Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 42 Days Left


42 Day Poll  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Trump was +10 in TX at this time last year. Here is now +1 in TX. What does this probably mostly reflect?

    • That polls are way off this year.
    • That TX likes Biden way more than Clinton.
    • That TX dislikes Trump in 2020 more than they did in 2016.
    • This is larger than TX. This reflects a general growth of anti-Trump voters nationally.
  3. 3. Who Should Trump nominate to the Supreme Court? (He says he will pick someone Friday or Saturday and that they'll be a woman). Here's his presumed short-list:

    • Amy Coney Barrett - IN (She's 48, so will serve like 40 years. She's also a vocal religious conservative, somewhere between Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann.)
    • Barbara Lagoa - FL (She's 52. Cuban-American who could help Trump win FL. She's also very conservative, but with less of a religious emphasis. Federalist Society Member.)
    • Bridget Shelton Bade - AZ (She's 54. She was made a federal judge by Trump only last year. I'm not sure how conservative she is.)
    • Martha Pacold - IL (She's 41, so she could serve for half a century. She's a former member of the Federalist Society, but she's also probably the most moderate judge on this list. Could help win moderates for Trump.)
    • Allison Jones Rushing - NC (Only 37 years old. She'd serve for half a century. She's a current Federalist Society Member; therefore, likely very conservative).
    • Sarah Pitlyk - MO (She's 43. Could serve half a century. Former Kavanaugh clerk and Federalist Society member. The ABA voted her not qualified when Trump made her a federal judge last year.)
      0
    • Kate Todd - DC (One of Trump's Chief Counsel officers in the White House. Not much about her. Federalist Society Member. She looks like she's in her mid to early 40s.)
      0
  4. 4. Should Democrats Pack the Court if Trump gets a justice confirmed, despite the Merrick Garland precedence of 2016?

    • Yes, despite the fact that the GOP might pack the court in the future.
    • Yes, but also pass a law to prevent future court packing so GOP can't respond in kind.
    • No, but only because I don't like the precedence it will set for future court packing.
    • No, because it defies tradition and is too political.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0
  5. 5. Is it a problem that Trump's short list is composed of mostly women in their 40s to early 50s (and even one in her 30s!)?

    • No. A president is smart to pick someone who is youthful enough to serve for half a century, regardless of limited experience.
    • No. These are probably the most qualified female judges for the US Supreme Court.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's limiting himself to women.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's not selecting top legal minds, who are likely to have decades of experience and are probably 65+ years old.
    • Yes, there needs to be term limits, or an age range requirement, or a retirement age, so presidents aren't picking SC justices based on their youth.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are right about IN. She was born in LA. You are wrong about where I place her ideologically. She's a religious nut! 

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty. We have a really in

Enraged Conservatives by not wanting to look into credible allegations that immensely impeded his integrity (in fact, potentially called it into completely into question). If that was something that "

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

One thought: with Kavanaugh, Dems overplayed their hands and enraged conservatives. Both sides have to be careful not to do so this time around. A Dem smear campaign against a nominee (which either successfully derails or not) that nominee could make conservatives put aside all scruples with Trump and vote. And the nominee might be confirmed anyway (as in Kavanaugh's case).

Another thing I am wondering is what procedural tactics Pelosi and Schumer are considering to delay any vote. FWIW, if they can delay to Nov. 30th, Kelly might replace McSally in the Senate.

Pelosi has said a second impeachment isn't off the table to stop Trump. I'd imagine that'd actually play in Trump's favor though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

What in her record suggests to you she's a religious nut?

Anyone that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade primarily on religious grounds is a religious nut. If it is on the secular argument that it may be murder--unattached to reasons of religion--then that's a different argument. It is my belief that people like her, like Cruz, like Bachmann, and many social conservatives that are also Christian, have a hard time separating church and state. I think anything that inches us closer to anything resembling a theocratic state or a even unofficially a state of religion is frightening and sad. While religions can have values that are sound, wise, or good, political judgments should be made independent of faith, since we are not officially a Christian or even a religious nation. I expect judges to be secular in their judgments, since the secular, ideally, considers matters in a universal manner (which sometimes overlaps with the religions), while the religious will often consider the ethics and morals from a Christian's perspective. I'm sure all of the justices are Christian and faithful. I have no problem with that. My primary problem with Barrett is she comes from a small, questionable religious group that makes her potentially questionable as a justice in a secular government. Basically, I don't trust her, Cruz, or Bachmann to treat a transgendered Muslim person's rights equal to a paleo-Christian white Mississippi businessman. I think there is bias against LGBT, among women who are pregnant via rape, and other areas that are often discussed using religious rhetoric. I would say the same for an activist atheist or activist agnostic who might make arguments against religious people or religious ideas because they are religious ideas-- (i.e. anyone that uses their faith or non-faith rather than secular reasoning).  

