Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court Monday evening by the Senate in a 52-48 vote – with Republican Susan Collins crossing the aisle to vote against her.
Donald Trump’s third nominee was not in the chamber to watch the roll call vote, which allows her to join the eight justices on Tuesday morning, and potentially to decide on cases about voting before the November 3 election.
Senate president pro tempore Chuck Grassley declared her confirmation at 8.06pm; outside the Supreme Court conservatives chanted Coney Barrett’s name as soon as she was confirmed.
Owen
Everything but tech support.
Like that’s a surprise?
Yes, Pat, in the beginning, it was. I didn’t think the Turtle could pull it off.
And of course CNN and MSNBC did not cover it as it was happening.
I guess it wasn’t news to them.
Pat,
Are you glad?
Personally, I don’t care. But as McConnell reiterated in his diatribe on the Senate floor today, elections have consequences. That’s something that’s good to remember.
“And of course CNN and MSNBC did not cover it as it was happening.“
I’m sure there were networks covering it for those that were really that interested in watching.
Yep, just Fox and C-Span. Apparently, CNN and MSNBC and their viewers cannot handle good for President Trump.
Pat,
In this case it was a great consequence.
ACB will be 10 times the intellect of justice she is replacing.
See, Marbles, it was covered and you were able to watch. Why on earth should every network have to carry it? People had a choice what to watch. Sounds like good American freedom of choice.
“ACB will be 10 times the intellect of justice she is replacing.”
Proof, or just your opinion?
Cool. Now I support expanding the court. Republican hypocrisy. Let’s go.
How sweet it it is. On Hildabeast’s birthday, with a direct knee to the groin of Babblin’ Biden provided by Justice Thomas.
Nord,
Ever read RGB’s opinions? They are a mess. That is what you get with judicial liberal activism.
The bigger question is, have you? And how you define “mess”. Just hyperbole from you, the master.
We still have a “$6,000 stolen by Walker” hyperbole that has never been proven or vetted. That still earns you a Pants on Fire until you can respond in a coherent sentence.
j:
You couldn’t comprehend my very coherent response when I initially answered the question, why should I think you could now? I doubt you would ever learn anything new unless told by trump or k.
Supreme has needed to be expanded for years. They need 13 for the 13 district courts. Anyone that disagrees just doesn’t understand how the judicial system works. They also need to add term limits. 20 years is more than enough.
If we truly are a Christian Nation then we should have 13 justices on the Supreme Court – one judge for each of the twelve apostles and a Chief Justice to lead them.
Nine Supreme Court Justices were established to reflect one Justice per each of the nine Circuit Courts. There are now thirteen Circuit Courts. Let’s keep with the precedence established in 1876.
>You couldn’t comprehend my very coherent response when I initially answered the question, why should I think you could now?
Of course I couldn’t comprehend it. You never answered it. Ever.
Wrong again, j. You just have a selective memory.
Prove I’m wrong, senile Leroy.
j:
It is obvious to all who pay attention. Embrace your wrongness. At least you are good at something.
Question:
If Barrett is an originality, does she favor denying women and minorities the right to vote? Recall amendments had to be passed to make that happen. And respond with facts, no juvenile name calling. Thanks
>It is obvious to all who pay attention. Embrace your wrongness. At least you are good at something.
See, your hyperbole continues today…
Sorry, spell check got me again, that should be “originalist “.
Pat, very good arguments, though I disagree with expanding the court.
As far as term limits, I agree but as long as Congress also has term limits.
“As far as term limits, I agree but as long as Congress also has term limits.“
Congress has term limits. The citizenry has an opportunity to end the terms of their Representatives and Senators every time they’re up for re-election. But for some crazy reason, they keep getting re-elected???????
True. So, then why have term limits on presidents?
As far as being keep being elected, people like the power. Too many old white people in Congress, on both sides.
I don’t like AOC for her policies but I respect her for her tenacity.
I should have added, AOC is President Trump in drag.
According to this article, the following are reasons why incumbents tend to have an advantage in being re-elected:
Perks of Office
Time
Visibility
Campaign Organization
Money
You might add that they have campaign err constituent offices in many cities they represent, but not necessarily live in.