..the current US Supreme court nominee. Bork was a piece of work himself, but he probably did not question science if asked questions back in 1987 hearings. He was probably better versed in his knowledge of law back then even though his early 1970s era Nixon DOJ operations and methods were questionable.
She (Barrett) is not a Rhodes Scholar (another lie from the crooks in administration that was not correct).
She did teach at Notre Dame, but yet exposed by some of the Democratic senators in not knowing some basic parts of already established law such as 'voter intimidation' (whether legal or not) as MN. senator Klobachar questioned. And in Wednesday Oct 14 hearings, not knowing the 5 principals ('freedom of....') that are listed in the 1st Amendment. It is one thing if one is not versed in law courses, but another when one did teach law courses at Notre Dame. No wonder a fair number of Notre Dame faculty staff provided written testimony that the nominee should not be on Supreme Court.
Items worth posting that provide some insight of why a different nominee should be selected such as the judge from Florida. This Federalist Society member, one from Indiana, doesn't have credibility.
Pierce:Sheldon Whitehouse Made the Case That Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination Is a Bag Job
Sheldon Whitehouse Made the Case That Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination Is a Bag Job It was planned and executed by a vast and single-minded network of which no parallel exists on the other side.
By Charles P. Pierce Oct 13, 2020
The general feeling that the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is the capstone of a lavishly funded, long-term conservative plan to own the federal judiciary for the foreseeable future, and that Barrett's career is altogether a product of that project, has hung over the confirmation hearings like a foul mist. On Tuesday afternoon, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave that feeling form and substance, and charts, too.
Whitehouse used every one of his allotted 30 minutes to describe in detail the mechanisms by which conservative activists, fueled by the unlimited corporate money unleashed by Citizens United v. FEC, have fashioned to produce judicial nominees—and, ultimately, judges—on what in the last decade has looked very much like an ideological assembly line. Whitehouse showed in (occasionally excruciating) detail every aspect of the complicated network at the center of which is the Federalist Society, the intellectual wingnut-welfare chop-shop to which this president* outsourced the selection of federal judges.
He then tied all that research into the current full-court press across the federal courts to kill the Affordable Care Act, curb reproductive freedom, and reverse marriage equality, to say nothing of the dozens of cases regarding the money power and corporate control of government that are the real goals of most of the people funding what Whitehouse called, "the schemes." Whitehouse even worked in his favorite statistic—that on those kind of cases, there have been 80 decisions handed down by the current court as 5-4 decision, and the business/conservative side of those cases, which almost always coincides with the interests of Republican donors, is 80-0.
...
The Republicans went predictably into orbit. Ted Cruz tried to throw some statistics back at Whitehouse and Young Ben Sasse snidely referred to Whitehouse's visual aids as "Beautiful Mind charts," referring to the scribblings of schizophrenic math genius John Nash, because Young Ben Sasse rarely misses an opportunity to be an insufferable nuisance. But they couldn't refute the case that Whitehouse had made so relentlessly: that this nomination is a bag job being hustled through to please a half-mad president* who may be howling down the hallways of the White House by now. And that it was planned and executed by a vast and single-minded network of which no parallel exists on the other side.
Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett Apparently Open to the Possibility of Letting Trump Get Away With All His Crimes The Supreme Court nominee has an open mind re: the president pardoning himself. By Bess Levin October 14, 2020
If Donald Trump loses the election, there is a growing chance that when he leaves office he could be prosecuted for a variety of possible crimes, including obstruction of justice, lying to investigators, and tax fraud. With regard to the latter, it would likely be a matter of New York State law—the Manhattan district attorney’s office suggested last month in a court filing that it had grounds to investigate Trump and his businesses for that sort of crime—and there would be little he could do about it. As for the obstruction and lies, once Trump leaves office, he will no longer be able to trot out his absurd claim of presidential immunity as his lawyers have done concerning unrelated matters over the course of his first term. But given that these would be federal crimes, what he might try to do is pardon himself on the way out the door. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he issues a broad, sweeping pardon for any U.S. citizen who was a subject, a target, or a person of interest of the Mueller investigation,” Norm Eisen, who served as counsel to House Democrats during Trump’s impeachment, told New York magazine in September. The magazine added that any such case would likely make it to the Supreme Court. And you know who’s about to ascend to the Supreme Court? Why, it’s Amy Coney Barrett, who apparently has an open mind re: the prospect of the president pardoning himself!
During Senator Patrick Leahy’s round of questioning on the third day of confirmation hearings, he asked Barrett: “President Trump claims he has an absolute right to pardon himself. For 200 years the Supreme Court has recognized common law principle that nobody can be a judge in their own case.… Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime?” And the answer wasn’t a simple no!
“Senator Leahy,” Barrett said, “so far as I know that question has never been litigated, that question has never risen, that question may or may not arise, but it’s one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.”
Barrett is in good company with another one of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees who can also conceive of a scenario in which it would be fine for a president to pardon himself:
Of course this is just one of the many issues Barrett has refused to weigh in on, seemingly because she doesn’t want her answers entered into the record or replayed for all the world to see. On the second day of her hearings, she dodged questions on abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and more, apparently forgetting her opinions are extremely clear. So there’s probably a good reason she claimed she couldn’t weigh in on whether the president would be able to pardon himself, and needing to first go “through the judicial process“ presumably isn’t it. --
Some amendments need to be revisited because southern Confederate states didn't get to have their votes after Civil War? That's expected when one side loses a war. Some laws might be passed during a Civil War and the losing side has to accept it as part of the terms for surrender and if wanting to rejoin Union.
Covid Amy has expressed doubts about the 14th amendment implying it's illegitimate. That's the one that confers birthright citizenship on people like Sen. Harris.
It wasn't properly ratified because the Confederate states had not yet rejoined the Union. Same for the 15th. Her reasoning, not mine. By that reasoning, the 13th Amendment is also illegitimate, but she's been careful not to mention that. --
An example of what happens when a crappy Supreme Court 2010 ruling of Citizens versus United in which corporations can have same rights as a living human. In some circumstances, even far more rights compared to humans.
A corrupt (several past criminal cases) financial institution is allowed to have a voice in politics.
-- Wells Fargo sends election material to mortgage holders
You may recall that this was one of the more disreputable banks during the crisis of 2008. They also opened up fake credit card accounts for customers. --
The non-credible Supreme Court nominee will likely not recuse self in an election issue and might select along with other conservatives on Supreme Court the 'jackass-in-office' in case a challenge takes place regarding 2020 General elections. It could be a revisit of Dec. 2020 Supreme Court intervention in which Florida was ruled to stop counting votes except the 2020 issue will be a far worse Supreme Court ruling unless the public votes for Biden far outnumber the crazy guy.
America survived one Trump term. It wouldn’t survive a second.
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Flat 
..late judge Robert Bork had more credibility than...
Reply
