What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SJHovey said:
If this nomination had been put forward any time in this country's history before 2016, the vote would have already been taken and she would have passed by something like 95-5. But, it's after 2016.

The notion that Senators have a right to demand that a nominee tell them, ahead of time, how they would rule on any issue is one of the most insidious ideas put forth.
Click to expand...

The notion that Senators demanded Hillary Clinton tell them about Benghazi is one of the most insidious idea ever put forth too
 
jericho said:
The notion that Senators demanded Hillary Clinton tell them about Benghazi is one of the most insidious idea ever put forth too
Click to expand...

I think both the House and Senate have every right to investigate events where things go badly wrong, where Americans are killed or errors have been made. That said, the Benghazi investigation probably could have happened in a day, would have revealed little or no wrongdoing, and they could have moved on to other things instead of wasting endless hours and dollars on it. But, they didn't. Wasn't the first time and won't be the last that a house of Congress wastes times for political motives.

Not quite the same thing, though, as demanding that a judge tell you how she'll rule on a case before you allow her to hear it.
 
SJHovey said:
If this nomination had been put forward any time in this country's history before 2016, the vote would have already been taken and she would have passed by something like 95-5. But, it's after 2016.

The notion that Senators have a right to demand that a nominee tell them, ahead of time, how they would rule on any issue is one of the most insidious ideas put forth.
Click to expand...

Oh horse hockey. It's only been since Bork that judges have stopped answering those questions. Never mind that he was shot down for good reasons and his replacement nominee, Kennedy, was confirmed unanimously by an opposition Senate in an election year.
 
SJHovey said:
If this nomination had been put forward any time in this country's history before 2016, the vote would have already been taken and she would have passed by something like 95-5. But, it's after 2016.

The notion that Senators have a right to demand that a nominee tell them, ahead of time, how they would rule on any issue is one of the most insidious ideas put forth.
Click to expand...

Aaah, yes. The Institutions are holding, right?
 
SJHovey said:
If this nomination had been put forward any time in this country's history before 2016, the vote would have already been taken and she would have passed by something like 95-5. But, it's after 2016.

The notion that Senators have a right to demand that a nominee tell them, ahead of time, how they would rule on any issue is one of the most insidious ideas put forth.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Robert Bork.

And I love how you pretend contentious SC nomination hearings are a new thing. If Sotomayor had 31 Senators vote against her (6 in committee) than ACB would at best do similar. Kagan had similar numbers...both of those were long before 2016 and were highly political.

And since she has almost no judicial record to go on, all they can do is ask questions about how she might rule. She has gone out of her way to discuss her beliefs on how judges should act, her experiences as a clerk for judges and how religion plays into her style. Now all of a sudden she can't be asked about about how she would feel as a Supreme Court judge if The President (who is forcing this through) decides to contest an election and she is forced to hear the case? Don't we all have the right to know if she even has the legal acumen to make such a decision? (she doesnt seem to since she cant even tell us basic stuff like voter intimidation is illegal) The GOP sure seemed to think so when they ripped Kagan for not answering the same types of questions.

This is not something new...that you think it is tells me you didnt really ever pay attention.
 
SJHovey said:
If this nomination had been put forward any time in this country's history before 2016, the vote would have already been taken and she would have passed by something like 95-5. But, it's after 2016.
Click to expand...

There it is, the dumbest thing I'll read until Trump Tweets again today.

You could've just said that Dems have "Trump Derangement Syndrome". We all know it's what you're thinking.
 
Handyman said:
And since she has almost no judicial record to go on, all they can do is ask questions about how she might rule.
Click to expand...

No, no, and no again. That is completely improper. In fact, I think there is actually a judicial canon for the federal judiciary, and probably pretty much every state judiciary as well, that specifically prohibits a judge from commenting on matters that are either before them, or may come before them.

In fact, spending more than a day or so with the nominee is largely pointless. What they should be trying to figure out is whether she's smart, how well does she reason out problems, does she think about problems or react impulsively, how well does she work in groups to build consensus, etc... I'd be interviewing people who worked with her, who went to school with her, who actually have had a chance to observe her in action.

I get it. You want her to say she won't vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. You want her to commit to taking certain positions on the Voting Rights Act. Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, you're not entitled to those commitments.
 
SJHovey said:
What they should be trying to figure out is whether she's smart, how well does she reason out problems, does she think about problems or react impulsively, how well does she work in groups
Click to expand...

Cons have lowered the bar so far that a SCOTUS hearing is not permitted to exceed the rigor of the in-processing interview for a pre-school.

