Nominee to US Court of Appeals - Vote Along Party Lines

[Hagar]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I saw an article about this yesterday.  Didn't think much about it.  Then all this hit me.  Nominee is Amy Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame.  All the Democrats voted against her.  Why?  Because she's Catholic.  Something she has in common with 6 members of the Supreme Court.  

Now I can understand someone who disagrees with Catholicism on a religious basis, but what has that got to do with her being a Judge?  This is the same party that encourages bringing Islamic Extremists to the US and allow illegal immigrants.  That wants everyone to embrace homosexuality, transgendered, and Paraguay pygmies, and they won't accept a Christian denomination?  There's something wrong with this picture, and it's very ugly, and imo, evil.

 

[baddog]

27 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I saw an article about this yesterday.  Didn't think much about it.  Then all this hit me.  Nominee is Amy Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame.  All the Democrats voted against her.  Why?  Because she's Catholic.  Something she has in common with 6 members of the Supreme Court.  

Now I can understand someone who disagrees with Catholicism on a religious basis, but what has that got to do with her being a Judge?  This is the same party that encourages bringing Islamic Extremists to the US and allow illegal immigrants.  That wants everyone to embrace homosexuality, transgendered, and Paraguay pygmies, and they won't accept a Christian denomination?  There's something wrong with this picture, and it's very ugly, and imo, evil.

 

I was told I was evil for my prejudiced ways.

[new tobie]

5 minutes ago, baddog said:

I was told I was evil for my prejudiced ways.

When the rehaticans refused to vote for a supreme court  judge in 2016, they set the standard. Thats all they needed to do is vote, didn't have to vote yes, just vote! that will bite them in the ...........

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, new tobie said:

When the rehaticans refused to vote for a supreme court  judge in 2016, they set the standard. Thats all they needed to do is vote, didn't have to vote yes, just vote! that will bite them in the ...........

Weren't they following the BIDEN rule? Why can't you learn?

[new tobie]

5 minutes ago, baddog said:

Weren't they following the BIDEN rule? Why can't you learn?

I don't care what rule they were following, it was wrong. 

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, new tobie said:

I don't care what rule they were following, it was wrong. 

You don't care about rules?

[Hagar]

7 minutes ago, new tobie said:

I don't care what rule they were following, it was wrong. 

Was it wrong when the Democrats did it?  Biden rule

[new tobie]

6 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Was it wrong when the Democrats did it?  Biden rule

yes

[TxHoops]

44 minutes ago, new tobie said:

When the rehaticans refused to vote for a supreme court  judge in 2016, they set the standard. Thats all they needed to do is vote, didn't have to vote yes, just vote! that will bite them in the ...........

That was one of worst abuses by Congress I’ve ever seen.  Garland was a good nominee and the Clown show in DC refused to even hold a vote. 

[TxHoops]

This “you did so I did it” excuse I expect from 3rd graders. Once you old enough to drive, that doesn’t fly with me anymore.  

[LumRaiderFan]

43 minutes ago, new tobie said:

yes

Did you complain then?

[LumRaiderFan]

42 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

That was one of worst abuses by Congress I’ve ever seen.  Garland was a good nominee and the Clown show in DC refused to even hold a vote. 

This was the worst abuse by Congess you have ever seen?  Come on, Man! 

Anyway, worked out...we got a solid conservative instead of a likely environmental whacko.

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This was the worst abuse by Congess you have ever seen?  Come on, Man! 

Anyway, worked out...we got a solid conservative instead of a likely environmental whacko.

By environmental whacko, I assume you mean a climate denier.  

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

By environmental whacko, I assume you mean a climate denier.  

Not sure about that...he’s made some rulings on “endangered” species that kinda throws up a red flag to me...I’m all about the environment but some go too far, and that goes both ways.

Question...Thomas has been criticized for very rarely dissenting by the left and this guy seems to fit the same mold...would that be a concern for you?  I wouldn’t want a go along guy on either side.

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

This “you did so I did it” excuse I expect from 3rd graders. Once you old enough to drive, that doesn’t fly with me anymore.  

