Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearing

NancyJW

New member
Did you watch the 1st day of the hearing? Is the hearing important to the USA? Do you believe we should have delayed the hearing until after the Presidential election? Why yes or why no?

I would like to have a civil conversation on this topic this week. As I dialogue it is ok, to disagree with me, but with a respectful attitude. I am not into hate and name calling.
 

brenmichelle

Well-known member
I think she seems lovely and a reasonable choice for our Supreme Court. Most agree 9 is a good number and that 8 can be problematic so I’m glad they are moving in a timely fashion. She has no scandals, or anything that would disqualify her, but people simply don’t like her religious views. She should not be discriminated against because of those views, they do not stop her from following current precedents and law.
 

Jimr1961

Member
I did not watch the hearing. I was working. Is it important? Yes! We have already heard that there will be contested results and an even numbered court is ripe for deadlock as it stands, therefore, I do not believe it should be delayed. I cannot agree or disagree with you because you have not taken a stance on the issue. You merely asked questions.
Elections have consequences. The President and the Senate are duly elected and within their terms of office. Per the Constitution, the seat may be filled at the discretion of those two branches of government.
 

Randydog

New member
Did you watch the 1st day of the hearing? Is the hearing important to the USA? Do you believe we should have delayed the hearing until after the Presidential election? Why yes or why no?

I would like to have a civil conversation on this topic this week. As I dialogue it is ok, to disagree with me, but with a respectful attitude. I am not into hate and name calling.
Judge Ginsberg herself was against packing the courts, but of coarse they now want to be all knowing about what should be done.
IMG_20190825_134902 (1).jpg
 

NancyJW

New member
I did not watch the hearing. I was working. Is it important? Yes! We have already heard that there will be contested results and an even numbered court is ripe for deadlock as it stands, therefore, I do not believe it should be delayed. I cannot agree or disagree with you because you have not taken a stance on the issue. You merely asked questions.
Elections have consequences. The President and the Senate are duly elected and within their terms of office. Per the Constitution, the seat may be filled at the discretion of those two branches of government.
I watched the hearing today, (day 2) I will share my thoughts soon. I did not share my thoughts in my original post, because I desired not to lead anyone.
 

NancyJW

New member
Judge Ginsberg herself was against packing the courts, but of coarse they now want to be all knowing about what should be done.
View attachment 1272
I listened to day 2 today. I find it all very interesting, especially packing the court. My thoughts- Many people have no idea the definition of packing the court. Social media is filled with rants on this. Today, I heard a Senator say, we have had 9 Justices for 150 years. My opinion, thinking we should stay with the 9. The more justices we have the longer it will take for a decisions to be made.
 

Jimr1961

Member
I listened to day 2 today. I find it all very interesting, especially packing the court. My thoughts- Many people have no idea the definition of packing the court. Social media is filled with rants on this. Today, I heard a Senator say, we have had 9 Justices for 150 years. My opinion, thinking we should stay with the 9. The more justices we have the longer it will take for a decisions to be made.
It's much bigger than that. If Democrats take the Presidency and Senate, then pack the court, Republicans will do the same when they have the power to do so. And back and forth ad infinitum. It will destroy the integrity of the SCOTUS. How long will it be before states begin to ignore the law of the land feeling that SCOTUS is now an illegitimate lawmaking body rather than the interpreter of law that it is supposed to be?

imagine a court packed by Democrats who decides gun confiscation is constitutional. What do you think would happen with over 400 million legal guns owned in this country and over 2 million new gun owners just since March? My guess is it would lead to much bloodshed.
 

HeartTOHeart

Well-known member
Did you watch the 1st day of the hearing? Is the hearing important to the USA? Do you believe we should have delayed the hearing until after the Presidential election? Why yes or why no?

I would like to have a civil conversation on this topic this week. As I dialogue it is ok, to disagree with me, but with a respectful attitude. I am not into hate and name calling.
I did not watch it, but have seen some clips of it. She is an amazing choice. The President has the right to fill the seat, he is President for four years and those four years are still going on.
 

Jimr1961

Member
I did not watch it, but have seen some clips of it. She is an amazing choice. The President has the right to fill the seat, he is President for four years and those four years are still going on.
Yes. The President has the power to appoint and the Senate has the power to confirm. The Constitution is very clear. Both houses of government have the power, but not the duty. I'm thinking Merrick Garland. Obama had the power to appoint and the Senate had the power of advice and consent. Choosing not to conduct a confirmation hearing is a decision of no consent. Their power, not their duty.
 

HeartTOHeart

Well-known member
I listened to day 2 today. I find it all very interesting, especially packing the court. My thoughts- Many people have no idea the definition of packing the court. Social media is filled with rants on this. Today, I heard a Senator say, we have had 9 Justices for 150 years. My opinion, thinking we should stay with the 9. The more justices we have the longer it will take for a decisions to be made.
The packing of the courts is not a "real" thing... they have taking it out of context. Packing the courts is about changing the structure of the Court. This is not that. What they are saying is Republicans are "packing the court" when in all truth, Republican voters voted in a Republican President and a Republican Senate, so it is not "packing the courts" it is due diligence of replacing a SCOTUS and having the right to do it because the voters gave it to them. Believe me, the Democrats would do the same thing... so instead they are putting a "spin" on "packing the courts" which isn't really truth. They are trying to rewrite what "Packing The Courts" really means, but it doesn't really work.
 

signa777

New member
The demonrats met their match this time, someone we have been praying for - in this case a Blood bought Ruach ha kodeh filled, fully armed child of the Most High
battlefield No weapon.jpg
 

Barbara44

Member
Ok, I did it wrong but I will get it eventually. I am sorry for the bold letters but I cannot see very well and this is wonderful. No I did not see the hearings I find them a waste of time. The questions are not serious they are harassment, so a waste of taxes as well. I am not a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat (ugh what a thought) or an Independent. I am a Constitutional Conservative member #1 and from what I have heard of her comments it sounds as if she will follow the Constitution when she hears cases and I have waited long enough to have someone on the bench who will rule that way so I say get her on as soon as possible.
 

NancyJW

New member
Ok, I did it wrong but I will get it eventually. I am sorry for the bold letters but I cannot see very well and this is wonderful. No I did not see the hearings I find them a waste of time. The questions are not serious they are harassment, so a waste of taxes as well. I am not a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat (ugh what a thought) or an Independent. I am a Constitutional Conservative member #1 and from what I have heard of her comments it sounds as if she will follow the Constitution when she hears cases and I have waited long enough to have someone on the bench who will rule that way so I say get her on as soon as possible.
On my side of the screen, I am so tired of the "spinning."
On my side of the screen, I am so tired of the "spinning."
On my side of the screen, I am so tired of the "spinning."
Bold letters is great, because as you shared it assists you to see! Thanks for sharing. I watched it all. Today, Friday was a day of discussion. As I heard the democrats try to slow this down, I found it necessary to stop listening. I recall President Trump saying numerous times, I am still the President, and will continue to do what the President is to do. (My summary of a larger conversation)
 

Barbara44

Member
I also am tired of the Do nothing Democrats. My father was a factory worker and a die hard Democrat for most of my life but at that time we voted the president was elected, the house and senate was elected then they got on with the peoples business. I was able to vote when I was 18 and as my family was Democrat I voted for the peanut farmer because he was a Baptist. BIG MISTAKE. From then on I began to listen to the issues and so did my mom and dad. Dad and Mom voted for Regan and never voted Democrat again and so did I. Democrats today are not the same as when we were Democrats they are no longer for the factory workers or middle class they just want power. In the last years they have done nothing and now I feel they should all be voted out of office.
 

Barbara44

Member
I did not watch the hearing. I was working. Is it important? Yes! We have already heard that there will be contested results and an even numbered court is ripe for deadlock as it stands, therefore, I do not believe it should be delayed. I cannot agree or disagree with you because you have not taken a stance on the issue. You merely asked questions.
Elections have consequences. The President and the Senate are duly elected and within their terms of office. Per the Constitution, the seat may be filled at the discretion of those two branches of government.
Yes it is important to know what is going on but that is the problem the Democrats are doing nothing and are not discussing anything they are just attacking her on her religion which according to the constitution is illegal.
 

Barbara44

Member
Yes. The President has the power to appoint and the Senate has the power to confirm. The Constitution is very clear. Both houses of government have the power, but not the duty. I'm thinking Merrick Garland. Obama had the power to appoint and the Senate had the power of advice and consent. Choosing not to conduct a confirmation hearing is a decision of no consent. Their power, not their duty.
Not sure if I understand your statement. The President at the time has the power and duty to select a new Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy the Senate advices and then consents, the
house has no involvement in the process.
 

NancyJW

New member
Not sure if I understand your statement. The President at the time has the power and duty to select a new Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy the Senate advices and then consents, the
house has no involvement in the process.
I do believe you are correct Barbara44. As I watch the current procedure I do not see official involvement of the House. I am thinking this is why the "house" makes so much nasty noise.
 

Jimr1961

Member
Not sure if I understand your statement. The President at the time has the power and duty to select a new Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy the Senate advices and then consents, the
house has no involvement in the process.
I think I see the source of confusion. Replace "houses" with "branches" and that should clear it up. I sometimes use those two terms interchangeably because I see four houses of government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention duty. Both Trump and Obama could have decided not to appoint a justice in their final year in office, but both chose to. When the Senate decides not to take up the appointment, the advice is no, they will not give consent. There are, on average, around 400 bills that pass the house in any given session and are never brought up in the Senate. They have the power to either take it to the floor or not. No duty to bring it to the floor for discussion.
 
Last edited:
Top