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.
Supreme Court nominee apparently doesn't know what the Constitution has to say about the powers of the President and the Congress.

Can't say whether President can delay an election.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Klobuchar did her homework.

acb is an embarrassment to America as is the party who nominated her

https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/s...81791862804482



https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/s...74768450441218
Click to expand...

Holy crap...that is embarrassing. Our old Law Professor would have destroyed her in his Crim Law or Procedure classes if she answered that way. Judges deal with hypotheticals all the friggin time she is just too chicken**** to put anything on the record. She looks afraid of questioning (she has a Deer in Headlights look when questioned by a Dem) which means she shouldnt be up for the job. Either that or she is incompetent and the same thing holds.

Christ BeerFace McRapey answered questions better at times...you know before he went QAnon on the bit. Gorsuch for sure did. She sounds like me when I was interviewing for a tenure track job at my school 1/3 of the way through my first semester teaching and the President of the School was asking me questions that were...well...not supposed to be part of the process.

edit: Jesus she ducked Booker's question about the transfer of power...FFS. This is easy crap, they are being nice to you lobbing balls at you so they dont give Lady G the vapors again. If you are so chickenshit you cant even say "yeah the President should transfer power peacefully if he loses" then you do not get to call yourself an Originalist...you are just an idiot. If she is the Gold Standard of Law Professors then we have problems in this country. I wish my dad was still young enough to care he would have punched a wall over her ducking this way.
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
Jesus she ducked Booker's question about the transfer of power...FFS. This is easy crap, they are being nice to you lobbing balls at you so they dont give Lady G the vapors again. If you are so chicken**** you cant even say "yeah the President should transfer power peacefully if he loses" then you do not get to call yourself an Originalist...you are just an idiot. If she is the Gold Standard of Law Professors then we have problems in this country.
Click to expand...

She may actually be the gold standard for right wing jurists at this point. Who is left after Scalia's obvious con has been exposed over the last 2 decades? A henchman like Alito, an opportunistic toad like Drunky McRapist, and now Hildegard of Gilead. This is the best they've got, folks. That's why Ted Cruz passes as bright in this crowd. It's the short bus.
 
https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316160491396440066

This is really embarrassing. First you have Kennedy who makes me laugh because everything he says sounds dumber than a box of rocks...but she even struggles to deal with his leading questions trying to prove she is thoughtful. Cool you read something on Climate Change but you don't have an opinion on it?

This woman is so out of her depth I am starting to feel bad for her.
 
Handyman said:
https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316160491396440066

This is really embarrassing. First you have Kennedy who makes me laugh because everything he says sounds dumber than a box of rocks...but she even struggles to deal with his leading questions trying to prove she is thoughtful. Cool you read something on Climate Change but you don't have an opinion on it?

This woman is so out of her depth I am starting to feel bad for her.
Click to expand...

What if Harriet Myers had gotten a hearing.
 
She’s an Empty vessel, a robot programmed by the group that grooms all these whackos. She has no purpose other than to push the empty agenda if the uber conservatives.

speaking of ted- wasn’t one of our cons around here touting his Harvard degree? I seem to remember Harvard being poo-pooed when Obama was president
 
Kepler said:
She may actually be the gold standard for right wing jurists at this point. Who is left after Scalia's obvious con has been exposed over the last 2 decades? A henchman like Alito, an opportunistic toad like Drunky McRapist, and now Hildegard of Gilead. This is the best they've got, folks. That's why Ted Cruz passes as bright in this crowd. It's the short bus.
Click to expand...

Scalia was scum and is surely being prison raped in hell if it exists...but at least he knew the law. His interpretation was crap (imho) but if you asked him he could defend his position with something. (I saw a lot of Scalia lectures my first year in college) Gorsuch is the same way. I may not like their ideas but they at least are somewhat based on academic study of the law.

Now I am sure ACB is a good to great professor and she was top of her class at ND so she obviously did the work. But if you cant answer basic stuff on the first days of your nomination hearings maybe you arent ready for prime time. I know the GOP is pretending this is some gangrape of her but there isnt even a raised voice, there is almost no vitriol. The worst she is getting is when someone brings up what Trump says about her nomination and the SC in general while also trying to de-legitimize the election. She could put a lot of minds at ease with these questions (which is my guess what the Dems are doing since they dont want to be seen as destroying a woman on TV when they need Suburban Women to show up in droves and her being put on the court is a lock) and she just cant be bothered to do it. I mean Senator Foghorn Leghorn had to tell her "I am not trying to trap you" AND HE IS A FRIGGIN REPUBLICAN! A real President would be considering pulling her back and a real Senate would come nowhere close to confirming her...
 
Last edited:
I'm not watching, so I may be wrong here. She's not out of her depth. She's probably even capable.

But that's how they want her to play the game. Don't say anything that can give them any idea of your philosophy as a jurist will be, and likewise, don't say anything that can give them ammunition to use against you.

So basically, deflect, deflect, deflect, and play dumb. "I don't know how I could rule on abortion until I have heard the arguments put before me in court"
 
rufus said:
I'm not watching, so I may be wrong here. She's not out of her depth. She's probably even capable.

But that's how they want her to play the game. Don't say anything that can give them any idea of your philosophy as a jurist will be, and likewise, don't say anything that can give them ammunition to use against you.

So basically, deflect, deflect, deflect, and play dumb. "I don't know how I could rule on abortion until I have heard the arguments put before me in court"
Click to expand...

The eternal triangle of conservatism: stupid, evil, crazy: pick at least one.
 
rufus said:
I'm not watching, so I may be wrong here. She's not out of her depth. She's probably even capable.

But that's how they want her to play the game. Don't say anything that can give them any idea of your philosophy as a jurist will be, and likewise, don't say anything that can give them ammunition to use against you.

So basically, deflect, deflect, deflect, and play dumb. "I don't know how I could rule on abortion until I have heard the arguments put before me in court"
Click to expand...

Nah she isnt this good of an actress. Watch her she literally looks like a hunter just shined his lights in her eyes. They selected her BECAUSE this is who she is.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
She’s an Empty vessel, a robot programmed by the group that grooms all these whackos. She has no purpose other than to push the empty agenda if the uber conservatives.

speaking of ted- wasn’t one of our cons around here touting his Harvard degree? I seem to remember Harvard being poo-pooed when Obama was president
Click to expand...

This is exactly what she sounds like. Exactly.

“Blink twice if you have a gun to your head”
 
rufus said:
I'm not watching, so I may be wrong here. She's not out of her depth. She's probably even capable.

But that's how they want her to play the game. Don't say anything that can give them any idea of your philosophy as a jurist will be, and likewise, don't say anything that can give them ammunition to use against you.

So basically, deflect, deflect, deflect, and play dumb. "I don't know how I could rule on abortion until I have heard the arguments put before me in court"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

And yet, she felt no qualms about expressing those opinions in articles and papers outside of the court and Senate. Weird.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
And yet, she felt no qualms about expressing those opinions in articles and papers outside of the court and Senate. Weird.
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge fan of judges, who are currently sitting on the bench, going out and publicly taking positions on issues that may come before that judge. If they do it while working as a lawyer, a law professor, someone in government, etc..., I have no problem with it.

Also, talking on a televised forum, or writing a law review article where you can just throw out ideas is a lot different that sitting in Senate chambers, under oath, being forced to answer those types of questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top