Trump announces Amy Coney Barrett as SCOTUS nomination to replace Ginsburg

[Ban Hammer 13,534]

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

 

Quote

CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

CNN also skipped multiple days of Barrett's confirmation hearing

Quote

 

MSNBC host Chris Hayes similarly stressed that 225,000 Americans are dead and not everyone is in a "celebratory mood" like President Trump is. 

While Fox News also covered the White House ceremony marking Barrett's confirmation uninterrupted, MSNBC cut away almost immediately after a brief mention and CNN cut away moments later only to jump in for Barrett's speech. 

CNN was also mocked for its onscreen graphic during its coverage of the ceremony that read, "TRUMP SUPREME CT NOMINEE ABOUT TO BE SWORN IN AT WHAT ANOTHER POTENTIAL SUPERSPREADER EVENT."

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc-skip-historic-senate-vote-confirming-amy-coney-barrett-to-supreme-court

 

People that want to see will see.. their self-imposed loss is someone else's gain. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

If anyone else noticed during his Barrett speech Trump had some subtle raspiness in his voice.. I just realized Trump spent the day doing 3 rallies earlier in Allentown, Lititz, and Martinsburg. My voice would be completely shot, this guy can literally talk all day long. 

[TBoneTX 46,116]

See separate thread (about the Allentown rally) that I just posted before seeing this.

The Pres. is reportedly going to run FOUR rallies on Tuesday.

He has more energy than two 30-year-olds.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Right away, Barrett's influence will be felt:

 

Quote

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Will Face Cases on Voting, Obamacare, Apportionment, Mueller Report

Newly-confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett will face several important cases upon taking her seat at the Supreme Court.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/26/justice-amy-coney-barrett-will-face-cases-on-voting-obamacare-apportionment-mueller-report/

 

She is going to be busy as hell in the coming week or two.

 

A big case coming up possibly as early as tomorrow when she takes her seat is the Pennsylvania lawsuit which SCOTUS rejected 4-4 (to take up) but is likely to see again in a more impactful way. No doubt lawsuits in other states will be coming within the next handful of days.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,790]

I was surprised by how the Dems reacted to this.  Sure we got all the rhetoric about rushing, but in history, there have been many SCOTUS Justices approved in very few days, so their rhetoric is simply bombast with no substance.  Now of course we hear about all the hypocrisy from the GOP, and there is some of that here, but if we use the logic of the Dems, no President should be able to appoint a SCOTUS Justice regardless of where they are in their term as there will be an election right around the corner.  Heck, there are already a few folks talking about 2024 now. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

50 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I was surprised by how the Dems reacted to this.  Sure we got all the rhetoric about rushing, but in history, there have been many SCOTUS Justices approved in very few days, so their rhetoric is simply bombast with no substance.  Now of course we hear about all the hypocrisy from the GOP, and there is some of that here, but if we use the logic of the Dems, no President should be able to appoint a SCOTUS Justice regardless of where they are in their term as there will be an election right around the corner.  Heck, there are already a few folks talking about 2024 now. 

I think that's a good idea. If Trump wins 2020 (which would bode well for his party keeping the Senate and retaking the House), that party had better think of 22 and 24. The last midterm of an incumbent President tends to be way worse for their party, and Republicans have the same amount of seats up, albeit less vulnerable ones. Two stand any decent chance of flipping (Toomey-PA and Johnson-WI) and far greater than the two that stand any chance on the Democrat side.. Cortez Masto (NV) and Hassan (NH). The Senate in 2024 atm looks preferable for Republicans like 2018 did.

 

Me, personally, thinking about 2024, and who they have as frontrunners so far (noting how much it can change) for President, I can already tell you how I'd consider several of them (along with others I've seen mentioned, but not sure if they're running):

 

More preferable: Tulsi Gabbard (D), Gary Johnson ( L)

Possible/Unknown: Mike Lee (R), Mike Pence (R), Tim Scott (R), Tucker Carlson (R)

Definite no: Nikki Haley (R), Ted Cruz (R), Marco Rubio (R), Mike Pompeo (R), Ben Sasse (R), Tom Cotton (R), Rick Scott (R), Kamala Harris (D), Cory Booker (D), Andrew Cuomo (D), Stacey Abrams (D), Amy Klobuchar (D), AOC (D), Gavin Newsom (D), Bill Weld (R/I/L), Gretchen Whitmer (D), Pete Buttigieg (D), Andrew Yang (D),  Bernie Sanders (D/I), Ivanka Trump (?), Donald Trump Jr. (?)

 

Damn forums and trying to convert the L to a heart. 🤣

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Right away, Barrett's influence will be felt:

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/26/justice-amy-coney-barrett-will-face-cases-on-voting-obamacare-apportionment-mueller-report/

 

She is going to be busy as hell in the coming week or two.

 

A big case coming up possibly as early as tomorrow when she takes her seat is the Pennsylvania lawsuit which SCOTUS rejected 4-4 (to take up) but is likely to see again in a more impactful way. No doubt lawsuits in other states will be coming within the next handful of days.

Actually two very big voting cases going to SCOTUS is about PA and NC. I know the NC one in depth because I live here so I will talk about that.

Earlier this year the General Assembly put together a bipartisan deal absentee ballot deal to help facilitate early voting, and the only sticking point with the Democrats was that they wanted it put into the law not allowing voter id. But the law was passed with bipartisan approval and signed into law by Herr Cooper. That law was immediately sued in court saying that "having a witness sign off on your ballot is to high a risk in the middle of a pandemic". It went through the court system and finally a agreement was reached with the voting commission in the state allowing for absentee ballots to be mailed by Nov 3rd and counted 12 days after the election. The Republican members of that commission immediately resigned due to receiving flak from the state party. So the state GOP party sued in court and now it has gone up to SCOTUS to rule on this. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Actually two very big voting cases going to SCOTUS is about PA and NC. I know the NC one in depth because I live here so I will talk about that.

Earlier this year the General Assembly put together a bipartisan deal absentee ballot deal to help facilitate early voting, and the only sticking point with the Democrats was that they wanted it put into the law not allowing voter id. But the law was passed with bipartisan approval and signed into law by Herr Cooper. That law was immediately sued in court saying that "having a witness sign off on your ballot is to high a risk in the middle of a pandemic". It went through the court system and finally a agreement was reached with the voting commission in the state allowing for absentee ballots to be mailed by Nov 3rd and counted 12 days after the election. The Republican members of that commission immediately resigned due to receiving flak from the state party. So the state GOP party sued in court and now it has gone up to SCOTUS to rule on this. 

Is this the right case? (or should I say, cases)

 

Wise v. Circosta / Moore v. Circosta

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wise-v-circosta/

Edited October 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,790]

17 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I think that's a good idea. If Trump wins 2020 (which would bode well for his party keeping the Senate and retaking the House), that party had better think of 22 and 24. The last midterm of an incumbent President tends to be way worse for their party, and Republicans have the same amount of seats up, albeit less vulnerable ones. Two stand any decent chance of flipping (Toomey-PA and Johnson-WI) and far greater than the two that stand any chance on the Democrat side.. Cortez Masto (NV) and Hassan (NH). The Senate in 2024 atm looks preferable for Republicans like 2018 did.

 

Me, personally, thinking about 2024, and who they have as frontrunners so far (noting how much it can change) for President, I can already tell you how I'd consider several of them (along with others I've seen mentioned, but not sure if they're running):

 

More preferable: Tulsi Gabbard (D), Gary Johnson ( L)

Possible/Unknown: Mike Lee (R), Mike Pence (R), Tim Scott (R), Tucker Carlson (R)

Definite no: Nikki Haley (R), Ted Cruz (R), Marco Rubio (R), Mike Pompeo (R), Ben Sasse (R), Tom Cotton (R), Rick Scott (R), Kamala Harris (D), Cory Booker (D), Andrew Cuomo (D), Stacey Abrams (D), Amy Klobuchar (D), AOC (D), Gavin Newsom (D), Bill Weld (R/I/L), Gretchen Whitmer (D), Pete Buttigieg (D), Andrew Yang (D),  Bernie Sanders (D/I), Ivanka Trump (?), Donald Trump Jr. (?)

 

Damn forums and trying to convert the L to a heart. 🤣

 

 

Wouldn't Tucker be an "L"?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Wouldn't Tucker be an "L"?

I assumed he was a Republican. If he runs on a third party, independent, or write-in ticket I'd put him up to the top. Of course, atm it's only speculation that he'd run and he hasn't confirmed anything, but if he ever was going to, 2024 would be the time.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Is this the right case? (or should I say, cases)

 

Wise v. Circosta / Moore v. Circosta

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wise-v-circosta/

Yep, that is it. That is the one that the GOP filed to stop the 12 day extension

Edited October 27, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

16 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Yep, that is it. That is the one that the GOP filed to stop the 12 day extension

I'll keep an eye on that. So far SCOTUS has put a halt to WI's extension, some states have halted other extensions on their own, the PA one I think might be dealt with tomorrow, and then I imagine the NC one you reference. I suspect they'll halt the PA one, and if they do, it bodes well for NC and subsequent extensions.

 

This is a huge reason they wanted Barrett on asap. We saw what happened in CA with votes past the election.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I'll keep an eye on that. So far SCOTUS has put a halt to WI's extension, some states have halted other extensions on their own, the PA one I think might be dealt with tomorrow, and then I imagine the NC one you reference. I suspect they'll halt the PA one, and if they do, it bodes well for NC and subsequent extensions.

 

This is a huge reason they wanted Barrett on asap. We saw what happened in CA with votes past the election.

Well the PA one was previously ruled a 4-4 tie so the lower court ruling was upheld. Now the GOP is trying a different way and sent it back up to SCOTUS.