| Blogs > jiminycricket1 > My Blog |
|
Barrett and ACA The confirmation hearing are amazing. So much different than Kavenaugh's.. Kavenaugh Lied.. Barrett isn't lying. The only problem the Dems can have is on the "process"..... Ted Cruz speech was incredible..He lives in a fricken alternate universe. He thinks you folks are really stupid.. He, of course, was bashing Democrats for doing the things Trump would do.. If he never said Democrats I would have believe, he was talking about Republican Sass was actually pretty good. The Republican, for the most part tried bait Democrats into the mass chaos that the Kavenaugh hearing brought. Amazing accusations. that were immaterial and false facts to the hearing itself. I thought Barrett was pretty good. What became clear about the vote on the ACA...Was if she was going to vote against it...The Dems would have legislative remedies.. If the Dems control the Senate. then her vote will be mute. Just rewrite the law.. the irony is that probably needs to be done anyway. The vote in November from Supreme court will be on severable. .. That means if any part of the law is unconstitutional the whole law is unconstitutional. With Barrett that will probably fly.. But lets say it's the mandate, penalty or tax? which ironically now has no meaning...... causes the whole law be voided. Barret may or may not agree. If the dems get the senate... then rewrite it.. The Supreme court position will be the guideline for what will make it Constitutional |
|||
|
Of course Fox News was bias.. in it's democrat bashing.. But I also found CNN and MSNBC as bias also.not giving Barrett the benefit of any doubt. She deserved that benefit.. if only because.. I'm good at reading faces.. and she was HONEST.. That Trumps everything. Kavenaugh was a fricken liar.
| ||
10/13/2020 3:24 pm |
Hearings terrific...loved Whitehouse Booker Coons and Amy was tough. Joni Ernst and Tillis were absolutely awful.
| ||
10/13/2020 3:30 pm |
These candidates should be cautioned...too much ducking and you don't get out of committee...many questions could have been answered...honesty radiates like with Roberts...weve seen Kavanaugh in comparison...I need to see more still
| ||
|
These candidates should be cautioned...too much ducking and you don't get out of committee...many questions could have been answered...honesty radiates like with Roberts...weve seen Kavanaugh in comparison...I need to see more still She answered accurately.. which mean she was unbais. You don't pull off a Scalia, because he's an originalist.. And you don't put Ginsberg on because She believe it's a living document.. The whole point is there is place for both Congress is a big fart.. the idea of Scalia." if congress wants to change his opinion .. Change the law.." best comment ever by a Supreme court judge. The same will be said by her... about Trump.S she's honest like that.. Scalia.. The great Conservative judge.. Would have hated Trump.
| ||
10/14/2020 6:55 am |
Oh...on Ted Cruz, yeah he does live in another universe....loved that comment.
| ||
10/14/2020 7:12 am |
ou missed the point on her "ducking".. The ducking wasn't a protection from democrats it was a protection from Republicans. She answered accurately.. which mean she was unbais. You don't pull off a Scalia, because he's an originalist.. And you don't put Ginsberg on because She believe it's a living document.. The whole point is there is place for both Congress is a big fart.. the idea of Scalia." if congress wants to change his opinion .. Change the law.." best comment ever by a Supreme court judge. The same will be said by her... about Trump.S she's honest like that.. Scalia.. The great Conservative judge.. Would have hated Trump. Hi Cricket good morning. Saw a headline on Drudge this morning about the potential for Kansas flipping a senate seat. If it makes headlines there, probably ought to pay attention. Maybe you're really reading that one correctly. On the ducking, actually you read that one wrong on me...I agree with you!!! My point is generally however. The congress needs to better assert their power on these judges. They all have records but in the end trying to cover up those records is a hopeless endeavor. She knows what the law is on elections. Her refusal to provide an answer on that does not signal independence on the issue, and that failure exposes a less than honest motivation, one being to avoid the circus of the alleged non-impartiality. I don't think that kind of motivation serves anybody well. I can't imagine that she would ever rule on what appears to be obvious on that issue, so why not take ownership. As a judge, she could have, and should have reassured all of us of what the law clearly is. I think the American people can handle the truth, and deserved the truth on that matter - of all matters. We are talking about voting here for God sakes. I wonder if she would answer this - If you are confirmed to this life appointment, can a future president terminate your seat on the court by executive order? Tell the people who you are, that's what everyone wants to know to have confidence in impartiality. This is what makes a record so important, and I'm not talking about signing some document at church. In the end it will be a subjective call by the senate. The senate's consent seems meaningless without serious answers to serious questions. Just don't move nominations out of committee unless you get the truth, and I don't think the senate has been getting that in ways they deserve. Questions on voting should be answered without objection or you are not qualified to even be considered. I've already written that I do not believe she will vote in support of ruling ACA unconstitutional in total, or to overturn Roe. For what's it worth, I never saw the mandate as anything but a tax. I seriously doubt she would put her reputation on the line, becoming the most hated woman in America when it wouldn't be a seriously skewed view to see both rulings in 'super' precedent ways, regardless of the present passion that exists in the country. In both matters, I believe the opposition rests with a passionate fringe of society. I would be stunned if she voted the way republicans want. Finally - I think the filibuster in the senate is toast if democrats take control. That will reunite the country and put an end to this harmful obstruction and restore the fight for ideas - a progressive's dream and I can't wait. We are indeed on the road toward - change the law if we need change. That's a good thing, and dumping the filibuster makes that possible. Yep, Scalia would have hated Trump. I thought he was an interesting judge, but his Heller ruling was ridiculous, and has led to the deaths of thousands. The nuts on the court are Alito and Thomas...the sooner they retire or croak the better the court will become. I think the country is in for a huge shock...this court will not forever become conservative...it's going the other way, Roberts is going to pull both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the center, and republicans will be pissed.
