Amy Coney Barrett
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Anyone Who Thinks Amy Coney Barrett Can Magically 'End' Roe v. Wade Doesn’t Understand The Law
First of all, the Supreme Court is not forced to take any case on any topic. Parties unsatisfied with lower court decisions can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case or grant a writ of certiorari. Four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. According to UnitedStatesCourts.Gov, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means that an abortion case must arise, a party must apply for writ of certiorari, and the court must vote to hear the case. So, step one is a hurdle in itself.
Second of all, if the court chose to hear an abortion case, they would have to get a majority decision to change the current law. One lone justice doesn’t create a majority. One rogue justice doesn’t get to change the law of the highest court in the land.
Abiding by the law and having judicial integrity is an extremely important concept to a justice. So much so, that when one becomes a judge or a justice in the United States, they must take an oath before rendering any judicial opinions. In summary, the oath says that a judge/justice will impartially administer justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
First of all, the Supreme Court is not forced to take any case on any topic. Parties unsatisfied with lower court decisions can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case or grant a writ of certiorari. Four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. According to UnitedStatesCourts.Gov, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means that an abortion case must arise, a party must apply for writ of certiorari, and the court must vote to hear the case. So, step one is a hurdle in itself.
Second of all, if the court chose to hear an abortion case, they would have to get a majority decision to change the current law. One lone justice doesn’t create a majority. One rogue justice doesn’t get to change the law of the highest court in the land.
Abiding by the law and having judicial integrity is an extremely important concept to a justice. So much so, that when one becomes a judge or a justice in the United States, they must take an oath before rendering any judicial opinions. In summary, the oath says that a judge/justice will impartially administer justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
"We are prepared to be even more obnoxious than we were during the Kavanaugh hearings, if that's what it takes," said Senator Kamala Harris.
babylonbee.com
Democrats Prepare To Give Republicans Free Ad Footage Of Them Attacking Successful, Religious Mother Of 7
WASHINGTON, D.C.—With Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings coming up in just two short weeks, Democrats say they are excited to give Republicans free ad campaign footage of them interrogating a successful, powerful, religious mother of seven for hours on end.
babylonbee.com
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
As I noted in a reply to you in another thread: the Dems'/The Left's collective (projection-related) mental illness.
--- End of line (MCP)
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
So...the threat of a fine or incarceration wouldn't be the preventative ability?
Because I always thought if I CHOSE not to make threats because it COULD get me in trouble...was a pretty good preventative ability.
Nope, they prevent nothing at all.
That is an example of free will and not preventative because even with consequences for an act no one is prevented from doing so.
Know colloquially as "hold my beer, and..."
"I've never seen anything like this," said CNN's investigative reporter from the scene. "This is really, really sick stuff.
"Please be advised," said the CNN anchor reporting the news. "What you're about to see is disturbing."
Secret cameras showed Amy Coney Barrett kneeling before a priest-type figure as he recited some kind of incantation in a dead tongue. The priest then held up a round wafer and a goblet of red liquid which he announced to be the true body and blood of a Jewish rabbi who died 2000 years ago.
"I can't believe I'm about to say this, but she ate and drank the stuff," said the reporter with trembling lips. "This is horrifying. Amy Coney Barrett must be stopped!"
They then brought a newborn baby to a basin of water and attempted to drown it.
babylonbee.com
"Please be advised," said the CNN anchor reporting the news. "What you're about to see is disturbing."
Secret cameras showed Amy Coney Barrett kneeling before a priest-type figure as he recited some kind of incantation in a dead tongue. The priest then held up a round wafer and a goblet of red liquid which he announced to be the true body and blood of a Jewish rabbi who died 2000 years ago.
"I can't believe I'm about to say this, but she ate and drank the stuff," said the reporter with trembling lips. "This is horrifying. Amy Coney Barrett must be stopped!"
They then brought a newborn baby to a basin of water and attempted to drown it.
