Octopus Overlords

If you want to make a point that this *is* partisan...this is the way you go. It is intended to show us that they have the power and we don't.

I think it’s safe to change the title of the thread to just “The War for the SC is dead” now. We would need more than a couple 11th hour John McCain “fuck you’s” at this point if my math is correct.

Yeah, there's not much the Democrats can do to stop Amy going through. She's supremely qualified, and while McConnell is a hypocritical bastard, he's a hypocritical bastard that knows the game very, VERY well. I mean, I guess we can try "the Kavanough Treatment MK 2"....but that didn't work so well the first time, and I think it's going to play even worse against Amy, unless we can actually find video of her eating babies or something.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:39 pm She's supremely qualified.

I need to see the receipts on this.

Honestly, when they blocked Obama's pick we all knew it was a cheap ploy, and not a rule they would ever apply to themselves. It was entirely obvious then. People now seem shocked that the party who has held on to power by breaking the rules is breaking a pseudo-rule they invented themselves.

It's like the shocked posts that suggest that Trump is bad, or Trump is dishonest.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:42 pmI need to see the receipts on this.

What exactly are you looking for?

She graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes. She THEN graduated first in her class at Norte Dame while serving as an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She clerked for the D.C. Circuit, THEN she clerked for Scalia. She practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, then went on to become a professor at Norte Dame, where she's been published in pretty much every legal review of note in the country. Her students love her - she's been named "Professor of the Year" 3 times in 10 years. And she did all of this while raising 7 children.

I can understand not agreeing with her political affiliation, but in terms of sheer qualification....I'm honestly not sure how you beat something like this. She's clearly brilliant. She's accomplished more in her life than most lawyers ever do, and she's not even 50.

It's important not to forget that she has made political statements that undercut one of the most important qualifications. Apolitical judicial temperance. A problem with Kavanaugh as well -- well just his temperance in general. They are smart, followed the rules, and got themselves into positions of power but they will undercut public faith in the Institution. But luckily on paper they are qualified.

Little Raven wrote:Yeah, there's not much the Democrats can do to stop Amy going through. She's supremely qualified, and while McConnell is a hypocritical bastard, he's a hypocritical bastard that knows the game very, VERY well. I mean, I guess we can try "the Kavanough Treatment MK 2"...

Do you think Kavanaugh is supremely qualified? (Serious q, I have no idea, but I sure hated his temperament from what I saw. Hopefully that doesn’t speak to his judicial chops).

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:03 pmI can understand not agreeing with her political affiliation, but in terms of sheer qualification....I'm honestly not sure how you beat something like this. She's clearly brilliant. She's accomplished more in her life than most lawyers ever do, and she's not even 50.

As a "pracademic", I perhaps don't place nearly as much weight on people that are well versed in theory but have little to no actual experience. I say this because I'm surrounded by people that have spent their entire careers in academia but have no hands on, practical application of the knowledge they've mastered. I have nothing but respect for my peers that publish research and comment on theory and how things are supposed to work. I have also relied on their publications to guide my practice - I don't want to minimize their efforts or contributions in any way.

But as near as I can tell she has less than 3 years of actual experience on the bench. You'll excuse me if I don't believe she's "highly qualified" then to render decisions for entire swaths of the American population. If she had decades+ of cases she's ruled over so we could all see how she actually applies her academic background, that would be quite helpful. But I don't think it's an accident that she doesn't have a particularly long record of rulings to pick through and question.

I'll admit I'm absolutely biased because she's also part of a fringe religious group (to put in nicely), but showcasing teaching / academic knowledge and clerkship don't win me over (as if I matter).

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:39 pm

Little Raven wrote:Yeah, there's not much the Democrats can do to stop Amy going through. She's supremely qualified, and while McConnell is a hypocritical bastard, he's a hypocritical bastard that knows the game very, VERY well. I mean, I guess we can try "the Kavanough Treatment MK 2"...

