How long will it take for someone to come forward?

[Jersey mike]

So, after The President makes his choice on the nominee, how many days will it be until the first “whistle blower” or person with a complaint/accusations/disparaging remarks regarding the nominee comes forward? I’m going with 10 days.

They’re already digging into all the nominees backgrounds, pouring over all school records, doing detailed background checks on past friends, boyfriends, any and all club activity, their college life and anything else they can think up. Then they’ll need someone who can provide “a story” and a few days to rehearse it and then a media release. Someone will try to get this person to come forward and have a hearing to delay the vote as long as possible.

Since Justice Kavanaugh, apparently the new standard will be everything since birth so I’m wonder what terrible words her pediatrician will have to say about the nominee.

[Bighead]

She was vetted when Kanvanaugh was.

[Robert]

I cant wait, heads will explode

Lindsey Graham: We Have The Votes


I stand by what I said in Jan. 2019: Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer changed Senate rules to try and stack the courts for Obama. Now it's coming back to haunt them as I predicted. I'm dead set on confirming’s nominee.

[Oss]

And do not forget Hillary's words about how the Senate must do its job when the shoe was on the other foot

We need a kinder gentler Trump down the home stretch or he may lose Ohio

[Jersey mike]

She was vetted when Kanvanaugh was.

All of the nominees? To be honest I’m not sure if there is a set front runner however the woman from Chicago(?) may very well be the nominee.

Even if there is, Kavanaugh was vetted also, many, many times in his career leading up to and including his nomination to The Supreme Court and we all saw where that went off course.

[Alien]

I have no problem with a whistleblower coming forward - - IF WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE.  After all, this is a lifetime appointment, so it's worth knowing as much about them as possible.  I don't, however savor the idea of someone's life/career being damaged with false allegations in order to further a political agenda. 

The arguments about whether or not the nomination should move forward this close to election are moot, just as they were under Obama.  Trump is the President.  As such, he gets to make the choice.  Play fair and let the chips fall where they may.

[scooperhsd]

We must have a fair bunch of "Constitutional scholars" on this board... Yes, Trump should put forth a nominee, and the Senate SHOULD have hearings / vote on them. Note I am not saying they should rubberstamp the President's nominee. And this process could really mess up for that 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election....

[Jess from VA]

We must have a fair bunch of "Constitutional scholars" on this board... Yes, Trump should put forth a nominee, and the Senate SHOULD have hearings / vote on them.  Note I am not saying they should rubberstamp the President's nominee. Yes they should.


And this process could really mess up for that 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election....  That would be the hope, but it won't happen.  They get elected because they are obstructionist, DTS whackjobs. 

 

[old2soon]

      WE already KNOW and the lead deez female from kali has already rattled her arrows. I doubt seriously with all the opposition already rearing ugly any confirmation or swearing in will take place anytime before Christmas. I would greatly appreciate being surprised otherwise but again Highly Doubtful.
                                                            RIDE SAFE.

[Jersey mike]

I have no problem with a whistleblower coming forward - - IF WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE.  After all, this is a lifetime appointment, so it's worth knowing as much about them as possible.  I don't, however savor the idea of someone's life/career being damaged with false allegations in order to further a political agenda. 

The arguments about whether or not the nomination should move forward this close to election are moot, just as they were under Obama.  Trump is the President.  As such, he gets to make the choice.  Play fair and let the chips fall where they may.

I understand what you’re saying and see where you’re coming from, that’s why I put whistleblower in quotes. Another circus like we had for Judge Kavanaugh is not what we need and is not what I would consider professionalism at its finest.

Judge Kavanaugh was treated with complete contempt and disrespected throughout the entire process all the while people “complemented and thanked him” for his years of service while they destroyed his reputation and tried to disgrace his family. He couldn’t even coach basketball.

