How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. What are the Dems thinking?

From a republican

Understand...

If she does not recuse the House must impeach her for violating 28 USC 445(a).

This is like 1L level legal stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are doing a terrible job. All they are doing for the most part are asking her questions about policy decisions, rather than questions about the law. Harris and a bunch of other lightweights were basically telling Barrett to ignore the constitution so that some people don’t lose their health insurance. For goodness sake, if the ACA is unconstitutional bc the Ds did such a terrible job writing it and rushing to pass it, appellate judges and SCOTUS are just supposed to ignore that? How about Congress does their job and does it well in the first instance.

How about republicans actually repeal it and replace it? Instead of running to the court to legislate?

How about both parties actually do their job? I agree the republicans need to do more than turn to the courts but neither party is willing to compromise so here we are, with Democrats on the judiciary committee asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice whether she is willing to ignore the constitution and fix their sloppy work.

Hmmm. SCOTUS has ruled that the ACA is constitutional -you don't like that answer, so you want to change the composition of the court to have the ACA ruled invalid. We see you, fascista!

Like many, my family will be directly effected if the ACA no longer exists. But rather than getting personal, like you so maturely did, I’d rather Congress did their job and didn’t ask SCOTUS to make policy decisions.

Congress did act, actually. When they take your feet, thank your congressman and Amy Covid-Barrett.

Oh that’s right, the infamous bill that had to be passed in order to know what’s in it. Yes, what a great way for Congress/Democrat majority to act. No wonder we are here again before the Supreme Court.

Funny, you say that, and yest the 2017 tax cuts have been just as pervasive and negatively impactful on our country, and the GOP didn't even hold hearings on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

Leahy is being disingenuous here. It is clear that the presidential pardon power says The President "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It is also been opined by the Supreme Court that they can be pre-emptive (i.e., before actually being charged), but it has not been considered whether the President can pardon himself. Regardless, because it is a pardon only for offences against the U.S., it looks like an admission of guilt, therefore a pre-emptive pardon that attempted to say it was only because of a prospective malicious prosecution would cause an additional aspect to the controversy. Also, whether "except in Cases of Impeachment" would be read broadly to mean anything that could give rise to an Impeachment (i.e. high crimes and misdemeanors of a President even where Impeachment is not a potential punishment because the person is no longer in office) or only to an actual Impeachment process.

I find the Constitutional issue here interesting.

You are overreading.

No man is above the law, the the president certainly is not above the law, and yet a president who self pardons is clearly putting themselves above the law.

Again, simple question, simple answer, except for someone who is trying to hide the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

The idea that no man is above the law in the US is not a hypothetical.

The fact that you and Judge Barrett seem to think so is sad and pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are doing a terrible job. All they are doing for the most part are asking her questions about policy decisions, rather than questions about the law. Harris and a bunch of other lightweights were basically telling Barrett to ignore the constitution so that some people don’t lose their health insurance. For goodness sake, if the ACA is unconstitutional bc the Ds did such a terrible job writing it and rushing to pass it, appellate judges and SCOTUS are just supposed to ignore that? How about Congress does their job and does it well in the first instance.

How about republicans actually repeal it and replace it? Instead of running to the court to legislate?

How about both parties actually do their job? I agree the republicans need to do more than turn to the courts but neither party is willing to compromise so here we are, with Democrats on the judiciary committee asking a prospective Supreme Court Justice whether she is willing to ignore the constitution and fix their sloppy work.

Hmmm. SCOTUS has ruled that the ACA is constitutional -you don't like that answer, so you want to change the composition of the court to have the ACA ruled invalid. We see you, fascista!

Like many, my family will be directly effected if the ACA no longer exists. But rather than getting personal, like you so maturely did, I’d rather Congress did their job and didn’t ask SCOTUS to make policy decisions.

Congress did act, actually. When they take your feet, thank your congressman and Amy Covid-Barrett.

Oh that’s right, the infamous bill that had to be passed in order to know what’s in it. Yes, what a great way for Congress/Democrat majority to act. No wonder we are here again before the Supreme Court.

What are you talking about? It is the Republicans who keep asking the Supreme Court to throw out the ACA because they could not repeal it even when they had two years of control of the White House, Senate, and Congress, and it is Republicans who have been promising a better alternative to the ACA since 2009, and still have a blank sheet of paper.