So the Supreme Court and every other court should ignore every precedent ruling. Hmmm.

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So the Supreme Court and every other court should ignore every precedent ruling. Hmmm.

That is a an interesting and thoughtful argument.  Although you know it is flawed in the instance discussed.  

But to your point, sometimes precedents are ignored, or even overturned.  Ultimately, judges are to follow the law to which they are bound, even if they determine a previous ruling interpreted a law incorrectly in their estimation.  Why else would Roe v Wade still be an issue decades later?

[TxHoops]

39 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not sure about that...he’s made some rulings on “endangered” species that kinda throws up a red flag to me...I’m all about the environment but some go too far, and that goes both ways.

Question...Thomas has been criticized for very rarely dissenting by the left and this guy seems to fit the same mold...would that be a concern for you?  I wouldn’t want a go along guy on either side.

I agree with you here as well.  

But my biggest problem with Thomas is that he’s a terrible justice.  I’ve been on record here saying I didn’t agree with much of Rehnquist wrote, but he’s in the SCOTUS HoF in my book.  What I don’t get is why the Pubbies (I see you Nash*) are so supportive of the snoozing justice.  If ever there was a case of affirmative action gone wrong, it’s that clown.  

(My Nash reference isn’t about Thomas - I have no idea of his thoughts on him.  I know Pubbies is his new favorite term.  I’m having a blue and red T-shirt printed as we speak...)

[TxHoops]

And I’ll say it again, Requist and Ginsburg should be an example to us all.  You couldn’t pick out two diametrically opposed individuals politically, but they were best of friends.  They admired each other’s intellect and respected each other in their work.  If only the yo yos across the street could take heed. 

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I agree with you here as well.  

But my biggest problem with Thomas is that he’s a terrible justice.  I’ve been on record here saying I didn’t agree with much of Rehnquist wrote, but he’s in the SCOTUS HoF in my book.  What I don’t get is why the Pubbies (I see you Nash*) are so supportive of the snoozing justice.  If ever there was a case of affirmative action gone wrong, it’s that clown.  

(My Nash reference isn’t about Thomas - I have no idea of his thoughts on him.  I know Pubbies is his new favorite term.  I’m having a blue and red T-shirt printed as we speak...)

You wanna discuss snoozing justices?  Thomas does NOT have an exclusive on that.

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, stevenash said:

You wanna discuss snoozing justices?  Thomas does NOT have an exclusive on that.

Any other justice who has gone a DECADE without asking a single question?

 

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Any other justice who has gone a DECADE without asking a single question?

 

My mistake.  I thought you were referring to snoozing in a literal sense.  It seems as though one particular justice was foolhardy enough to make demeaning public statements about a President.   And you thought only the Prez lacked dignity!!

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, stevenash said:

My mistake.  I thought you were referring to snoozing in a literal sense.  It seems as though one particular justice was foolhardy enough to make demeaning public statements about a President.   And you thought only the Prez lacked dignity!!

No, he snoozes in the literal sense as well.   And often.  And he’s not yet in his 80s.  At least he’s honest.  He’s on record describing his work ethic as “zero.”  

Again, I have no problem with a balanced court, and have great respect for many conservative justices.  But Thomas is a joke.

[LumRaiderFan]

12 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No, he snoozes in the literal sense as well.   And often.  And he’s not yet in his 80s.  At least he’s honest.  He’s on record describing his work ethic as “zero.”  

Again, I have no problem with a balanced court, and have great respect for many conservative justices.  But Thomas is a joke.

[TxHoops]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

And I’ll say it again, Requist and Ginsburg should be an example to us all.  You couldn’t pick out two diametrically opposed individuals politically, but they were best of friends.  They admired each other’s intellect and respected each other in their work.  If only the yo yos across the street could take heed. 

Obviously I meant Scalia.   Another SCOTUS conservative who is a HOF’er in my book. 

[TxHoops]

12 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Maybe she didn’t find President Obama’s speech very captivating?