That entire display was an atrocious display of partisan politics pure disdain. The man was put on a platform of an unfair fight in a setting where he was unable to completely defend himself as a person should be permitted. He was on display. He was being pressed to see if he had restraint, to,see,if they could get him to lose his temper and be disqualified. They pressed and pressed and pressed. They made a grown man cry out of the frustration of have no other available course of action to vent the anger and disgust against the accusations levied against him and forced to account for. Yeah he got a bit vocal at times and showed other forms of emotion but he checked himself with tremendous restraint.

If the Kavanaugh Congressional vetting process is to be considered the new standard of ripping apart a nominee’s reputation and past work then we’re at a new low.

A person who is nominated to the Supreme Court has already been vetted if they are current Federal Judges. These people are already at the top of their profession. Being nominated and appointed is the icing on the cake of an already highly successful career and should not be subjected to a witch hunt for political reasons.

[f6john]

Democrats going hard after a female nominee will be problematic for them. I fully expect them to use anything the nominee has said or done that they can point to as disqualification to serve but I don’t expect a whistleblower to be presented ala Kavanaugh. I expect the Democrats will continue to use the unfairness argument to attempt to give Republicans a black eye. They will use the hearing as a platform to thump their chests and politic for Biden using it as a public form. With key people publicly supporting the process it would seem the Republicans have the votes to confirm and the Dems know this.

Regardless of the election I predict a huge,


BAZINGA!!!

Coming for Chuck and Nancy.

[MarkT]

Maybe he should nominate ME I don't have any skeletons in the closet.  My ex is dead she can't rat me out.  I'm a "war hero" well actually I didn't get any hero medals but I did two tours working on the Thai railroad.  (Laid ties all over Thailand, only got derailed twice.) No sex scandals. (Sort of)  Hell I don't even know what that's about anymore.  No money scandals.  No interest conflicts.  Wait, I don't have any jurist degrees, bar acceptance or experience.  Does that matter?

[Chrisj CMA]

The worst outcome is that the extreme left excites riots and violence again for this occasion. They view another Trump appointment as the kiss of death. They feel empowered to do anything to stop it. So sad we have come to this in America

[f6john]

Maybe he should nominate ME I don't have any skeletons in the closet.  My ex is dead she can't rat me out.  I'm a "war hero" well actually I didn't get any hero medals but I did two tours working on the Thai railroad.  (Laid ties all over Thailand, only got derailed twice.) No sex scandals. (Sort of)  Hell I don't even know what that's about anymore.  No money scandals.  No interest conflicts.  Wait, I don't have any jurist degrees, bar acceptance or experience.  Does that matter?

I think you might qualify! The other morning on Fox News in a conversation Trump said in jest, He should nominate Ainsley Earnhardt, she would be a shoe in.

[Patrick]

It'll be interesting to see if anyone comes forward with complaints of sexual advances from any of the 3 nominees. 

[scooperhsd]

Maybe he should nominate ME I don't have any skeletons in the closet.  My ex is dead she can't rat me out.  I'm a "war hero" well actually I didn't get any hero medals but I did two tours working on the Thai railroad.  (Laid ties all over Thailand, only got derailed twice.) No sex scandals. (Sort of)  Hell I don't even know what that's about anymore.  No money scandals.  No interest conflicts.  Wait, I don't have any jurist degrees, bar acceptance or experience.  Does that matter?

For the SCOTUS - yes it does. I don't think Jess or Evan would even want to be considered for this, considering the intense party hacking that is going to happen .

[Jersey mike]

It'll be interesting to see if anyone comes forward with complaints of sexual advances from any of the 3 nominees.  

Amy Barrett is standing firm on her religious background and beliefs but accusations of promiscuity from high school through college could be made a topic of conversation.

I am not insinuating there have been accusations, I am speaking hypothetically just to be clear.

Exactly when did she “get religion”, after she sowed her wild oats or was she always a religious person? She’s already been slammed by Diane Feinstein at her previous confirmation for holding her religion in too high a regard.

From what I’ve seen woman or man, religious beliefs of Christian beliefs are attackable but Catholics are especially tasty treats in the political arena, they’ll try to chew her up and spit her out. This may be the epitome of equal rights in the eyes of the Democrats. “Man or woman we attack as gender neutral, what’s fair is fair” will be the party line. They will attack her work and her decisions from the bench as well as whatever areas they can of her personal life.






As for complaints..I agree with you, I’d like to see who.

[Jess from VA]

For the SCOTUS - yes it does. I don't think Jess or Evan would even want to be considered for this, considering the intense party hacking that is going to happen.

Not only am I HIGHLY unqualified, I don't need the money, or want the work, and I already commuted into DC for 18 years, and they don't have a single job in that town that would change my mind.  

If somehow by accident I did get called up, I'd have to run away and change my name.

But I could sit down there (in a hearing) and let them try to find skeletons in my closet, and I have some but they're all misdemeanors.  But because I don't want the job at all, I could also tell the hostile inquisitors to kiss my fuzzy ass (and show it to them on live TV), just to make sure I wasn't voted in.

"Come on over here and kiss it Mr Shiff, you know you want to."  

"This candidate seemed..... unbalanced"

And a Contempt of Congress citation would be a badge of high honor anyway.    

[Jersey mike]

And it begins;

https://www.theblaze.com/news/newsweek-attacks-potential-scotus-nominee-major-correction

“ So media outlets have begun digging into her background, many of them with the intent of finding unfavorable information about the woman who could become President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court appointment of his first term. Barrett's Catholic faith has been a primary focus.”

“Newsweek published an article that claimed in the headline that a Catholic group Barrett is a member of was the inspiration for "The Handmaid's Tale," a novel by Margaret Atwood that was recently made into a television show. This is not true, and Newsweek had to issue a correction.“

"Correction: This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work," the correction read. "A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error."

“ The article described some of the aspects of People of Praise, such as opposition to premarital or extramarital sex, opposition to abortion, and opposition to homosexuality and quoted a professor who questioned whether Barrett would be able to make individual decisions as a member of such a group.“

““Nevertheless, concerns have been raised that Barrett's ties to the group as would influence her decisions on the Supreme Court.””

“"These groups can become so absorbing that it's difficult for a person to retain individual judgment," Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania, previously told The Times.“

“And while the People of Praise group was never brought up in Barrett's 2017 confirmation hearing for her current post, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barrett: "The dogma lives loudly within you." Barrett told the senators that her faith would not affect her decisions as a judge.”“




All it takes is an accusation, someone to stir the pot. Yes a correction has been made but how many people that already read the article will read about the correction. The info is now out there and people have already come to a conclusion. Now for the tv media to take the ball, run with it and spin it how they want because there has to be some truth in the matter somewhere.

[Pete]

10 seconds,.......

[old2soon]

           I  H O it is too frikkin bad the appointee has to just sit there and take it. Some questions of the person doing the grilling as to their qualifications back round and skeletons in closet ot warehouse. Maybe-hellz bellz fer sure and fer certain The modern inquisition.  No physical torture just words and innuendo. Or witch hunt if you will. RIDE SAFE.

[Willow]

And it begins;

https://www.theblaze.com/news/newsweek-attacks-potential-scotus-nominee-major-correction
...

“ The article described some of the aspects of People of Praise, such as opposition to premarital or extramarital sex, opposition to abortion, and opposition to homosexuality and quoted a professor who questioned whether Barrett would be able to make individual decisions as a member of such a group.“

““Nevertheless, concerns have been raised that Barrett's ties to the group as would influence her decisions on the Supreme Court.””

“"These groups can become so absorbing that it's difficult for a person to retain individual judgment," Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania, previously told The Times.“
...

So these people of little or no faith are concerned that one's faith may influence his sense of what's right.  Does it not occur to themselves or anyone that their own lack of commitment to faith certainly largely influences their own sense of what's right or wrong.