The chief flaw of the ACA is that it was not a federal health insurance program. It relied on states and insurance companies to take generous federal assistance and act in good faith to offer health coverage to people who do not have employer-paid health plans. That did not happen in much of the country, because Republican Governors are assholes who refused to take the extra federal Medicaid money to expand coverage to their residents, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not require them to do so, and because 95% of insurance companies only want to cover young healthy people with good jobs and dump everyone else on the government.

The House ACA version had a federal public option as a fallback for people who might be left out by shitty Republican Governors and cherry-picking insurance companies. The public option was removed in the Senate, thanks to Joe Lieberman, because the Senate's primary legislative role is to make concessions to corporate interest groups, in this case the insurance industry, to screw up progressive legislation.

Biden's plan is essentially to create a public health insurance option for low and moderate income people who are stuck with Republican governors and state legislatures that despise their consituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

As English is not your first language, it sounds like it is indeed a struggle for you to follow the proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

The idea that no man is above the law in the US is not a hypothetical.

The fact that you and Judge Barrett seem to think so is sad and pathetic.

Well now you're just misrepresenting what happened. She clearly said no man is above the law. The legal issue of self-pardon is unresolved and could come before the Court. The legal question is whether the Law (here, the Constitution) actually permits a President to pardon himself. There are excellent arguments that allowing a self-pardon is not consistent with the Constitutional scheme established that no one is above the law; the converse argument is that the Constitution's only express limit is except in cases of impeachment. Keep up.

[Anonymous]

Not going so well for Lindsey Graham I guess

This'll make a heckuva Lincoln Project ad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

The idea that no man is above the law in the US is not a hypothetical.

The fact that you and Judge Barrett seem to think so is sad and pathetic.

She agreed that no one is above the law. Then Dubin brought up a hypothetical situation about the president pardoning himself. She responded correctly and you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Leahy asks if Barrett agrees that nobody is above the law.

Barrett: "I agree that no one is above the law."

When Leahy follows up on whether presidents can self-pardon, Barrett punts & says she will not offer a view.

Leahy: "I find your answers somewhat incompatible."

She followed the Ginsburg rule on legal hypothetical. Try keeping up.

The idea that no man is above the law in the US is not a hypothetical.

The fact that you and Judge Barrett seem to think so is sad and pathetic.

Well now you're just misrepresenting what happened. She clearly said no man is above the law. The legal issue of self-pardon is unresolved and could come before the Court. The legal question is whether the Law (here, the Constitution) actually permits a President to pardon himself. There are excellent arguments that allowing a self-pardon is not consistent with the Constitutional scheme established that no one is above the law; the converse argument is that the Constitution's only express limit is except in cases of impeachment. Keep up.

It may be an open legal question, but it is self-evident that a president cannot pardon himself. Period. That would make him a king with respect to crimes. That is fundamental to the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers that preceded it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not going so well for Lindsey Graham I guess

This'll make a heckuva Lincoln Project ad

Yes it's a great ad for the Lincoln Project since they think segregation is over. My takeway from that exchange was how disconnected they are from the realities of public schools today.

When it comes to racism, it's the impact that matters, not the intent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/learning/lesson-plans/still-separate-still-unequal-teaching-about-school-segregation-and-educational-inequality.html

[Anonymous]

Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Rubin: Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/barretts-refusal-recuse-election-is-disqualifying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots. The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there. We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said. Trump has refused to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, and Republicans speak about accepting the court’s decision, not the vote count, as if they plan to withhold recognition of the newly elected president unless and until the Supreme Court approves. No wonder Trump is frantic to fill the court’s vacant ninth seat and Senate Republicans ignored the Merrick Garland rule (no Supreme Court confirmations in an election year).

Under questioning Tuesday from several Senate Judiciary Committee members, especially Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Barrett refused to commit to recusal in cases involving the reelection of the president who nominated her. First, she insisted she had made no deals with anyone. That’s not the issue. Then she feigned offense: “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” Actually, that’s exactly what concerns many Americans, because Trump and Republican senators have made clear they chose her, and are determined to confirm her, for this very purpose.

Jennifer Rubin is an ass and clearly knows nothing about law.

Here is what she said about recusal OF ANY ISSUE:

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

IOW - Recusal is a formal process which requires her to consult with other members of the court. She CANNOT commit.

And no one with a brain believes her. That is the problem. She has accepted a nomination to a,lifetime appointment under these circumstances. That proves her to be every bit as craven and political animal as Trump.