Agree Agree:  24
Likes Likes:  20
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 119 of 119
  1. #106
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,526

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Has any President nominated the same person to both a Federal court and then the Supreme Court?

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

  2. #107

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by shtexas View Post
    Has any President nominated the same person to both a Federal court and then the Supreme Court?
    Yes. While not common, it has definitely happened, including current justices. There have been some successful like those seated, but also unsuccessful ones. Reagan most definitely had one of the unsuccessful ones.

  3. #108

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Adam Klasfeld
    @KlasfeldReports

    Sen. Klobuchar presses Judge Barrett on voting rights in light of Bush v. Gore and a "global pandemic that is forcing people to choose between their health and their votes."

    Asked about voting by mail, Barrett says: "That is a matter of policy on which I cannot express a view."

    Klobuchar reacts with palpable frustration at the judge's non-answer.

    Godless Heathen
    @heathen_godless
    Replying to
    @KlasfeldReports
    I wish someone would ask her whether her oath will be to the Constitution or to Trump. She wouldn’t have been nominated if the @GOP didn’t already know the answer. They need her to be able to cement their ability to lie, cheat and steal their way to retaining power.
    Adam Klasfeld
    @KlasfeldReports
    Quizzed by Senator Sasse about the First Amendment's protection, Judge Barrett stumbles over the right to petition/redress.

    Long three days.
    Adam Klasfeld
    @KlasfeldReports
    Judge Barrett declines to comment on whether Griswold v. Connecticut, which safeguards the right to buy and use contraception, was correctly decided.

    But she calls the question "academic" because it won't likely ever land before SCOTUS.

    "I think Griswold isn't going anywhere."
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #109

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Brian Tyler Cohen
    @briantylercohen
    Amy Coney Barrett refuses to admit that a president can’t delay an election. She won’t say that voter intimidation is illegal. She can’t name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not only is her nomination illegitimate, but she’s unqualified.
    Adriana Edwards
    @_AdrianaEdwards
    Do you think a lawyer would get an entry level job at a firm if she was not able to answer these simple questions? Do you think anyone would get any job if they were not able to remember any important recent facts related to the CEO/Company they wish to work for?
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #110

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    This woman is no Sarah Palin, but given the situation her best tactics is to give no meaningful answers to anything Democrats ask. That's exactly what she's doing.
    Roger forever

  6. #111

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    Adam Klasfeld
    @KlasfeldReports
    Judge Barrett declines to comment on whether Griswold v. Connecticut, which safeguards the right to buy and use contraception, was correctly decided.

    But she calls the question "academic" because it won't likely ever land before SCOTUS.

    "I think Griswold isn't going anywhere.".
    This is a particularly odd comment from her.

  7. #112

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    I believe that asking her what she would do "if such and such case" were to come to the court is not fair. Assume she is truly impartial; any proper justice would need to look at the case presented by the plaintiffs, and she cannot state an opinion during these hearings that may hinder her in the future.
    These hearings should not be about what she would do in the future. They should be about what she has done already.
    And remember: I believe she will overturn RoeVWade. In a heartbeat. But that is the horse you are strapped on.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  8. #113

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    It's perfectly fair. Asking about legal precedents is well within the bounds of what should be questioned of every SC nomination. She doesn't have to say how she will decide a future case. She can just give her viewpoint on a topic. Barrett and other Republican nominees like to pretend that they are above answering these questions directly because Justice Ginsburg said something in her hearing about not giving forecasts on future rulings. But what RBG did do was give very clear viewpoints on topics such as a woman's right to choose.

    And it is complete BS to pretend her 3-year record on the bench is all she should be judged on.

  9. #114

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Ari Berman
    @AriBerman

    Mitch McConnell blocking coronavirus relief legislation for 157 days, legislation to restore Voting Rights Act for 317 days & legislation to prevent foreign election interference for 361 days while rushing to confirm Barrett 15 days before Nov 3 when 29 MILLION already voted
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  10. #115

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Adam Liptak
    @adamliptak
    NEW: Supreme Court, in 4-4 tie, lets stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling allowing extra time for mail-in voting. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissent.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  11. #116

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Steven Mazie
    @stevenmazie

    The unfathomable thing about the four justices siding w PA Republicans tonight: they would’ve stripped a state supreme court of the authority to say what the law is in their own state.

    That’s way beyond right field.

    It’s judicial activism on steroids.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  12. #117
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,526

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Depressing

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

  13. #118
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    53,440
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by shtexas View Post
    Depressing

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk
    Except for one thing. John Roberts. It's still depressing, no doubt, but John frequently isn't delivering what his connections expected.
    Tiz the Dude! Now a winner after his second race!

  14. #119

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Jerky comment from somebody nit-picking: How can you DISSENT on a 4-4 decision?
    You no longer have a supreme court. They are, individually, just the remnant of an administration long past.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •