Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Barrett SCOTUS hearing ?


Recommended Posts

Democrats preview strategy on Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week-

"..........."Her religion is immaterial, irrelevant,” she said. “That is what I said. And so that is my position. I am totally focused on what this nominee sitting there as a justice is gonna do in striking down the Affordable Care Act. That’s what I’m focused on.” 

Democratic senators’ comments on Sunday aligned with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) previous instructions for party members during the hearing.  Amid Republican warnings, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has directed Democratic senators to focus on “health care, health care, health care” during Barrett’s hearings

and avoid criticizing her character and Catholicism. 

Barrett is expected to align herself with the late Justice Antonin Scalia according to her opening statementobtained by The Hill on Sunday, saying “A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were.”.........

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/520535-democrats-preview-barretts-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-this

:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS nomination hearings begin tomorrow. What can we expect?

................."

  • At this point, if anybody's watched any of the previous two nomination hearings, you have the team that supports the Justice, that party asks easy questions and the team that opposes the nominee asks very difficult ones.

    Given the composition of the Senate, it's sort of a foregone conclusion at this point.

  • Amy Howe:

     

    It certainly does seem that way.

    The Republicans would need several senators to defect and there's no sign of that at this point..........

     

     

    Hari Sreenivasan:

     

    One thing a lot of people are curious about is what if the election, similar to 2000, ends up in front of the Supreme Court? Would she play a role in that?

    Amy Howe:

     

    I think that is definitely a question that we are going to hear asked at the hearings next week in a variety of different formulations. And I don't know what her answer will be, I think that she is likely to play a role. And I think the other, I think the president and some Republicans have suggested that that is, in fact, a reason why we need a ninth justice on the Supreme Court in advance of the elections.

    Certainly, any litigation arising out of the elections isn't going to arrive on the Supreme Court on November 4th. It would take a while to bubble up to the Supreme Court. But sort of the broader question, I think she is likely to play a role...."

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/scotus-nomination-hearings-begin-tomorrow-what-can-we-expect

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Democrats preview strategy on Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week-

"..........."Her religion is immaterial, irrelevant,” she said. “That is what I said. And so that is my position. I am totally focused on what this nominee sitting there as a justice is gonna do in striking down the Affordable Care Act. That’s what I’m focused on.” 

Democratic senators’ comments on Sunday aligned with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) previous instructions for party members during the hearing.  Amid Republican warnings, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has directed Democratic senators to focus on “health care, health care, health care” during Barrett’s hearings

and avoid criticizing her character and Catholicism. 

Barrett is expected to align herself with the late Justice Antonin Scalia according to her opening statementobtained by The Hill on Sunday, saying “A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were.”.........

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/520535-democrats-preview-barretts-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-this

:unsure:

A strategy for what?      They can't stop this.       Thus the only so called strategy is as a get-out-the-vote ploy for those close Senate contests.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

just a REMINDER...........

Bush v. Gore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
Bush v. Gore
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued December 11, 2000
Decided December 12, 2000
Full case name George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al.
Docket no. 00-949
Citations 531 U.S. 98 (more)
121 S. Ct. 525; 148 L. Ed. 2d 388; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430; 69 U.S.L.W. 4029; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior Judgment for defendant, Fla. Cir. Ct.; matter certified to Florida Supreme Court, Fla. Ct. App.; aff'd in part, rev'd in part, sub nom. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (2000); cert. granted, stay granted, 531 U.S. 1036 (2000).
Holding
In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Per curiam
Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer
Dissent Souter, joined by Breyer; Stevens and Ginsburg (all but Part III)
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter and Breyer (Part I)
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens and Ginsburg (except Part I-A-1); Souter (Part I)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, amend. XIV; 3 U.S.C. § 5

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

 

Critiques

A number of subsequent articles have characterized the decision as damaging the reputation of the court, increasing the view of judges as partisan, and decreasing Americans' trust in the integrity of elections.[..........

Public reaction

Editorials in the country's leading newspapers were overwhelmingly critical of the decision. A review by The Georgetown Law Journal found that the nation's top newspapers, by circulation, had published eighteen editorials criticizing the decision, compared with just six praising it. They similarly published twenty-six op-eds criticizing the decision, compared to just eight defending the decision.[6]

Polls showed a range of reactions, with 37%-65% of respondents believing that personal politics influenced the decision of the justices,..........

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • mr6666 changed the title to Barrett SCOTUS hearing ?
What you need to know
– Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham set the agenda for the week and defended his decision to move Barrett’s nomination forward
 
– Democratic lawmakers emphasized the importance of this pick on US healthcare policy
 
– GOP members of the committee accused Democrats of attacking Barrett’s Catholicism
(they didn't)
 
– Senator Harris called the decision to hold the hearing amid a pandemic “reckless”
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Sen. Klobuchar's questions of Barrett just now were excellent considering what a farce this whole thing is.   On the other side Ted Cruz's diving into the piano lessons of Barrett's kids was especially poignant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElCid said:

I listened to a few minutes of Barrett responding to questions.  Obviously avoiding a clear answer of what she will do.  Also, her voice seems to be kind of wimpy to me.

It's all rather boring in a Stepford Wife sort of way.  Bring back Kavanagh and his crying about the good old days with Squijjy.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

It's all rather boring in a Stepford Wife sort of way.  Bring back Kavanagh and his crying about the good old days with Squijjy.

The parts I have seen, she also appears a little confused - or maybe just trying to find a way to not show her true feelings and intended actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Not asking dirtbag about her loony toon religious beliefs. That would upset the other loonies and the

U.S. is full of loonies. Can't go there.

I have a friend in England who travelled to Detroit to give a talk at a car show.  He was perplexed that each and every American who also gave a talk had to speak about God and their religion  at one point or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...