The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[cowboy]

I agree. She seems like a pretty amazing person. Will be pretty cool to have a working mom on the SC.

I've been thinking the same thing. Whoever advised Trump on this knocked it out of the park, which means Trump will inevitably fire him, even if Biden loses.

[Moliere]

Looks like the Dems have officially found a way to not vote for her in spite of her credentials. They will claim their “no” vote is because anyone that accepts the nomination under these circumstances (election year, replacing RBG, etc. ) is unqualified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falafel]

I've been thinking the same thing. Whoever advised Trump on this knocked it out of the park, which means Trump will inevitably fire him, even if Biden loses.

Trump nominated her to the federal appeals bench in 2017, so it looks like the advisor as weathered at least one storm.

[Non Sequitur]

Trump nominated her to the federal appeals bench in 2017, so it looks like the advisor as weathered at least one storm.

I hope the Dems don't take the bait and try to demonize Barrett. McConnell has the votes, so the Dems need to take the high road, respectfully question her, let her be confirmed and avoid looking petty. This isn't a hill to die on.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I hope the Dems don't take the bait and try to demonize Barrett. McConnell has the votes, so the Dems need to take the high road, respectfully question her, let her be confirmed and avoid looking petty. This isn't a hill to die on.

Which of course means they will likely die on it anyway.

[Sullyute]

Garland deserved a vote. So does Barrett. While McConnell et al said really stupid things to justify their behavior toward Garland, Democrats are showing their share of hypocrisy in singing different tunes then and now. Democrats are in a more defensible position, but two wrongs don't make a right. The right thing, then and now, is to allow a Supreme Court nominee a vote on the floor.

I agree 100% with this post.

[Sullyute]

Which of course means they will likely die on it anyway.

If they do, then they may galvanize the electorate against them. Dems need new leadership in a big way. I thought Cory Booker was a rising star, but he lost a lot of shine during the last SCOTUS appointment proceedings.

[UVACoug]

I hope the Dems don't take the bait and try to demonize Barrett. McConnell has the votes, so the Dems need to take the high road, respectfully question her, let her be confirmed and avoid looking petty. This isn't a hill to die on.

Agreed. Honestly, I think their best bet may be to ignore the confirmation battle and keep the focus on COVID and Trump. Making this election about Barrett would be a horrible mistake for Democrats, IMO.

[Uncle Ted]

Garland deserved a vote. So does Barrett. While McConnell et al said really stupid things to justify their behavior toward Garland, Democrats are showing their share of hypocrisy in singing different tunes then and now. Democrats are in a more defensible position, but two wrongs don't make a right. The right thing, then and now, is to allow a Supreme Court nominee a vote on the floor.

Garland did get a vote (an unofficial one)... The GOP'ers controlling the senate voted not to vote.

[Uncle Ted]

I hope the Dems don't take the bait and try to demonize Barrett. McConnell has the votes, so the Dems need to take the high road, respectfully question her, let her be confirmed and avoid looking petty. This isn't a hill to die on.

Yeah but I am hoping Harris (and "Spartacus") will lead the charge again!

[SeattleUte]

This observation is really smart, SU.
I hadn't thought of this scenario in quite this way, but - you're right - from Croesus to Antigone, timing is everything.

It's on my mind because I'm reading the Histories cover to cover for the first time. Love Xerxes. Xerxes is in the pantheon of fantastic anti-heroes of course. Ahab, Judge Holden, Satan, Napoleon, some others.

[wapiti]

I like this nominee. Reaction from the left has been interesting. Seeing progressives on twitter blast her for working too much and neglecting her kids. Or that she is a mindless servant to her husband. Ha.

All these attacks seem pointless. Do they think they can convince republican senators not to vote for her?

How about the attacks on inter-racial adoption?

[Jeff Lebowski]

How about the attacks on inter-racial adoption?

Yeah, that is probably the worst of the worst.

[Eddie]

When will karma step in for all the things McConnell and Graham pontificated about when they backburnered Garland? The evening of November 3 would be nice, but I'm not counting on it.

How much of what we're seeing now is karma for Harry Reid? Karma is a never ending cycle, to be sure. And I have no doubt that the GOP will one day pay their due.

Garland deserved a vote. So does Barrett. While McConnell et al said really stupid things to justify their behavior toward Garland, Democrats are showing their share of hypocrisy in singing different tunes then and now. Democrats are in a more defensible position, but two wrongs don't make a right. The right thing, then and now, is to allow a Supreme Court nominee a vote on the floor.

Garland did get a vote (an unofficial one)... The GOP'ers controlling the senate voted not to vote.

This is dumb. I've heard the argument before, and it's weak. Have the balls to make the senators either vote yes or no - and answer for those votes. This whole "voted not to vote" thing is silly. That works for legislation just fine - and I'll accept it. Not for appointments that need to be confirmed or rejected.

For the record - I thought Garland should have gotten a vote too. And I think it's Trump's role to nominate a supreme court replacement for RBG - who should also get a vote.

[swampfrog]

How about the attacks on inter-racial adoption?

Yeah, that is probably the worst of the worst.

Critical Race Theory insists that the racism of this situation be deconstructed.

The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?” -- Robin DiAngelo