You, the American people, don't deserve to know

[HALL85]

If you want to reduce it to that so you can sit on your high horse that you couldn't vote for politics as usual over insanity, sure.

You know the definition of “insanity”. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[Stevie_H]

So, kicking the can down the road...

LOL! Disingenuous much? This is too rich, even for you.

 

[HALL85]

LOL! Disingenuous much? This is too rich, even for you.

How so? This should be interesting. Cue the rant.

 

[Merge]

You know the definition of “insanity”. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is not the definition of insanity.

insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Like when the president tweets that Obama and Biden conspired to kill Navy seals and killed an Osama Bin Laden lookalike... That actually meets the definition of insanity.

Yeah, so hard to decide. On one hand, the president is insane. On the other hand, Biden is "politics as usual"...

 

[HALL85]

There are more than two choices you know.

 

[Merge]

There are more than two choices you know.

There are only two possible people who would be sworn in on January 20th.
If you have a preference in the outcome. Choose.
If you don't prefer one to the other, there are other options.

 

[shu09]

There are only two possible people who would be sworn in on January 20th.
If you have a preference in the outcome. Choose.
If you don't prefer one to the other, there are other options.

It's also possible that Mike Pence or Kamala Harris could be sworn in on January 20th.

 

[Stevie_H]

How so? This should be interesting. Cue the rant.

Keep up the charade. It’s not painfully transparent and embarrassing. Really...

 

[HALL85]

Keep up the charade. It’s not painfully transparent and embarrassing. Really...

Just as I predicted....

 

[Merge]

It's also possible that Mike Pence or Kamala Harris could be sworn in on January 20th.

While very unlikely, that is true. If they were both at the top of the ticket, I would have a very different opinion of how I should vote. As it stands, I believed I needed to vote against Trump and voted accordingly.

I think a certain poster (not you) is just trying to pretend he is anti-Trump, rationalizing why he shouldn't vote for Biden, and is chastising someone else because they are voting for the candidate they prefer but don't 100% support.

 

[SHUSA]

were at the point where writing in Kanye might be more sane than the other two options 🤪

 

[cernjSHU]

were at the point where writing in Kanye might be more sane than the other two options 🤪

Not even in jest this should be spoken.

 

[SHallguy2]

One is transparently ignorant and the other transparently deceptive. I will vote ignorant. Funny how the human mind works, everyone has a breaking point. Although there’s a part of me that wants to see Kamala and Kim walking hand in hand. If Biden gets in we can finally go back to issues that matter. Who will use what bathroom? I cannot wait until it’s over, we should know inside the next year.

 

[Hallsome]

All confirmation hearing are little more than political grandstanding. Nominees do not answer any questions concerning constitutional issues. So what do you actually learn at these hearings? That they may know the law and how to avoid questions? Unfortunately, the Dems had an avenue of attack on Barrett but they blew it. Her lack of experience of actual practicing law is frightening. Those who spend their life in academia are locked in a mindset because they can be. This nominee seems to be in that mold. She is no doubt very intelligent and familiar with the law. But, without practical experience, you have no idea how the application of the law affects people. Their experience comes solely from a book and law review articles. To me, she should not be confirmed due to her lack of practical experience. Why in the world would the Dems not attack this is beyond me.

Did they actually think her huge three years of experience as an Appellate Court judge gave her the necessary practical experience? It is a pathetic pick not for the reasons proposed by the Dems but for the reasons I have set forth. Those who lack practical experience should not be on the bench. Heck, there is the survey in the national judicial college for state trial judges to have at least 10 years of trial experience. Lol, according to that, Barrett lacks the experience to be the model trial judge in the state system. This is a disturbing trend going on in the courts.

It’s not a problem because there’s recent precedent for no experience practicing: kagan.

 

[Hallsome]

Kagen actually has a little more practical experience. Her work in a law firm was too brief too merit her ascendency to the Supreme Court. Yes she spent much of her career in academia at Harvard. But here is what sets her apart. She did work for White House Counsel and more importantly as Solicitor General of the United States and argued 6 cases before the Supreme Court. Yes she is an academic as well but arguing 6 cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General get you over the finish line. I would say but for that experience as Solicitor General, I would agree with that she did not have the proper experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. The. Solicitor General position is one of the most prestigious jobs any attorney can be placed in. The fact that she argued that many cases before the SC, in my opinion is enough. However, I would understand that her experience in the practice of law was too limited to be on the bench as well

She was SG for one year. Never was a judge.
6 cases?

 

[Hallsome]

Kagen actually has a little more practical experience. Her work in a law firm was too brief too merit her ascendency to the Supreme Court. Yes she spent much of her career in academia at Harvard. But here is what sets her apart. She did work for White House Counsel and more importantly as Solicitor General of the United States and argued 6 cases before the Supreme Court. Yes she is an academic as well but arguing 6 cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General get you over the finish line. I would say but for that experience as Solicitor General, I would agree with that she did not have the proper experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. The. Solicitor General position is one of the most prestigious jobs any attorney can be placed in. The fact that she argued that many cases before the SC, in my opinion is enough. However, I would understand that her experience in the practice of law was too limited to be on the bench as well

She was unqualified to be SG.

 

[HALL85]

She was unqualified to be SG.

Going down the path to prove ACB wasn't qualified would have been a waste of time. She's getting confirmed, so it didn't matter. Instead of trying to prove that she was a bad choice (which she's not), they chose to focus the hearings on campaign issues. I can't blame them because that's really all they had.

 

[Section112]

The reality is no one knows how she will vote. Roberts has broken with conservative judges many times and he was a Bush appointee. Kagen was an Obama appointee and has sided with conservatives on occasion. Gorsuch was a Trump appointee and he voted correctly IMO for LGBT rights in the workplace. Until she hits the court no one really knows how she will vote. All the rest is simply speculation. She is brilliant, has a diverse family and is a Mom with scruples. I think she is gonna be a great judge!