Trump intends to nominate Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

To a point I agree... barrett will get confirmed. I think Democrats will be able to ask pointed questions about why she hid important and controversial things on her disclosure forms. And use those to further demonstrate the danger RvW and ACA/pre-existing condition coverage is in with her appointment. And the likelihood she is being rushed onto the court in order protect trump or even overcome a democratic election. But republican's have rushed her approval and they have the votes, so you are correct, delaying won't accomplish anything.

I also think the Democrats on the Senate Committee should forcefully ask her about respecting precedence, individual rights, and RvW and ACA. I'd also hope they ask questions about Heller. And, turn this into a referendum on trump, ask her questions about trump, like this...

 

Another good question... it won't get answered, but it will be remind Americans about the republican court packing scheme... I think Americans by and large believe in the idea of fairness.

 

If I was a Democrat on the senate committee, I would lament about this... that while the supreme court is important, it is a shame they aren't able to focus on COVID-19 instead...

 

This same point...

 

Saying the quiet part out loud...

 

senator grassley, seemingly helping to make the Democrat's argument against barrett... and more important, helping make the case for Democrats in all elections.

 

I agree with your first point. With your second point, pundits need to look past one or two cases as reasons to justify their position. When nominating a justice, its important to realize they will be hearing some important cases during their lifetime appointments.

I think it would be great if we lost pre-existing conditions. It will be the death blow to private insurance companies. Private insurance companies will still cover pre-existing conditions ... except a person will be rated on their health and pay exorbitant premiums.

 

I don't think anyone is currently debating barrett's legal qualifications. But if that is the main argument for confirming her, garland's legal qualifications were also without question (some would even say well exceeded Barrett's). And he didn't even get a hearing.

 

The focus shouldve been on covid back when yall were pushing that sham impeachment.

 

trump and his advisers are probably not liking the questions she has been and will be asked. So he wants her simply confirmed right now.

I wonder what the average confirmation hearing takes... I'd make sure to go at least that long, and then longer. Its a lifetime appointment, and she is pretty young, so the senate needs to be even more careful.

 

I guess I could write out a long detailed explanation. Or simply say BS.

1. The impeachment trial was January 16 - February 5. What were you expecting congress to do about COVID-19 during those two weeks? The WHO didn't declare it a Global Health Emergency until January 31. And the U.S. didn't declare it a public health emergency until February 3. And the CDC didn't declare COVID-19 as a pandemic until February 25. The impeachment trial was well under way before those dates.

2. Congress impeached trump... so it wasn't a "sham".

3. But since you are so focused on dates and inaction... what the heck was trump doing in the spring of 2020? Why wasn't he and the republican senate focused on COVID-19? Why are they still not? How many more people need to die before the republican senate starts to focus on COVID-19?

 

What would the newroxfan covid-19 plan include? I blame these deaths on our society more than a single person. We just aren't wired to avoid social interaction here in the US.

 

Having a leader that stressed complying with CDC guidelines instead of trying to undermine them or change them would have saved a ton of lives.

Anyway in regards to ACB, I don't think she is fit for the SCOTUS due to the omissions she made on her submission paperwork. Showing such a lack of integrity from the onset should result in her withdrawing of her nomination.

Furthermore, it's unclear how much influence People of Praise has on here and whether she will let that influence her interpretation of the constitution.

 

Good to see you no longer blame the trump impeachment for the governments slow response and lack of focus on the COVID-19 crisis. Curious though you view me as an expert on pandemic response, but, since you asked...

1. I would have created a federal government COVID-19 crisis management team, with members of the CDC, WHO, and leading health research and delivery organizations. I would have provided them with necessary funding and authority to make recommendations. I would have also provided them the platform to speak out to the public about the importance of masks, social distancing, hygiene with a consistent message.
2. I would have had a national mask and social distancing mandate. Schools and other inside public gathering places would have been closed until the management team described above could show that the numbers (deaths, hospitalizations, new cases) showed the relaxing of such mandates was safe.
3. I would have spent money on increased testing and vaccine development.
4. I would have worked with other countries to address the pandemic globally, share best practices, share the costs of vaccine development.
5. I would have created a business task force that included health and science experts to develop a working plan for safe return to work, new business models, educational reforms, etc.

That's a start on my five point plan.

 

I agree that this country was already in very poor shape to deal with a pandemic. I also agree that even a different President could've changed much given our federal system. That said there was a lot that Trump could've done to improve the situation.

Instead of picking fights with governors he could've worked with them especially not undercutting governors by taking resources for the "national stockpile".

instead of contradicting his medical and science advisors he could've supported them.

He could've set an example himself by wearing a masks early on and encouraging others to. Yes, Fauci did early on say that masks weren't helpful but once he changed his opinion Trump could've followed that, see above.

Most importantly he could've leveled with the American people regarding how serious it was and been honest. Responsibility is the most important factor in building trust and that Trump won't take responsibility is largely why he is so distrusted, even by some who are voting or him.

 

That's such a silly argument. Americans weren't wired to wear seatbelts either. We got over it. Americans weren't wired for a lot of things but those things needed to change.

 

Here's the Seinfield episode where a concerned looking susan collins tries to convince moderate New Hampshire voters that she too is a moderate...

 

It’s like Thomas replacing Marshall all over again. Just because they’re of the same race or sex doesn’t mean they’re as qualified as the previous person.