Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Sep 2020 21:46)

Bringing up her adoptions as an example of a real historical issue is only legitimate if there actually is anything fishy with her specific case, with the specific adoptions made by her family.

It's not just the timing which is cringe, those making these accusations havent been able to prove that there's ANY substance behind their attacks. They're randomly throwing shit to the wall, hoping that something sticks. It's the same tactic they already employed with Kavanaugh, just that there was at least some remote grain of truth with Kavanaugh (he really liked to party and probably treated some women suboptimally during his younger days).

Quote (Handcuffs @ 28 Sep 2020 03:49)

To IceMage's point, I don't think this topic really has major support or interest by people on the left. That said, the only people I've seen post about it so far haven't said that definitively there's something at-issue here with her specific adoption, but that they want to know the details due to the potential. Is, either way, very cringe.

Quote

[...] a Republican is president, and the Senate is Republican. Elections have consequences, and so do justices’ decisions about when or whether to retire. Trump is almost certainly going to get his pick confirmed.

Given that reality, it is better for the republic to have a principled, brilliant lawyer on the bench than a weaker candidate. That’s Barrett.

Quote

Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

It would be naïve to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

Quote

We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. [...] I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.

Quote (fender @ 28 Sep 2020 19:09)

it's really not that difficult: both the president as well as the senate majority represent political minorities, and they are currently establishing a supreme court with a 6:3 majority with fundamentally conservative values, which is not even remotely representative of the american society. anyone denying or dishonestly rationalising that is just fooling themselves...

if we're talking about majorities, americans oppose overturning roe v wade, they oppose lobbying and corporatism, they want the electoral college and gerrymandering gone - all issues this supreme court is created in opposition to. it's a court to protect the interest of corporations, rich people, and christian white american men.

Quote (excellence @ Sep 28 2020 07:06pm)

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-reports-amy-coney-barrett-attended-bizarre-ceremony-where-she-ate-flesh-drank-blood-of-jewish-guy/

babylon bee delivers again :lol:

Quote (fender @ Sep 28 2020 07:09pm)

it's really not that difficult: both the president as well as the senate majority represent political minorities, and they are currently establishing a supreme court with a 6:3 majority with fundamentally conservative values, which is not even remotely representative of the american society. anyone denying or dishonestly rationalising that is just fooling themselves...

if we're talking about majorities, americans oppose overturning roe v wade, they oppose lobbying and corporatism, they want the electoral college and gerrymandering gone - all issues this supreme court is created in opposition to. it's a court to protect the interest of corporations, rich people, and christian white american men.