The Barrett Hearings

[bleubird]

https://www.adn.com/politics/2020/10/24/sen-murkowski-says-shell-support-barrett-for-supreme-court/

F%^king Lisa!
Some polls show AK may be more pink .

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, not all judges all the time. As I already said, the meanings of terms in law are either defined by the text of the law, or it's the common understanding of the term as it is used commonly by common people in the common era. Jurists are expected to cite case law where it's relevant to interpret the case, but they're not in the business of introducing novel evidence, such as newspapers, arguing the case for or against the appellant with the evidence that they introduced all the while being immune from cross examination. That is, any jurist can and will invoke case law from 1837 but Originalists seem to be going beyond citing cases, and instead are able to impute original meaning without them. Sorry but that's beyond the scope of the role of a judge.

No, it is not. The role of the judge , when judging matters of law rather than the specific facts of the case, is precisely to ascertain what the law says, as applied to those facts. Let me give you an example: suppose there is no case law of the time. Do you really think that the toy is banned, but machine guns are allowed, simply because the meaning of the expression 'machine gun' changed and now it denotes a toy, rather than a weapon?

But that one's easy, try this instead: are real machine guns able to be banned or restricted in any way?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, not all judges all the time. As I already said, the meanings of terms in law are either defined by the text of the law, or it's the common understanding of the term as it is used commonly by common people in the common era. Jurists are expected to cite case law where it's relevant to interpret the case, but they're not in the business of introducing novel evidence, such as newspapers, arguing the case for or against the appellant with the evidence that they introduced all the while being immune from cross examination. That is, any jurist can and will invoke case law from 1837 but Originalists seem to be going beyond citing cases, and instead are able to impute original meaning without them. Sorry but that's beyond the scope of the role of a judge.

No, it is not. The role of the judge , when judging matters of law rather than the specific facts of the case, is precisely to ascertain what the law says, as applied to those facts. Let me give you an example: suppose there is no case law of the time. Do you really think that the toy is banned, but machine guns are allowed, simply because the meaning of the expression 'machine gun' changed and now it denotes a toy, rather than a weapon?

But that one's easy, try this instead: are real machine guns able to be banned or restricted in any way?

Certainly, and Bomb#20 has already made excellent points on the matter of weapons in general. But that is a side issue. Let's say that machine guns may be banned. It would still make no sense to consider the toy banned. Rather, you would have a law that bans the weapon but is unconstitutional.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But that one's easy, try this instead: are real machine guns able to be banned or restricted in any way?

Certainly, and Bomb#20 has already made excellent points on the matter of weapons in general.

Post#?

But that is a side issue. Let's say that machine guns may be banned. It would still make no sense to consider the toy banned. Rather, you would have a law that bans the weapon but is unconstitutional.

Oh gawd. Don't care.

 

[ZiprHead]

Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying

The more Barrett and Republicans object to a recusal commitment, the clearer it becomes that one is essential. The adage that no man should be able to pick a judge in his own case has never been more on point.

 

[Trausti]

Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying

The more Barrett and Republicans object to a recusal commitment, the clearer it becomes that one is essential. The adage that no man should be able to pick a judge in his own case has never been more on point.

Um, there’s no controversy before the court concerning the election. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[ZiprHead]

Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying

The more Barrett and Republicans object to a recusal commitment, the clearer it becomes that one is essential. The adage that no man should be able to pick a judge in his own case has never been more on point.

Um, there’s no controversy before the court concerning the election. Lighten up, Francis.

Do you want to make a bet?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Um, there’s no controversy before the court concerning the election. Lighten up, Francis.

Do you want to make a bet?

It is true that there isn’t currently one. So she can’t recuse herself from a case that does not yet exist as a justice she isn’t yet confirmed to be.

However, if it happens, and it likely will happen, and she doesn’t recuse herself then she will have proven her lack of integrity. Of course it will be after she gets her lifetime appointment so neither she nor the Republican congresspeople won’t care.

 

[Trausti]

52-48.

 

[Shadowy Man]

52-48.