Here are some links. She's very vocal of her views. I prefer justices that are not vocal about their politics or religion as it implies a bias not suitable for the Supreme Court:

https://in.reuters.com/article/usa-court-barrett-profile/newsmaker-potential-trump-supreme-court-pick-barrett-known-for-conservative-religious-views-idUSL2N2GH04V

This one brings up a reasonable question in regards to her "controversial religious views":

https://religionnews.com/2020/09/20/amy-coney-barrett-controversial-catholic-re-emerges-as-potential-supreme-court-pick/

Here is an article about how some people fear her ties to the small close-knit religious group:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

"Golden Girl of the Religious Right" That's enough to tag something as probably too religious to be a fair judge considering the "Religious Right" is the wedding of politics and religion: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amy-coney-barrett-golden-girl-of-religious-right-leads-race-for-court-seat-60fp6s9zn

In short, no justice should have these sorts of articles out about them. I'll be fair. As much as I liked RBG, I thought she was too political and too activist for the court. I can not see RBG weighing some cases fairly. I do not see a Justice Barrett weighing something fairly. I'd like to see in which cases she weighed in favor of someone that was seeking an abortion, for instance. Is the case for rape allowable? Life of the mother? A fetus that is likely to be severely mentally handicapped child who will be a vegetable for most of their short life span? A mother that is so impoverished that she can barely provide to feed herself and the child is likely to die before it is even born? A mother that is so drug addicted and alcohol addicted and prone to abusive behavior that the child is likely to be brain damaged and abused? There's probably dozens of other reasons. Is she across the board anti-abortion?

Does she believe in women's equality? 

Overall, can she be impartial. Merrick Garland was such a great pick because 1) experienced. 2) impartial (moderate). I don't want a Cruz-Bachmann on the court, especially one that is likely to be there for half a century. I'm reasonably okay with all of the other options in my poll. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade primarily on religious grounds is a religious nut

OK. Then your definition of a religious nut includes the large part of Christianity. This is a pretty weak statement.

However, the more relevant question IMHO isn't whether judge A, B, or C 'wants' to do what have you, but how they will rule based on their judicial philosophy. Will Barrett seek to uphold the law, or turn it towards her own 'wants', is to me the relevant question. Based on excerpts I've read, it seems she thinks her role is to uphold the law, not rule based on religious grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

One thought: with Kavanaugh, Dems overplayed their hands and enraged conservatives. Both sides have to be careful not to do so this time around. A Dem smear campaign against a nominee (which either successfully derails or not) that nominee could make conservatives put aside all scruples with Trump and vote. And the nominee might be confirmed anyway (as in Kavanaugh's case).

Another thing I am wondering is what procedural tactics Pelosi and Schumer are considering to delay any vote. FWIW, if they can delay to Nov. 30th, Kelly might replace McSally in the Senate.

I don't think they overplayed their hand in Kavanaugh's case. They overplayed in the case of Gorsuch. They should've saved ammunition against Kavanaugh. I know you disagree with me that he shouldn't have been on the Court, but in Democrats' case, a lot of Democratic voters were and are more opposed to Kavanaugh than they ever could be for Gorsuch. It made sense to fight Kavanaugh - the party's grassroots desperately wanted the rumble. 

Republicans have already given up the even idea of enraging liberals. It's too late. The fight is on, and there's nothing that can be done to stop it unless it's a very, very moderate judge. 

As for the impeachment thing, I doubt Pelosi will actually do that. She knows what she's doing and how to get under Trump's skin. An impeachment of Barr, however, could be in the cards as something to gum up the works. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Anyone that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade primarily on religious grounds is a religious nut. If it is on the secular argument that it may be murder--unattached to reasons of religion--then that's a different argument.

Luckily, much like myself and my boy Gorsuch, I don't think she does.

29 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Here are some links. She's very vocal of her views. I prefer justices that are not vocal about their politics or religion as it implies a bias not suitable for the Supreme Court:

https://in.reuters.com/article/usa-court-barrett-profile/newsmaker-potential-trump-supreme-court-pick-barrett-known-for-conservative-religious-views-idUSL2N2GH04V

This one brings up a reasonable question in regards to her "controversial religious views":

https://religionnews.com/2020/09/20/amy-coney-barrett-controversial-catholic-re-emerges-as-potential-supreme-court-pick/

Here is an article about how some people fear her ties to the small close-knit religious group:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

"Golden Girl of the Religious Right" That's enough to tag something as probably too religious to be a fair judge considering the "Religious Right" is the wedding of politics and religion: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amy-coney-barrett-golden-girl-of-religious-right-leads-race-for-court-seat-60fp6s9zn

I can never trust the media to accurately portray a complex jurisprudence in a headline. This is true of any jurist.

