Shoot The Breeze

Status
Not open for further replies.
Termine said:
Objectively she is unqualified based on experience. She worked as a lawyer for three years at the turn of the century and has been a judge for only three years, since October 2017. The rest of her career has been teaching. Compare to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, who spoke before the Supreme Court several times over seven years before being appointed to DC court of appeals and served there for thirteen years before joining the Supreme Court.

And then she claims she can't answer simple questions about the Constitution:
www.vox.com

Amy Coney Barrett refused to say if Trump can delay the election. The correct answer is he can’t.

The question has an easy, straightforward answer. Barrett didn’t provide it.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
thehill.com

Barrett declines to say if Trump can pardon himself

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett declined to say on Tuesday if President Trump can pardon himself or if he should be required to disclose his debts. “That would be a le…
thehill.com thehill.com

And used the inaccurate and offensive term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation":
www.commondreams.org

'This Is a Dog Whistle': Barrett Condemned for Implying That Being LGBTQ Is a Choice and Saying Working With Anti-Gay Hate Group Was 'Wonderful' | Common Dreams

"This is why so many people, including many parents who send their children to conversion therapy, think being LGBTQ is a choice. As judges know, language matters."
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org

So yeah. I feel okay calling her unqualified and wanting the Biden administration to pack the Supreme Court. McConnell has already been packing the lower courts for years by refusing to hold hearings for Obama's picks and then ramming through literally hundreds of Trump appointees.
Click to expand...
1. Huge difference between can't answer and won't answer. Not answering questions about potential cases is the right thing to do during these hearings.

2. An incredible few are "qualified" if RBG is the benchmark and obviously Trump is not nominating a new RBG. Elections do have consequences.

3. Political correct BS. She didn't realize, she was corrected, she apologized and adjusted her new woke vocabulary accordingly. This country has no chance of being better if there's no room to make mistakes and learn. Political correctness/hurt feelings is hot garbage anyways. EVERYTHING offends someone these days.

You super left and super right folks can be such sheeple to your respective talking points some time. Objectively she is "qualified" nothing out there states that she has to be best qualified. She did teach constitutional law at one of the best universities in the country. Of course she's not a through and through RBG equivalent. Very few people would be.

Garland, who is also qualified, caught a raw deal thanks to Biden going on record with some BS that is written nowhere. The Biden rule was quoted non stop. Then, turtle head McConnell went full hypocrite. Don't revise history on who actually started this whole hypocrisy train with the supreme court.

Biden is on record saying he's not a fan of packing the court. It would just lead to a 100+ justice court decades from now. We need to push term limits. That's actually a real possibility in the supreme court compared to congress. They're obviously not going to legislate themselves out of the job even though we need them there more than anywhere.

To your last point about the lower courts. Obama had a democratic senate his first two years. He had his chance and didn't have the balls to force them through like Trump/McConnell. All it took was a simple rule change. Not a constitutional amendment, just a quick flick of the pen.
 
There aren't qualifications for the supreme court, so saying someone is unqualified is a completely retarded statement.

James Byrnes was even a law student and he was appointed to the SCOTUS in the 40s by FDR.
 
ramfan402402 said:
To your last point about the lower courts. Obama had a democratic senate his first two years. He had his chance and didn't have the balls to force them through like Trump/McConnell. All it took was a simple rule change. Not a constitutional amendment, just a quick flick of the pen.
Click to expand...
The Democrats did change rules because republicans kept filibustering Obama’s nominees. They also used the blue slip “rule” to stop a ton of his nominees. McConnell has been planning this game for years and he’s following through. To say it’s the Democrats fault for trying to abide by senate traditions that have been around forever is kinda lame.

You could also say that packing the court is just a quick rule change away. Just get rid of the legislative filibuster and it’s just the normal process of passing a law to add more seats which is constitutionally the job of the Congress.

People like to say it’s the dems that started it by getting rid of the filibuster for lower court nominees but the republicans forced their hand by playing dirty. But this is where we are and if the republicans want to blow up the rules and traditions then who gives a fuck, just add 100 seats to the Supreme Court and see who blinks first. They’re all idiots and need to get over themselves and actually work together.

I have no problem with the Democrats escalating though since republicans have been daring them to for years.
 
Phillyman2633 said:
Maybe we can have a panel of presidents, put Joe in there with Trump and make a reality show out of it. Have them live in the White House in adjoining bedrooms, cameras 24/7 like Jersey Shore.
Click to expand...
I can’t wait for them to hook up!
 
