The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Commando]

I wonder who ACB has sexually assaulted.

I am just praying she's not another Alito. Another Sotomayer would have been ideal but we get this instead?


I'm hoping Clarence Thomas gets a bad case of the gout soon...

[Copelius]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-supreme-court

[BigFatMeanie]

I am just praying she's not another Alito. Another Sotomayer would have been ideal but we get this instead?


I'm hoping Clarence Thomas gets a bad case of the gout soon...

Racist

[Non Sequitur]

I am just praying she's not another Alito. Another Sotomayer would have been ideal but we get this instead?


I'm hoping Clarence Thomas gets a bad case of the gout soon...

Is Clarence Thomas still alive? That guy single-handedly switched me from a Coke guy to a Pepsi guy.

[All-American]

Is Clarence Thomas still alive? That guy single-handedly switched me from a Coke guy to a Pepsi guy.

And well.

Not sure he has eight years in him though. He could easily be an RGB in reverse.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Is Clarence Thomas still alive? That guy single-handedly switched me from a Coke guy to a Pepsi guy.

He made me more vigilant at inspecting any canned beverage.

[Pelado]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-supreme-court

Interesting take. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[cowboy]

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.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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?

[PaloAltoCougar]

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. I'm sure that even if the Repubs had allowed a Garland vote, the Dems would still be insisting that the current slot be filled after January 20.

[USUC]

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?

I want Barrett confirmed before the election. And then Trump to get embarrassingly voted out of office by a number he can't dispute.

The "end of the world" shrieks by Dems about any GOP appointed SCOTUS pick is just as tiresome as Trump. The funny thing is, when was the last time a Dem appointed SCOTUS judge veered towards the center, let alone the right? But you know how many GOP appointed SCOTUS judges subsequently moved to the center or center left? O'conor, Kennedy, Souter, now Roberts.

The Dems deserve to beat Trump and the current iteration of the GOP. But in no way do I want a Dem filling a SCOTUS appointment the way they are right now.

[Solon]

Think about it. This is like something out of Herodotus or a Greek tragedy. She lived over 87 years. 11 with pancreatic cancer. And fell six weeks short. She lived almost 4,500 weeks, and died six weeks too early. Maybe just 2 or three weeks too early. That would not have left enough time. She will be remembered primarily for that.

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.

[beefytee]

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 with this and would go so far as to say that regardless of ideology (unless that ideology goes against the basic principles of the constitution), the only reason a senator should vote against a nominee is a lack of qualifications. The only one who falls into that category in recent history is Harriet Miers and she didn’t even make it close to a vote.

[Harry Tic]

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?

I’m just glad that the nominee is not Mike Lee.

Tender mercies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YOhio]

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?

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