Again, I think the media has probably conducted its most successful hit job against mainstream conservative jurists and painting them to the right of Roy Moore.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

Pelosi has said a second impeachment isn't off the table to stop Trump. I'd imagine that'd actually play in Trump's favor though.

Yeah, the whole procedure was doomed too fail and therefore it was a waste of time. It is right to say this time and effort could have been used better with taking precautions when it was clear there is something out to hit America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Luckily, much like myself and my boy Gorsuch, I don't think she does.

I can never trust the media to accurately portray a complex jurisprudence in a headline. This is true of any jurist.

Again, I think the media has probably conducted its most successful hit job against mainstream conservative jurists and painting them to the right of Roy Moore.

 

@vcczar from the Reuters article, this is probably the thing that is the most threatening for me. 

In 2019, Barrett also voted for rehearing of a three-judge panel’s ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law before it went into effect. The measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents, as was allowed under existing law. The Supreme Court in July tossed out the ruling and ordered the matter to be reconsidered.

So the girl specifically asks that her parents not be involved (likely because they would force her to do what she didn't want to do), and let the court provide consent, which is specifically within her rights. The fact that she voted for a rehearing is, in itself, challenging precedent as it was allowed by law for her to do so. As well as this.

Abortion rights groups, worried about preserving the 1973 ruling that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion, point to a 2003 law journal article in which Barrett argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior “errors” in precedent.

If you're a liberal, there's more than enough there to be concerned about a woman's right to choose.

 
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Is there any significant reason to believe the nominee will actually be Barrett? Why is so much heat being put on Barrett? Is she just the most egregious from the lib perspective?

No, I just think many think she is the most likely to be chosen. He said it will be a woman, and she was heavily talked about when Kavanaugh was nominated. I doubt she'd be the most egregious choice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

@vcczar from the Reuters article, this is probably the thing that is the most threatening for me. 

In 2019, Barrett also voted for rehearing of a three-judge panel’s ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law before it went into effect. The measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents, as was allowed under existing law. The Supreme Court in July tossed out the ruling and ordered the matter to be reconsidered.

So the girl specifically asks that her parents not be involved (likely because they would force her to do what she didn't want to do), and let the court provide consent, which is specifically within her rights. The fact that she voted for a rehearing is, in itself, challenging precedent as it was allowed by law for her to do so. As well as this.

Abortion rights groups, worried about preserving the 1973 ruling that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion, point to a 2003 law journal article in which Barrett argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior “errors” in precedent.

If you're a liberal, there's more than enough there to be concerned about a woman's right to choose.

 

For sure. I've never once said that she isn't opposed to Roe. But when we as conservative jurists articulate our opposition to Roe, it has nothing to do with our rosaries being put upon ovaries and everything to do with science and ethics.

It stems from the idea that moving forward from the scientific truth that life begins at conception, we believe that ethically so too must personhood. Legally then, the 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law for all persons. This should include the unborn. I view it as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Unless the life of the mother is threatened, there is no reason to end a pregnancy. Ultimately what I'm looking for requires a change in culture. Doctors ought to uphold the hippocratic oath and defend the rights of the unborn and courts need to do the same. 

At the same time the right-wing religious nuts need to sit down and stop protesting outside abortion clinics. We need more comprehensive sex ed and greater access to birth control. Not to mention the complete overhaul of the predatory welfare state that leaves many women, particularly women of color, in a position where they feel as though abortion is their only option.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

For sure. I've never once said that she isn't opposed to Roe. But when we as conservative jurists articulate our opposition to Roe, it has nothing to do with our rosaries being put upon ovaries and everything to do with science and ethics.

It stems from the idea that moving forward from the scientific truth that life begins at conception, we believe that ethically so too must personhood. Legally then, the 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law for all persons. This should include the unborn. I view it as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Unless the life of the mother is threatened, there is no reason to end a pregnancy. Ultimately what I'm looking for requires a change in culture. Doctors ought to uphold the hippocratic oath and defend the rights of the unborn and courts need to do the same. 

At the same time the right-wing religious nuts need to sit down and stop protesting outside abortion clinics. We need more comprehensive sex ed and greater access to birth control. Not to mention the complete overhaul of the predatory welfare state that leaves many women, particularly women of color, in a position where they feel as though abortion is their only option.

 

I completely disagree until the third paragraph, and that's okay :) I'm glad that you agree that all of these things are needed more - honestly I'm surprised more conservatives aren't behind them, as they would definitely cut down on women needing abortions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

It stems from the idea that moving forward from the scientific truth that life begins at conception, we believe that ethically so too must personhood. Legally then, the 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law for all persons. This should include the unborn. I view it as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Unless the life of the mother is threatened, there is no reason to end a pregnancy. Ultimately what I'm looking for requires a change in culture. Doctors ought to uphold the hippocratic oath and defend the rights of the unborn and courts need to do the same.