200312720-001-56a777c33df78cf7729630b7.jpg
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
If we’re talking low intellect, sure on the R side you’re correct. Did you hear Kennedy yesterday?

here’s a nice rundown of all GOP state court packing attempts in recent years. Appears they’re a fan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/13/court-packing-state-supreme/
Click to expand...

No, I didn't hear Kennedy, or anyone else yesterday. Here's the thing. I actually have to work. I'm not working at home. I don't have a tv in my office, and wouldn't have time to watch it if I did. Sorry.

No doubt court packing has been tried, and will continue to be advocated all over this country. I remember the Iowa instance because I know a man who is related to one of the justices on the Iowa Supreme Court who decided the case in question that lead to those efforts.

I personally don't worry about court packing, just like I don't worry about Kepler's supposed economic revolution that's coming, because, a) I doubt it will occur, and b) even if it did, it's just as easily undone.

That, by the way, is why court packing is a stupid idea, and probably has been unsuccessful as often as it has.
 
SJHovey said:
What they should be trying to figure out is whether she's smart, how well does she reason out problems, does she think about problems or react impulsively, how well does she work in groups to build consensus, etc... I'd be interviewing people who worked with her, who went to school with her, who actually have had a chance to observe her in action.
Click to expand...

You mean like when she was asked basic questions about The Constitution that she couldn't answer? Seems relevant...
 
She doesn't know the five freedoms guaranteed in the First farking Amendment. From a softball tossed by Ben Sasse. Probably has to wait to ask her husband.
 
SJHovey said:
No, no, and no again. That is completely improper. In fact, I think there is actually a judicial canon for the federal judiciary, and probably pretty much every state judiciary as well, that specifically prohibits a judge from commenting on matters that are either before them, or may come before them.

In fact, spending more than a day or so with the nominee is largely pointless. What they should be trying to figure out is whether she's smart, how well does she reason out problems, does she think about problems or react impulsively, how well does she work in groups to build consensus, etc... I'd be interviewing people who worked with her, who went to school with her, who actually have had a chance to observe her in action.

I get it. You want her to say she won't vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. You want her to commit to taking certain positions on the Voting Rights Act. Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, you're not entitled to those commitments.
Click to expand...

First of all....dont speak for me like you know me. I dont care what she thinks about Roe if she is stupid enough to vote against it sooner or later it will become law through Congress and she can deal with it. You dont even know my opinion on Roe you just know I am pro choice. (which is not the same thing)

Second...seriously go back and watch literally any confirmation hearing. What is being done here is no different than what has been done for quite some time. (not just since 2016) The opposite party asks questions just like the Dems are now and the nominees always duck it just like ACB did. It isnt about the ducking and itsnt about what is appropriate, it is about how she answers the question and reacts to it. (like you imply) When Kagan and Sotomayor were up or even Roberts and Gorsuch their answers/non-answers still brought about a sense of confidence in their knowledge of the law. When questioned on cases or other court's decisions they never answer...but they give a reason why and if they have made a public assertion about it in the past they can defend it. (Kagan had to with her Gay Marriage take when she was up for Solicitor General) You back your opinion but dont rip the previous decision because that isnt your job. It is as easy as it gets if you just do it right or at least come prepared.

It isnt like we dont know ACB's opinion on things. There is a reason we all knew she was going to get the nomination and it wasn't because of decades of judicial review. But if she is being put up for the SC because she is a "Constitutional Scholar" (since she hasnt been a judge very long) asking her about the basics of Constitutional Law is not out of bounds. The problem is she cant even handle the basic questions of the Law. *** kind of Constitutionalist and Scholar cant name the rights in the First Amendment? I get she is under pressure but Sasse is a friggin Republican lobbing her a softball and she still freezes up? She can't even say that laws on the books are actually laws? (voter intimidation) That isnt how this works.

You know how a person who is qualified for the job answers Klobuchar's question on the Poll Watchers? (though probably worded better since I am just a guy who watches this crap not someone qualified to be anywhere near it)

"Not speaking to the particulars of that situation since I don't have all the facts, but yes Voter Intimidation is illegal in the United States as near as I can recall."

No worrying about hypotheticals, no hemming and hawing and certainly nothing that runs afoul of whatever ethical issues you think these hearings have. It is ducking the particulars but admitting that an illegal act is actually illegal. “I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” is not the way to respond.

I dont care about her politics...if this was RBG I would say the same thing. To be on the Supreme Court it should at least be arguable the nominee is amongst the best legal minds around and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. How can I trust her decision-making when it comes to the rights of everyone when she can't even handle being questioned by friendly Senators?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top