Trump intends to nominate Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

In other words, when all else fails for republicans, they resort to lying. And actually, they resort to lying from the very start...

 

As a politics nerd I usually listen to USSC nomination hearings but there just really seems no point to this one.

 

Water is still wet.

 

Susan Collins CONCERN ALERT!!!

Mr. Worf.. Set Brows to furrowed!

 

Is it time to mock Susan Collins wig?

She should've bargained for Trump's supplier, since that's the only tangible thing she would've got in return for all those busted votes on record

 

Naked Republican hypocrisy is destroying trust in Supreme Court: Reagan, Bush lawyers
Republicans are using a deeply unfair process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Build faith in democracy by letting the people decide.

Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles RaulOpinion contributors

When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Now, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day, as voters are already casting ballots in many states, McConnell has reversed his position. His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary.

Our opposition is not partisan, quite the opposite. We served at upper levels of government inside Republican administrations and we are united in our opposition to the rushed nomination, hearing, and confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Our concern is not related to the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Rather, we believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends.

Turning SCOTUS into political game
Indeed, if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players.

The legitimacy of the judicial branch rests on the principle that judges are independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. A fair process for nomination and selection is crucial to preserving a public perception of the Justices of the Supreme Court as neutral jurists, rather than pawns of the political process. In fact, if this Republican power play succeeds, the Chief Justice’s recent reaffirmation that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” will be made quite untenable.

Whatever one thinks of McConnell’s action in 2016 to deny any consideration to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland — and we think it was clearly wrong — an action now to proceed with a Republican nominee for a vacancy arising less than two months before the election would flatly violate the principle McConnell announced then to justify the action he took. When McConnell set a new standard for how the Senate would proceed with a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, the American people understood that this new rule would be applied consistently should another vacancy to which it clearly applies arise on McConnell’s watch.

Retribution will come: Filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat would be a disastrous Republican move
By going back on his word, McConnell’s arbitrary application of rules obliterates any pretense of any justification except the bald pursuit of power. It is flatly inconsistent with the vision of our founders that our government would be made legitimate because it was trusted by and accountable to the people. And if left unchecked, Senator McConnell’s move — and the complicity of every Republican Senator who refused to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 but will go along with a vote now — will powerfully testify that the Republicans who control the Senate have no respect for the consistent application of legal rules, but seek only to maximize their own power.

Losing faith in our democracy
If the Senate moves forward with Barrett’s confirmation with such crass and naked hypocrisy, then more people will lose faith in our democracy. And as we’ve seen throughout history, democracies crumble when people lose faith in them. Just think of the consequences for credibility if an election-related dispute makes its way to the Supreme Court and the vote of a newly installed Justice Barrett decides the case.

Sometimes the rule of law calls for restraint in the exercise of lawful power in order to assure public confidence and respect. Greater comity — or self-restraint in pushing political power to the max — strengthens American democracy and makes our institutions more successful.

Minority rule: Will Democrats grow backbones amid Trump-Republican rush to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
In today’s partisan and polarized world, it’s easy to resign ourselves to cynicism. But all we need is for the esteemed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to hold a hearing for any Supreme Court nominee before the election on Nov. 3 in order to set things right. If that fails, then just two more Republican senators could slow the march toward further politicizing the court.

If the Republican Senators bind themselves to the principle that they themselves invoked four years ago — to let the people decide — then they will advance the people’s faith in democracy. If not, then they will undermine it. For all our sakes, we hope they make the right decision.

Donald B. Ayer (@DonaldAyer6) served for 10 years in the Department of Justice, including as U.S. Attorney and Deputy Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. Alan Charles Raul was appointed to senior legal positions by Presidents Reagan, Bush and George W. Bush, and as Associate White House Counsel worked closely on the Supreme Court nomination of Antonin Scalia.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...y-destroying-supreme-court-column/5966069002/

 

republicans are blindly and dishonestly accusing Democrats of anti-religious bigotry in opposing barrett...

 

What?

Where are you getting this from they seem to be doing well since the ACA has covered pre conditions.

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/insurance/health-insurers-are-still-profiting-obamacare-2019

Coming off of a profitable 2018, health insurers were still making money selling plans on the individual insurance market, including the Affordable Care Act exchanges, during the first three months of this year, an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows.

Insurers remained profitable even though the individual mandate requiring most people to buy health coverage was zeroed out and cheaper, skimpier short-term plans became widely available, researchers found.

"The individual insurance market under the ACA still appears stable and sustainable," said Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation's senior vice president for health reform and an author of the brief. "The market still stubbornly refuses to collapse, as some have predicted."

 

WOW!

They need to keep hammering her on this, talk about blatant hypocrisy.

 

Crap! Have they not seen this until now? I'd assume they're saving it for the q & a portion? Can't wait to see how she explains this.

 

It doesn't matter how she explains it. She can flat out say no comment. None of this matters. Everyone knows who the hypocrites are, even the hypocrites themselves. They just don't care.

 

I have pre-existing conditions. If I had a choice between covering and saving the lives of folks with pre-existing conditions which often are not through any fault of the person that has it or restructuring private insurance industry. I'll go with restructuring the private insurance industry. Other nations are able to maintain an economy with better healthcare for their citizens and cover pre-existing conditions.

 

Hmm... mojoman missed this one...

 

I need to do my own research on Barrett, but I am just curious, how do Clutchfans members feel about her nomination if it were the following scenario:

• This was not an election year
• The courts favored the left (i.e. 5 left-leaning justices, 3-right leaning justices)

I get we are all caught up in our own personal views and beliefs, but, does she not seem like a suitable replacement for the court, even if she doesn't necessarily rule in the way we believe she should.

 

I’ll admit I haven’t followed her career enough to really have a solid opinion. I’m not necessarily bothered by a conservative, emphasis on small ‘c’, but I am concerned about conservatives overturning or not following precedent, essentially judicial activists on the other side. Some of what I’m reading says she might be like that.

All of this said it’s impossible to separate her nomination from what happened with Merrick Garland.

 

Would she be picked if this were not an election year and Trump wasn't desperate to win over Right-leaning female voters ahead of the election, cut into Joe's support among Catholics, and score points with his fanatical base? My guess is no.

I'm as "Left" as they come, but the institution and integrity of the courts should come first, or the system will be forever damaged and de-legitimized. Of course Trump and his clown followers can't think five minutes into the future and/or don't care what happens to the country, IMO. As evidenced from the comments I read around here, they just want to watch **** burn.

 

I'm with you on this, however, sometimes I believe it's necessary to take a step back and look at this from a pragmatic position just to do a proper assessment. I wish all parties functioned together on the courts, because ultimately we are talking about lifetime appointments to the system.

I do believe that a candidate should be thoroughly vetted since in reality, the majority does not always have a voice in the system. I am thinking here of how Senate has this country by the nuts and the "majority" does not really represent the will of the people (2 senators per state, does not make any ****ing sense if they are the ones that control the federal justice appointments), just as similar as the current president does not actually represent the will of the people (considering he lost the popular vote).

 

The mother****ing United States Senate can not figure out how to hook up a remote participant to a meeting right.



Lindsey Graham deserves to lose for this alone.