At any rate the understanding of what is right and what is wrong is the job of a legislator.  A judge (justice) carries specifically the responsibility to determine what is the proper application of the existing law.

[scooperhsd]

For the SCOTUS - yes it does. I don't think Jess or Evan would even want to be considered for this, considering the intense party hacking that is going to happen.

Not only am I HIGHLY unqualified, I don't need the money, or want the work, and I already commuted into DC for 18 years, and they don't have a single job in that town that would change my mind. 

If somehow by accident I did get called up, I'd have to run away and change my name.

But I could sit down there (in a hearing) and let them try to find skeletons in my closet, and I have some but they're all misdemeanors.  But because I don't want the job at all, I could also tell the hostile inquisitors to kiss my fuzzy ass (and show it to them on live TV), just to make sure I wasn't voted in.

"Come on over here and kiss it Mr Shiff, you know you want to." 

"This candidate seemed..... unbalanced"

And a Contempt of Congress citation would be a badge of high honor anyway.   

I was making reference to the fact that at least you both ARE members of the bar . I would defer to your judgement if you meet other qualifications, as well as your desire for such a job...

[Patrick]

Oh yes, the dems will do whatever they can to destroy any Trump nominee and hold this off until after the election. The election of course of their boy.

[Rams]

According to the "news" this morning, several Democrats have come out and admitted there is nothing they can do to stop this process.  

While I'm not convinced of a Trump victory, I am concerned about maintaining a Republican majority in the Senate now that SCOTUS is presumably safe for a few decades.   I don't see the House or Representatives swinging to a more centrist role during this election cycle.

Ya have to wonder if Harry Reid is glad (now) that he killed the filibuster rule...........  
Mitch warned him he would regret it.   

Rams

[G-Man]

1,000 people can come forward and accuse the nominee of 10,000 atrocities.

If there is NO evidence, NO witness, NO corroboration of any kind,..........  The people should in no way be made aware of ANY of the accusations, let alone any of them making it to floor of Congress. 

The people should never again be subjected to a terrible actress, fakely whimpering her way through a story that occurred 36 years ago about her getting felt up at a party.

[Bighead]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qinFBxVu_BE
 

[Serk]

I'm sure they've got lots of text ready to condemn XX as soon as they know whom XX is...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/oops-womens-march-denounces-xx-in-statement-on-brett-kavanaughs-supreme-court-nomination

[Jersey mike]

There has been some more reporting that Judge Barrett’s religion and religious views will be the front and center argument.

I vaguely remembered something against this written in The US Constitution.

This is from Article 6:

“ The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[1]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Also written on that site is an excerpt from JFK and a speech he gave while running for President.

This is just a brief excerpt;

“ I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.”

“ I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”

“ But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.”


It’s amazing how there are published reports of how RBG kept being active in her Jewish faith.

For example;

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/517756-judge-amy-coney-barrett-for-her-intellect-instead-of-catholic-faith

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was religious. She said, “I am a judge, born, raised, and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, and for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.” She is the only justice to have a mezuzah affixed to her office door, and reportedly had the Jewish injunction “tzedek tirdof, or “justice shall you pursue,” woven into one of her jabots, or collars, worn on her Supreme Court robes. She studied and attended conferences on Jewish religious law. She insisted traditional certificates reading “the year of our Lord” be changed as unacceptable for Jewish lawyers. She was right, but her references to faith did not make her a religious zealot.“


In the upper levels of politics being a Catholic is the equivalent of swimming in the ocean with an open cut.

This is not said to be an offense to other Christian religions so please do not interpret it that way.

[scooperhsd]

It has been my experiance that there are GOOD people of all faiths and denominations - you could even say overwhelmingly so - but that doesn't mean that good people don't exist who are not necessarily religious. It also doesn't endorse the notion that all religious people ARE good - but there are "not good" people outside of religion as well.

The notion of religion being used as a litmus test for political office is totally foreign to me - I never use it when I'm looking at a candidate. And quite frankly - I don't see how it should play on the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.