Nice article on Judge Amy Coney Barrett

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
7,317
6,730
113
Lol yes. 98-01. I was choosing between Nd, wash u and iu and liked Nd the least. Extremely uptight and uber religious. And that’s probably unfair as the folks i encountered may not have been representative. Iu was very laid back and the students were fantastic.
Most Domers I’ve met can be uptight but they didn’t strike me as overly religious.

Then again I’m one of the people Marv hates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
5,945
3,086
113
Yeah, I mean people normally don't like getting brazenly f#$ked by a minority party politician, especially when that rape can only be changed by death (of the justice). That's a long time to endure being violated.

You are aware that pubs haven't won a presidential popular vote in what, 30 years? It's a minority party.

So when that minority party so blatently lies, cheats and cons the majority, in today's age of everything is captured to expose such diabolical hypocrisy then yeah, the majority is probably going to have some break off and turn a little nihilistic to those actions.

Hopefully they'll use the power of voting and get these shameless husks of humans out of office but I agree with you, it's probably going to be insane.

Let's stop trying to pretend like either party gives a shit about this country. They care about the party, their reelection hopes and maintaining power. If the left had control over the Senate, they would do the exact same thing. Anyone that claims otherwise, like Democrats are some beacons of virtue, has convinced themselves to live in a mindset of fantasy.

Also, for those interested, I am NOT in favor of the GOP pushing through a court justice prior to election finalization.
 

dbmhoosier

Senior
Nov 23, 2005
2,978
1,892
113
It makes you proud to be able to dispute his claim that the GOP hasn't won any single popular vote in 30 yrs by posting that they've actually managed to win ONE? Do you think that refutes the reality that for all intents and purposes the GOP is a MINORITY party? That more people are now "Independents" than card-carrying Republicans?

Where does the GOP go after the losses they are about to absorb in November? The only way Trump wins is if Dem turnout suddenly reverses from 2018 and people don't vote, and this SCOTUS tempest will ensure that doesn't happen.

Remember the most salient issue heading into the 2018 midterms was Kavanaugh, and the result was one of the higher turnouts in midterm history, with 10,000,000 more votes for Dems in House Races and 11,000,000 more in the Senate. GOP Senate candidates lost every race not only in states Clinton won in 2016, but also in key states Trump won in 2016 like MI, WI, and PA.

And that was when they had time to campaign and weren't trying to shove thru a SCOTUS all during the month of Oct when some of them are already trailing by double digits. Trump will be putting vulnerable GOP incumbents in key states in a no-win situation, in every Blue state and places like AZ, Iowa, and NC as well. All for his phony "legacy"...

They'll have to be in DC conducting their "business", while better-funded challengers who in the case of AZ, ME, and CO (among others) already have significant leads and will be able to campaign and rally voters. It'll be 2018 all over again... And then the new Congress will change the rules, and make it all a useless Trumpian ploy. Another legacy of this failed "experiment" in despotism...
Did the Dems ever win 50% of the popular vote once between 1980 and 2007?
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
Also, for those interested, I am NOT in favor of the GOP pushing through a court justice prior to election finalization.
I don’t believe elected officials performing their duties is pushing anything. The phrase “elections have consequences” applies to completed elections, not elections which haven’t happened. Except in very rare circumstances, I don’t see any reason for the government to go into shut down mode because there is an election in 6 weeks.
 

Bill4411

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 24, 2001
6,880
2,090
113
ND law isn’t in the same league as Columbia Harvard yale etc. it bears zero resemblance.
I was kidding but trying to get into ND undergrad is about as difficult as getting into an Ivy League school, which certainly didn't used to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
5,945
3,086
113
I was kidding but trying to get into ND undergrad is about as difficult as getting into an Ivy League school, which certainly didn't used to be the case.
I mean, it's obviously much more difficult than IU, but ND's acceptance rate is ~3x those of the Ivies
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
What McConnell did in 2016 is a very special case. It was extreme partisanship.
Maybe. But the Democrats today have already called RBG’s replacement “fundamentally illegitimate” thereby further diminishing our mutual respect for SCOTUS and governance in general.