Do you think Kavanaugh is supremely qualified? (Serious q, I have no idea, but I sure hated his temperament from what I saw. Hopefully that doesn’t speak to his judicial chops).

To borrow a page from Trump's rulebook, he did not "act judicial". His public testimony was basically the a job interview, and in a job interview outbursts alone should have disqualified him.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:39 pmDo you think Kavanaugh is supremely qualified?

Kavanaugh was certainly qualified - as in, he had done all the things we expect Supreme Court justices to have done. He had graduated from a prestigious law school, (Yale) clerked for the various Courts, (including the Supreme Court) and worked on some high-profile legal investigations. But he was nowhere near the superstar that Amy is. Before joining the Court, Kavanaugh had a record of respectable but not awesome performance, in what were admittedly difficult tasks. But Amy simply excels at everything she touches.

In terms of qualification, Amy leaves Kavanaugh in the dust.

WaPo posts a pre-Supreme Court career hagiography written by one of her former colleagues. He has been quoted in ... at least 4 sources so they are pushing friends forward to get positive press on her. As usual the GOP has their media game locked in tight.

He is ardently pro-life so take his thoughts on what liberals fear with the proper amount of table salt.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:45 pmBut as near as I can tell she has less than 3 years of actual experience on the bench.

Kagan had literally never served on the bench at all when Obama nominated her. Should that have disqualified her? As far as I can tell, she's done a pretty good job.

I'm pretty confused here - why is anyone getting getting tied up about her judicial qualifications? It is a side story. Of course, she is qualified. This is a critical moment. They've been hoping for it. They weren't going to push someone in that would have the perfect, impeccable background and have impact. And impact in the way they want. That is the point after all. The societal level details are way more important IMO. Her appointment will have bad ends at society scale.

Most of those things aren’t qualifications for anything, let alone a presumably 35-40+ year appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I don’t care anything about her performance in college. I don’t care if her students love her. I don’t even care if she teaches law at Norte Dame or has practiced law.

I care about her performance and experience judging cases. Something you didn’t even mention. She’s been on the 7th circuit for three years.

I’m not saying that she’s NOT qualified. I’m saying that she’s clearly not supremely qualified. If you want to know what that looks like, look up Merrick Garland.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:07 pm I don’t care anything about her performance in college. I don’t care if her students love her. I don’t even care if she teaches law at Norte Dame or has practiced law.

OK, dammit. I didn't say peep when it was spelled Norte instead of Notre, not once, but TWICE above your post, by the same person. First one I chalked up to auto-correct error, the second one raised my eyebrow and I had to tamp down the pedantic.

BUT THREE, AND BY A DIFFERENT PERSON, IS TOO MUCH BY JOVE! I must not let this spread!!

NORTE = "North" in Spanish.
NOTRE = "Our" in French, i.e. Notre Dame

Unless you are trying to say North Mother, which sounds like a great band name, but not so much for a university or cathedral.

Also, LR:
"But he was nowhere near the superstar that Amy is."
"But Amy simply excels at everything she touches."
"In terms of qualification, Amy leaves Kavanaugh in the dust."


Are *you* "Amy"? (or one of her clerks)

As a side note, I have to wonder if these antics have shaken Biden's belief that the Republicans will work with him if and when he becomes President? I mean if he still believes it. He may need to realize he can aspire to be a 'peacemaking' President and God knows we need it but he may have to become a 'war' President. In the political sense.

I blame autocorrect.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:59 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:45 pmBut as near as I can tell she has less than 3 years of actual experience on the bench.

Kagan had literally never served on the bench at all when Obama nominated her. Should that have disqualified her? As far as I can tell, she's done a pretty good job.

