I have a funny feeling Roberts will try to isolate Amy Barrett . He probably views her as a threat. she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity who will not cave to liberal pressure. i.e Obamacare..Roberts rewrote the law in order to pass it. If the conservatives on the court had their say, Robert s would never have been elevated to Chief Justice. A 6-3 majority exists only on paper----paper and $2.95 won't buy a cup of coffee.

" she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity.."

Sure, a purportedly devout religious person that is willing to play the role of a political pawn for a sexual predator, pathological liar, traitor, business fraud, tax evader, draft dodger and unindicted felon in the interests of her attaining the ultimate career advancement. I'm sure her "integrity" and "moral principles" are flexible enough to make balloon animals out of, you know, like the Evangelicals that support tRump.



* "My friends, we cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life."


" Hyperbole, extremism and polarisation" have become political tools in many countries, he writes, without "healthy debates" and long-term plans but rather "slick marketing techniques aimed at discrediting others."

-Pope Francis

*From my experience, more times than not, when you make sure the public knows how "devout" you are, you are a phony and a hypocrite.

helltopay1 said:

---

I have a funny feeling Roberts will try to isolate Amy Barrett . He probably views her as a threat. she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity who will not cave to liberal pressure. i.e Obamacare..Roberts rewrote the law in order to pass it. If the conservatives on the court had their say, Robert s would never have been elevated to Chief Justice. A 6-3 majority exists only on paper----paper and $2.95 won't buy a cup of coffee.

---

I think you do her an injustice by calling her anyone's clone. She is a high character person with a strong opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Some of her beliefs may overlap with Scalia, and Scalia was her mentor, but she is more than capable of developing her own opinions and paving her own way. Look forward to reading her first opinion.

I think she will do really well on the court.

And I think Roberts is an excellent Chief Justice. I don't pretend to know more than the brilliant minds on the Court. I definitely did not listen to all of the oral arguments presented for the various cases. So, I think it is high arrogance to imply that Roberts would view anyone as a threat or would act based on such base emotion. He seems like a high character justice.

Dear Cal93: He re-wrote Obamacare in order to save it. Everyone knows that. He is very political..He is a follower---not a leader.and, I still think he will be jealous of Barrett. She has total integrity. He puts his finger to the wind for most issues before the Court. Just ask conservatives how they feel about Roberts---and, then, duck!!!!

Bearister: How can I put this delicately-----you do not make a pimple on Amys' rear end.

helltopay1 said:

---

I have a funny feeling Roberts will try to isolate Amy Barrett . He probably views her as a threat. she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity who will not cave to liberal pressure. i.e Obamacare..Roberts rewrote the law in order to pass it. If the conservatives on the court had their say, Robert s would never have been elevated to Chief Justice. A 6-3 majority exists only on paper----paper and $2.95 won't buy a cup of coffee.

---

So... sounds like John Roberts is too far to the left for you? Jesus...

Big C: JohnRoberts has a jelly backbone. He votes with the Libs half the time because he doesn't want the Wash Post and the New York Times to say mean things about him the next day. You watch----he will sideline Amy Barrett by letting one of the pliable justices ( Kavanaugh) to write a majority opinion and the Libs will still prevail 5-4. It'[s only 6-3 on paper. Also, Roberts and Trump have been feuding. So---Roberts has extra motivation to sideline Barrett. You watch!!!

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

I have a funny feeling Roberts will try to isolate Amy Barrett . He probably views her as a threat. she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity who will not cave to liberal pressure. i.e Obamacare..Roberts rewrote the law in order to pass it. If the conservatives on the court had their say, Robert s would never have been elevated to Chief Justice. A 6-3 majority exists only on paper----paper and $2.95 won't buy a cup of coffee.

---

So,,, sounds like John Roberts is too far to the left for you?

---

If they replace 4 justices with people more conservative than any of the 9 currently on the court, he will be here screaming that Clarence Thomas is a lefty.

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

I have a funny feeling Roberts will try to isolate Amy Barrett . He probably views her as a threat. she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity who will not cave to liberal pressure. i.e Obamacare..Roberts rewrote the law in order to pass it. If the conservatives on the court had their say, Robert s would never have been elevated to Chief Justice. A 6-3 majority exists only on paper----paper and $2.95 won't buy a cup of coffee.

---

So,,, sounds like John Roberts is too far to the left for you?

---

If they replace 4 justices with people more conservative than any of the 9 currently on the court, he will be here screaming that Clarence Thomas is a lefty.

---

'
Well, he is African-American after all.

Dim:and, very nice by all accounts. He was also the victim of character assassination when Joe Biden led the vitriol in his hearing. If you are a Demo, lefty, socialist, commy, etc, any republican, is, by definition, not legit. hence, character assassination is ethically warranted. Saul Alinsky lives..So does Howard Zinn.

helltopay1 said:

---

Big C: JohnRoberts has a jelly backbone. He votes with the Libs half the time because he doesn't want the Wash Post and the New York Times to say mean things about him the next day. You watch----he will sideline Amy Barrett by letting one of the pliable justices ( Kavanaugh) to write a majority opinion and the Libs will still prevail 5-4. It'[s only 6-3 on paper. Also, Roberts and Trump have been feuding. So---Roberts has extra motivation to sideline Barrett. You watch!!!

