SCOTUS vacancy

It looks increasingly likely the GOP event/party to present Amy Coney Barrett as nominee may have been a Covid19 "superspreader" event. As well as Trump, Melania and Hope Hicks having Covid19 so too now do at least 2 US Senators who are on camera mingling and socialising and hugging people without masks.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

There would be a certain kind of poetic justice if the Republican refusal to wear masks or take Covid19 seriously means that they're incapable of ramming through the nomination before the election.

Three confirmed now, with Ron Johnson testing positive and in isolation. I feel like they'll find a way to get it done nevertheless.

With two rebels confirmed in theory at least that is the majority gone now. 48 aye Vs 49 nay.

Bet they suddenly find a virtue in permitting remote voting now.

Twitter Link

Knowingly exposed all these people. This judge is an idiot as well.

https://i.imgur.com/1oOG3GV.jpg

I mean that's where most scientists believe life begins at... but this is a very weird attack angle. The idea that a justice nominated has to agree with everything a president says or does is just bizarre.

If too many Republicans have the virus to hold a vote this week (though it wouldn't surprise me if they break quarantine to vote) is there a deadline to hold the vote by before the election.

In the UK Parliament breaks up a month before the election then doesn't exist anymore until it is reconstituted with the newly elected members after it. I know the latter doesn't happen in the States and you continue with a lame duck Congress but does Congress break up at all? Could they be voting the day before the election? The day of it?

They can do whatever Mitch McConnell wants to do. If for some reason he can't get it jammed through before election day you can be sure he'll do it in the lame duck session.

Right, it's on.

What's up for debate is: is it a good idea to place a Trump sock puppet as a judge who will shoot down ACA, taking away healthcare protection for millions of Americans during a pandemic, just because Trump hates Obama.

They really can't count on that. The moment she's confirmed, the pressure to expand and rebalance the court will pass that critical threshold beyond which Dems can't negotiate it away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEUaGquDXs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Right, it's on.

What's up for debate is: is it a good idea to place a Trump sock puppet as a judge who will shoot down ACA, taking away healthcare protection for millions of Americans during a pandemic, just because Trump hates Obama.

---

The impact of a decision should never be considered by a judge, only what the law is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

They really can't count on that. The moment she's confirmed, the pressure to expand and rebalance the court will pass that critical threshold beyond which Dems can't negotiate it away.

---

Oh I know, they're dealing with sleazeballs.

Dang, I thought this thread would be a debate about the role of SCOTUS justices in how they interpret law, and precedent, citing the Constitution. :noob:

Lewk, the "pro-life" movement can't advance their cause by giving embryos "equal rights" that subjugate women's rights. Legal abortion is already a federally protected law. Just like the ACA. That's precedent, and it's already been adjudicated by the courts.....you just don't like the outcomes. So stop pretending that you don't want to replace judges (or stack courts) in order to get a different opinion/outcome. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The impact of a decision should never be considered by a judge, only what the law is.

---

And it used to be considered "Constitutional Law" that only white male land/property owners could vote. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I mean that's where most scientists believe life begins at... but this is a very weird attack angle. The idea that a justice nominated has to agree with everything a president says or does is just bizarre.

---

If "most" scientists believed life begins at fertilization, we wouldn't be having these debates about sexual relations, conception, birth control, or abortion.

And we wouldn't have a Republican Party trying to give embryos equal rights, let alone a SCOTUS nominee who considers IVF immoral/unethical, citing religious beliefs. :donkey:

What's totally bizarre is that a voting block (Evangelical Christians) can overlook and ignore the majority of their guiding principles, just to get "conservative" judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, and Obamacare, making their "pro-life" stance a sad and twisted joke. :(

Right, so this ACA thing is happening tomorrow right?

Any news on what is to be expected? I mean this should be really a no brainer. Shall we gut the ACA in the middle of a pandemic is a question a 5 year old can answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Right, so this ACA thing is happening tomorrow right?

Any news on what is to be expected? I mean this should be really a no brainer. Shall we gut the ACA in the middle of a pandemic is a question a 5 year old can answer.

---

Reuters opines:

The justices were hearing a scheduled 80 minutes of arguments by teleconference in an appeal by a coalition of Democratic-governed states including California and New York and the Democratic-led House of Representatives to preserve Obamacare.

The case represents the latest Republican legal attack on the 2010 law...The Supreme Court in 2012 and 2015 fended off previous Republican challenges to it.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority after the Republican-led Senate last month confirmed Trump’s third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett. Most legal experts think the justices will stop short of a seismic ruling striking down Obamacare.

A group of states led by Texas, later joined by Trump’s administration, sued in 2018 in Texas to strike down the law.

“We believe there are nine justices who connect the dots and see how important this is,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who is leading the coalition of 20 states defending Obamacare.
“We think there’s a very strong chance that Americans will continue to have good healthcare coverage,” Becerra added.

Texas-based US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in 2018 ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional as currently structured in light of a Republican-backed change made by Congress a year earlier.

The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals last year partially upheld that ruling, saying the law’s “individual mandate,” which required people to obtain insurance or pay a financial penalty, afoul of the Constitution. But the 5th Circuit stopped short of striking down the law. The Democratic-led states and the House then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

R
Texas-based US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in 2018 ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional as currently structured in light of a Republican-backed change made by Congress a year earlier.

---

What an interesting approach. I wonder who had that brainstorm? The GOP was too gutless (and had enough common sense) to repeal the ACA because they knew they'd get crucified for the consequences since they didn't have any alternatives and would never be able to get enough agreement in their own party as to what the alternative should be. So they make a change to the law which would render it unconstitutional to try and get the courts to strike down the law for them, avoiding the direct blame for the consequences to the American public. Even more gutless. And then they'll go on the attack and act like it was the basic ACA as passed by the Obama administration which was unconstitutional and not the change they inserted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What an interesting approach. I wonder who had that brainstorm? The GOP was too gutless (and had enough common sense) to repeal the ACA because they knew they'd get crucified for the consequences since they didn't have any alternatives and would never be able to get enough agreement in their own party as to what the alternative should be. So they make a change to the law which would render it unconstitutional to try and get the courts to strike down the law for them, avoiding the direct blame for the consequences to the American public. Even more gutless. And then they'll go on the attack and act like it was the basic ACA as passed by the Obama administration which was unconstitutional and not the change they inserted.

---

I actually thought it was pretty smart. I mean, obviously devious and dishonest, but pretty smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I actually thought it was pretty smart. I mean, obviously devious and dishonest, but pretty smart.

---

I don't know if it's smart or not. It's certainly possible it's a very smart approach. Less so if they can't get a court to strike down the entire Act. But it's an interesting approach regardless. And of course it highlights what gutless wonders they are and the kernel of truth behind the idea that DC really is a swamp and that one should be running against Congress. Congress, or at least the GOP half, isn't willing to act anymore or do the jobs they were elected to do anymore. They just pass the buck and try to keep their little sinecures.

I don't mean 'very smart' in the sense that it has a good probability of getting rid of the ACA. The GOP has had opportunities to do so in the past and have failed miserably, mostly because the alternatives are unpalatable to the electorate. But it's a really good way to pass the buck and avoid making an unpopular decision - while still being able to rail against the ACA and how terrible it is.