It's official: Amy Coney Barrett is the Supreme Court nominee.

[Didacus]

From what I read she is an exceptional candidate and its is very likely she will be confirmed.

Almost makes me want to move to the USA...  I just might if Trump gets re-elected...

On 9/27/2020 at 6:10 PM, Jaime said:

Let's hope not but I've stopped being surprised by the democrats

Never under-estimate human stupidity.

[Didacus]

On 10/4/2020 at 6:40 PM, Lil Red said:

I still haven't read through the whole thing yet but here's this:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-amy-coney-barrett-should-not-be-on-the-supreme-court/

Wow....

What I read is "I disagree with her judgements.  I should be on the supreme court - not her.  Whooaaaa...."

I get the impression  the author need a sound soother-slap!

[Lilllabettt]

On 10/4/2020 at 6:40 PM, Lil Red said:

I still haven't read through the whole thing yet but here's this:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-amy-coney-barrett-should-not-be-on-the-supreme-court/

This is the dumbest most confused ish I've read in a long time. It's deeply cringeworthy and embarrassing. I hope you didn't read this and take any part of it on board, because yikes. 

I'll provide one example of how breathtaking vapid and dumb this analysis is.

"In Elston v. County of Kane she dealt with the case of an off-duty police officer who flashed his badge and gun before roughing someone up and putting their arms behind their back as if to arrest them. The question was whether he was trying to act in the service of the police (therefore making the county liable for his conduct). Barrett said that he was not, and that the county was therefore not responsible for what its officer did. "

BLM types have been looting and burning American cities all summer because "qualified immunity" supposedly protects dirty cops. The author of this piece then goes on to negatively refer to this case, in which the judge ruled the county is not responsible for the abusive actions of a dirty cop. Iotw,  qualified immunity didnt attach the cop rather than the county is responsible.... and this is injustice because... ??? BLM types don't know up from down. It was the same thing with body cameras. Everyone wanted body cameras until they revealed who the real buttholes are (ie "the community.") Qualified immunity will be bad until BLM type lawyers realize the government has deeper pockets than the average street cop. Then the tune will change.

There is nothing outrageous about any of the other cases discussed either .... The author has a problem with the fact that ACB is not an activist judge. It's her judicial philosophy that is the problem; the author believes a judge's role is to address injustice vs ACB whose philosophy is judges apply the law. Of course we all know the author and other liberals with this mindset are lying HYPOCRITES as they have been using the law to deny self evident truth and brutally crush and dismember the poorest of the poor in our society, for decades. That's their judicial philosophy and it has nothing to do with remedying injustice. 

 

[Peace]

On 10/7/2020 at 5:37 PM, Lilllabettt said:

This is the dumbest most confused ish I've read in a long time. It's deeply cringeworthy and embarrassing. I hope you didn't read this and take any part of it on board, because yikes. 

I'll provide one example of how breathtaking vapid and dumb this analysis is.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it though?

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it though?

Not much written by 30 year old self professed socialists makes any sense. This is one large bowel movement... like most of "current affairs" which was founded in 2015 with a kickstarter campaign. I went to harvard for grad school and I was amazed how dumb the "smart" people are, and no one calls them on it. It's like a code of silence where they can't say publicly of one another, wow that was dumb. most of our cultural elites in media, politics, government are in fact nothing special. They got there because their dads play golf at the same club or they were in skulls and bones... All the more impressive ACB rose to prominence attending a 2nd string law school. 

[Peace]

9 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Not much written by 30 year old self professed socialists makes any sense. This is one large bowel movement... like most of "current affairs" which was founded in 2015 with a kickstarter campaign. I went to harvard for grad school and I was amazed how dumb the "smart" people are, and no one calls them on it. It's like a code of silence where they can't say publicly of one another, wow that was dumb. most of our cultural elites in media, politics, government are in fact nothing special. They got there because their dads play golf at the same club or they were in skulls and bones... All the more impressive ACB rose to prominence attending a 2nd string law school. 

Yeah that's funny I have had the same experience. I wouldn't call them "Dumb" just lazy. Many of them seem to think that they are so smart that they can just BS off the top of their head and be correct without doing the work.  I would say that the folks at Harvard are a bit smarter if we are just talking about IQ or raw talent, but so many of them don't apply themselves and end up getting out-performed in the long run by more "ordinary" folks who actually do the hard work. I had friends in college (Northwestern) who could grasp concepts faster than me, but if I am studying 6 hours a day and they do nothing until the night before the exam, it doesn't matter.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

On 10/10/2020 at 8:19 AM, Peace said:

I wouldn't call them "Dumb" just lazy.

There's no denying it, they're both dumb and lazy.

And, hey, I am too, so I know what I'm talking about!

