|
FAUXTON posted:https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662?s=19 “Forgetting” the right to protest and petition is a hell of a Freudian slip 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662?s=19 While extremely embarrassing, she comes off as the type of person who would just laugh it off. I don't think this mistake will derail her confirmation. Will it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
She should have taken notes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Area Women Vocal Defender Of What She Imagined Constitution to Be
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:She should have taken notes. She would have caught more poo poo if she stopped to shuffle through her copy of the pocket constitution before answering. Imagine if she actually knew the constitution front to back and answered it correctly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
lol speech press assembly religion and binding arbitration
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:She would have caught more poo poo if she stopped to shuffle through her copy of the pocket constitution before answering. Imagine if she actually knew the constitution front to back and answered it correctly. Both the Bible and the Constitution are some heavy reads, but only one of them is apocryphal; so if you had to only memorize one its pretty obvious which one is the sure bet.......
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in a 5-4 decision I barely decided not to give you a (comedy? ??) probation for this Nobody cares. Edit: 5-4 is such poo poo that I cannot even get through a single episode. Some people's voices just ensure that they'll never be good at podcasting. NaanViolence fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Historically speaking, have these hearings been political? Her excuse seems to be "I don't want to be a political pundit" Partisan Republicans date the political nature of the hearings to Joe Biden's attack on Robert Bork in 1987. In fact, they have been partisan since the beginning of the republic. The modern era of partisan hearings is maybe more accurately dated to Abe Fortras' nomination by LBJ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Both the Bible and the Constitution are some heavy reads, but only one of them is apocryphal; so if you had to only memorize one its pretty obvious which one is the sure bet....... I wonder if he was throwing her the question to help her out, only for it to backfire in a spectacular fashion. I'm curious to know how many of you knew the last one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
How about this bullshit? Apparently it's moronic to use the term 'court packing' https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...pZUbTkXeqAujrs8
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:This is like one of those questions that would show up on Are you smarter than a fifth grader. I have no doubt I had it memorized at some point. Yes, it was supposed to be an easy pitch that she hosed up on. Piell fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I'm curious to know how many of you knew the last one. Lol, I'm a (pretty good] referee, and I can't quote the rules of my sport. I know some that can but are also terrible refs and barely cut it at the regional level. And, no, they wouldn't be good at the "appellate" level of reffing, because, again, they don't know how the rules work or how the sport is, fundamentally, played. This is meaningless, because words don't exist in a vacuum. You are nether the first nor the last to look upon the Constitution, so your interpretation doesn't matter against those that have come before you. If she knew the words "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech;*" but took that to mean only words spoken with one's voice, would that make her more qualified? *Assuming that she even cuts up the clauses in this fashion!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:This is like one of those questions that would show up on Are you smarter than a fifth grader. I have no doubt I had it memorized at some point. I only know it because I learned the SPARP acronym in like 10th grade, I'm not a lawyer and my job isn't anything that would intersect with the profession. I went to high school in the meth coast of Florida during the early 2000s so it isn't like I was attending some uniquely good school, she has no god damned excuse after however long as a lawyer and federal appellate judge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
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. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Disease and Disaster > SCOTUS 2020: You’re Getting Played By A Judge
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Lol, I'm a (pretty good] referee, and I can't quote the rules of my sport. I know some that can but are also terrible refs and barely cut it at the regional level. And, no, they wouldn't be good at the "appellate" level of reffing, because, again, they don't know how the rules work or how the sport is, fundamentally, played. Having said that, is there anything that could happen during the hearings that could legitimately keep her from her appointment? If there isn't, I'm starting to see the point that was made about all of this being nothing more than theaterics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I find this whole situation especially interesting since they are supposed to be the ultimate source of all things related to the constitution. It's not like the constitution is some insanely long document either. I'd wager most of those live in a bunker in the woods militia types have the entire thing memorized. Not really, because Republicans don't care what she has to say, they're all (aside from a hallpass or two) going to vote for her no matter what she says.