• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Barrett Hearings

 
 
 
ZiprHead said:
Trausti said:
repoman said:
sexual "preference" is offensive now.
Click to expand...

Wokeness makes the world a dumber place.

EkQ5xbzXcAANx2W

EkQ5xbtXYAIBLeL
Click to expand...

Preference implies a choice, like whether you prefer a Big Mac or a Whopper.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks. It’s difficult to keep up with pace of Newspeak and what words became offensive in the last 24 hours.
 
Not being able to tell what is offensive is a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's like how covid makes one lose a sense of smell.
 
I guess it's okay to use the term if you are on the right side of the culture wars. For example, to ask someone at a bus stop "what's your sexual preference, nigga" is normal everyday vernacular if you are black AND a liberal, but it's highly offensive if you are black and conservative.
 
If "sexual preference" is a slur, that's news to this gay individual. If you prefer to use your right hand, does that mean there is no biological component to that preference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Barrett is truly freightening

On multiple occasions, she gave troubling answers as to whether America can be assured of free, fair and safe elections. This is all the more concerning in light of the fact that more than 10 million people have already cast ballots and open questions about how safe and stable the 2020 election will be.

For instance, in response to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Barrett refused to answer the straightforward question of whether every American President "should make a commitment -- unequivocally and resolutely -- to the peaceful transfer of power." She called the issue a "political controversy" and made an empty statement about how "one of the beauties of America" is that we haven't had "the situations that have arisen in so many other countries."

Yes, in response to a basic question about whether a president ought to respect the authority of his successor, the best answer a preeminent legal expert could give amounted to ducking the question and saying in effect, "well, at least we're not an unstable developing country."

When asked Tuesday by Ranking Member California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Wednesday by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin if the Constitution or federal law gives the President the authority to delay an election unilaterally, she also refused to answer clearly and definitively. The question was again a relative no-brainer, given that regardless of Trump's nonsensical huffing and puffing, it is Congress, not the President, who has authority to set and move the date of elections.

In another remarkable exchange with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett would not answer the question of if, under federal law, it is illegal for armed people intimidate voters at the polls. Barrett answered that she couldn't "characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation" and without speaking with law clerks, doing research and engaging colleagues. Even when having the language of the relevant statute read to her, Barrett demurred.

In each of these instances, Barrett was asked to respond to an uncontroversial factual statement, untethered to any pending proceeding that may come before her. We, as lawyers -- even ones who are nominees for the bench -- can easily acknowledge basic legal truths without wading into the specifics of a case. To use a basic example, a first-year law student can tell you that murder is typically defined as the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another -- without expressing an opinion about whether a particular person should be found guilty of doing so. Put another way, it is not that hard to state a fact, without applying that fact to the merits of an individual case.

By failing to state the obvious, she has cracked the door open for bad actors to test the limits of the law. For example, if the President is considering not accepting a peaceful transfer of power or moving the date of the election, why wouldn't he now try to roll the dice on whether he can get away with it in the Supreme Court? At this point, it might even be irrational for him not to.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/opinions/judge-barrett-alarming-non-answers-williams/index.html
 
crazyfingers said:
Barrett is truly freightening

On multiple occasions, she gave troubling answers as to whether America can be assured of free, fair and safe elections. This is all the more concerning in light of the fact that more than 10 million people have already cast ballots and open questions about how safe and stable the 2020 election will be.

For instance, in response to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Barrett refused to answer the straightforward question of whether every American President "should make a commitment -- unequivocally and resolutely -- to the peaceful transfer of power." She called the issue a "political controversy" and made an empty statement about how "one of the beauties of America" is that we haven't had "the situations that have arisen in so many other countries."

Yes, in response to a basic question about whether a president ought to respect the authority of his successor, the best answer a preeminent legal expert could give amounted to ducking the question and saying in effect, "well, at least we're not an unstable developing country."

When asked Tuesday by Ranking Member California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Wednesday by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin if the Constitution or federal law gives the President the authority to delay an election unilaterally, she also refused to answer clearly and definitively. The question was again a relative no-brainer, given that regardless of Trump's nonsensical huffing and puffing, it is Congress, not the President, who has authority to set and move the date of elections.

In another remarkable exchange with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett would not answer the question of if, under federal law, it is illegal for armed people intimidate voters at the polls. Barrett answered that she couldn't "characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation" and without speaking with law clerks, doing research and engaging colleagues. Even when having the language of the relevant statute read to her, Barrett demurred.

In each of these instances, Barrett was asked to respond to an uncontroversial factual statement, untethered to any pending proceeding that may come before her. We, as lawyers -- even ones who are nominees for the bench -- can easily acknowledge basic legal truths without wading into the specifics of a case. To use a basic example, a first-year law student can tell you that murder is typically defined as the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another -- without expressing an opinion about whether a particular person should be found guilty of doing so. Put another way, it is not that hard to state a fact, without applying that fact to the merits of an individual case.

By failing to state the obvious, she has cracked the door open for bad actors to test the limits of the law. For example, if the President is considering not accepting a peaceful transfer of power or moving the date of the election, why wouldn't he now try to roll the dice on whether he can get away with it in the Supreme Court? At this point, it might even be irrational for him not to.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/opinions/judge-barrett-alarming-non-answers-williams/index.html
Click to expand...

Demurring on hypothetical issues that might come before the court is pretty anodyne stuff for a judicial confirmation hearing. But as this bunch actually asked ACB if she was a rapist, any contrived hysteria will do.
 
How does one reconcile believing that “no one is above the law” with the idea that one could entertain a legal argument on how a President could pardon himself?
 
Trausti is putting up one hell of a fight for this zealot.
I predict that he will win. :rolleyes:
 
Lindsey Graham's parting shot at the very end so nobody gets to make it an issue:
"This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who is pro-life and embraces her faith without apology. And she's going to the court."
Click to expand...

So once again Lindsey Graham distinguishes himself by displaying his genuine lack of integrity in conducting a hearing during which anyone who brought up the possibility that the nominee's judgement might be swayed by her religious beliefs, or that the nominee might have some bias against a woman's right to make choices about her own life, was shamed for making unfair or irrelevant accusations that have no basis for consideration in their vote to approve her appointment.

Apparently the Senators' opportunity to ask questions is now over. But it would surely might have been appropriate to ask ACB to follow up on that. Something simple like "Do you actually consider your views to be pro-life?" or "Have you ever considered that making judicial opinions might require you to compromise your faith?"

Graham is truly a weasel. That's the one thing in all this that should really be stressed by the Dems. You can't trust anything he says. He lies through his teeth and it doesn't matter who you are or what party you belong to. He's proved it over and over again. His word is trash.
 
If I recall correctly I think she said (or at least implied) at one point that she had made a decision contrary to her personal beliefs. I don’t know if anyone asked her to give an example but I’d be curious to have her give an example when the legs logic led her to a conclusion that was contrary to her personal feelings.
 
You Americans make a big deal about the First Amendment. I guess Trausti is fine with appointing someone for life who doesn't have a fucking clue what the freedoms the First Amendment protects.
 
ZiprHead said:
If Handmaiden Amy Phoney Barrett is such an originalist, why does she think she has a right to vote, let alone be a judge?
Click to expand...
This is the proverbial elephant in the room, isn't it?

But a lot of 'originalists' add all the amendments (and only amendments) to the body of law that supposedly determines how to make legal decisions.

Of course, no one really believes that originalism is anything other than an excuse to rationalize whatever some judge was going to do to please the GOP base anyway. I'm not even sure they believe it themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom