Amy Coney Barrett

[iLunar]

Here we go. Masterful unpacking of the GOP's whine about court packing. You just can't beat Robert Reich for coming up with the data when the Rs try to take it all a bridge too far. He addressed Ted Cruz in particular.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1318337561866072064/

Mind if I cross post this in the dark zone? Hard to argue those figures.

 

[Eric]

Mind if I cross post this in the dark zone? Hard to argue those figures.

We encourage it.

 

[JayMysteri0]

We can expect this to be the norm, once Barrett is on the bench.

Supreme Court Blocks Curbside Voting In Alabama, An Option During Pandemic

The high court issued its order Wednesday night, over the dissent of the court's three liberal justices. The practice was intended to accommodate people with disabilities and at-risk individuals.

www.npr.org

The Supreme Court has sided with Alabama state officials who banned curbside voting intended to accommodate individuals with disabilities and those at risk from the COVID-19 virus.

The high court issued its order Wednesday night, without explanation, over the dissent of the court's three liberal justices.

At issue was the decision by the Alabama secretary of state to ban counties from allowing curbside voting, even for those voters with disabilities and those for whom COVID-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal.

Several at-risk voters challenged the ban at the beginning of May. After a three-day trial, a federal district court ruled that the ban on curbside voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that a policy allowing but not requiring counties to implement curbside voting was a reasonable accommodation under the law.

A federal appeals court upheld the ruling, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court to block the lower court decision from going into effect. Now the high court has granted the state's request for a stay of the lower court orders.

Some counties in Alabama wanted to permit curbside voting — allowing voters to vote from their cars at the curbside of the polling place and to hand their ballots to a poll worker. Jefferson and Montgomery counties sought to allow curbside voting so that vulnerable voters who wished to vote in person would not have to wait inside in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear masks. But the secretary of state's ban prevented this accommodation, and the Supreme Court's five-justice conservative majority has, for now, sided with the secretary of state.

Dissenting from the high court's action were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Writing for the three, Sotomayor noted that John Merrill, the Alabama secretary of state, "does not meaningfully dispute that the plaintiffs have disabilities, that COVID-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal to these plaintiffs, and that traditional-in-person voting will meaningfully increase their risk of exposure."

Moreover, said Sotomayor, in-person voting is considerably easier than voting by mail in Alabama. At the polls, voters with disabilities receive assistance from poll workers; they need no witnesses, notaries, or copies of their photo IDs, as Alabama law requires for absentee ballots, and they know their ballots will not arrive too late to be counted.

In addition, she noted, curbside voting has been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic, and the Justice Department has approved it as well as a way to prevent violations of the ADA.

Sotomayor concluded the dissenting opinion by pointing to one of the plaintiffs in the case, Howard Porter Jr, a black man in his 70s who suffers from Parkinson's disease and asthma. In challenging the ban on curbside voting, Porter told the district court: So "many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don't mind dying to vote, I think we're past that time."

Don't get me started on the two other stories revealed about Barrett yesterday. It's clear why 45 went with this

 

[lizkat]

We can expect this to be the norm, once Barrett is on the bench.

I realize the high court is reluctant to interfere with a state's voting protocol since it is indeed the right of the states to manage that. But for the love of God can they not manage to make a narrow ruling in the case of a global pandemic? They seem to spend plenty of time ensuring their other rulings are not overly broad, whether or not issued with attached written opinions.

Maybe Alabama secretary of state figured it would be too hard to round up two extra pollworkers per polling station... seems to me though in hard times, people go to extra lengths to be helpful and so there'd be no lack of volunteers to be trained how to fill in for curbside acceptance of absentee ballots. Really all they'd need is a bipartisan couple of people to walk the ballot inside together for validation against the list of expected absentee mail-ins or drop-offs. Public service workers figure out more complicated things than that on the average morning before coffee break time.

 

[SuperMatt]

We can expect this to be the norm, once Barrett is on the bench.




Don't get me started on the two other stories revealed about Barrett yesterday. It's clear why 45 went with this

Without explanation. I guess there is no justification. Well, I've grown up used to 50 states and 9 justices. But that hasn't always been the case, so we should change it. 52 states and 13 justices sounds pretty good. Or find a way to block the crazy person about to take RBG's seat. This is reminiscent of the SCOTUS decisions I learned about that kept slavery in place or ok'd Jim Crow laws despite the constitution, not because of it.

 

[SuperMatt]

The GOP forced her nomination through the committee. All Democrats boycotted the vote. Obergefell and Hodges are both on the radio together this morning to jointly voice their opposition to this nomination.

 

[Eric]

The GOP forced her nomination through the committee. All Democrats boycotted the vote. Obergefell and Hodges are both on the radio together this morning to jointly voice their opposition to this nomination.

She's in and there's nothing we can do to stop it. If the dems win a majority they just need to stack it and if Republicans don't like it they can suck balls. It's time dems stop playing nice with those assholes and do what's necessary.

 

[iMi]

She's in and there's nothing we can do to stop it. If the dems win a majority they just need to stack it and if Republicans don't like it they can suck balls. It's time dems stop playing nice with those assholes and do what's necessary.

That’s a major problem I have with our party. They roll over and worry about optics, which just makes them look dishonest and calculating. Take a stand, for crying out loud. I remember when they were attacking Obama as being ineffective. He was ineffective because Republican Congress obstructed him every step of the way. He should have had a nightly press conference listing all the things Democrats are working on. Then Trump gets ”elected” and Republicans have the audacity to suggest Democrats were obstructing the President. Crickets. Say something!

We play way too nice, if you ask me.

 

[Eric]

That’s a major problem I have with our party. They roll over and worry about optics, which just makes them look dishonest and calculating. Take a stand, for crying out loud. I remember when they were attacking Obama as being ineffective. He was ineffective because Republican Congress obstructed him every step of the way. He should have had a nightly press conference listing all the things Democrats are working on. Then Trump gets ”elected” and Republicans have the audacity to suggest Democrats were obstructing the President. Crickets. Say something!

We play way too nice, if you ask me.

I recall recently seeing a preview for a documentary on the 2000 Bush v Gore election (not sure which network) and the person being interviewed said "Democrats wanted to do the right thing, Republicans wanted to win [sic]" and IMO that hit the nail on the head.

 

[ronntaylor]

This was ordained when The Mango Turd won in 2016. Dems need to stop being timid. No more talk about possible court packing. They should have plans set to implement the strategy as soon as they're in control again. And possible counter strategies when the GOP attacks their plans and/or they (Republicans) regain control. It has been a war with one side fighting as if in war. The Dems worry too damn much about appearances and not enough about results.

Should Biden win (with the Senate taken back by Dems) it will be a hard, uphill battle to undo the damage of the present occupier and Republican thuggery since the 1980s. They don't need to get in each others way and they should totally ignore Republicans. No matter what Dems do, there will her howling hypocrites on the other side. The ACA fight should be studied for what not to do.

 

[JayMysteri0]

 

[JayMysteri0]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1320420444810350594/

 

[SuperMatt]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1320420444810350594/

Based on that statement by Mitch, I encourage aggressive reforms to:
Rebalance the SCOTUS
Give voting rights to DC and Puerto Rico
Protect voting rights of those disenfranchised by the SCOTUS strike-down of the Voting Rights Act by passing a new one
Mitch thinks he can cheat by not approving any judges for the last 2 years of Obama's presidency, then jam through hundreds of them under Trump, including 3 SCOTUS picks? Time to play hardball and smack him down even harder in 2021.

 

[Thomas Veil]

So somebody explain this to me.

Republicans advance Barrett's Supreme Court nomination after Democrats boycott committee vote​

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination after Democrats boycotted the vote.

The panel voted 12-0 to send Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate, paving the way for President Trump’s nominee to be confirmed to the Supreme Court early next week. Every Republican on the panel supported her nomination and no Democratic senator voted.

Every GOP senator was present for the vote, meeting the committee's rule that 12 members of the panel must be present to report a nomination to the full Senate.

But the committee also requires two members of the minority party to be present in order to conduct business. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), however, made it clear that he would move forward regardless of the committee's rules.

"As you know, our Democratic colleagues informed the committee last night that they will not participate in the hearing. That was their choice. It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. We're not going to allow them to take over the committee," Graham said on Thursday.

My bold.

So does that in any way de-legitimize the vote to advance the nomination of Barrett?

 

[Huntn]

So somebody explain this to me.

Republicans advance Barrett's Supreme Court nomination after Democrats boycott committee vote​

My bold.

So does that in any way de-legitimize the vote to advance the nomination of Barrett?

It depends if “Senate rules” have the force of law. In other words, they have to follow existing rules until those rules are officially altered by the Senate. If that by chance is the case, and this can be taken to court, then maybe it could be overturned. Of course Barrett would have to recuse herself, but in this GOP rules are made to be broken atmosphere, I can’t predict an outcome.

 

[Alli]

Well, it’s a done deal. They just confirmed her.

 

[Alli]

Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court, cementing its conservative majority — The Washington Post

President Trump’s third nominee secured her seat on the court with only Republican votes.

apple.news

 

[Thomas Veil]

It depends if “Senate rules” have the force of law. In other words, they have to follow existing rules until those rules are officially altered by the Senate. If that by chance is the case, and this can be taken to court, then maybe it could be overturned. Of course Barrett would have to recuse herself, but in this GOP rules are made to be broken atmosphere, I can’t predict an outcome.

That’s the thing. Could you imagine months or years from now somebody argues that the Senate never officially changed its rules to allow that vote, therefore rendering it—and any 5-4 decisions since—null and void?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Would be funny if she flips.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Would be funny if she flips.

I don't think she will flip, but if 45 administration can't make some clear cut iron clad case for involving the Supreme Court, I don't seem them weighing in the way 45 imagines. I see the individuals this administration has nominated are more likely to go "I got MY LIFETIME job SUCKER, we DON'T need you anymore to F shit up! We got this now! BYE!"