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Having said that, is there anything that could happen during the hearings that could legitimately keep her from her appointment? A fatal heart attack for either her or 7 Republican senators. And if it's her, they'll probably vote to confirm anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I'm curious to know how many of you knew the last one. I did. Took five seconds to list them. But I'm just a lowly attorney rather than a lofty SCOTUS nominee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I find this whole situation especially interesting since they are supposed to be the ultimate source of all things related to the constitution. It's not like the constitution is some insanely long document either. I'd wager most of those live in a bunker in the woods militia types have the entire thing memorized. all supreme court justice hearings have been theater since after clarence thomas managed to make it through after the anita hill debacle it used to be if someone was bad enough/enough of a naked ideologue (google "robert bork") they might actually not make it, but now these are mostly just pr campaigns before everyone just votes on partisan lines. the republicans have poisoned the well for the whole process. poo poo, a.c.b. is only the one being nominated because it spites the libs; she only has two years of federal judgeship and three years of actual law practice and has spent the rest of her time in academia. if you were looking for a candidate who has little to no practical experience in how the law actually plays out in court and how it affects the lives of common citizens, she's among the least qualified. while i don't think supreme court justices should be exclusively pulled from the ranks of federal judges or people who have experience as judges, i think someone who's been cloistered in a university for over 15 years is uniquely out of touch with how the legal process works and can't appreciate the broader implications of what some of her rulings might mean. while that's to an extent true for all supreme court justices, it only further underscores how this pick is just spiteful maneuvering on the part of the republican party. so. no. there's nothing that's stopping her appointment. republican senators will break quarantine to have quorum if they have to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
5-4 and ALAB are both pretty good, unlike ACB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
haveblue posted:A fatal heart attack for either her or 7 Republican senators. And if it's her, they'll probably vote to confirm anyway. 7 Republic senators getting the "helicopter ride to Walter Reed" kind of Covid could buy a few days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
ALAB is dry and formulaic, but it is listenable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:poo poo, a.c.b. is only the one being nominated because it spites the libs; she only has two years of federal judgeship and three years of actual law practice and has spent the rest of her time in academia. if you were looking for a candidate who has little to no practical experience in how the law actually plays out in court and how it affects the lives of common citizens, she's among the least qualified. while i don't think supreme court justices should be exclusively pulled from the ranks of federal judges or people who have experience as judges, i think someone who's been cloistered in a university for over 15 years is uniquely out of touch with how the legal process works and can't appreciate the broader implications of what some of her rulings might mean. while that's to an extent true for all supreme court justices, it only further underscores how this pick is just spiteful maneuvering on the part of the republican party. Kagan was Solicitor General so she wasn't purely in acedemia, but she was never a judge at all, was that as bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Speaking of ALAB - Kagan allowed Dershowitz to smear Norman Finkelstein's mother in the most disgusting terms on his Harvard page and Kagan did nothing about it so Obama shoulda made a better pick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:So just because there are no hard requirements that must be met, we should just let anyone do it I guess I'd be pretty ok with replacing Thomas or Alito with a Full Communism Now 20-something grad student. Or some goddamn public defenders so that the bench actually has some point of view other than "ivy league judge."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I don't think this mistake will derail her confirmation. Will it? She could shoot someone in cold blood in the middle of fifth avenue and still be confirmed
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
 Barret is confirmed by the end of the year.God, this world sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
Covok posted:
Clearly she'll get confirmed, there is no question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
She's getting confirmed before the election
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
From what I've seen of her at the hearing, she comes off as pretty humble and well grounded. Then again, I was raised Catholic, so I'm familiar with the culture. Certain parts of Catholic culture can certainly be very.. outlandish to people who aren't familiar. Make no mistake, misogyny is rooted deeply within the church, but at least they've been making progress. When I was still a member, girls couldn't serve at the altar, but now they can, for example. Either way, this isn't the thread to talk about religion, so that's about all I'll say. I certainly don't think she is a member of a cult. I can see the concern about her lacking real life experience, but I feel like her background as a law professor makes her a good candidate. I see a lot of speculation about her decisions, but I would hate to see someone robbed of their position due to speculation alone. I am mad about the hypocrisy of the whole thing, though. Denying Obama his pick while giving Trump his. I can't imagine what the guy who was robbed of his chance at the table thinks about this whole debacle. I can't imagine he would be very happy about this. Has he made a comment at all? Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I certainly don't think she is a member of a cult. Cult or not, she signed a lifelong covenant. That alone should be 100% disqualifying. If you have sworn an oath to a private entity, that means you have loyalties to forces besides the people of the United States of America, which is not acceptable for a lifetime appointment of such massive power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:Cult or not, she signed a lifelong covenant. That alone should be 100% disqualifying. If you have sworn an oath to a private entity, that means you have loyalties to forces besides the people of the United States of America, which is not acceptable for a lifetime appointment of such massive power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:From what I've seen of her at the hearing, she comes off as pretty humble and well grounded. Then again, I was raised Catholic, so I'm familiar with the culture. Certain parts of Catholic culture can certainly be very.. outlandish to people who aren't familiar. Make no mistake, misogyny is rooted deeply within the church, but at least they've been making progress. When I was still a member, girls couldn't serve at the altar, but now they can, for example. Either way, this isn't the thread to talk about religion, so that's about all I'll say. I certainly don't think she is a member of a cult. If you are unable to hear her answers and map them to the talking points of a rising authoritarian, ethnonationalist reactionary movement, I really cannot help you in any way whatsoever. At some point, it is up to the viewer to be informed. Bioshuffle posted:Aren't most members of Congress and the upper echelon of society a part of groups like this though? I'm not talking about QAnon level conspiracy stuff, I'm just referring to things like the Bilderberg group and such. I don't think one's religious beliefs should be a disqualifying factor. It is completely unnecessary to criticize her lifelong, continuing engagement with a cult to disqualify her from the bench. There are plenty of extremely dangerous statements about 1A petition/protest, the rights of a religious person to engage in discrimination, and the categorization of an authoritarian executive refusing to give lip service to peaceful power transfer as "contentious" that reject her entirely as a professional that is capable of participating in a body ensuring the rights of 328 million people. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Aren't most members of Congress and the upper echelon of society a part of groups like this though? I'm not talking about QAnon level conspiracy stuff, I'm just referring to things like the Bilderberg group and such. I don't think one's religious beliefs should be a disqualifying factor. I think there's a difference between being religious and having sworn an oath and signed a covenant, and a big one at that. I also think different standards should apply to elected officials and people who are assigned positions outside of the democratic process. If people decide that it's okay for their representatives to have sworn loyalties to outside forces, that's fine. It's not fine for someone like that to be put into a position of power over them without their permission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I don't think one's religious beliefs should be a disqualifying factor. Well now the rest of us get to live by them for the next 30-40 years. That's the problem with fundamentalist theocrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If you are unable to hear her answers and map them to the talking points of a rising authoritarian, ethnonationalist reactionary movement, I really cannot help you in any way whatsoever. At some point, it is up to the viewer to be informed. JordanKai posted:I think there's a difference between being religious and having sworn an oath and signed a covenant, and a big one at that. I also think different standards should apply to elected officials and people who are assigned positions outside of the democratic process. If people decide that it's okay for their representatives to have sworn loyalties to outside forces, that's fine. It's not fine for someone like that to be put into a position of power over them without their permission. Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Sorry, categorizing an executive repeatedly refusing to assure a peaceful transfer of power is disqualifying by what should be every non-authoritarian American's sniff test of "Holy gently caress what the gently caress is this, no, no no no no."Bioshuffle posted:Please correct me if I am wrong, as I'm not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't an ethnonationalist be against the idea of adopting children who are of a different ethnicity? I'm in the middle of something else and frankly idk which thread is appropriate for [waves hands in air] this. Yes, tldr absolutely yes. (edit: especially a member of a far-right evangelical community, this is common and I believe there's a good bit of people sharing experiences about it from a few years ago....somewhere) Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Sorry, categorizing an executive repeatedly refusing to assure a peaceful transfer of power is disqualifying by what should be every non-authoritarian American's sniff test of "Holy gently caress what the gently caress is this, no, no no no no." I interpreted her answers differently. Either way, I am going to take a break from the thread and lurk a bit before things get derailed. I appreciate everyone who has engaged me in a civilized manner. I've certainly learned a bit more about the process thanks to all of you. Potato Salad posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
If there's something someone who has been keeping up on the last four -- or seventy -- years of American history: Yes a member of an mixed marriage can be racist. Yes, a member of an ethnic group can be racist against their ethnic group. Someone who adopts kids can be a pedophile, someone who works at a school can harbor anti-Education sentiments, someone without healthcare can have reasons they vote against getting access to healthcare, yes a poor person can vote for tax breaks for the rich, yes yes yes yes. People are very, very complex. fake edit: i'm going to go chill out im sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:05
|
|