Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator Whitehouse just put the line in the sand. All of the GOP Senators are now on notice that the illegal money and front groups WILL be exposed. ANY judicial appointment as a result of illegal money will be expunged and all involved WILL be prosecuted.

LOL right. Why do you think the Dems will suddenly start doing this? They always have an excuse for not following through.

Yes if the roles were reversed the republicans would have impeached Barr. The Dems and Fox News should take a lot of blame for the current situation.

Anonymous wrote:Senator Whitehouse just put the line in the sand. All of the GOP Senators are now on notice that the illegal money and front groups WILL be exposed. ANY judicial appointment as a result of illegal money will be expunged and all involved WILL be prosecuted.

LOL right. Why do you think the Dems will suddenly start doing this? They always have an excuse for not following through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore https://www.greaterfortwayneinc.com/gfw-inc-launches-onboard-fort-wayne-program-to-boost-talent-retention/
unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

I am a strong conservative, and I am not fond of her ability to respond well. The "no notes" discussion is laughable, as anyone who has a decent memory can do the same thing. She has taught for 15 years, she has probably used the same cases over and over, and knows well like the back of her hand.

Senator Whitehouse just put the line in the sand. All of the GOP Senators are now on notice that the illegal money and front groups WILL be exposed. ANY judicial appointment as a result of illegal money will be expunged and all involved WILL be prosecuted.

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble understanding what Barrett actually is and isn't allowed to say. The responses from the media, senators, and DCUM are entirely partisan.

Full disclosure, I am against her confirmation due to the timing and the precedent established by Republican senators when Obama nominated Garland. And I don't kid myself about the reasons she was picked. But, given that this is indeed happening, I'd like to have some objective way to evaluate her answers (or lack there of). Is this too complicated a question to answer??

It's a good question. I do think that it's correct for her not to give her opinion in detail on an issue that is currently before the Court or likely to be there shortly. In that case, it is improper for a judge to basically issue a judgment before all the facts & arguments are before her in the actual case. But since the process has become so politicized (on each side, bipartisan) the Senators ask all sorts of electioneering questions that don't really have to do with a case. (Like her beliefs about global warming.) For those, I can understand why an appointee (again bipartisan) might want to withhold an answer, although it's not on the same grounds as not announcing an opinion a specific case that might come before her.

What I wish there were more of was thoughtful questioning on actual jurisprudence. Like, how exactly do you justify originalism and textualism? There were MANY critiques of Scalia's opinion in Heller - why not talk about those? How about her philosophy of when appellate judges actually do have to substitute their own opinion for facts (such as motions where they have to put themselves in the shoes of a "reasonable" jury?) How does she do that? What is her view on overruling legislation and regulations - how does she see the courts role in the balance of power there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this to me? A lot of the conversation with the Judge this week has centered around judicial activism and judges not overturning law, particularly law passed by congress (as opposed to law conjured by judges, like Roe) - I get that, but given that, how is it possible to "overturn" the ACA, when the ACA was passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

Wouldn't THAT be judicial activism?

Yes. The right decries judicial activism when the reality is conservative judges can be just as guilty of it. See Bush v. Gore.

There is a debate to be had over the extent to which the Constitution should be interpreted literally v. what makes sense in modern times, but that is not the debate that the right wants to have. Otherwise, they would all have muskets in their arsenals as opposed to AR-15s.

Any judge will have to engage in some interpretation of a law or it wouldn't be before a court.

Judicial activism is a disingenuous straw man that the right uses to fill the courts with judges that will use any passable means to overturn a law on a technicality- oops, I mean original/textual meaning- to keep us all in the Dark Ages. They also do not want judges that believe that "equal protection under the law" extends to anyone that is not white and possibly anyone that is not male.

+1 Barrett is a radical, and I fear that even if the Democrats take both houses and the Presidency, any legislation they enact to address health care, climate change, etc, etc, will be thrown out by this Court. The corporate interests that paid for these justices need to get their money's worth.

The same thing happened in the 1930's with the Court invalidating several of Roosevelt's New Deal measures, which is why Roosevelt proposed expanding the size of the Court.

I am having trouble understanding what Barrett actually is and isn't allowed to say. The responses from the media, senators, and DCUM are entirely partisan.

Full disclosure, I am against her confirmation due to the timing and the precedent established by Republican senators when Obama nominated Garland. And I don't kid myself about the reasons she was picked. But, given that this is indeed happening, I'd like to have some objective way to evaluate her answers (or lack there of). Is this too complicated a question to answer??

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this to me? A lot of the conversation with the Judge this week has centered around judicial activism and judges not overturning law, particularly law passed by congress (as opposed to law conjured by judges, like Roe) - I get that, but given that, how is it possible to "overturn" the ACA, when the ACA was passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

Wouldn't THAT be judicial activism?

Yes. The right decries judicial activism when the reality is conservative judges can be just as guilty of it. See Bush v. Gore.

There is a debate to be had over the extent to which the Constitution should be interpreted literally v. what makes sense in modern times, but that is not the debate that the right wants to have. Otherwise, they would all have muskets in their arsenals as opposed to AR-15s.

Any judge will have to engage in some interpretation of a law or it wouldn't be before a court.

Judicial activism is a disingenuous straw man that the right uses to fill the courts with judges that will use any passable means to overturn a law on a technicality- oops, I mean original/textual meaning- to keep us all in the Dark Ages. They also do not want judges that believe that "equal protection under the law" extends to anyone that is not white and possibly anyone that is not male.

Can someone explain this to me? A lot of the conversation with the Judge this week has centered around judicial activism and judges not overturning law, particularly law passed by congress (as opposed to law conjured by judges, like Roe) - I get that, but given that, how is it possible to "overturn" the ACA, when the ACA was passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

Wouldn't THAT be judicial activism?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

One more note to add. If a conservative women was highly accomplished by all standards, Dems would begrudgingly acknowledge it. Like how Rs voted 96-4 or so for RBG. That level of accomplishment is hard to ignore and we want the best for OUR country.

ACB is not as accomplished by any quantifiable measure and that's what gets us.


She has been selected by the Federalist Society more for her rabid views which very few women judges have, than for her accomplishments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

In another thread, someone pointed out that this is a rhetorical device termed paraplipsis: "Paralipsis is from the Greek word paraleipein, which means “to omit,” or “to leave something on one side.” It is defined as a rhetorical device in which an idea is deliberately suggested through a brief treatment of a subject, while most of the significant points are omitted. It is explained through the use of this device that some points are too obvious to mention. Also, paralipsis is a way of emphasizing a subject by apparently passing over it."

https://literarydevices.net/paralipsis/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

+1 Real world workplaces are very metrics driven nowadays and the same should be applied to the Court too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ACB just spent the day handing dem senators their A$$.
So glad she’s on my side and not yours. She’s amazing.

I recall you guys saying similar stuff about Trump back in the day, about Kavanaugh, about Ivanka, about Melania and about just about everyone else who flitted through the White House in any Republican capacity. It turns out that what you find “amazing” is not at all amazing. Republicans have shockingly low standards.

What I find telling about so much of the REpublican rhetoric as it's so vague that you can never actually measure it. I help people with their resumes and spend most of the time saying things like "Make it quantifiable. Make it measurable. Tell me how you: increased the customer base by thirty percent; increased revenue by forty-five percent, etc."

The problem with:
there are some really terrible people
she is whip smart and
she did amazing

is that none of these are actually quantifiable. Now, if you told me that she published three times more articles than so and so and in journals with a publication impact factor that's one of the highest in the field, then you'd have something. If you told me that she received the highest award in her field, awarded by the ABA, or that she has the highest competency rating from the ABA, etc. then you'd have a fair argument.
Most of the time, when Republicans including Trump, tell you that something is "like nothing you've ever seen before," "amazing," etc. it's a claim that is vague, unmeasurable and therefore unable to be either supported or refuted. It's like the guy who comes to the job interview and can't actually name any concrete accomplishments from his previous job.

Not being able to name the five freedoms is the equivalent of man. woman. camera. tv. person.

Someone who is not even minimally competent making it sound like some very basic minimal standard is the bar and then even failing to meet that.