There are videos of Amy Coney Barrett showing up online.
Sorry…no “smoking guns” for the haters. Seems pretty smart, level-headed and thoughtful.
(Don’t know if she likes beer…)
I’m okay with her being a Justice. The DEMS had best cool it on this one.
They won’t, but GoP has the votes to push it through regardless. I’m more worried about long term consequences to collegiality and bipartisanship, or lessening polarization.
I’m with you, @Aragorn.
I have this feeling that Barrett will be one of those “surprise” justices who rulings and/or opinions may not jive with “expectations”? We’ll see.
I just think that the DEMS simply can’t afford to look any worse than they already do this close to an election. A “trumped-up” (no pun intended) fight on Barrett at this point simply does not appear to be in their best interest. But like you said…they will probably fight anyway…
Probably a good time to mention the possible “Florida Play” by Trump with Lagora.
Trump and Biden are separated by less than 2 points in Florida (and it’s tightening).
In my mind, that puts Trump ahead. He simply does not need to make that play.
Barrett is interviewed (4 times plus, I think); vetted; has withstood DEM scrutiny; and is Loved my Conservatives. I think she is packaged and ready to go.
I don’t know. They’re understandably pissed about the blatant hypocrisy from McConnell and company. I know how I view it, but I don’t know how that about-face registers to the general (apathetic/low info/whatever voting) public. Maybe a large chunk of the population is also pissed and it’s a move that pushes more people towards them.
Hard to say how it plays out. I don’t know, so I just stick with principles.
Confirmation hearings for 12 October and 23 October for the vote are what seems to be doing the rounds…
Right now, I’d say the GOP’s reputation is in the red as a result of this, but, and it’s a big but, the Dems did harm themselves with Kavanaugh, and I could easily imagine them doing so again now.
I saw a few polls that showed ~60% (IIRC) that people thought the next president should pick the justice. I think they’re paying attention, at least somewhat, even if they aren’t tracking every parliamentary move.
Agreed, and the reason they went nuclear on him was because he was the theoretical majority addition to overturn Roe. I think they would have done it with any nominee, not just Kavanaugh. It was a bad look.
But irrelevant to the presidential year nomination principle fight.
That could depends on means though. I can envisage an overreach that would make this politically harmful.
If they reopened the articles of impeachment for example.
Agreed. I think the Dems should torch the GOP Senators for their lack of integrity and abuse of process, but then do a normal vetting of the nominee and vote her through. I mean, vote her through unanimously. They’re going to lose anyway - so rob them of the energy of victory by returning to normal order and confirming.
This, this and this…
But I find it doubtful that the DEMS will do it…but who knows…
Thinking about this some more, @thunderbolt23…Barrett has already withstood the DEMS best “Feinstein Shot” at her Appeals Court Confirmation…and all it did was make her a darling of Conservatives.
I’m with you…burn the GOP Senate for its hypocrisy…ask her a few questions about Health Care (that’s important)…unanimously confirm her…and leave the GOP Gobsmacked…
(A guy could dream, right?)
I agree with you and TB, that would be the absolute master move. Great optics.
Will they? All signs point to no. They’ll likely rob themselves of any moral victory in the war, for the sake of the battle.
Politics, eh?
The irony of the whole thing is that it’s a short term problem. They could flip the court in two terms again, or at least return it to the status quo ante.
The court likely doesn’t have 5 yes votes to overturn Roe, and probably won’t even if Barrett gets the nod.
They have built the conservative judiciary up to be some cabal of handmaid’s tale encouraging Gilead enablers, which they are not.
The one consistent yes to overturn is Thomas, and it’s hardly like his jurisprudence has been some long walk back to the 1800’s.
Interesting that you GOP detesters are more interested in optics and partisan division than filling a high court vacancy. And with a person that you all agree should be consented unanimously.
Spare me your hypocritical diatribes about character and principles.
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about, @treco.
I AM saying that the DEMS should do “the right thing”.
IMO, I don’t think the GoP wants to overturn Roe. It is possibly their largest carrot. Many single issue abortion voters that might not be as motivated to turn out if it is overturned. I guess they would have a “better keep us around if you want Roe to stay overturned carrot”, but I don’t see that being as powerful.
We shall see. It’s much more likely to happen than with the picks of Democrats.
Then there’s stuff like this
No exemptions! What a tough guy, picking on nuns.
For sure. I am thinking that part of the vetting process is asking the question “you won’t actually overturn Roe, right?”. No evidence for it, but I see overturning Roe to be damaging to the GoP long term, and the GoP despises anything that could cause a loss of power, even if it aligns with their “values”.