Democrats and media are calling for and actually threatening to blow up the system while they encourage mob action if this nomination goes forward. Maybe you think that is bipartisan Democracy in action but I don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,710
3,102
113
Maybe. But the Democrats today have already called RBG’s replacement “fundamentally illegitimate” thereby further diminishing our mutual respect for SCOTUS and governance in general.

Democrats and media are calling for and actually threatening to blow up the system while they encourage mob action if this nomination goes forward. Maybe you think that is bipartisan Democracy in action but I don’t.
Great but we must acknowledge that McConnell turned this up to 11. His deed will be met with extreme partisanship. You can’t argue against anything the Ds will do in response. These are the rules now.
 

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
6,906
503
113
Agreed. She’s amazing. But I get the angst. She’s young. Would be on there a longgggg time.
As will the two or three additional SC judges and dozens if not hundreds of federal judgeships which will be nominated in PDJT's next term.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
Great but we must acknowledge that McConnell turned this up to 11. His deed will be met with extreme partisanship. You can’t argue against anything the Ds will do in response. These are the rules now.
The Democrats don't need McConnell to turn things up to 11. The Democrats managed an 11 all by themselves in the Kavanaugh confirmation. Mobs on the outside, planted protestors and costumes on the inside, an obstreperous conduct by elected officials are the Democratic governing rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoopsdoc1978

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
5,945
3,086
113
I don’t believe elected officials performing their duties is pushing anything. The phrase “elections have consequences” applies to completed elections, not elections which haven’t happened. Except in very rare circumstances, I don’t see any reason for the government to go into shut down mode because there is an election in 6 weeks.
If the tables were turned, you would be complaining incessantly.
 

VanPastorMan

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2002
14,231
2,563
113
Central Pennsylvania Via Washington Indiana
She is clearly qualified and frankly should be put on the court if nominated. That said, McConnell's hypocrisy should cost the GOP. It won't, but it should.
Actually this is not hypocrisy. This has happened before when the court needed to be filled during an election year. The issue is who is the President as far as party affiliation compared to the party who holds power in the Senate. When both are of the same party no problem. When they are of different parties the Senate gets their way because under the Constitution they are the ones who vote for the nominee to the court.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
Actually this is not hypocrisy. This has happened before when the court needed to be filled during an election year. The issue is who is the President as far as party affiliation compared to the party who holds power in the Senate. When both are of the same party no problem. When they are of different parties the Senate gets their way because under the Constitution they are the ones who vote for the nominee to the court.
Name me one time that McConnell mentioned there were two different parties in 2016? Here is what he said in 2016, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president"
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,377
15,406
113
Name me one time that McConnell mentioned there were two different parties in 2016? Here is what he said in 2016, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president"
The "different parties" justification is what they came up with after the fact to cover the present circumstances.
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,076
3,988
113
The rules shouldn't be changed. To the victor go the spoils. Changing the rules is the same whine as "not my president." dems will have ample opportunity to create change within the existing rules.
Since you only read the first paragraph/few sentences of what I post I'm surprised you posted a reply that I guess is meant to address subsequent points I made. Nothing in your post has anything to do with my original point to dmb- how ridiculous it was to feel like he schooled Tommy by pointing out that the GOP has actually managed to win ONE popular vote in 30 yrs. And even that was only by about 3 million votes, basically the same amount Clinton won by in 2016 when she lost the electoral...

I'm actually pretty shocked to discover you went to IU in the 21st Century. From your posting style, I always assumed you were an old fart like me.

I come from a long line of Republicans-my parents voted for Goldwater and even Nixon in 1960 when I was 5 yrs old. The westside of Indy did not know what a Democrat was when I was growing up, and there really was a time when the GOP was a majority, although I'm not sure how "silent" they ever were...

