Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
Huh? What are they then?
Catholics. They think it’s a separate religion.
Ironically, many... all... of those people are now likely rejoicing Amy Barrett’s appointment to SCOTUS because of her religious stance on abortion.
Who do they think their god is?Pentecostals and Evangelicals man. You can’t try and make sense of it. It’ll just make your head hurt. They’ll also argue that Allah isn’t Yahweh... even though both books claim the deity is the one that spoke to Abraham. They’re crazy.
Again - these same people suddenly support Amy Barrett... a Catholic... even though they've spent years to decades saying the Catholic Church is a cult led by false prophets.
Remember when Saint Mitt ran in 2012 and Franklin Graham took Mormonism off his dad's list of cults?
The Evangelicalban will go to any length to bring about their dominionism.
Ain’t that the damn truth
I find Catholics far to fundamentalist (even though raised Catholic) so I don't think I'd cope well.
I always say I stopped going to church about 25 years before they found nearly 800 babies the church dumped in a septic tank in Co. Galway. Subject changes very quickly after that. If jesus comes back I will probably give his a go, only on free fish Friday though.
It's like who is the better Batman.
So the day ACB is about to get into the court, Kavanaugh-Gorsuch use their WI opinion footnotes to favour such an extreme voting-rights attack that even Roberts had to write a separate rejection opinion. I'm sure that means absolutely nothing at all, just pure coincidence. 
Most christians aren’t Christians, so I hardly think denomination matters.
But yeah, I encountered this a lot in Bama.
Can you elaborate or do you have a link to an article about it? (like I need even more to be pissed off about the state of this country)So the day ACB is about to get into the court, Kavanaugh-Gorsuch use their WI opinion footnotes to favour such an extreme voting-rights attack that even Roberts had to write a separate rejection opinion. I'm sure that means absolutely nothing at all, just pure coincidence.
Id love to assume ACB is going to be at least a bit more moderate like a Roberts but I have absolutely zero faith in it given her ties and backers and being light on experience.
Once again it cannot be understated how dangerous this is - more so than a Trump presidency in many ways. We've entered an era where this Presidency has killed the mere idea of bi-partisanship for good if the Dems want to get anything done. At this point the unfortunate irony seems to be that Biden would need to surround himself with nothing but sharks in the hopes to stave off a generational setback in the courts.
If the Obama and Clinton administrations were any indicator then the Rs will hit the ground running in trying to take Dems to courts with friendly to them judges to make sure little gets done. For BS issues of course instead of legitimate issues. There are many things the Biden team would need to act swiftly on.
In other words - Trump losing is obviously the big first step, gaining the senate just as if not more important - but it's also just the beginning in fixing all the shit left in his wake.
To cut a long story short, Kagan argued in her dissent that Kavanaugh essentially argued WI votes postmarked Nov.3 yet counted after midnight changed the "perceived results" and created "suspicions of impropriety". But they are valid votes. So he essentially argued if valid votes changed a perceived outcome after 12:01am Nov.4, that inherently creates suspicion of a fraudulent election. Yet how can you change an election result if the ballots are essentially "in processing", they are inherently "part of the result". The act of stopping the count is the "suspicious" part.
In the footnotes of Kavanaugh-Gorsuch opinions, they both endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. Which essentially argued federal courts could prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what/how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run. In opposition, even Roberts had to create a separate opinion to highlight just how extreme Kavanaugh-Gorsuch were.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-mail-ballots-trump-fraud.html
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
holy shit holy shit ginsburg should have retired in 2013
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-mail-ballots-trump-fraud.html
Can anyone actually argue this isn't setting up the court case for stealing the election? Right as ACB gets on the bench, the GOP justices go absolutely insane and try to say Rehnquist is precedent. It's all falling into place.
I thought you believed that libs like Obama and Biden were just as bad as Trump, and that's why you were boycotting this election. This sounds like you're pining for a Democrat President.
If you want to avoid another ACB situation, would it not be the best course of action to vote for Biden? If you look out of the window you'll see there's a deadly pandemic happening. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that another SCJ could pass away before 2024.
Establishment Democrats are paid to lose. They did nothing to fight this, even giving hugs and praise at the hearings. If Biden wins they will do nothing to pack the courts.
Never said that and I think you know I never said that so not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. Just trolling i suspect
@Eboue lives in Montana, right? So his vote wouldn’t matter at all, sadly. That said, if he lived in a battleground state it would have been grossly irresponsible to sit this one out.
Senate Confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court
She has been a law professor though, and from all accounts a good one (I believe she won an award as best professor three times in a row at her uni). She is qualified. A massive bitch and has total opposite beliefs to me, but still totally qualified.
Elena Kagan for example was a scholar too before becoming a SCOTUS, and didn’t even have those two years of experience in lower courts.
Don't really care much what happens to supreme court in America. You reap what you sow.
I guess the issue is that the majority reaps what the minority sows, due to their crap political system. This of course goes for federal politics in general, not just the supreme court.
Incredibly naive. They have a predominantly anti-science pro-corporation SCOTUS now so you can expect some pretty devastating climate decisions soon enough.
Unfortunately what happens in the US has a knock on effect in other countries too.
So you think she should have done something she clearly didn't want to do, for the sake of the greater good? Hmm...
Foreign politics yes, but national too? European countries have always been more liberal and left leaning than the US I think. We have an abortion law for 30+ years here, it's still a discussion in a lot of US states.
2 years on a senior court and even then only because Trump put you there to give you the next available vacancy on the supreme court based purely on your politics is no way to appoint people to the highest court in the land. Kagan wasn't either only she is a moderate so was a far less contentious choice. But it is a fecked up way to choose your Supreme Court judges. The whole idea of politicians choose who is appointed is ludicrous. The lack of separation of the powers is idiotic at best.
The SCOTUS could potentially decide elections (like in 2000) which directly influence foreign politics. No ruling for GOP in Bush v Gore and we would most likely not have had the whole Iraq debacle.
Well we've seen the rhetoric and phraseology used by Trump adopted by similar groups in other countries, be it on issues like immigration, COVID, climate change or the media. So the political discourse in America certainly has an influence on the political culture in other countries.
Beyond that, there's the issue of American pressure movements funding like-minded groups in other countries and the influence that has. For example, Irish pro-life group Youth Defence are directly funded by American pro-life groups, with 70% of their twitter followers also being American. And during the Irish abortion referendum a lot of money flooded in to anti-choice groups from American groups who essentially viewed it as a proxy battle. So one would imagine that any rallying and success for these movements in the US will in turn embolden similar pushes in other countries.
Thank for the explanation. I'm probably a bit naive in thinking that national policies in one of the biggest countries in the world don't reflect on the rest of us.
*bangs head on wall*
I just view America now as a total lost cause - the place is a total shit show. The fact that it is still quite possible that they could vote Trump in for a second term means I have zero pity for them and they have brought all of this on themselves. Am I pissed off that what happens there still has some influence around the world? Yes of course? Can I do anything about that? Nope so why worry.
That’s a pretty shocking level of ignorance and apathy towards the majority of the US population who didn’t and won’t vote for Trump either 4 years ago or next week.
Ignorance no, apathy yes absolutely. Their electoral system is a joke and needs serious reform - that's on them to do that but they won't because they are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that America is the greatest country in the world and the best at everything. Not all Americans of course and I feel immense pity for those who don't buy into all that nonsense but it's on them to change things not me.
You’re unequivocally being ignorant here. I mean that’s just not up for debate.
Well that's your opinion. I think America is a cesspit and a complete moral vacuum but that's just me.
Thanks for proving my point I guess.
No problem. Can't help how I feel about the place.