Manu Raju:

No third round. Public hearing with Barrett is done. Now closed hearing over FBI background check. Tomorrow they’ll set up Oct. 22 committee vote. And tomorrow, outside witness testimony. Barrett won’t be present for that. “You will be confirmed, God willing,” Graham says

tomorrow at 9a the committee will hold an executive business meeting to formally consider the nomination. Dems will use their power to delay the committee vote til Oct. 22. After that meeting tomorrow, outside witnesses will testify about Barrett. Then the hearings are done

Amy Coney Barrett’s FBI background check had no red flags and senators say they are already done reviewing it after less than 10 minutes, per senators from each party

https://twitter.com/mkraju

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...ay-acb-vote-n2578128

"We're going to vote on the judge on October 22," Chairman Lindsey Graham informed his interrupting Democratic colleagues on Thursday.

Judging by his exhausted demeanor, Graham was fully expecting the Democratic panelists to try and stop the proceedings to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. First it was Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who told the chairman he could not move forward until at least another member of the minority was present. Then Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) interjected to introduce a motion to delay the vote.

"No, we're not going to do that," Graham said, shaking his head.

But the Democrats persisted, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) calling the process a "sham," and ranking member Dianne Feinstein accusing Republicans of tainting the integrity of the committee.

tainting the integrity of the committee. says a Democrat

"After Kavanaugh, everything's changed for me," said Graham

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
How many bites at the apple do these Dems get, I saw Klobachar and Booker yesterday then again today? I saw Cruz again today too.

Should be one block of time per Senator then close this stupid show down? There are 22 Senators as I understand on the Senate Judiciary committee. Lets move along!

HK Ag

My understanding of the process is that each Senator gets to make a 30-minute Opening Statement on Day One, and then on the subsequent days each one gets to ask questions.

flashguy

10 minute opening statement each Senator on day one.
30 minutes for each Senator to ask questions on day 2.
20 minutes each Senator to ask questions on day 3.
Day 4 is "expert witnesses."

My take on a few things.

Given that Her Honor May Coney Barrett, is not politically motivated, and has no politicol agenda to bring to the bench of the SCOTUS.

1. If ACA is so beneficial, Her Honor ACB's appointment would not matter. It is moot, but the clear message from the left is that they realize and admit by their testimony, that ACA will be brought to the SCOTUS and overturned because it was and is bad law. Therefore, the issue is simply a scare tactic.

2. Same for Abortion on the issue of good or bad law. It likely is settled law, and the left simply uses it as a scare tactic to manipulate voteers. Pure politicol, and nothing about the actual issue of women's "healthcare/choice".

3. Issues of equality. Noise and distraction, rolled up in the scary wrapping paper.

Her Honor ACB is as centered and driven by her target fixation on the Constitution and it's spirit and intent as written and ratified by the founders. I believe the fear of the left is that that founding fathers "speak from the grave" through Her Honor ACB's "voice".

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
My take on a few things.

Given that Her Honor May Coney Barrett, is not politically motivated, and has no politicol agenda to bring to the bench of the SCOTUS.

1. If ACA is so beneficial, Her Honor ACB's appointment would not matter. It is moot, but the clear message from the left is that they realize and admit by their testimony, that ACA will be brought to the SCOTUS and overturned because it was and is bad law. Therefore, the issue is simply a scare tactic.

Here's the irony of what these idiotic, narrow-minded democrats are arguing for when they say that confirming .50BMG to the Supreme Court would guarantee the death of the ACA. The court as it is now would likely vote 4-4 to strike it down, if there was no severability. That's a tie for all the leftists listening. A tie means that the lower Court ruling would stand. If I'm not mistaken, the lower court completely struck down the law. So, with a 4-4 ruling, Obamacare is toast. With .50BMG on the court, there is at least a chance it might survive in some fashion.

Either way, all this completely irrelevant arguing about the ACA is moot. Dumbasses.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
2. Same for Abortion on the issue of good or bad law. It likely is settled law, and the left simply uses it as a scare tactic to manipulate voteers. Pure politicol, and nothing about the actual issue of women's "healthcare/choice".

Great points and yes, it's settled law, yet, the Left is so insistent that the judicial body can simply make arbitrary rulings without a case.
Given that SCOTUS' function is to rule on laws brought before the body after they work it's way through all the other judicial bodies...is there ANY abortion cases that are remotely close to becoming case before the SCOTUS?
My understanding is there are none, and what is out there are, bouncing around at the state level; to reach SCOTUS would take many years of reviews and rulings not to mention acceptance by the courts.

The 22nd????? So much for 3 days, Lindsey. That doesn't even account for the floor for the full Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
2. Same for Abortion on the issue of good or bad law. It likely is settled law, and the left simply uses it as a scare tactic to manipulate voters. Pure political, and nothing about the actual issue of women's "healthcare/choice".

Great points and yes, it's settled law, yet, the Left is so insistent that the judicial body can simply make arbitrary rulings without a case.
Given that SCOTUS' function is to rule on laws brought before the body after they work it's way through all the other judicial bodies...is there ANY abortion cases that are remotely close to becoming case before the SCOTUS?
My understanding is there are none, and what is out there are, bouncing around at the state level; to reach SCOTUS would take many years of reviews and rulings not to mention acceptance by the courts.

I take a different view on the question of "settled law". While I understand that Roe v. Wade was decided nearly 50 years ago, and is precedent not likely to be overturned anytime soon and I acknowledge that there are probably no current cases headed to the Court which would challenge that decision, I would submit that there is really no such thing as "settled law".

