Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[Randi]

406DN : But possibly Harris is, as a Senator ( which has been left of herself as an AG ) and some believe she will be in charge if Biden/Harris should win. And I personally believe that Biden,s record in the Senate may not be left of some, but his statements today might make some think he is drifting further left.

Europe: Eisenhower The "White Colonist" label and term was unexpected and we have been researching it and I doubt that few in the mainstream will take this seriously ( White colonist ) I can find no one that believes someone would do that today ( adopt a child of color ) for political reasons. There are more and more bi-racial marriages and bi-racial children from those marriages and speaking only for myself and those I know, we dont even think about it.

"us" or "we" being mid twenty men and women mainly from Texas and Alaska and all middle class. It just is not an issue with us, but as stated before those from other zip codes may disagree with us.

 

[406dn]

406DN : But possibly Harris is, as a Senator ( which has been left of herself as an AG ) and some believe she will be in charge if Biden/Harris should win. And I personally believe that Biden,s record in the Senate may not be left of some, but his statements today might make some think he is drifting further left.

Europe: Eisenhower The "White Colonist" label and term was unexpected and we have been researching it and I doubt that few in the mainstream will take this seriously ( White colonist ) I can find no one that believes someone would do that today ( adopt a child of color ) for political reasons. There are more and more bi-racial marriages and bi-racial children from those marriages and speaking only for myself and those I know, we dont even think about it.

"us" or "we" being mid twenty men and women mainly from Texas and Alaska and all middle class. It just is not an issue with us, but as stated before those from other zip codes may disagree with us.

About the only VP who could be said to be "in charge" was Cheney during GWB's first term. Most presidents make political loyalty a priority. So no, I do not think Biden will put Harris in charge.

I really doubt any Democratic Senator will allege charges of being a White Colonist against Barrett during the hearing. Will those charges be made by a surrogate,,,,,,,,,,,maybe but I doubt it. Will some one make those charges,,, certainly. People say all sort of crazy $hit.

Given both Biden and Pelosi are practicing Catholics,,, I don't think they will make much about her faith other than whether can she set her faith aside when it conflicts with a law. Where I think they will go after her is her previous statements concerning the issue of Obamacare. That and the obvious hypocrisy of denying Garland a hearing or vote months ahead of an election and then moving quickly weeks ahead of an election for her.

 

[SAJ-99]

While your "theory" might be good in an economics classroom (although not in mine, as my MBA Economics professor was a confirmed capitalist), but most folks I know would rather pay out fewer dollars in taxes, and invest those dollars in their retirement, their children's college funds, and support their charities. Do good things. YMMV, though. I should learn not to leave comments that might be considered conservative.

It isn't a conservative versus liberal and my view isn't a theory. There is no data to support the idea that tax cuts result in more economic growth. the economy is more complicated that than. News flash: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves and there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Thinking it's true doesn't make it so. I believe that Americans are should at least hear the truth so we can start a discussion. Economics (and maybe everything in life) is about trade offs. Everyone, including me, likes to keep more money rather than give it to the government. However, people also like clear air, fresh water, safety at work, smooth roads, LWCF funding, strong military, lower mortgage rates, the ability to retire at 65 and jump on medicare, and the hundreds of other benefits provided by the government. That stuff costs money. You want lower taxes, you can have it but we go further in debt. The only thing keeping us afloat is the $ is the world's reserve currency.

You can invest those new-found, tax-cut dollars, but that isn't consumption, its savings. That is why real GDP growth hasn't exceeded 3% in over 15yrs.

 

[BigHornRam]

You're actually naïve enough to believe that?

Laffin'...

Bezos net worth which has your shorts in a bunch is based on current Amazon stock values. Imagine how rich he'd be if he hadn't dumped his wife.

Jeff Bezos Becomes The First Person Ever Worth $200 Billion

The Amazon founder is richer than anyone has ever been.

www.forbes.com

You don't pay taxes owning stock. You pay taxes selling stocks.

 

[BigHornRam]

There are only 2 tax rates where tax revenue is a given. 0% and 100%. Maximum tax rate revenue lies somewhere in between the 2.

 

[BuzzH]

Bezos net worth which has your shorts in a bunch is based on current Amazon stock values. Imagine how rich he'd be if he hadn't dumped his wife.

Jeff Bezos Becomes The First Person Ever Worth $200 Billion

The Amazon founder is richer than anyone has ever been.

www.forbes.com

You don't pay taxes owning stock. You pay taxes selling stocks.

Yep, you really are that naïve...

 

[BigHornRam]

Yep, you really are that naïve...

Read the article Buzz. You might learn something.

 

[BigHornRam]

"White colonizer" remark is from a wing nut professor. Nothing new here.

Professor: Amy Coney Barrett is 'white colonizer' who adopted blacks

The controversial charge was leveled at Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday by Ibram X. Kendi, a Boston University professor and author of a bestselling book on 'antiracism.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[44hunter45]

Is this thread still where I post about the SCOTUS nomination? It's getting hard to tell.

It's all about Roe. The DEM view is that conservative Catholics are generally anti-Roe. So their balancing act is to "discredit her" without alienating key blue-collar catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. This will be interesting to watch - if they get it wrong they could hand Trump the White House and still not have the votes to block her.

Too true

The etymology of the verb, "Borking" rests in Sen Ted Kennedy railing that if Robert Bork were confirmed to SCOTUS, then back alley, coat hanger abortions would result. It worked then and it will be tried again.

Saying that Biden or Pelosi are practicing Catholics is made politically irrelevant by the Roman Catholic Sen. Kennedy's use of pro-abortion grand-standing to sink Bork. Although I'm not sure how good a Catholic Teddy was, since he dunked Mary Jo Kopechne, rather than sprinkled her. (Mary Jo being yet another 20-something idealist run over by a political elite without justice.)

Whether you are a Utah Bundy, a TV preacher, a Kennedy, or a Tudor king, it's pretty damned hard to get excommunicated.

There is nothing new under the sun. The current situation is that we have a nominee put forth by a Republican President, and a Republican controlled Senate; if just barely. They dare not wait.
They are not going to poll the HT forums about whether the proceedings should go forward. They will go forward. When they do, the other side of the aisle will use everything they can to derail and delay the process.

The makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee is interesting, as there are some historically anti-Trump Republicans there. I expect they will all get in line, though. Senator Cory Booker on the Committee will no doubt bring some theatrics. There is also Senator Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris may be subdued, as she will need to decide how she will behave as the VP candidate. (Like it or not, many do not trust Joe Biden's health and will be looking to see if Harris is "Presidential". She also is considered by many to be owned by Planned Parenthood and may not want to air that out in the Committee hearings.)

Once out of the Committee, it will go to a floor vote, even if the Democrats attempt a filibuster. The Republicans only need 51 votes to break a Democrat filibuster and gain cloture to send the nominee to a floor vote. They cannot risk the possibility of losing their majority this November if they wait.

 

[Randi]

44hunter45
There is also Senator Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris may be subdued, as she will need to decide how she will behave as the VP candidate. (Like it or not, many do not trust Joe Biden's health and will be looking to see if Harris is "Presidential". She also is considered by many to be owned by Planned Parenthood and may not want to air that out in the Committee hearings.)
[/QUOTE]

thank you. We believe she will have a great deal of influence even if he does not step aside ( if he is elected ). The idea will be to "set her up" for 2024, as we do not feel he will run for reelection, if he wins in Nov.

Bighornram wing nut professor As I mentioned to SAJ99, I have had a few of those. Some are VERY liberal and actually have "meld-downs" when you bring up opposing views to their liberal agenda. sometimes it is fun to do so but your grade might suffer

P.S. A member of this forum just said something to me and she is right. Gentlemen: Thank you for letting a young, female, and relatively new member be part of your conversation. As you can tell this topic interests me and I appreciate you gentlemen tolerating my questions and comments. Thank you

 

[VikingsGuy]

P.S. A member of this forum just said something to me and she is right. Gentlemen: Thank you for letting a young, female, and relatively new member be part of your conversation. As you can tell this topic interests me and I appreciate you gentlemen tolerating my questions and comments. Thank you

You are a full member of the HT tribe, no need to offer special thanks or seek toleration. Glad you are here.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is this thread still where I post about the SCOTUS nomination? It's getting hard to tell.


Too true

The etymology of the verb, "Borking" rests in Sen Ted Kennedy railing that if Robert Bork were confirmed to SCOTUS, then back alley, coat hanger abortions would result. It worked then and it will be tried again.

Saying that Biden or Pelosi are practicing Catholics is made politically irrelevant by the Roman Catholic Sen. Kennedy's use of pro-abortion grand-standing to sink Bork. Although I'm not sure how good a Catholic Teddy was, since he dunked Mary Jo Kopechne, rather than sprinkled her. (Mary Jo being yet another 20-something idealist run over by a political elite without justice.)

Whether you are a Utah Bundy, a TV preacher, a Kennedy, or a Tudor king, it's pretty damned hard to get excommunicated.

There is nothing new under the sun. The current situation is that we have a nominee put forth by a Republican President, and a Republican controlled Senate; if just barely. They dare not wait.
They are not going to poll the HT forums about whether the proceedings should go forward. They will go forward. When they do, the other side of the aisle will use everything they can to derail and delay the process.

The makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee is interesting, as there are some historically anti-Trump Republicans there. I expect they will all get in line, though. Senator Cory Booker on the Committee will no doubt bring some theatrics. There is also Senator Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris may be subdued, as she will need to decide how she will behave as the VP candidate. (Like it or not, many do not trust Joe Biden's health and will be looking to see if Harris is "Presidential". She also is considered by many to be owned by Planned Parenthood and may not want to air that out in the Committee hearings.)

Once out of the Committee, it will go to a floor vote, even if the Democrats attempt a filibuster. The Republicans only need 51 votes to break a Democrat filibuster and gain cloture to send the nominee to a floor vote. They cannot risk the possibility of losing their majority this November if they wait.

Thanks for taking the wheel and getting us back on the road.

@VikingsGuy what’s your take on Barrett for various public land/ hunting/2A issues.
Where she stands on issues like abortion et al. isn’t really relevant to this forum.

@Randi nope you have every much as right to be here as anyone. Also I owe you an apology for mansplaining about impeachment.

I apologize for the condescending comment, in-fact you were actually closer to the truth than me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thanks for taking the wheel and getting us back on the road.

@VikingsGuy what’s your take on Barrett for various public land/ hunting/2A issues.
Where she stands on issues like abortion et al. isn’t really relevant to this forum.

@Randi nope you have every much as right to be here as anyone. Also I owe you an apology for mansplaining about impeachment.

I apologize for the condescending comment, in-fact you were actually closer to the truth than me.

Trying to focus on hunting for next couple of weeks, but . . . Regarding 2A, she will likely be a solid supporter of Heller with Thomas and Alito - is a safe 5th vote for taking some of the lower court cases that was lacking last year. Hunting and public lands are not commonly litigated at the federal level so she may not have much history, but she is a "traditionalist/textualist/originalist" by nature so likely will support legislative solutions over litigated ones. One interesting angle will be if she joins Gorsuch's skepticism of federal agencies, or if she carries on her mentor's (Scalia) deference to the agencies. She is also likely to at least consider 10thA arguments as they may arise. No reason to believe she would buy into the psuedo-law analysis promoted by the Bundys or some in Utah. I would guess her traditionalist nature would favor hunting as a family activity, a way of feeding one's family, as a game management approach and as something inherently human.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Also I owe you an apology for mansplaining about impeachment.

If you're going to mansplain, at least get it right for goodness sake

 

[ibehuntin]

Justice Barrett is described as a “textual constructionist” which means she deals with what the text of the Law actually says and not what one may presume to think it means. The Bill of Rights is secure under her hopefully long tenure.

 

[antlerradar]

Trying to focus on hunting for next couple of weeks, but . . . Regarding 2A, she will likely be a solid supporter of Heller with Thomas and Alito - is a safe 5th vote for taking some of the lower court cases that was lacking last year. Hunting and public lands are not commonly litigated at the federal level so she may not have much history, but she is a "traditionalist/textualist/originalist" by nature so likely will support legislative solutions over litigated ones. One interesting angle will be if she joins Gorsuch's skepticism of federal agencies, or if she carries on her mentor's (Scalia) deference to the agencies. She is also likely to at least consider 10thA arguments as they may arise. No reason to believe she would buy into the psuedo-law analysis promoted by the Bundys or some in Utah. I would guess her traditionalist nature would favor hunting as a family activity, a way of feeding one's family, as a game management approach and as something inherently human.

What is your take on treaty rights?

 

[44hunter45]

Thanks for taking the wheel and getting us back on the road.

NP - I think the thread has some legs if we avoid ad hominem attacks and blaming the LDS for everything. Sure tickets to a lock.

It has driven me to look outside my silo and do some research, which is always good. My only credentials in this being that I am a guy who reads too much. I do like to fact check before I post.

So how is the discussion relevant to the HT mission? -
I'm intrigued by the recent William Perry Pendley ruling from Federal Judge Brian Morris in Montana. The Administration has vowed to appeal it. If that goes to SCOTUS, all this discussion becomes very relevant.
So relevant that I've had to add "Pendley" to my spell checker dictionary. Of course it will still be relevant even it is not Amy Coney Barrett in the bullseye.

 

[El Jason]

Justice Barrett is described as a “textual constructionist” which means she deals with what the text of the Law actually says and not what one may presume to think it means. The Bill of Rights is secure under her hopefully long tenure.

There is no such thing as application of law without some interpretation of text.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What is your take on treaty rights?

Don't know that she has ruled on any. It will be interesting to see if she sticks with Scalia type views or is influenced by Gorsuch (who is ironically more text honoring than Scalia's approach to treaties).

 

[VikingsGuy]

There is no such thing as application of law without some interpretation of text.

Very true - I think the question is whether in doing so you apply (a) the "plain meaning" vs. broader extension beyond simply the words; and (b) apply understand at the time of drafting vs modernized context. I favor plain meaning in modern context to the other 3 permutations, but I don't have a vote. Essentially a "textualist" goes with plain meaning in modern context and a "constructionist" goes with plain meaning at the time of drafting. The Warren Court is famous for broader extension beyond simply the words and under a modernized context. Not sure broader extension but at time of drafting shows up to much in the analysis.