|
hobbesmaster posted:Its literally the job of a judge so like thats the answer you'd expect for them to be qualified? if that’s the expected answer of a judge we should just throw the entire profession in the garbage
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:You boated one around? Like on a boat? I realize that sounds dumb but I want to make sure I’m reading that right. Yeah I'm in rural Alaska and I drove her around in a boat for a week getting out to remote home sites. She was real amped to count some people. She was also extremely annoying, but it was just cool someone was so into doing the job correctly just because it's the way things are supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its literally the job of a judge so like thats the answer you'd expect for them to be qualified? there's a huge difference between 'as a judge I'll examine the situation as it comes to me and would rather not comment on a contextless hypothetical because there can be situations beyond the obvious that alter my view' and 'I won't comment on if a peaceful transition of power is good or not'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I agree at this point the count is almost done no matter what but the fight will be in however the numbers can be manipulated by Trump and what a new Congress can do in response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:As far as I remember, the constitutional requirement is that the census happen at least every ten years. I don't think there's anything stopping Congress from ordering a new, bonus census.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Also, as a matter of policy, the Census Bureau sometimes conducts mid-decade censuses in places that have experienced rapid growth. I know, having worked for the Bureau as a canvasser for one of those. The 10 year number is an upper bound, that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I suppose the more relevant question is if this can somehow trigger another round of redistricting (or even reapportionment) States are free to redistrict whenever they want to. It's customary to wait until after the next census, but not mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:States are free to redistrict whenever they want to. It's customary to wait until after the next census, but not mandatory. Re: Texas during the aughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Right, but Texas didn’t get to gain any total seats from it, just redraw it’s own maps. When I’m talking about Congress, it’s more about whatever action they can take on apportionment when Trump fucks around with citizenship. I’d be shocked if they ordered another census, and if they’ve got close counts where the raw counts can just be unTrumpified to remove skew that’s what will happen. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:States are free to redistrict whenever they want to. It's customary to wait until after the next census, but not mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Can they be forced to though? Once a new census is conducted some of the existing districts may have newly known-unequal populations. Probably impossible to do unless it’s a full census of everyone in the state (and country) because the point of the decennial census is to count everyone once (specifically where they lived on April 1st). Otherwise there’s no way to prove through enumeration that district B actually grew as fast as District A. So it’s not a matter of just counting a few areas where we know there’s rapid change in population or were just harder to count. There’s definitely reasons to do small-scale census-taking continuously to get as much data as we can but without some big legislative changes it’s not going to change apportionment and redistricting. I guess re-reading your post you’re probably assuming a new national census but I don’t think that’s going to be anyone’s priority. There are about a hundred things that the Democrats can do that would be more politically advantageous and more impactful then literally counting everyone again with a fairly small marginal difference and a bunch of whining from people who “just filled it out last year.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:05
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Can they be forced to though? Once a new census is conducted some of the existing districts may have newly known-unequal populations. If they do take another national census, then the Congress absolutely can pass a law to command the states to use the new results. They are probably not going to do that unless the results are seriously screwed up, and we don't really have much of a reason to believe that ending the count a couple weeks early will have a big impact. Trump's idiotic proposal to just arbitrarily subtract voters from blue states because of illegal immigration will be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah I'm in rural Alaska and I drove her around in a boat for a week getting out to remote home sites. She was real amped to count some people. She was also extremely annoying, but it was just cool someone was so into doing the job correctly just because it's the way things are supposed to be. Thank you for clarifying, that’s sick as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
text editor posted:This lady has that smugly ignorant shithead chud face nearly perfected
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
I caught up on the hearings. She seems level headed and comes off as pretty charismatic to boot. The fact that she's not using the hearing as a way to garner political controversy makes me feel like she may not be as bad as I had feared. I buy into her reasoning that her roles as a professor of law and that of a judge are two distinct different roles. Is it rare for candidates to refrain from notes? The media seemed to make a big deal of it. Do they usually come prepared with stacks of paperwork? If that's the usual case and she didn't bring anything, that's pretty drat impressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I caught up on the hearings. She seems level headed and comes off as pretty charismatic to boot. The fact that she's not using the hearing as a way to garner political controversy makes me feel like she may not be as bad as I had feared. I buy into her reasoning that her roles as a professor of law and that of a judge are two distinct different roles. You're getting played by a judge. Yes, a handmaiden from a religious cult is going to be as bad as you feared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Social issues: https://twitter.com/SamSpital/status/1316211108504629248 https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1311660143143276544 Economic issues: https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1314541053274451969 https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1316371437083668480 Election issues: https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1316013773405077510 https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1316082898244689920 https://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1316094690383613954 galenanorth fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
If you are fooled for a second by this woman who has an obvious documented agenda just because she is not talking about it during this hearing, I really don’t know what to say I really wish the Dems would challenge her harder here. It’s been very mild so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I caught up on the hearings. She seems level headed and comes off as pretty charismatic to boot. The fact that she's not using the hearing as a way to garner political controversy makes me feel like she may not be as bad as I had feared. I buy into her reasoning that her roles as a professor of law and that of a judge are two distinct different roles. What rock have you lived under your entire life? FlamingLiberal posted:If you are fooled for a second by this woman who has an obvious documented agenda just because she is not talking about it during this hearing, I really don’t know what to say It annoys the poo poo out of me they don't call this out as the kabuki theatre it is. Every time they do one of these they act like every nominee is a tabula rasa when we have generally long histories of their positions and rulings. They should've boycotted but if you're going to show up don't treat it like every other one. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Bioshuffle's gimmick is being unable to identify obvious bigots, he literally got threadbanned from the The Boys thread because of it, just ignore him. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Piell fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