Law making is a legislative function and therefore a reflection of the current mores and opinions of the electorate. These change over time. Slavery was once considered "settled law" too although it was always controversial. Many considered it an immoral abomination and over time a growing number of people came to consider it unacceptable.

she is my wife's new 'hero'

she loves seeing a strong conservative woman intelligently stand up for herself and expose libs for the fools they are

-------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:...I would submit that there is really no such thing as "settled law". ...

I do not disagree, and pretty much apply the term to imply that it will not be "overturned" simply by putting the Judge in the SCOTUS. Not that the law cannot be overturned, but the process would be a very long and lengthy battle, and likely be argued/re-argued as one or more Justices retire or pass away.

Making it de facto "settled law".

I should have clarified, but I really have to make an effort to use fewer words, (and sometime leave out pertinent stuffs) as I can fill up the internet and crash the bitch, if I don't throttle the keyboard... (these monkey paws smashing keys at random for an infinite amount of time and such as...)

Roe is pretty much safe, ergo, moot BS argument used by the GDCs to scare and ensure panic votes.

I agree that the Roe v. Wade issue is moot and "settled law", but I do have the Scalia view that it was improperly ruled.

flashguy

So back to the beginning. Its all bullshit, whoops Bullshit. with the capital B. Just commies trying to have their way.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Roe v. Wade issue is moot and "settled law", but I do have the Scalia view that it was improperly ruled.

No question that SCOTUS "made law" with this ruling which is the purview of Congress and not the Court. As such I believe it can be overturned on that basis as it really isn't "settled law" of any sort.

quote:

Her Honor ACB is as centered and driven by her target fixation on the Constitution and it's spirit and intent as written and ratified by the founders. I believe the fear of the left is that that founding fathers "speak from the grave" through Her Honor ACB's "voice".

This is the bare bones reason for the lefts resistance. They’ve made it clear that they have nothing but disdain for the Constitution. Openly. Having a true Constitutional scholar that will be around for decades would be a heavy blow to their plans.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Her Honor ACB is as centered and driven by her target fixation on the Constitution and it's spirit and intent as written and ratified by the founders. I believe the fear of the left is that that founding fathers "speak from the grave" through Her Honor ACB's "voice".

This is the bare bones reason for the lefts resistance. They’ve made it clear that they have nothing but disdain for the Constitution. Openly. Having a true Constitutional scholar that will be around for decades would be a heavy blow to their plans.

Of course the left hates the Constitution. It was written by white males, mostly Christian.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Her Honor ACB is as centered and driven by her target fixation on the Constitution and it's spirit and intent as written and ratified by the founders. I believe the fear of the left is that that founding fathers "speak from the grave" through Her Honor ACB's "voice".

This is the bare bones reason for the lefts resistance. They’ve made it clear that they have nothing but disdain for the Constitution. Openly. Having a true Constitutional scholar that will be around for decades would be a heavy blow to their plans.

Of course the left hates the Constitution. It was written by white males, mostly Christian.

Many of whom were also slave owners, to boot. . . .

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Her Honor ACB is as centered and driven by her target fixation on the Constitution and it's spirit and intent as written and ratified by the founders. I believe the fear of the left is that that founding fathers "speak from the grave" through Her Honor ACB's "voice".

This is the bare bones reason for the lefts resistance. They’ve made it clear that they have nothing but disdain for the Constitution. Openly. Having a true Constitutional scholar that will be around for decades would be a heavy blow to their plans.

Of course the left hates the Constitution. It was written by white males, mostly Christian.

It was designed to limit the powers of the federal government so it would serve the people but never control them. That is the antithesis of the progressive agenda.

I thought she stated that Super Precedent was when a case makes a decision and then it is no longer debated and becomes precedent. She then went on to say that because Roe keeps coming up it cant be considered a super precedent case.

Helpful hint: a super precedent probably ought to stand comparison to Marshall v. Madison. Even cases on slavery weren't really finally resolved until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments had been litigated long after the Civil War.

Romney says he will vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court
Sen. Susan Collins maintains that she will not vote to confirm a nominee so close to the election

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...arrett-supreme-court

By Morgan Phillips | Fox News
Published 3 hours ago

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said he will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, after being the lone Republican to vote to convict President Trump during the impeachment hearings.

“After meeting with Judge Barrett and carefully reviewing her record and her testimony, I intend to vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court," Romney said in a statement released Thursday. "She is impressive, and her distinguished legal and academic credentials make it clear that she is exceptionally well qualified to serve as our next Supreme Court justice.”

He added: “I am confident that she will faithfully apply the law and our Constitution, impartially and regardless of policy preferences.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, still maintains that she will not vote to confirm a nominee so close to the election, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ak., has not revealed how she will vote.

Barrett's fourth and final day of interrogation from Senators concluded Thursday, with the Senate Judiciary Committee voting on her nomination on Oct. 22 and the full Senate likely voting the following week.

In September, Romney said he would vote for a nominee based on their qualifications, not based on the hearing’s proximity to the election.

“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder," Romney, R-Utah, said in a September statement. "It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own."

The senator continued: “The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Romney expanded on his logic in subsequent comments to the press:

"We may have a court that has a more conservative bent," than it has had in recent decades, Romney said after his announcement. "But my liberal friends have over many decades gotten used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that's not written in the stars."

He added: "It's also appropriate for a nation that's if you will center-right to have a court which reflects center-right points of view. Which again are not changing the law from what it states but instead following the law and following the Constitution."