I agree 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

I completely disagree until the third paragraph, and that's okay :) I'm glad that you agree that all of these things are needed more - honestly I'm surprised more conservatives aren't behind them, as they would definitely cut down on women needing abortions. 

I apologize. I was insensitive. I should not say that there is "no reason" to end a pregnancy. What I meant is that no reason beyond the life of the mother is enough to override the life and rights of unborn persons. Obviously, there are many reasons why women may feel abortion is right for them and it is those reasons that we must tackle as I outlined in that last paragraph.

Ultimately, even Ginsburg recognized that Roe was a bad opinion and it was a departure from precedent and how the law is written. It's why it was partially overturned in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

I always funny that we fight over Roe when in fact, Roe is not the controlling case for abortion jurisprudence and hasn't been for 25 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

If morally relevant life begins at conception, what is your view on birth control that prevents implantation?

I am opposed to anything that results in the death of a conceived child when it is not medically necessary to save the mother. Unfortunately that would mean Plan B as well. Obviously, some of these drugs are very important for other issues. For many women, birth control is healthcare and prevents their ovaries from rupturing or any numnber of ailments. Furthermore, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, we absolutely need abortifacient drugs because most medical physicians dont even consider those procedures abortions. Abortion is defined as the termination of a viable pregnancy. When a zygote implants in the fallopian tube or elsewhere outside the uterus, the termination of that unviable pregnancy becomes a necessary medical procedure and an unfortunate but necessary tragedy to preserve the life of the mother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I am opposed to anything that results in the death of a conceived child when it is not medically necessary to save the mother. Unfortunately that would mean Plan B as well.

Thanks for this - so would this include regular birth control pills that also sometimes prevent implantation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Thanks for this - so would this include regular birth control pills that also sometimes prevent implantation?

No, I would argue that an proactive birth control is a good faith effort to prevent conception where preventing implantation is not the goal but at times a side effect are permissible. Utlimately, many conceived children die and we don't even know it. So as long as we're making strides towards a culture of life and tolerance I am good. I'm not trying to impose a Handmaiden's tale on anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

But when we as conservative jurists articulate our opposition to Roe, it has nothing to do with our rosaries being put upon ovaries and everything to do with science and ethics.

It stems from the idea that moving forward from the scientific truth that life begins at conception, we believe that ethically so too must personhood. Legally then, the 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law for all persons. This should include the unborn. I view it as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Unless the life of the mother is threatened, there is no reason to end a pregnancy. Ultimately what I'm looking for requires a change in culture. Doctors ought to uphold the hippocratic oath and defend the rights of the unborn and courts need to do the same.

It's very easy to oppose abortion like this when you're well off enough to have a family doctor who will quietly take care of it when your daughter finds herself in trouble.  It's only when people who don't have that luxury go to publicly funded clinics that the shouting starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to TX, I think it's partly a reflection of anti-Trump sentiment, and partly a reflection of the state having move slowly but significantly leftward in the presidential elections over the last decade or two.  (In the same way Virginia did, and the way some of the midwestern states have been moving rightward).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

I've long wanted ACB on the court since her name first popped up on potential Justice lists. Think she's be great and might also very well help RGB's goal of a 9 woman Supreme Court. :).

How would you feel about having 9 male judges on the bench?

 

6 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty.

We have a really interesting trend in this country to portray very intelligent right-wing Justices as being a lot more extreme than they actually are.

Exactly this.  I still hear the same thing regarding the Tories in Canada regarding LGBT rights or abortion.  When I am there, I still hear so many people repeating the same old boogeyman myth that the CPC is going to take away your rights to an abortion or to get married if you are in a homosexual relationship, despite the official party platform making no mention of such.  It is like talking to a wall with these kinds of people, no matter how much proof you show them, it still does not convince them.  Are there individual members that would support such measures, yeah sure, but you can find them in the Liberal Party as well if you closely enough and in the right areas.  The CPC knows it would be political suicide to attempt such a thing, but people still believe the old boogeyman myth regardless. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

 

OK. Then your definition of a religious nut includes the large part of Christianity. This is a pretty weak statement.

However, the more relevant question IMHO isn't whether judge A, B, or C 'wants' to do what have you, but how they will rule based on their judicial philosophy. Will Barrett seek to uphold the law, or turn it towards her own 'wants', is to me the relevant question. Based on excerpts I've read, it seems she thinks her role is to uphold the law, not rule based on religious grounds.

Then based off your analysis of Barrett, do you think she upholds that law as ruled in Roe v Wade or do you think she seeks to overturn the law of the land? 

I don't think the majority of Christians care one way or another on abortion honestly. It's just the vocal social conservatives who have turned activist about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...