Reply to How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Amazing! ACB thinks that being a judge prevents her from having an opinion on whether it's okay to do something the UN considers an act of genocide:
[twitter]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316473562652385292[/twitter]

She's entitled to her views on what constitutes a political matter, I suppose. But all Republicans who are support this sham of a confirmation can please spare me the nonsense about ACB's morality and character. I wish he'd followed-up by asking whether she'd be willing to accept having her children forcibly removed from her care if she tried to enter Canada with them.[/quote]

You are so dopey, it’s painful.  One more time, for the people in the back:  as a sitting judge, she MAY NOT give her opinion on ANY ISSUE that could potentially be litigated by her in the future.  This, among just about every other issue the silly Democrats questioned her about, is something that has not been settled by law and to which she MAY NOT OPINE.  Why can’t you people understand such a simple concept?  Every nominee before her, including RBG and Kagan, states exactly the same thing; in fact, this refusal to offer opinions is called the Ginsburg Standard.  Educate yourself.

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/09/04/2018/the-ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previewsand-no-special-obligations
[/quote]
I see you lack reading comprehension skills, despite call others "dopey". Two things:
- She had no issues agreeing with Sen. Tom Tillis about needing to maximize voter turn out by providing safe voting processes, though that might also be an issue she has to rule on.
- I agree that it's her prerogative to call some things "political" rather than moral questions. I disagree that you get to refuse to take a stance on a moral issue, calling it political, and still present yourself as a paragon of moral virtue.

Not that it matters. She'll be confirmed. But I can still hold the opinion that she's clearly selling her soul in exchange for this seat. If you care about American democracy, it should concern you that many of us feel that way.[/quote]

You can hold whatever opinions you wish, as can I.  Just wanted to note that she has never presented herself as a “paragon of moral virtue.”  She is simply living her life the way SHE sees fit.  It’s amazing the amount of anger some of you have toward a woman who has different [b]personal[/b] views than you.  It’s becoming more and more obvious what you think of ANYONE who doesn’t agree with you.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics