J
Jeanne_S
Guest
…that’s pretty much all it ever is
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
…that’s pretty much all it ever is
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
Only 2 of 10 Supreme Court Vacancies were filled during an Election year when the Senate and Presidency were controlled by different Parties.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Read the Brookings Institution report: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/
"Pre-2016 modern-era confirmations offer a different story: First, it’s not as if there were a string of election-year vacancies, some during unified government, which got filled, and others during divided government, which didn’t. Rather all five election-year vacancies from the 1890s until the 1950s were during unified government, offering no test of whether divided government would have confirmed them. However, the three voice votes suggest the minority party, had it been in power, would have confirmed… the two more recent divided-government vacancies got filled:
in 1988, the Democratic-majority Senate voted 97-0 to confirm Justice Kennedy (after the 1987 rejection of the controversial Bork nomination), and Eisenhower made an uncontested October 1956 recess appointment of Justice Brennan. Had the Senate been in session, it would have confirmed a Brennan nomination—as it did early in 1957.
Bottom line: there was no historical justification for denying Garland a vote; thus, voting for Trump’s late-2020 nominee is hypocritical."
"Pre-2016 modern-era confirmations offer a different story: First, it’s not as if there were a string of election-year vacancies, some during unified government, which got filled, and others during divided government, which didn’t. Rather all five election-year vacancies from the 1890s until the 1950s were during unified government, offering no test of whether divided government would have confirmed them. However, the three voice votes suggest the minority party, had it been in power, would have confirmed… the two more recent divided-government vacancies got filled:
in 1988, the Democratic-majority Senate voted 97-0 to confirm Justice Kennedy (after the 1987 rejection of the controversial Bork nomination), and Eisenhower made an uncontested October 1956 recess appointment of Justice Brennan. Had the Senate been in session, it would have confirmed a Brennan nomination—as it did early in 1957.
Bottom line: there was no historical justification for denying Garland a vote; thus, voting for Trump’s late-2020 nominee is hypocritical."
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Exactly. It wasn’t.
I may have voiced a similar thought upstream, but if I were a Republican United States, I would rest far easier, sleep better at night, and be able more readily to look at myself in the mirror, if I had to say to myself “yes, even though some people would say it’s hypocritical, I did everything in my power, using means that are perfectly legal, to confirm a Supreme Court Justice whose philosophy and judicial record strongly indicate that she will, at the very least, not be hostile to the unborn”, than if I had to say “I kept my word, I kept my promise, I maintained my integrity, and I am willing to see this stretch into next year, when, in all likelihood, there will be a pro-choice president, and very likely a pro-choice Democratic Senate majority, who can be counted on, by their own admission, to nominate and confirm a Justice who will absolutely upheld Roe v Wade, and possibly even extend its reach and influence”.
Keeping promises, keeping one’s word, while laudable human virtues, are not absolute. As I said upthread, if they were, then if — for instance — I’d promised to sell a gun to someone, given him my word, shook on it, then found out that he planned to use it, not for target practice or to shoot snakes in his garden, but to kill someone… then, yeah, I’d break my promise.
As many are so fond of saying, “not to judge”.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Yes. But interestingly, there can be huge differences in the prospects in a profession. Some lawyers are absolute slaves to their job and those tend to make the most money. Lots of firms have “production” requirements; so many billable hours per year or out you go. If you want to be a “neighborhood” lawyer, you’re not likely to get rich unless you hit on the “big case” worth millions.
Medicine is less that way, but it still is to some degree. Some specialists make millions in a year. Some further down the food chain don’t.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Dem party of a generation ago was more like the “grass roots” of the Repub party of today. Today’s Dem party is more closely akin to the “Rockefeller Repubs” of decades past.
Last edited:
I am well aware of that. Practicing law is not necessarily the royal road to riches. With everyone and their sibling becoming doctors nowadays, medicine may one day be like that too, especially if Medicare For All ever becomes a reality (and I hope it does).HomeschoolDad:
Yes. But interestingly, there can be huge differences in the prospects in a profession. Some lawyers are absolute slaves to their job and those tend to make the most money. Lots of firms have “production” requirements; so many billable hours per year or out you go. If you want to be a “neighborhood” lawyer, you’re not likely to get rich unless you hit on the “big case” worth millions.
Medicine is less that way, but it still is to some degree. Some specialists make millions in a year. Some further down the food chain don’t.
Aside from abortion, I am actually pretty politically liberal, certainly where social welfare issues are concerned. During the primaries, I had to park my car at the far end of the lot at my TLM parish of choice, to keep my Tulsi Gabbard stickers from being seen, and earning me the enmity of my fellow traddies for having the temerity to vote in Democratic primaries for the least of several evils where there was no “good” choice (and there never is, where the donkey party is concerned). When I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 (simply because he wasn’t Hillary) for the same reasons, I just took the darn sticker off and stuck it on my suitcase in my trunk until I got back home!
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s possible. The last I read about it, physicians in France who work for the government (and that’s about 2/3 of them) make about half what they do in the U.S. But they don’t have to pay for their medical education or malpractice insurance. The non-government part, aobut 1/3 of the total, is unregulated so nobody knows for sure what they make. They’re paid by insurance and by patients themselves.
I’ve looked “horrible” ever since my mid-30s, so I’ve gotten used to it by now — nil novi sub soli. I have to stay safe, even unto exercising an abundance of caution, for the sake of my family. And people with ugly mouths (which I do not have) actually look better if they’re covered up.
Please explain what is “satanic” about these masks.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Ever spent a month on a ventilator?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Just got a call from someone that someone else from work who was on a ventilator for 2 months died today. (Prayers for his soul please.)
I’ll continue to wear my mask and avoid going to group gatherings.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
I’m so sorry. May God grant him blessed repose and eternal memory
C
crusadermanj
Guest
No but whomever is on it certainly did not get to that situation because you and I have to breathe to live.
F
Fauken
Guest
Just so you’re aware, there are people on this very site who know people who have died from the coronavirus. They don’t get to breathe anymore. If you’re having trouble breathing in your mask, I suggest you find a different one. There’s quite a market for them now. Veils by Lily makes comfortable ones I have no trouble breathing in, and the money supports a small family owned Catholic business.
https://www.veilsbylily.com/comfort...-usa-of-usa-and-or-imported-fabric/?revpage=2
https://www.veilsbylily.com/cool-th...le-made-in-usa-of-usa-and-or-imported-fabric/
Last edited:
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
Right. Joe Biden kind of started the nastiness in the confirmation process when he and Ted Kennedy “Borked” one of the great judicial minds, Robert Bork.
And then, as if that wasn’t enough, Joe Biden led the Judicial Committee that slandered the great Clarence Thomas.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yep,what goes around comes around,wonder if the Dems will be aware?
J
JSRG
Guest
There are a few Senators whose votes may up for grabs one way or the other. Unfortunately, none of them are the ones that are actually on the judicial committee that asks the questions. Even setting that aside, I do think it’s good for the public to meet the nominee to some extent in the questions and answers session, so I support having a hearing.
That said, the hearing for today (what I saw of it, anyway), where the people on the judicial committee basically gave a bunch of speeches, was rather pointless, feeling more like political rally speeches than anything else. Which was bad enough, but it also was stupendously repetitive. They could’ve just had one or two Democrats and Republicans give their speech rather than having everyone talk and just keep echoing the points made previously.
Granted, I’m sure the question-and-answer session on Tuesday will also be the politicians pontificating in the form of questions, but at least we’ll get answers from the nominee which would be useful for knowing more about them. I can’t imagine someone watching the “hearings” today and actually thinking they learned much of anything other than that the Democrats are against confirmation and the Republicans are for it.
Last edited:
D
DeniseNY
Guest
I guess in a public health crisis there are two types of people. Those who are willing to bear some possible discomfort and inconvenience in order to help protect themselves and the vulnerable with whom they may come in contact… and those who are not.
- Status