So to hear trumpers use that phrase to describe themselves is an idiotic oxymoron, which is basically what Tommy was pointing out. The GOP will never be a majority again, and IMO Trump's short term grasp for personal "glory" and ego fulfillment will just hasten their demise. I won't be around to see it all play out, but pretty sure the GOP will look back on this as a major technical error...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411

VanPastorMan

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2002
14,231
2,563
113
Central Pennsylvania Via Washington Indiana
Name me one time that McConnell mentioned there were two different parties in 2016? Here is what he said in 2016, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president"
You are making my point. McConnell was a Republican of the Senate and so Obama was not going to get his late round pick in Garland. If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate would you say they have to give Trump his Supreme Court pick if he was in his last term? Ginsberg herself before Trump took office in reference to Obama picking Garland said that there is nothing in the Constitution that says a President is not President in his or her last year. She was saying Obama had the right to pick Garland before the election. The Senate was run by the Republicans and they have a say so as well. As Obama said in 09 elections have consequences. I think the Democrats should be mad at Harry Reid because he got rid of the super majority when it came to Supreme Court picks. He did that because he didn't see the Republicans taking the Senate. Of course they did and messed up all the glorious plans. If Obama had the right to pick Garland then Trump has the same right. It's just that Trump has a Republican Senate and can get the pick through.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
You are making my point. McConnell was a Republican of the Senate and so Obama was not going to get his late round pick in Garland. If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate would you say they have to give Trump his Supreme Court pick if he was in his last term? Ginsberg herself before Trump took office in reference to Obama picking Garland said that there is nothing in the Constitution that says a President is not President in his or her last year. She was saying Obama had the right to pick Garland before the election. The Senate was run by the Republicans and they have a say so as well. As Obama said in 09 elections have consequences. I think the Democrats should be mad at Harry Reid because he got rid of the super majority when it came to Supreme Court picks. He did that because he didn't see the Republicans taking the Senate. Of course they did and messed up all the glorious plans. If Obama had the right to pick Garland then Trump has the same right. It's just that Trump has a Republican Senate and can get the pick through.
What you are forgetting in your wilful ignorance is Mitch never allowed Garland to come for a vote. It isn't the Republicans voted against him, they just didn't vote at all because Mitch said, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice".

Either you expect the Senate to work in the last year, or you don't. At least CO is willing to take the position the Senate should work and Garland should have received a vote. You are taking the position that if it helps the Democrats, the Senate should sit out the last year of a presidency but if it helps Republicans they should crank out legislation and nominations until the last second.
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,076
3,988
113
You are making my point. McConnell was a Republican of the Senate and so Obama was not going to get his late round pick in Garland. If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate would you say they have to give Trump his Supreme Court pick if he was in his last term? Ginsberg herself before Trump took office in reference to Obama picking Garland said that there is nothing in the Constitution that says a President is not President in his or her last year. She was saying Obama had the right to pick Garland. The Senate was run by the Republicans and they have a say so as well. As Obama said in 09 elections have consequences. I think the Democrats should be mad at Harry Reid because he got rid of the super majority when it came to Supreme Court picks. He did that because he didn't see the Republicans taking the Senate. Of course they did and messed up all the glorious plans.
Dude nobody would begrudge McConnell and the GOP VOTING against Garland in 2016, that's what opposition parties do.

The issue is that McConnell denied the Senate and ALL of the PEOPLE who ELECTED Obama by 2 landslides the oppty for their voice to be heard when Scalia died only 2 mos into Obama's final year. It's simply no more a lame duck Trump's "right" to NOMINATE a replacement and have the Senate VOTE on it, than it was Obama's right to exercise the absolute mandate he was provided for electorally. McConnel denied Obama the same right he now claims Trump is owed...

If as McConnell said it was the people's right in 2016 to have a voice, then why in the Hell doesn't that apply in 2020? If Trump wins again in 2020 then again the people have spoken and it is their mandate.