| ||
|
ou missed the point on her "ducking".. The ducking wasn't a protection from democrats it was a protection from Republicans. She answered accurately.. which mean she was unbais. You don't pull off a Scalia, because he's an originalist.. And you don't put Ginsberg on because She believe it's a living document.. The whole point is there is place for both Congress is a big fart.. the idea of Scalia." if congress wants to change his opinion .. Change the law.." best comment ever by a Supreme court judge. The same will be said by her... about Trump.S she's honest like that.. Scalia.. The great Conservative judge.. Would have hated Trump. Hi Cricket good morning. Saw a headline on Drudge this morning about the potential for Kansas flipping a senate seat. If it makes headlines there, probably ought to pay attention. Maybe you're really reading that one correctly. On the ducking, actually you read that one wrong on me...I agree with you!!! My point is generally however. The congress needs to better assert their power on these judges. They all have records but in the end trying to cover up those records is a hopeless endeavor. She knows what the law is on elections. Her refusal to provide an answer on that does not signal independence on the issue, and that failure exposes a less than honest motivation, one being to avoid the circus of the alleged non-impartiality. I don't think that kind of motivation serves anybody well. I can't imagine that she would ever rule on what appears to be obvious on that issue, so why not take ownership. As a judge, she could have, and should have reassured all of us of what the law clearly is. I think the American people can handle the truth, and deserved the truth on that matter - of all matters. We are talking about voting here for God sakes. I wonder if she would answer this - If you are confirmed to this life appointment, can a future president terminate your seat on the court by executive order? Tell the people who you are, that's what everyone wants to know to have confidence in impartiality. This is what makes a record so important, and I'm not talking about signing some document at church. In the end it will be a subjective call by the senate. The senate's consent seems meaningless without serious answers to serious questions. Just don't move nominations out of committee unless you get the truth, and I don't think the senate has been getting that in ways they deserve. Questions on voting should be answered without objection or you are not qualified to even be considered. I've already written that I do not believe she will vote in support of ruling ACA unconstitutional in total, or to overturn Roe. For what's it worth, I never saw the mandate as anything but a tax. I seriously doubt she would put her reputation on the line, becoming the most hated woman in America when it wouldn't be a seriously skewed view to see both rulings in 'super' precedent ways, regardless of the present passion that exists in the country. In both matters, I believe the opposition rests with a passionate fringe of society. I would be stunned if she voted the way republicans want. Finally - I think the filibuster in the senate is toast if democrats take control. That will reunite the country and put an end to this harmful obstruction and restore the fight for ideas - a progressive's dream and I can't wait. We are indeed on the road toward - change the law if we need change. That's a good thing, and dumping the filibuster makes that possible. Yep, Scalia would have hated Trump. I thought he was an interesting judge, but his Heller ruling was ridiculous, and has led to the deaths of thousands. The nuts on the court are Alito and Thomas...the sooner they retire or croak the better the court will become. I think the country is in for a huge shock...this court will not forever become conservative...it's going the other way, Roberts is going to pull both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the center, and republicans will be pissed. We think the vote along party line is just that.. but i don't think it is..I believed , up until now.. It worked the way it should. The discenting opinion, was never a descent on the decision. The decision was always agreed to with all nine judges. the dissenting opinion was not against the decision, but gave credence tot he fact the thing was even heard., credence to the other side of the argument. and credence to the loser for bringing it. It's congress, that f*cks it up, not the supreme court, and is full of shit.. I asked my brother if you were the coach of high school team, and had your choice of two referees. and one them went to each school .... given that fact that you believed both judges were very honest, which one would choose to ref the game? bias is not always what you think it is. It's certainly not in my case. That's why I fight you.. I fight against my own bias.
| ||
|
These candidates should be cautioned...too much ducking and you don't get out of committee...many questions could have been answered...honesty radiates like with Roberts...weve seen Kavanaugh in comparison...I need to see more still Her answer to being asked about her thinking on the topic of Climate Change is a case in point. She said that she is not a Scientist, that she doesn't know that much about it and has no opinion on the subject....... Arguably the most important, existential problem facing the future of her 7 children, the country and the world at large and certainly a matter that will affect many decisions she will be voting on in her career ........It's her job to understand Climate Change......Her answer was a non-answer.....why be coy about it?....
| ||
10/14/2020 3:32 pm |
I don't see much point in these hours of hearings with all the ducking going on.......It's possible to find her records, but most people won't bother. Her answer to being asked about her thinking on the topic of Climate Change is a case in point. She said that she is not a Scientist, that she doesn't know that much about it and has no opinion on the subject....... Arguably the most important, existential problem facing the future of her 7 children, the country and the world at large and certainly a matter that will affect many decisions she will be voting on in her career ........It's her job to understand Climate Change......Her answer was a non-answer.....why be coy about it?....
|
×
×