---

The country that exists as the logical consequence of your posts is a dark, hateful dystopia. What broke inside of you that the control of others and an authoritarian theocratic orthodoxy appeals to you? And that your rants read as reason to you?

Seems strange to me to talk about high character and integrity of somebody who obviously purposefully left controversial material out of their filings to the Senate.

I know the conservatives here will just say it was inconsequential material. No, it was controversial material that would obviously be of interest to the Senate. Barrett is a partisan playing political games already. Low character. Low integrity for a jurist.

John Roberts is a completely political animal and force for conservative Republicans - which he is. He has sided with liberals just twice. Both times in high profile cases in which he felt his actions would help Republicans electorally.

Roberts, like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and soon to be Barrett, side with big business 100% of the time in the low profile cases that don't get the headlines. That is why they are there.

bearister said:

---

" she is a Scalia clone with terrific integrity.."

Sure, a purportedly devout religious person that is willing to play the role of a political pawn for a sexual predator, pathological liar, traitor, business fraud, tax evader, draft dodger and unindicted felon in the interests of her attaining the ultimate career advancement. I'm sure her "integrity" and "moral principles" are flexible enough to make balloon animals out of, you know, like the Evangelicals that support tRump.



* "My friends, we cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life."


" Hyperbole, extremism and polarisation" have become political tools in many countries, he writes, without "healthy debates" and long-term plans but rather "slick marketing techniques aimed at discrediting others."

-Pope Francis

*From my experience, more times than not, when you make sure the public knows how "devout" you are, you are a phony and a hypocrite.

---

Change "devout" to "x". The older I get the more my bull**** detector goes off when anyone tells me how "x" they are. I immediately look for signs of not-x.

If she had ACTUAL integrity as opposed to political theater integrity, she herself would have said I am honored by the nomination and look forward to my confirmation and serving the country, but in the interest of the court's reputation and the important principle of apolitical appointments and the more pressing issues we face as a nation, I would like to defer my hearings until after the election. THAT would have impressed me and shown incredible integrity.

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

blungld said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

---

I thought they put the ole boy in the penalty box but it appears he just misplaced his notes regarding how to post on the Off Topic Board.

bearister said:

---

I thought they put the ole boy in the penalty box but it appears he just misplaced his notes regarding how to post on the Off Topic Board.

---

hell's one week t/o ended a couple days ago:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/3/topics/98133/replies/1803586

Barrett: God never made a finer human being. Professor of the year twice. Seven children , including a disabled child. Adopted two black children. Revered by professors and students alike. Scalia said that she was the finest person he had ever met. Writer of over 300 opinions...And, yet, we have malcontents ( and you know who you are) are telling us what a terrible person she is, etc...I don't know wether to admonish these deranged malcontents or to spank them. The problem with spanking them is that most, if not all, would truly enjoy the spanking. Arrested sexual development, don't you see????

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Irony to the nth degree. Dripping with irony. No danger of anemia with so much iron(y).

blungld said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

---

Did you also deem Garland to lack integrity for not withdrawing his nomination? Otherwise, why would you imply that Barrett lacks integrity for not withdrawing and waiting until after the election when the Dems will reject her, despite being eminently qualified, for her faith and her perspective on the constitution? Who really is lacking in integrity if you cherry pick like that?

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

---

Did you also deem Garland to lack integrity for not withdrawing his nomination? Otherwise, why would you imply that Barrett lacks integrity for not withdrawing and waiting until after the election when the Dems will reject her, despite being eminently qualified, for her faith and her perspective on the constitution? Who really is lacking in integrity if you cherry pick like that?

---

In different circumstances, Garland and Barrett would be approved by huge majorities. The integrity arguments are idiotic if you have seen any hearing from Ginsburg on. Ginsburg set the standard after Bork by saying nothing, taking no positions, etc., and she still belonged on the court. The hearings have become a sham (and in Garland's case add the process), absent some assertion of bad act (see Kavanaugh). Both Garland and Barrett have excellent qualifications, analytical ability, temperament, and the support of their fellow jurists, and any issue about integrity should be aimed at the politicians in the room.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

---

Did you also deem Garland to lack integrity for not withdrawing his nomination? Otherwise, why would you imply that Barrett lacks integrity for not withdrawing and waiting until after the election when the Dems will reject her, despite being eminently qualified, for her faith and her perspective on the constitution? Who really is lacking in integrity if you cherry pick like that?

---

In different circumstances, Garland and Barrett would be approved by huge majorities. The integrity arguments are idiotic if you have seen any hearing from Ginsburg on. Ginsburg set the standard after Bork by saying nothing, taking no positions, etc., and she still belonged on the court. The hearings have become a sham (and in Garland's case add the process), absent some assertion of bad act (see Kavanaugh). Both Garland and Barrett have excellent qualifications, analytical ability, temperament, and the support of their fellow jurists, and any issue about integrity should be aimed at the politicians in the room.