I'll fully admit I don't recall how her complete lack of bench time was received. Regardless, technically qualified doesn't mean they will be good as a Supreme Court Justice and quite frankly I'm amazed that anyone could be nominated and reviewed as such unless they had significant history as an actual judge.

malchior wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:29 pm It's important not to forget that she has made political statements that undercut one of the most important qualifications. Apolitical judicial temperance. A problem with Kavanaugh as well -- well just his temperance in general. They are smart, followed the rules, and got themselves into positions of power but they will undercut public faith in the Institution. But luckily on paper they are qualified.

I seem to remember RBG making some rather political statements the last few years. And I suspect if we look close enough, we can find other justices having done so either before or after their appointments.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:03 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:42 pmI need to see the receipts on this.

What exactly are you looking for?

She graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes. She THEN graduated first in her class at Norte Dame while serving as an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She clerked for the D.C. Circuit, THEN she clerked for Scalia. She practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, then went on to become a professor at Norte Dame, where she's been published in pretty much every legal review of note in the country. Her students love her - she's been named "Professor of the Year" 3 times in 10 years. And she did all of this while raising 7 children.

I can understand not agreeing with her political affiliation, but in terms of sheer qualification....I'm honestly not sure how you beat something like this. She's clearly brilliant. She's accomplished more in her life than most lawyers ever do, and she's not even 50.

Have you seen her elbows?

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pmI'll fully admit I don't recall how her complete lack of bench time was received.

We had a thread on it.

Nobody seemed to care much. There was literally more speculation about her sexual orientation than her judicial chops.

Grifman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:10 pm

malchior wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:29 pm It's important not to forget that she has made political statements that undercut one of the most important qualifications. Apolitical judicial temperance. A problem with Kavanaugh as well -- well just his temperance in general. They are smart, followed the rules, and got themselves into positions of power but they will undercut public faith in the Institution. But luckily on paper they are qualified.

I seem to remember RBG making some rather political statements the last few years. And I suspect if we look close enough, we can find other justices having done so either before or after their appointments.

I'm not saying they can't participate in our democracy. Not all comments are created equally though. Barrett specifically argued against seating Garland then went on to accept a nomination in *worse* circumstances. She has made other political comments such as the one that *all abortion* is amoral. There isn't a whole lot of leeway there.

I expect every judge to have political views. I think they have the freedom to express them as long as they are in a measured way. However, with the SCOTUS they are in position of amazing power and have to consider the impact on the legitimacy of the Court. I don't think we had many RBG comments that were especially controversial. Yet we have one from Barrett that undercuts her from the get go.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:37 pmAre *you* "Amy"? (or one of her clerks)

No, I'm just a lowly civil servant in Austin, with a crippling weakness for intelligent women.

But I do confess that I was very disappointed when Trump chose Kavanaugh instead of Amy last time around. I don't hate Kavanaugh or anything...he seems to be perfectly decent at his job. But I could not understand why you choose Kavanaugh OVER Amy. Still don't, honestly.

She can think it’s amoral all day, every day. If it doesn’t interfere with her ability to determine if it’s illegal, then that’s fine.

Isgrimnur wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:19 pm She can think it’s amoral all day, every day. If it doesn’t interfere with her ability to determine if it’s illegal, then that’s fine.

Oh I don't disagree and she may very well have evolved on it in 20+ years since she wrote it. However, I more was saying that some comments just have more weight. That was just an example of one that has had more oompf than say some assign to RBG -- discounting the hyperbole from the right. The one RBG one I can think of off the top of my head is a somewhat ambiguous comment she made about Trump that she didn't “even want to contemplate” what he'd mean for SCOTUS. That's pretty harmless. It certainly isn't something on the level that argued that we shouldn't seat Garland because it'll affect the balance of the court and then accede to a nomination that does just that. It just looks bad.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:04 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pmI'll fully admit I don't recall how her complete lack of bench time was received.

We had a thread on it.

Nobody seemed to care much. There was literally more speculation about her sexual orientation than her judicial chops.

Hmmm. I genuinely don't remember that, but it was also during the window of time when my daughter was a toddler and I was fully engaged with keeping her alive.

I will note from Mr. Fed:

As a practitioner, I favor judges who have been practitioners, as well as appellate judges who have been trial-court judges. Practicalities bear on many legal issues, and people who haven't practiced or judged in the trial court don't always have a good grasp of practicalities.

Fun fact!

Yes, this is an actual thing that actual people are selling.

Marching orders are coming in.

Murkowski: “For weeks I have stated that I do not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election. But today the President exercised his constitutional authority..I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Supreme Court nominee, just as I did in” ‘16

This has been planned for years, they just needed all the pieces to fall in place. Trump got elected and all the pieces have fallen into place. Republicans can say all they want against Trump, it's what they do that matters. That's why I'm not shocked to see them all fall in line now that their goals are within reach. About the only Republicans who might actually take a different stance are the ones the party doesn't need, and who might need to appear defiant to stay in office. The party won't mind because their support on this is irrelevant and if they retain their seat it's to the party's benefit later.

Skinypupy wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:49 pm Yes, this is an actual thing that actual people are selling.

In this case, notorious is a literal description.

malchior wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:12 pm Fun fact!

Another fun fact!

Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts & Brett Kavanaugh all worked on George W. Bush‘s legal team during 2000 recount in Florida & worked to stop votes from being counted

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:17 pmAmy Coney Barrett, John Roberts & Brett Kavanaugh all worked on George W. Bush‘s legal team during 2000 recount in Florida & worked to stop votes from being counted

That's just a crazy coincidence that implies nothing about what really happened back then, nor does it imply anything about what's going on now, and it certainly doesn't imply anything about what will happen in coming years.

Don't Republicans have like hundreds of lawyers ready nationwide for Presidential elections? So that team might be bigger than one might think.

gameoverman wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:17 pmAmy Coney Barrett, John Roberts & Brett Kavanaugh all worked on George W. Bush‘s legal team during 2000 recount in Florida & worked to stop votes from being counted

That's just a crazy coincidence that implies nothing about what really happened back then, nor does it imply anything about what's going on now, and it certainly doesn't imply anything about what will happen in coming years.

It suggests to me that they would probably vote a certain way in a case like Bush v Gore.

Of course, the R next to their name would have also told me that.

She will help kill Obamacare. Sickening how a handful of retarded hateful little people can take away millions of peoples access to healthcare. When they do the next Dem Pres should put the entire healthcare system on the backs of only the rich.

Defiant wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:51 pmDon't Republicans have like hundreds of lawyers ready nationwide for Presidential elections? So that team might be bigger than one might think.

Many hundreds. As do the Democrats. I don't know the size of the legal teams assembled for Bush v Gore, but I'm sure they were enormous. It is true that the Bush campaign retained the services of Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, the law firm where Amy was working at the time, and she was one of the lawyers attached to the case. But she was a brand new lawyer just out of law school at the time, so she probably wasn't making any important decisions.

It is also true that, especially in the last few decades, people do not get considered for the Supreme Court without a certain amount of political involvement. Elana Kagan worked for Clinton, then became Obama's Solicitor General before being nominated. Sotomayor was part of the New York machine before she was raised to Federal consideration by Moynihan, who was convinced early on he could ultimately get her promoted to the Supreme Court. Even Garland was part of the Clinton administration. It tends to go with the territory for both parties - you have to have supporters within the party to push your name to the top of the list.

ACB is qualified and should sail through nomination hearings. The Biden campaign and the campaigns of every single Democrat running for Congress should beat the drum until it breaks that elections have consequences and every vote matters. It should energize the Democratic base like nothing else, and, on the other side, I don't think Trump and the GOP are going to be rewarded by energized Republican voters. Hard to muster much energy when you're feeling fat and happy and victorious.

About the only way the Dems can fuck this up is to try to Bork Barrett. So that's probably what they'll do . . .