CNN Reports Amy Coney Barrett Attended Bizarre Ceremony Where She Ate Flesh, Drank Blood Of Jewish Guy
SOUTH BEND, IN—In a disturbing new report, CNN has revealed the bizarre practices of the strange cult Amy Coney Barrett belongs to. Known to some as "Christendom," it features many ancient rituals that were recorded by undercover CNN journalists at a strange stone building on Sunday where the...
babylonbee.com
Et Tu, Classmates? Barrett's Fellow College Alumni Resort to 'Hate Group' Smears Against ACB
The letter’s signatories say many of them were “contemporaries of, friends of, and even sorority sisters of Amy Coney Barrett” and that, “despite the respect that many of us hold for her intellect, and even the friendship that many of us held or continue to hold with her, we are firmly and passionately opposed to her nomination.”
In fact, the alumni declare themselves “firmly and passionately opposed to Rhodes administrators’ attempts to embrace Amy Coney Barrett as an alumna of our beloved alma mater. We oppose this embrace because we believe both her record and the process that has produced her nomination are diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service that we learned at Rhodes.”
Under the heading of “truth,” the alumni accuse Barrett of having “obfuscated” her position and record on “issues related to Rhodes’ LGBTQ and female alumni.” ACB’s former classmates note that the nominee pledged to uphold Supreme Court precedent — such as Roe v. Wade (1973) — during her confirmation hearings for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in a 2013 Texas Law Review article, she said: “a justice’s duty is to the Constitution” and therefore it would be legitimate to strike down a precedent in conflict with the Constitution.
The letter’s signatories say many of them were “contemporaries of, friends of, and even sorority sisters of Amy Coney Barrett” and that, “despite the respect that many of us hold for her intellect, and even the friendship that many of us held or continue to hold with her, we are firmly and passionately opposed to her nomination.”
In fact, the alumni declare themselves “firmly and passionately opposed to Rhodes administrators’ attempts to embrace Amy Coney Barrett as an alumna of our beloved alma mater. We oppose this embrace because we believe both her record and the process that has produced her nomination are diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service that we learned at Rhodes.”
Under the heading of “truth,” the alumni accuse Barrett of having “obfuscated” her position and record on “issues related to Rhodes’ LGBTQ and female alumni.” ACB’s former classmates note that the nominee pledged to uphold Supreme Court precedent — such as Roe v. Wade (1973) — during her confirmation hearings for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in a 2013 Texas Law Review article, she said: “a justice’s duty is to the Constitution” and therefore it would be legitimate to strike down a precedent in conflict with the Constitution.
Democrats want to take their ball and go home.
The Constitution sets out the process for filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court. The president nominates a replacement, the Senate provides “advice and consent,” and then lawmakers vote.
But Democrats, who are in the minority in America’s highest legislative chamber, don’t want to play the game anymore.
Supreme Court nominees usually meet with senators from both parties, but this time around, Democrats are refusing to sit down with President Trump’s nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) won’t meet with Barrett, saying on Sunday, “I believe first the whole process has been illegitimate. And second, because she’s already stated that she is for overturning the ACA [Affordable Care Act], I will not meet with her.”
Schumer, who says the GOP “will have stolen two Supreme Court seats” if Barrett is confirmed, is joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Maize Hirono (D-HI), in refusing to meet with the nominee. “I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes,” Blumenthal said Sunday on Twitter.
The Constitution sets out the process for filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court. The president nominates a replacement, the Senate provides “advice and consent,” and then lawmakers vote.
But Democrats, who are in the minority in America’s highest legislative chamber, don’t want to play the game anymore.
Supreme Court nominees usually meet with senators from both parties, but this time around, Democrats are refusing to sit down with President Trump’s nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) won’t meet with Barrett, saying on Sunday, “I believe first the whole process has been illegitimate. And second, because she’s already stated that she is for overturning the ACA [Affordable Care Act], I will not meet with her.”
Schumer, who says the GOP “will have stolen two Supreme Court seats” if Barrett is confirmed, is joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Maize Hirono (D-HI), in refusing to meet with the nominee. “I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes,” Blumenthal said Sunday on Twitter.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Guess I don't understand this stance. If you believe it was illegitimate to wait to confirm, and thus a stolen seat, then ACB's potential seat wouldn't be stolen. If you believe it's not right to appoint in an election year, then Kavanaugh's seat was not stolen.
Either way you look at it they could only argue for one seat being stolen without contradicting themselves.