---

Yeah, I mean, assuming Biden wins (OP's head exploding right now... sorry) wants to and is able to pack the court: Would any potential nominees with "integrity" need to turn down their respective nominations?

It's just politics. (Granted, the Republicans could've shown some integrity by doing either l'Affaire Garland, or Barrett, but not both.)

Big C said:

---

> Would any potential nominees with "integrity" [SP] need to turn down their respective nominations?

---

'packing the court" means destroying two branches of gov,t. You would destroy the Supreme Court by making it a legislative branch ( please see our founding fathers rolling over in their graves) and you would destroy the Senate by eliminating the filibuster. No normal, sane voter would obey any order coming from the SCOTUS. other than that, it's a wonderful idea. oh btw, Biden can be seen on tape many years ago, saying, " packing the court is a terrible idea." You remember that, right???Right?????You pack the court and gun sales would go through the roof...Ypu want a piece of the American people????Man!!!!I thought idiocy had a floor!!!!!Evidently not...

Dago: "Low integrity????Go to Notre Dame and ask ALL her students and Law professors if she has integrity..Professor of the year twice!!!Adopted two black children...Respected and liked by everyone on the Supreme Court when she clerked for Scalia. Do your homework before you embarrass yourself.

Republican court 'packing' is really court stacking - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/12/no-gop-didnt-engage-court-packing-it-did-plenty-court-stacking/

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

blun: You wouldn't know integrity if you tripped over it.

---

Really? Tell me one thing I have done that shows that I not only lack integrity, but I can't recognize it? Or did you mean to write: 'Because I disagree with you and you make me feel insecure and irrational in my posts, I am going to insult you because ad hominem is the only way I can feel like a victor in an exchange with you"?

---

Did you also deem Garland to lack integrity for not withdrawing his nomination? Otherwise, why would you imply that Barrett lacks integrity for not withdrawing and waiting until after the election when the Dems will reject her, despite being eminently qualified, for her faith and her perspective on the constitution? Who really is lacking in integrity if you cherry pick like that?

---

No I did not because Garland was nominated at a fully appropriate distance from the election by perhaps the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice president in modern history. Your question is false equivalence parading as a gotcha.

And to be clear, I did not say decline the nomination or position, but it would have been a truly admirable signal to the country to postpone the hearings a few weeks til after the election. That is the type of small gesture that shows character over cronyism. It would have been absurd for Garland to say, let me postpone my hearings that already were not happening because of Moscow Mitch for nine months. How does one postpone something that isn't happening?

blungld said:

---

No I did not because Garland was nominated at a fully appropriate distance from the election by perhaps the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice president in modern history.

---

Of course he wasn't the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice in modern history, unless you think modern history is only in your lifetime.

Envy Adams said:

---

blungld said:

---

No I did not because Garland was nominated at a fully appropriate distance from the election by perhaps the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice president in modern history.

---

Of course he wasn't the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice in modern history, unless you think modern history is only in your lifetime.

---

Um, yeah. That's exactly what modern history means. Last fifty years or so.

blungld said:

---

Envy Adams said:

---

blungld said:

---

No I did not because Garland was nominated at a fully appropriate distance from the election by perhaps the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice president in modern history.

---

Of course he wasn't the most qualified to appoint a Supreme Court justice in modern history, unless you think modern history is only in your lifetime.

---

Um, yeah. That's exactly what modern history means. Last fifty years or so.

---

https://www.lexico.com/definition/modern_history

helltopay1 said:

---

'packing the court" means destroying two branches of gov,t. You would destroy the Supreme Court by making it a legislative branch ( please see our founding fathers rolling over in their graves) and you would destroy the Senate by eliminating the filibuster. No normal, sane voter would obey any order coming from the SCOTUS. other than that, it's a wonderful idea. oh btw, Biden can be seen on tape many years ago, saying, " packing the court is a terrible idea." You remember that, right???Right?????You pack the court and gun sales would go through the roof...Ypu want a piece of the American people????Man!!!!I thought idiocy had a floor!!!!!Evidently not...

---

I guess you didn't know the first case of court packing was done in 1801 by our Founders

helltopay1 said:

---

Dago: "Low integrity????Go to Notre Dame and ask ALL her students and Law professors if she has integrity..Professor of the year twice!!!Adopted two black children...Respected and liked by everyone on the Supreme Court when she clerked for Scalia. Do your homework before you embarrass yourself.

---

Nearly 200 Notre Dame faculty signees on 2 letters asking for Barrett to withdraw from confirmation

dajo9 said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dago: "Low integrity????Go to Notre Dame and ask ALL her students and Law professors if she has integrity..Professor of the year twice!!!Adopted two black children...Respected and liked by everyone on the Supreme Court when she clerked for Scalia. Do your homework before you embarrass yourself.

---

Nearly 200 Notre Dame faculty signees on 2 letters asking for Barrett to withdraw from confirmation

---

Politically motivated letters impress me as much as dying wishes. They are equally irrelevant.