Current Events > Amy Coney Barrett says you can't fill SC seat in an election year.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/amy-coney-barrett-on-replacing-supreme-court-justices-election-year-2016/

Oh...in 2016. She doesn't care now. I know it falls on deaf ears but this conservative bias needs to be constantly pointed out. these people need to stop "leading" this country. the conservative party is whats bringing America down.

---

Republicans are pro-dictatorship.

---

It's different now...for...reasons...?

Stop expecting conservatives to be concerned about their hypocrisy being pointed out. Their voters don't care. They don't have principles. Their only substantive position is "screw the libs".

---

Damn, you got them! I'm sure they'll back down now!

---

Garioshi posted...

Damn, you got them! I'm sure they'll back down now!

this is less about them backing down and more about showing others how corrupt they are. we can't change them, but we can get Voters to vote them out. It'll take awhile, but sitting on our hands and allowing them to go unchecked won't accomplish anything.

---

I don't think this lady is as appalling as the left makes her out to be

THAT SAID

I do think the GOP has been appalling in every way this year. And they EXPLICITLY argued against ramming through SCOTUS nominees before an election, and now they're doing it themselves.

She has no business being a nominee right now. At least, not one that should be confirmed before the election. It's unacceptable after what they did with Merrick Garland.


---

Nobody back then really believed the Rs bullshit. Obama and the Ds just rolled with it because they thought Hillary had it in the bag and would make the issue moot instead of fighting for their nomination as they should have done.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

this is less about them backing down and more about showing others how corrupt they are. we can't change them, but we can get Voters to vote them out. It'll take awhile, but sitting on our hands and allowing them to go unchecked won't accomplish anything.

Their supporters like that they are like this though or willing to overlook it to "fuck the libs" it feels like.

---

DarkRoast posted...

I don't think this lady is as appalling as the left makes her out to be

THAT SAID

I do think the GOP has been appalling in every way this year. And they EXPLICITLY argued against ramming through SCOTUS nominees before an election, and now they're doing it themselves.

She has no business being a nominee right now. At least, not one that should be confirmed before the election. It's unacceptable after what they did with Merrick Garland.

Doesn't she want to get rid of or severely limit RvW?

That alone sounds pretty appalling to me my guy

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

we can't change them, but we can get Voters to vote them out

You can't vote out Supreme Court justices, actually

---

Samurontai posted...

Doesn't she want to get rid of or severely limit RvW?

That alone sounds pretty appalling to me my guy

Her position is that abortion is ALWAYS wrong.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

this is less about them backing down and more about showing others how corrupt they are. we can't change them, but we can get Voters to vote them out. It'll take awhile, but sitting on our hands and allowing them to go unchecked won't accomplish anything.

Their voters care even less than the politicians do. Pointing out hypocrisy literally does nothing except waste time. You don't get the fabled "moderate" on your side by pointing at hypocrisy, you get it by putting forward meaningful ideas and legislation.

And besides, there's nothing the voters can do right now to prevent Cohen from getting selected. She's already all but sworn in right now.

---

Samurontai posted...

Doesn't she want to get rid of or severely limit RvW?

That alone sounds pretty appalling to me my guy

Yes, and I strongly disagree with that. But I'm not a one-issue person.

Aside from that, which clearly stems from her religious views as a catholic, she seems relatively okay. About as good as you could hope from the Republicans at this point. Which granted isn't saying much.

---

In 2016 RBG said you can

next

---

DarkRoast posted...

Yes, and I strongly disagree with that. But I'm not a one-issue person.

Aside from that, which clearly stems from her religious views as a catholic, she seems relatively okay. About as good as you could hope from the Republicans at this point. Which granted isn't saying much.

Oh, Im not a one issue person either

she also wants America to be a kingdom of God or some shit, right?

theres plenty of appalling things about her lol. Its not just one thing

ScazarMeltex posted...

Her position is that abortion is ALWAYS wrong.

Ahh, so shes entirely against it, even worse


---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

Their voters care even less than the politicians do. Pointing out hypocrisy literally does nothing except waste time. You don't get the fabled "moderate" on your side by pointing at hypocrisy, you get it by putting forward meaningful ideas and legislation.

And besides, there's nothing the voters can do right now to prevent Cohen from getting selected. She's already all but sworn in right now.

Right, THEIR voters won't, but there are a lot of new and undecided voters every year. And if you keep building this laundry list it can show those people just how bad the conservative party really is. Again, doing nothing and not bringing it up just because "A current republican will still vote republican" accomplishes nothing and just serves to allow us get trampled by them. Call them out. Let people see who they are so they register to vote them out. There is a reason why there is such a greater push to register this year. This being one of them.

Intro2Logic posted...

You can't vote out Supreme Court justices, actually

Didn't mean her, i meant Republicans in general.

---

Intro2Logic posted...

You can't vote out Supreme Court justices, actually

But you can change the size of the court and pack it with better judges.

---

she also wants America to be a kingdom of God or some shit, right?

It's actually quite a bit more complicated than that

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-supreme-court

The long and short of it is that they have pretty conservative social structure beliefs, but not really in the same way that's implied by the left. She also stated quite clearly that religious view should not impact judicial choice. I would argue that her religious views have impacted her view on abortion, but that's a debate we can have for another time.

Ultimately, though, the issue is that the Republicans have been completely disingenuous in their behavior regarding this nomination.

---

Mitch McConnell actually blocked the woman Obama appointed as a federal judge and eventually filled it with Barrett.

So this is actually the second time Trump and McConnell used Barrett to fuck over Obama, his appointments, the legal system, the Constitution, right and wrong, and the American people.

---

divot1338 posted...

the legal system, the Constitution,

Both of those things allow McConnell's actions.
---

Antifar posted...

