Predict the Smear for the Next SCOTUS Nominee

I’m not defining it, I’m arguing that the ideas of FS, Ted Cruz, and ACB are not held by the majority of Americans and many of their ideas are extreme.

Your definition of “extreme” does not matter. It’s yours, not mine. Use it for your internal monologue if you wish, but it has no application outside your skull.

you don’t get to define my terms. I define my terms then explain. if you don’t agree, tell me how you define them. that’s how dialogue works

The idea that the Senate should sit on its hands when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs is an extremist position and dangerous abdication of duty according to virtually every pro-Democrat legal expert.

It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers’ construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate’s power of “advice and consent,” does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president’s nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous …

The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate’s best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation’s history.(Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia)

Signatories to this letter included, among others, Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School; Yale Law School professor Harold Hongju Koh; Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School; and historian James M. McPherson of Princeton University.[(Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia)

On March 7, 2016, a group of 356 law professors and other legal scholars released a letter (organized through the progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice) to the Senate leadership of both parties urging them “to fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote.” The letter writers argued that Senate Republicans’ announcement that they would refuse to consider any Obama nominee was a “preemptive abdication of duty” that "is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government.(Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia) Among the signatories to this letter were prominent law professors Charles Ogletree, Kenji Yoshino, and Laurence Tribe.

I can’t prove she won’t be activist, but I still have no evidence that she would be and you still haven’t made a coherent claim that she would be. I’ve read the cases to which you referred (though you still haven’t responded), the articles to which you’ve linked, I’ve gone out and found out how long she’s been associated with the entity, found and showed to you mainstream opinions on it. I think it is very clear that I’ve done my homework and that you are throwing shit at a fan and hoping something sticks. Seeing as I am the only one willing to do the work and discuss in good faith, this is where I peace out.

No one attempting a dialogue in good faith is likely to begin with scare words such as “extreme.”

Try again with adjectives that have concrete meanings.

Given about 1/3 of people think abortion should be illegal in most situations, I’d consider that a mainstream but not dominant view.

After seeing some of the above posts, I’d definitely say these views are not extreme but merely differing from the majority.

Agree, and I’d also point out that the Democrats in 2018 supported abortion up to - and in VA Governor Northam’s case - a few minutes past birth. That sounds like murder to most Americans, I reckon.

I think if you’re looking for extreme positions on abortion then look no further than the Democrat party. Dems in VA are extreme af.

2 Likes

When everyone is extreme, no one is.

What matters is the trend. Is there a purity spiral underway or not?

That’s horrible. I felt better not knowing that.

She’s a little too Catholic:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/14/chris-cuomo-amy-coney-barrett-not-just-an-ordinary/

Not just a Christmas and Easter thing.

Huh?

That was my prediction.

It seems the democrats know none of them will stick or matter so they are muddying the waters with everything.

It seems like the Democrats have basically given up on trying to block ACB’s confirmation at this point and have just resigned themselves to passive-aggressive sniping. It’s starting to sound rather whiny.

3 Likes

I think they’re trying to make propaganda points for the election.

In their own favor. I can see how it might backfire, though.

Sounding like a whiny little bitch tends to have that effect.

Would probably be an improvement.

Judge Barrett looked at him in surprise. “I thought this was about my nomination.”

“HOW! DARE! YOU!” Booker screamed, clapping with each word. “Camera people – did you get that? I want it on SnapTok, TikChat, and Instawhatever by noon. Thank you for coming here today, Judge Barrett. That will be all.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-criticize-acb-for-constantly-interrupting-their-campaign-speeches

2 Likes

Starting? That’s the way it began!

2 Likes

Indefinite delay because there may be more talks.

images

oh Greta, no you didn’t! :fire:

OK, I guess it’s a matter of degree.