CF said:
The Democrats did change rules because republicans kept filibustering Obama’s nominees. They also used the blue slip “rule” to stop a ton of his nominees. McConnell has been planning this game for years and he’s following through. To say it’s the Democrats fault for trying to abide by senate traditions that have been around forever is kinda lame.

You could also say that packing the court is just a quick rule change away. Just get rid of the legislative filibuster and it’s just the normal process of passing a law to add more seats which is constitutionally the job of the Congress.

People like to say it’s the dems that started it by getting rid of the filibuster for lower court nominees but the republicans forced their hand by playing dirty. But this is where we are and if the republicans want to blow up the rules and traditions then who gives a fuck, just add 100 seats to the Supreme Court and see who blinks first. They’re all idiots and need to get over themselves and actually work together.

I have no problem with the Democrats escalating though since republicans have been daring them to for years.
Click to expand...
So basically.... Republicans have been playing the political game better up to this point? I can agree with that. Doesn't change the fact that Biden handed them Garland's non confirmation on a silver platter. Damn rules and tradition. Elections should matter. I don't care if it's Dem or Rep that wins. So yes I do blame the Dems. Be better at politics and earn the seat that your constituents gave you.
 
ramfan402402 said:
So basically.... Republicans have been playing the political game better up to this point? I can agree with that. Doesn't change the fact that Biden handed them Garland's non confirmation on a silver platter. Damn rules and tradition. Elections should matter. I don't care if it's Dem or Rep that wins. So yes I do blame the Dems. Be better at politics and earn the seat that your constituents gave you.
Click to expand...
Sure if politics to you is just being more full of shit than your opponents then the republicans win. Having a set way to doing things is nice because it allows you to trust the other side. When there’s no trust you don’t get anything done.

The long game here isn’t good for conservatives because the country is getting more progressive. Why burn all these bridges when the other side will most likely end up in power more often than you in the future?
 
CF said:
Sure if politics to you is just being more full of shit than your opponents then the republicans win. Having a set way to doing things is nice because it allows you to trust the other side. When there’s no trust you don’t get anything done.

The long game here isn’t good for conservatives because the country is getting more progressive. Why burn all these bridges when the other side will most likely end up in power more often than you in the future?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that is most people's opinion on politics haha. And I agree that Republicans will go extinct soon if they don't budge on some issues so makes perfect sense to burn down the institution. Why not? Not saying that I agree with it. I just understand the logic in it. If legislation is moving to the courts, which it is, than republicans have again outplayed the dems. Politics is dirty that's why it makes for great tv and film. Just seems like everyone is pretending that it's so shocking. Best thing we could do is abolish the two party system and take a good look at the ranked choice system. I haven't fully sold myself on it yet but it does technically provide for the least divisive outcome. And I said divisive not controversial. President of the United States should have 50 damn choices, not just 2 garbage ass lesser of two evils. This is the information age. Making an educated decision amongst a large amount of candidates wouldn't be remotely difficult. And... Internet voting, term limits in all three branches, and UBI for the evolving economy of one's and zeroes that no longer actually relies on gold. There! I fixed America.
 
#1349 said:
Being as I’m such a great person and all, here’s a brand new, bullshit thread that has absolutely no purpose.

Therefore, it cannot actually be derailed. And as such, should be safe from being locked.

Have at it. Your welcome.
Click to expand...
We've all been there. If you can't handle it, consider another career.
 
32andBelow said:
Did you just quote the first post of this dumpster fire?
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a "conversation" that I had with Southwest Airlines two days ago. I had just sequenced him and cleared him to land, Number Four, behind a Caravan, a Cessna 172, and a C421. Southwest had to chime up, "Did you clear us to land?" My response... "I dunno... probably..." Of course, after the laughter, I cleared him to land again.

CF said:
seems very bot-ish. could be hacked.
Click to expand...
I get that a lot. Welcome to Kona.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Seeking Air Traffic Controllers for Testing a New VFR Tower Control Simulator
Replies
7
Views
1K
montewt
M
GulfCharlie
In the interest of National Security
7 8 9
Replies
165
Views
11K
accskp
A
I
Newark PHL Radar Failure
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
MJ
MJ
A
ATSA 2024 Accurate Prep - JobTestPrep Expert Q&A
Replies
0
Views
744
Arbel_JTP
A
R
Serious Anyone interested in De-Certifying NATCA??
Replies
12
Views
3K
NightWatch
N
Back
Top Bottom