Both of those things allow McConnell's actions.

Sure, as long as he owns up to the fact that he lied in 2016.


---

DarkRoast posted...

Sure, as long as he owns up to the fact that he lied in 2016.

Why would he?
---

DarkRoast posted...

Sure, as long as he owns up to the fact that he lied in 2016.

And then what? Absolutely nothing changes.

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

And then what? Absolutely nothing changes.

He doesn't have to own up to anything. Future voters need to see it and not allow people like him to be voted in. Ignoring their hypocrisy won't allow those voters to see it.

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

And then what? Absolutely nothing changes.

Then we have video record of him directly addressing the fact that he's violating the very argument he made in 2016 to justify not approving Obama's choice for supreme court.

---

If we've learned nothing else in the past year, we certainly have learned that Republicans are not above flagrant revisionist history.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Then we have video record of him directly addressing the fact that he's violating the very argument he made in 2016 to justify not approving Obama's choice for supreme court.

He'd still win re-election by 10 points
---

Antifar posted...

He'd still win re-election by 10 points

Yeah, but it'd be the moral victory. That's what the Dems go for anyway.

---

DarkRoast posted...

If we've learned nothing else in the past year, we certainly have learned that Republicans are not above flagrant revisionist history.

Yes, we can all see that through your comments in this thread minimizing the obvious problems with Barrett and acting like it's just the left being up in hysterics about nothing.

Tenlaar posted...

Yes, we can all see that through your comments in this thread minimizing the obvious problems with Barrett and acting like it's just the left being up in hysterics about nothing.

I didn't minimize any problem with her, what are you talking about?

---

Didnt democrats say in 2016 that the senate should do their job and vote on Garland? Why did they change their tune now?

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Didnt democrats say in 2016 that the senate should do their job and vote on Garland? Why did they change their tune now?

Because the Republicans set a precedent that you shouldn't appoint a new justice during an election

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Didnt democrats say in 2016 that the senate should do their job and vote on Garland? Why did they change their tune now?

Because Mitch Mcconnell said in 2016 "We are creating a precedent"

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Didnt democrats say in 2016 that the senate should do their job and vote on Garland? Why did they change their tune now?

Here comes the revisionist history

---

We are living under white conservative Sharia law.

---

DarkRoast posted...

I didn't minimize any problem with her, what are you talking about?

Well gee, I don't know, maybe...

DarkRoast posted...

I don't think this lady is as appalling as the left makes her out to be

DarkRoast posted...

Aside from that, which clearly stems from her religious views as a catholic, she seems relatively okay.

Tenlaar posted...

Well gee, I don't know, maybe...

Excuse me if I don't lose my s*** over stuff like that

---

This will be the 3rd of 4th time I've posted this, but as a reminder: nearly every SC nomination in an election year has been blocked by an opposing party senate majority, and nearly every SC nomination in an election year has been passed by the same party senate majority. It's consistently been this way since basically the founding of the country. Nothing the republicans are doing here is new or precedent-setting. And yes, every other party has pulled the same shit before.

If you want to be mad, be mad. If you want to call Mcconnell a hypocrite go right ahead. Just stop pretending this is some sort of novel situation.

Sources:
in terms of nominating a supreme Court justice during an election year:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/\

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election [NOTE: This article came out before Obama/Garland]. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

in terms of blocking nominations specifically:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-supreme-court-vacancies-election-20180711-story.html

Scalias death led to only the third Supreme Court nomination in a presidential election year since World War II, and all three vacancies were filled by the winner. (William Brennans recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower was only confirmed after Ike was reelected in a landslide.)

Before World War II, the Senate refused to let Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and John Quincy Adams fill a vacancy during a presidential election year. A hostile Congress did worse to Andrew Johnson after the Civil War; he was stripped of his nominating power.

In all of American history, only one Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year was confirmed before the election by a Senate of the opposing party. That was in 1888, when the court was facing a critical backlog of cases, there was no chief justice, and the Democratic president (Grover Cleveland) nominated a judge acceptable to Republicans.

So counting Obama, that's 2 Dems, 1 Republican, 1 Union Party, 2 Whigs, and 1 Democratic-Republican over the country's history, all of which had their nominations blocked in an election year by the opposing party. Most of them had it happen before the "Thurmond Rule" was invented in the 1960s to give a name to this particular behavior.

---

she looks psychotic

This is why I'm ok with Democrats stacking more judges when and if they take over to counter these "conservatives" judges.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Then we have video record of him directly addressing the fact that he's violating the very argument he made in 2016 to justify not approving Obama's choice for supreme court.

https://twitter.com/GianmarcoSoresi/status/1307160697349042178

---

https://twitter.com/JimVandeHei/status/1310247493029027842

Democrats are a bunch of spineless bitches.

CommonStar posted...

https://twitter.com/JimVandeHei/status/1310247493029027842

Democrats are a bunch of spineless bitches.

They always were, if Republicans weren't a bunch of criminals and traitors, I'd be voting for them instead.

---

more right-wing hypocrisy, shocking. not that they care, it's all about power for them. things like honor or basic decency means fuck all to these lawmakers

---

Fuck that religious bitch

---

I mean if the Democrats didnt want the Republicans to take them over the coals over and over then maybe they should get their shit together and stop fucking losing. And then actually utilize the power they have when they hold it instead of trying to reach across the aisle.

---

Not appointing a justice in an election year seems like a good idea, but what if a justice dies on December 20th? Or if you say justices can't be replaced in December before the election year either, what if a justice dies on November 20th? It just doesn't work out, stick to the original rules and as we have seen things will even out eventually.

---

no one cares how hypocritical republicans are, least of all republicans

it's time to stop laying out all the stones you have thrown at you and sorting them by size and start picking shit up and throwing it back dude

---