[fides' Jack]

On 10/10/2020 at 8:19 AM, Peace said:

I had friends in college (Northwestern) who could grasp concepts faster than me, but if I am studying 6 hours a day and they do nothing until the night before the exam, it doesn't matter.

This is an interesting take to me.  Let me give an example.

I went to college late, and studied computer science.  Simultaneously, I had already started my career (in CS), bought a house, and started a family.  

My main goal was simple - to get the piece of paper called a "degree", for future job security.  My secondary goal, which I believe I largely fulfilled, was to get the highest grades I could while putting in the least amount of work (because I had plenty of other things going on).  

One of my courses in my senior year was a course on Operating Systems.  The grade was split between 4 assignments.  He told us at the beginning of the course, that 20% of the class typically didn't even finish the first assignment.  40% didn't finish the second, 60% didn't finish the third, and 80% didn't finish the last assignment.  He also said that to be able to be in the 20% that ended with an A and completed all the assignments, it would require 40 hours of work every week.  I played it smart and put in roughly 1 hour per week, and ended up with a B-.  Most of the class ended with Cs. 

So who's the real winner?  The person who put in a small fraction of the time necessary but still passed with a higher than average grade, or the person who put in more time than anyone could possibly be expected to put in and got an A?  I guess the answer depends on what your goal is.  

To me, time was money, and I had other things to focus on.  I consider that class to be my most successful, even though I got As in most of my other classes.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

This is an interesting take to me.  Let me give an example.

I went to college late, and studied computer science.  Simultaneously, I had already started my career (in CS), bought a house, and started a family.  

My main goal was simple - to get the piece of paper called a "degree", for future job security.  My secondary goal, which I believe I largely fulfilled, was to get the highest grades I could while putting in the least amount of work (because I had plenty of other things going on).  

One of my courses in my senior year was a course on Operating Systems.  The grade was split between 4 assignments.  He told us at the beginning of the course, that 20% of the class typically didn't even finish the first assignment.  40% didn't finish the second, 60% didn't finish the third, and 80% didn't finish the last assignment.  He also said that to be able to be in the 20% that ended with an A and completed all the assignments, it would require 40 hours of work every week.  I played it smart and put in roughly 1 hour per week, and ended up with a B-.  Most of the class ended with Cs. 

So who's the real winner?  The person who put in a small fraction of the time necessary but still passed with a higher than average grade, or the person who put in more time than anyone could possibly be expected to put in and got an A?  I guess the answer depends on what your goal is.  

To me, time was money, and I had other things to focus on.  I consider that class to be my most successful, even though I got As in most of my other classes.

Yeah if those are your goals I suppose it works. At least for me, if I am employing someone, in an ideal world I want to employ the people who have learned the subject matter the best, other things equal. If your learning came via real world experience as supposed to learning in school that is viable (or perhaps even better) - but ultimately you still had to do the work.

[fides' Jack]

Fair enough.

[Peace]

Been listening to a bit of the confirmation hearings while at work. She seems like she will be a good judge based on what I have seen so far.

[little2add]

No disrespect to justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I find the claim that she had a dying wish that the next elected president select her replacement is hard to believe.  Surely someone as knowledgeable and outspoken as her would have made a public statement as-to  how she felt In regard to her replacement.  

Joe Biden’s running mate made up a story about Abraham Lincoln during her debate with the VP, for example 

[Peace]

47 minutes ago, little2add said:

No disrespect to justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I find the claim that she had a dying wish that the next elected president select her replacement is hard to believe.  Surely someone as knowledgeable and outspoken as her would have made a public statement as-to  how she felt In regard to her replacement.  

Joe Biden’s running mate made up a story about Abraham Lincoln during her debate with the VP, for example 

It does sound a bit fantastical.

[Lilllabettt]

It's not unheard of for justices to have the preference that the political party which appointed them should replace them. It's not usually stated publicly although at least 1 justice has said so in the recent past. Ruth (unwisely) stated her opinion on the record re: Trump presidency before he was sworn into office ... she did not relish the thought of him choosing her successor I'm sure. Whether her brain was fixed on such a thing as she slipped this mortal coil idk... but the truth is she gambled and lost. Pride goeth before the fall. 

[Didacus]

ACB is killing it in the Senate!  What a woman!

 

PS: Her predessor could have wished upon a thousand stars that her successor be this or that... truth is IT WAS NOT AND SHALL NEVER HE HER CALL AS TO SUCCESSION.  JUSTICES APPLY THE LAW - THEY DO NOT UPHOLD PERCEIVED 'LEGACIES'.

On 10/13/2020 at 9:57 AM, Peace said:

Been listening to a bit of the confirmation hearings while at work. She seems like she will be a good judge based on what I have seen so far.

Correction: she is already a 'good judge'... she will be ome a great Justice!