Don’t think there was any doubt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That might be it for our Democracy.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Barrett’s refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying

The more Barrett and Republicans object to a recusal commitment, the clearer it becomes that one is essential. The adage that no man should be able to pick a judge in his own case has never been more on point.

Um, there’s no controversy before the court concerning the election. Lighten up, Francis.

Yet. His Flatulence now has enough votes in the court that he can fuck the election up and the courts will hand him America. This very well might be the death knell for democracy.

 

[Treedbear]

52-48.

February through April 2016 -

Senator Mitch McConnell: "The American people are about to weigh-in on who's going to be the President. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Senator Chuck Grassley: Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard."

Senator Ted Cruz: "There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. We ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court."

Senator John Cornyn: "It's about the principle. The principle being that it's up to the American people in this next election, no matter who they choose."

Senator Tom Cotton: Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh-in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?

Senator John Thune: "It's the will of the American people and their voices that need to be heard."

Senator Marco Rubio: "I think the President should allow the next President to appoint the justice to the Supreme Court."

Lindsey Graham: "If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right."

Fucking hypocrites. The next time any of them says they have a deep concern for the will of the American people just remember to laugh in their face.

 

[Trausti]

52-48.

February through April 2016 -

Senator Mitch McConnell: "The American people are about to weigh-in on who's going to be the President. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Senator Chuck Grassley: Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard."

Senator Ted Cruz: "There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. We ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court."

Senator John Cornyn: "It's about the principle. The principle being that it's up to the American people in this next election, no matter who they choose."

Senator Tom Cotton: Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh-in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?

Senator John Thune: "It's the will of the American people and their voices that need to be heard."

Senator Marco Rubio: "I think the President should allow the next President to appoint the justice to the Supreme Court."

Lindsey Graham: "If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right."

Fucking hypocrites. The next time any of them says they have a deep concern for the will of the American people just remember to laugh in their face.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Post#?

But that is a side issue. Let's say that machine guns may be banned. It would still make no sense to consider the toy banned. Rather, you would have a law that bans the weapon but is unconstitutional.

Oh gawd. Don't care.

Several posts, in this thread and others. You can look it up if you care to.

 

[Treedbear]

52-48.

February through April 2016 -

Senator Mitch McConnell: "The American people are about to weigh-in on who's going to be the President. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Senator Chuck Grassley: Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard."

Senator Ted Cruz: "There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. We ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court."

Senator John Cornyn: "It's about the principle. The principle being that it's up to the American people in this next election, no matter who they choose."

Senator Tom Cotton: Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh-in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?

Senator John Thune: "It's the will of the American people and their voices that need to be heard."

Senator Marco Rubio: "I think the President should allow the next President to appoint the justice to the Supreme Court."

Lindsey Graham: "If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right."

Fucking hypocrites. The next time any of them says they have a deep concern for the will of the American people just remember to laugh in their face.

[/IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/4yKTd2DJ/Reidfilibuster.jpg[/IMG]

I don't see how issues concerning a dysfunctional congress excuse these flat-out lies about how they respect the will of the American people.

 

[Trausti]

[/IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/4yKTd2DJ/Reidfilibuster.jpg[/IMG]

I don't see how issues concerning a dysfunctional congress excuse these flat-out lies about how they respect the will of the American people.

Eh?

51% in U.S. Want Amy Coney Barrett Seated on Supreme Court

 

[Treedbear]

[/IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/4yKTd2DJ/Reidfilibuster.jpg[/IMG]

I don't see how issues concerning a dysfunctional congress excuse these flat-out lies about how they respect the will of the American people.

Eh?

51% in U.S. Want Amy Coney Barrett Seated on Supreme Court

Compared to what exactly? It's an irrelevant statistic since we'll never know because these slimy toads denied the American people any possible chance for an alternative.

ETA - You really should have read the entire article you cited instead of just the headline:

Notably, although more Americans want to see Barrett confirmed than not, polling by other organizations has shown solid majorities wanting the winner of the Nov. 3 election and the newly elected Senate to make the nomination rather than President Trump and the current Senate.