How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ACB is cruel.

Too bad once you realize this, it will be too late.

“Cruel”? Because she applies the law? So sad that the law doesn’t always reflect what you think it should reflect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, so much for qualified

My g-d, this is embarrassing.

So interesting that you select one tiny moment and completely dismiss the hours she has spoken at length about the Constitution and the many cases she has been involved in - all without notes. But I’m not surprised.

One tiny moment? It is the First Amendment. She is a "law professor."

there is NO law professor of merit who wouldn't know this like the back of their hand.

It is sad that people think this is ok for a nominee to the Supreme Court.

This is just bs. People forget for moments. Hell, my Con Law wrote the friggin' book that the VAST majority of law students have used for over 30 years forgot basics like that just like any other normal person. Jim Eustice, another of my professors, forgot stuff. Don't be an idiot.

ITA. I have been very impressed at how she can recall details of cases, some of which she decided, some of which she didn't, with such detail. She is whip smart. And, is able to discuss law in a very understandable way. I would have loved to take a class from her.

This. Her recall of the minutiae of these statutes and rulings is astonishing. No notes. I have learned so much just from watching her responses in the hearings. She’s an excellent instructor.

Yet she couldn't remember the First Amendment. Also astonishing. Maybe she should've had notes, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blumenthal is despicable. She has answered him repeatedly. She cannot give her opinion on these cases.

But she has given opinion on other cases. See the problem?

She has given her opinion on super precedent cases (such as Brown) - that are decided law and will not be re-litigated. She CANNOT give her opinion on cases that could come before her in the future as a justice. What about this do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, so much for qualified

My g-d, this is embarrassing.

So interesting that you select one tiny moment and completely dismiss the hours she has spoken at length about the Constitution and the many cases she has been involved in - all without notes. But I’m not surprised.

One tiny moment? It is the First Amendment. She is a "law professor."

there is NO law professor of merit who wouldn't know this like the back of their hand.

It is sad that people think this is ok for a nominee to the Supreme Court.

This is just bs. People forget for moments. Hell, my Con Law wrote the friggin' book that the VAST majority of law students have used for over 30 years forgot basics like that just like any other normal person. Jim Eustice, another of my professors, forgot stuff. Don't be an idiot.

ITA. I have been very impressed at how she can recall details of cases, some of which she decided, some of which she didn't, with such detail. She is whip smart. And, is able to discuss law in a very understandable way. I would have loved to take a class from her.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term. Whip smart law professors know the five protections of the first amendment. Whip smart law professors are up on current events. Whip smart law professors of integrity would never subject themselves or their family to a nomination under these circumstances.

+1 She was a Constitutional Law professor for over 10 years. I graduated law school 25 years ago and even I know the 5 freedoms.

"Judge Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation." https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blumenthal is despicable. She has answered him repeatedly. She cannot give her opinion on these cases.

But she has given opinion on other cases. See the problem?

She has given her opinion on super precedent cases (such as Brown) - that are decided law and will not be re-litigated. She CANNOT give her opinion on cases that could come before her in the future as a justice. What about this do you not understand?

Funny how "super precedent" was never really a thing until these hearings where its used as an excuse to avoid showing a stance on controversial issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am truly embarrassed for you. Stop peddling conspiracy theories. ACB is an extremely well-respected judge. She did not discuss how she would rule on these issues with Trump or anyone from his administration, and she swore to this during the hearing. That you don’t believe her only illustrates how absurd and desperate you are.
DP

She has been a judge for 3 years. That is not long enough to be "well respected."

That is embarrassing.

And Kagan was NEVER a judge! Does that embarrass you too?

[Anonymous]

Oh good, it’s Hirono. Ugh. She’s the worst.

[Anonymous]

How many bottles of water does she drink a day? Every time I see the live feed she’s picking up the bottle and takes a sip.

[Anonymous]

Jamie Raskin was my con law professor - he never used notes. Not once. Let’s put him on the court instead...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good, it’s Hirono. Ugh. She’s the worst.

No she isn't. That title goes to Barrett.

[Anonymous]

She is a liar, and she has been caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We know Trump. Trump would not have nominated her without assurances of her loyalty. I don't believe ACB when she says that no one representing Trump or the White House has talked to her about election questions, the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, or other issues about which Trump has mapublicly promised the right wing that the Justices he appoints will rule on their side.

I am truly embarrassed for you. Stop peddling conspiracy theories. ACB is an extremely well-respected judge. She did not discuss how she would rule on these issues with Trump or anyone from his administration, and she swore to this during the hearing. That you don’t believe her only illustrates how absurd and desperate you are.
DP

Did you watch Sheldon Whitehouse at all yesterday? She doesn't have to discuss it with the admin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh good, it’s Hirono. Ugh. She’s the worst.

No she isn't. That title goes to Barrett.

Wrong. Barrett has consistently been polite, no matter how rude the questioner. Hirono is one of the rudest senators there. She loves the sound of her own voice but won’t allow Barrett to respond. Hirono loves to interrupt in her officious, condescending manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh good, it’s Hirono. Ugh. She’s the worst.

No she isn't. That title goes to Barrett.

Wrong. Barrett has consistently been polite, no matter how rude the questioner. Hirono is one of the rudest senators there. She loves the sound of her own voice but won’t allow Barrett to respond. Hirono loves to interrupt in her officious, condescending manner.

Except Barrett was extremely rude to Klobuchar. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll talk about Loving but not Griswold.

No condoms for YOU!

Because Griswold follows *directly* from Loving - as ACB stated repeatedly. So if Brown was correctly decided - and she acknowledges, it was - then so was Griswold.

That's remarkable! Griswold was decided in 1965 and Loving was in '67! The Supreme Court is actually the Super Court . . . Not even TIME can hold it back!