How many completely disqualifying things from Barrett’s career have been posted in this thread, and how many have been mentioned in the hearings? The Dems shouldn’t even be present for the hearings. They are a sham.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I caught up on the hearings. She seems level headed and comes off as pretty charismatic to boot. The fact that she's not using the hearing as a way to garner political controversy makes me feel like she may not be as bad as I had feared. I buy into her reasoning that her roles as a professor of law and that of a judge are two distinct different roles. She's going to be worse than you feared, she is acting deliberately to soothe fears, Robert's and Gorsuch did the same dance. The notes thing is probably testament to a good memory but it also shows she realizes this is all theater and doesn't matter. Nothing needs to be noted because it is all preordained.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She's going to be worse than you feared, she is acting deliberately to soothe fears, Robert's and Gorsuch did the same dance. Gorsuch wasn't as bad as I thought he might be on a lot of things (still nowhere near the kind of person I want on the court though). ACB is definitely not going to be good news for anything remotely progressive though. People keep talking about abortion etc but it's really corporations that are going to benefit from her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The notes thing is probably testament to a good memory but it also shows she realizes this is all theater and doesn't matter. Nothing needs to be noted because it is all preordained. She hasn't really been asked anything that requires notes - they asking things about her record, of course she better know it. And anything that might require notes is just stuff she refuses to answer on anyway. The Senators need notes and documents obviously because they aren't her and have a million other things going on everyday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
The notes thing comes across as pre-planned entirely to feed a "wow look how smart" narrative and it's sad just how many people have bought it. Giving a non-answer on abortion should've resulted in some pointed "this is one of the most hotly discussed judicial topics in the country and you've got a lifetime of statements on it, don't give me your 'I don't know' nonsense" questioning. Or even a "gently caress it, this hearing is a sham and I'll have no part in it" followed by the Dem leaving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
It's honestly disheartening just how much every single judicial hearing devolves into "what is your judicial opinion on [hotly-contested judicial topic] so that we can get a sense of how you would act on the bench?" "I have no opinion on that topic". It's just theatre. Every judge pretends they're a perfectly frictionless spherical judge in a vacuum with no opinions about anything despite a lifetime of evidence of them expressing their opinions on the exact topics they're being asked about. And then people politely applaud because the person said the right things about the theoretical ideal of judges and they get confirmed and go on to do exactly what the critics said they would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1316393562335055874
galenanorth fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You're getting played by a judge. Yes, a handmaiden from a religious cult is going to be as bad as you feared. I haven't looked too much into People of Praise, but I haven't been able to find an unbiased source that goes into much more detail about the group. Groovelord Neato posted:What rock have you lived under your entire life? Hieronymous Alloy posted:She's going to be worse than you feared, she is acting deliberately to soothe fears, Robert's and Gorsuch did the same dance. Piell posted:Bioshuffle's gimmick is being unable to identify obvious bigots  Personally, I do not think Judge Barrett is a super villain who was married to a Nazi but to each their own I guess. I'm here to discuss the nomination, not some TV show that has nothing to do with this in any way shape or form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
She's soon to be a supervillain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Historically speaking, have these hearings been political? Her excuse seems to be "I don't want to be a political pundit" But has that been the case traditionally? Where politics is kept at a distance? It seems to be no matter how you cut it, you can't separate the politics. How have the other nominees handled questions such as these?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
It's always kabuki theatre where nominees pretend to be non-ideological when they're clearly not. It's much worse with GOP choices because they're far more partisan than the choices Dems put up - no liberal Supreme Court justice is even close to as far to the left as the most "moderate" conservative justice is to the right. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1316384721807515649?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It's always kabuki theatre where nominees pretend to be non-ideological when they're clearly not. It's much worse with GOP choices because they're far more partisan than the choices Dems put up - no liberal Supreme Court justice is even close to as far to the left as the most "moderate" conservative justice is to the right. Someone should make a gimmick Twitter account for Clarence Thomas that never posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Ginni is a psycho of the highest order. Her group gave James O'Keefe an award but this on another level. I'm pretty sure groups she's aligned with or belonged to have come before the Court and Clarence didn't recuse too. Good poo poo all around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I haven't looked too much into People of Praise, but I haven't been able to find an unbiased source that goes into much more detail about the group. Amy Coney Barrett will end the ACA, the right to abortion, the right to birth control, and the right to gay marriage. You're provably very bad at identifying obvious right wing shitheads so maybe listen to people who know more than you do. Here's a pro-tip - any decent judge can and would answer these questions https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1316393312232902659 Piell fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
"I won't answer hypotheticals" for blatantly clear things is such garbage https://twitter.com/AhmedBaba_/status/1316389243363700736 Piell fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
How did other confirmation hearings go? I've heard that all the liberal judges dodged most of the hot potato questions in their confirmation hearings too, but I've not paid enough attention to these things over the years to confirm or rebut that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:How many completely disqualifying things from Barrett’s career have been posted in this thread, and how many have been mentioned in the hearings? The Dems shouldn’t even be present for the hearings. They are a sham. None of those things are a disqualifier. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx FAQ posted:Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
I wonder if FlamingLiberal meant "disqualifying" in the sense that no justice on the highest court in the land should say or believe certain things or hold certain positions and not in the absolute literal sense since pretty much everyone qualifies to be on the court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:None of those things are a disqualifier. So just because there are no hard requirements that must be met, we should just let anyone do it I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662?s=19 SPARrrrruuhggghhhhmmmmmm uhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:54
|
|
