Give It A Rest: How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing...

Liberty Tree

How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing the same thing they tried to do with Garland but just did not have the v**es. To be fair the GOP has changed its position too. So it is a stand off in switching positions for each side to meet its agenda. Just move on.

Seth

Liberty Tree wrote:

How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing the same thing they tried to do with Garland but just did not have the v**es. To be fair the GOP has changed its position too. So it is a stand off in switching positions for each side to meet its agenda. Just move on.

The Republican Party has the Senate majority, and to the victors go the spoils.

The Democrats would do exactly the same thing if they had the Senate majority. They know this, so all they're doing is having the same sort of babyish tantrum they've been having since Trump beat Hillary.

We're going to hear their snivelling over this for years to come, yet we won't hear the same blathering from any of that lot at some future time when they try to pack the Court with leftie activists or when they have the Senate and install some AOC clone in an e******n year.

Liberty Tree

Seth wrote:

The Republican Party has the Senate majority, and ... (show quote)

All true.

Seth

Liberty Tree wrote:

All true.

When you really look at the hearings as a whole, the Democrats are taking a situation they don't like and, as they've been doing since Trump was elected, making things worse for themselves and their reputation with the v**ers.

Amy Coney Barret's confirmation is pretty much a done deal, and they know it. She's eminently qualified, they can't get her to lose her cool or say anything they can twist to her disadvantage, so instead of demonstrating that they are serious about the proceedings in a set of hearings whose outcome is of serious concern to the American people, they are using the hearings as a bully pulpit, doing more lecturing in disguise as questioning than asking actual relevant questions.

Among Americans watching the hearings and listening to the Senate Democrats, there's probably a lot more eye rolling than revelation.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Liberty Tree wrote:

How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing the same thing they tried to do with Garland but just did not have the v**es. To be fair the GOP has changed its position too. So it is a stand off in switching positions for each side to meet its agenda. Just move on.

The difference is between 9 months to e******n ( garland ) and less than 1 month to e******n ( barret ).

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

lpnmajor wrote:

The difference is between 9 months to e******n ( garland ) and less than 1 month to e******n ( barret ).

Doesn't matter, there is a vacant seat in the Supreme Court, the president is constitutionally authorized to appoint someone to fill it any time he wants.

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a p**********l e******n year, or in a lame-duck session before the next p**********l inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the v**es in the Senate.

woodguru

Liberty Tree wrote:

How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing the same thing they tried to do with Garland but just did not have the v**es. To be fair the GOP has changed its position too. So it is a stand off in switching positions for each side to meet its agenda. Just move on.

Move on, fix the court with at least four more centrist judges...they have to be undeniably centrist and preferably lifetime republicans just like Garland was. No flaming tree hugging liberal judges. Revisit unqualified lifetime appointments that had no judicial experience, just federalist society approval.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

Move on, fix the court with at least four more centrist judges...they have to be undeniably centrist and preferably lifetime republicans just like Garland was. No flaming tree hugging liberal judges. Revisit unqualified lifetime appointments that had no judicial experience, just federalist society approval.

Are you implying Amy Barrett has no judicial experience?

Amy Coney Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department.

She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, as the number one student in her class, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Following her graduation from Notre Dame, she clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School, as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute.

After her one year clerkship with Justice Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett became a professor of law at her Alumni, the Notre Dame School of Law.

There she taught
LAW60307, Constitutional Law
LAW60308, Civil Procedure
LAW70201, Evidence
LAW70311, Federal Courts
LAW73303, Constitutional Theory Seminar
LAW73370, Statutory Interpretation Seminar

In 2017, Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals 7th district.

Sicilianthing

Liberty Tree wrote:

How long are we going to have to listen to the same old Democrat talking points and delay tactics in the Barrett confirmation hearing? They are accusing he GOP of doing the same thing they tried to do with Garland but just did not have the v**es. To be fair the GOP has changed its position too. So it is a stand off in switching positions for each side to meet its agenda. Just move on.

>>>

But, did you read this?
Miss this ?

Amy:
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-197396-1.html

Wonttakeitanymore

lpnmajor wrote:

The difference is between 9 months to e******n ( garland ) and less than 1 month to e******n ( barret ).

U say tomato we say so what!! Ur house conducted a f**e impeachment because they had the majority of the house, we own the senate que sara!!!

teabag09

Seth wrote:

When you really look at the hearings as a whole, t... (show quote)

I actually watched more than I would normally do because of two things. 1. She proved to be so much smarter than the Senators, 2. She has great eyes, 3. She will be a great, fair and balanced SCJ. Mike

Seth

teabag09 wrote:

I actually watched more than I would normally do because of two things. 1. She proved to be so much smarter than the Senators, 2. She has great eyes, 3. She will be a great, fair and balanced SCJ. Mike

That's 3 things.

But you're 500% right on all of them.

Seth

woodguru wrote:

Move on, fix the court with at least four more centrist judges...they have to be undeniably centrist and preferably lifetime republicans just like Garland was. No flaming tree hugging liberal judges. Revisit unqualified lifetime appointments that had no judicial experience, just federalist society approval.

You really do h**e the concept of a SCOTUS justice who adheres to the letter of the Constitution, don't you, rather than a "liberal" activist?