts, both parties *want* a super-tribunal of lawmakers that is even less accountable to the people than Congress is.

This is a sadly cynical view, and probably true. Most Congressmen and Congresswomen appear to be in it for the money, power, and notoriety, not to protect freedoms.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The choice isn’t between freedom or tyranny.  The choice is how the tyrants will be chosen.

We might object to this wording if we had real, oppressive tyranny before us, but I still agree with the sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm getting tired of trying to fight this idea that court packing is evil.

I'd say it is an abuse of power no matter who is doing it.  

The three branches of government were supposed to balance each other and limit each other's power.

Packing the courts is doing the opposite.  It is being used (and has been used for many decades) as a power tool for the executive and legislative branches.

That is one of the reasons why some of our founding fathers warned against political parties.  

Judges were supposed to be chosen on merits alone and not their political viewpoints.  When is that last time that they were chosen on merit alone?  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

I'd say it is an abuse of power no matter who is doing it.  

The three branches of government were supposed to balance each other and limit each other's power.

Packing the courts is doing the opposite.  It is being used (and has been used for many decades) as a power tool for the executive and legislative branches.

We absolutely agree.  But only the Democrats are threatening to do so and trying to justify it as, well, "justice".

5 hours ago, Scott said:

That is one of the reasons why some of our founding fathers warned against political parties.  

Judges were supposed to be chosen on merits alone and not their political viewpoints.  When is that last time that they were chosen on merit alone?  

I believe Monroe would have been the last one. But one could make an argument Adams was the last one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had some insight from talking with the ladies in my life (wife and daughters).  Apparently leftists really hate ACB because she represents the facts and success of conservative ideology and completely refutes all the liberal narrative of what's wrong with the country.

1. She's beautiful:  Yes, this was #1.  leftists women hate beautiful women unless they are highly sexualized (celebrity types).  Consider how many "highly attractive" liberal women you see in the halls of power.  I can't really think of any.  If you think AOC is "highly attractive"... well, no accounting for taste, I guess.
2. She's smart.  REALLY smart.  She's crazy smart.
3. She's highly successful, accomplished, and capable.
4. She's highly respected by all the right.  And the only reason she seems disrespected by the left (who's supposed to fight for women to get ahead) is because she's pro-life.
5. She's a conservative pro-life Christian, heterosexual wife, and mother of a large family who by all accounts are pretty well adjusted kids.

You see, the leftist narrative is that

1. You can't be taken seriously as a woman if you're beautiful.  You'll only be thought of as a sexual object -- especially by conservative heterosexual males.
2. You can't be a smart conservative woman.  The only reason you're a conservative as a woman is because you're oppressed and simply don't know better.
3. You can't be successful as a woman because women are oppressed.  Glass ceiling and all.
4. Women can't get men's respect.  Men are all sexists -- especially conservative Christian men.  So, she can't possibly be respected.
5. She's just BAD BAD BAD.  She's everything we say just can't be.  And there she is before the whole world.  How evil she must be for destroying our narrative.

The left hates her so much and is picking at the tiniest things to get an angle of how bad she is that they almost need to make things up.

When she lifted her blank notepad up, I'm surprised they didn't find a reason to believe she wasn't taking the hearings seriously.  And when she said that the letterhead said "U.S. Congress" they should have jumped all over her for not being able to read correctly.  It doesn't say "U.S. Congress."  It says "United States Congress." Seriously, people.  Can she not read two simple words?  Couldn't she read the full name of the nation for which she is about to raised to one of the highest positions of the land?

TDS now morphing into BDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this