But if the GOP loses the Senate and Trump gets thumped, then how is the "will of the people" being implemented by allowing the GOP to rush thru a nominee that the minority chose? If it was fair for the question to be delayed when Scalia died in Feb, then it's sure as hell fair for the decision to be delayed when RBG died barely 6 weeks from when the people speak electorally...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411

VanPastorMan

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2002
14,231
2,563
113
Central Pennsylvania Via Washington Indiana
What you are forgetting in your wilful ignorance is Mitch never allowed Garland to come for a vote. It isn't the Republicans voted against him, they just didn't vote at all because Mitch said, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice".

Either you expect the Senate to work in the last year, or you don't. At least CO is willing to take the position the Senate should work and Garland should have received a vote. You are taking the position that if it helps the Democrats, the Senate should sit out the last year of a presidency but if it helps Republicans they should crank out legislation and nominations until the last second.
Why did Mitch not allow him to be voted on? It's because He's a Republican and Obama is the Democrat. This was my point. Elections have consequences. If the head of the Senate chooses to not allow a vote then you can't say the Senate isn't working. It is working, but it is not to the advantage of the minority party. I see the House in the same way over the impeachment of Trump. They have the right to impeach him for whatever those choose. They had the votes. But the Senate has votes too and thankfully they did the right thing and had the power in not removing him from office.
 

Courtsensetwo

Hall of Famer
Oct 16, 2004
22,571
8,608
113
I was kidding but trying to get into ND undergrad is about as difficult as getting into an Ivy League school, which certainly didn't used to be the case.
It is ridiculously difficult and when you go through it and assess the kids that get in vs those that do not... it appears somewhat random.
 

HooDatGuy

Recruit
Sep 10, 2020
91
58
18
It is ridiculously difficult and when you go through it and assess the kids that get in vs those that do not... it appears somewhat random.
Domers love their sub-standard legacies, maybe even more than the Ivy's. That and they have to counter-act their robust student athlete population with admission standards close to that of an Ivy for regular students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,076
3,988
113
Why did Mitch not allow him to be voted on? It's because He's a Republican and Obama is the Democrat. This was my point. Elections have consequences. If the head of the Senate chooses to not allow a vote then you can't say the Senate isn't working. It is working, but it is not to the advantage of the minority party. I see the House in the same way over the impeachment of Trump. They have the right to impeach him for whatever those choose. They had the votes. But the Senate has votes too and thankfully they did the right thing and had the power in not removing him from office.
Obama was elected TWICE by LANDSLIDE, by the ENTIRE COUNTRY. The only idiots that vote for Mitch McConnell for anything are TOOTHLESS HILLBILLIES in freaking KY. Why should those inbreds dictate ANYTHING for the REST of US?
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
Why did Mitch not allow him to be voted on? It's because He's a Republican and Obama is the Democrat. This was my point. Elections have consequences. If the head of the Senate chooses to not allow a vote then you can't say the Senate isn't working. It is working, but it is not to the advantage of the minority party. I see the House in the same way over the impeachment of Trump. They have the right to impeach him for whatever those choose. They had the votes. But the Senate has votes too and thankfully they did the right thing and had the power in not removing him from office.
I notice you keep ignoring the quote "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice ". Does it not display on your screen?

So all politics is hardball. Yet someone will appear any moment and tell us that 99% of the blame for the partisan nature today is on Democrats. You all get together and decide if there are rules to politics or not and let the rest of us know.

I don't favor adding 2 Democrats to the court, but every word you type makes me like the idea more and more. There are virtually no qualifications to be a Justice. If the Dems win the election, they should just find two liberals who are 18 years old and have a family history of longevity. If all politics are hardball, you'll understand completely.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,377
15,406
113
I don't favor adding 2 Democrats to the court, but every word you type makes me like the idea more and more. There are virtually no qualifications to be a Justice. If the Dems win the election, they should just find two liberals who are 18 years old and have a family history of longevity. If all politics are hardball, you'll understand completely.
There have been calls to expand the Court for some time, long before RBG's death. I have felt that was a bridge to far. Until now. If they ram through another and Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate, then the gloves are off. Thirteen is a good number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe