Law The Search For The 115th Supreme Court Justice: Justice Amy Coney Barrett Swearing-In Ceremony

[My Spot]

Sen. Hirono says, ‘Hell no,’ while casting her vote against ACB for Supreme Court

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, tried to immortalize her vote Monday night against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court when she walked to a table on the floor of the Senate, pointed her thumbs down and said, “hell no” while casting her vote.

The vote did not affect the evening’s outcome but was seen as an encapsulation of the deep frustrations felt by Democrats that President Trump would be filling a court seat just a week from the November election.

Hirono was criticized over her treatment of Barrett during the confirmation hearings. She asked the judge if she ever “made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

Barrett responded, “No,” and Hirono told her that she asks the question to all nominees who come before committees on which she sits.

Hirono also scolded the Trump appointee for saying "sexual preference" during the hearing.

"Let me make clear, 'sexual preference' is an offensive and outdated term," Hirono said. "It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity... So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a 'preference,' as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you will uphold their constitutional right to marry."

Her decision on Monday to vote in such a dramatic fashion and then seem to exit the chamber was criticized by Republicans on social media who saw the move as theatrics that play for the Democrat base. Her office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News seeking comment.

All Republicans, except for Sen. Susan Collins, voted in favor of the confirmation; every Democrat opposed it.

The Barrett nomination process brought new tension to Washington that seemed to culminate when Demand Justice, a left-wing organization, called on Sen. Dianne Feinstein to step down from the judiciary committee. The California Democrat also drew fire when she embraced Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at the end of the fourth and final day of testimony in Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

The Supreme Court said in a press release Monday that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.

Barrett told the audience at the South Lawn of the White House Monday night, "It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don't stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...ng-her-vote-against-acb-for-supreme-court.amp

That'll show 'em!

 

[SanchoMF]

That'll show 'em!

What a muppet she is.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The same party, has now turned around and rushed their nomination with less than 2 months before the election. Not saying its illegal, and not even saying the dems wouldn't have done the same thing... but you have to admit the hypocrisy by the republican party here, right?

Total hypocrites. That doesn't justify escalating to court packing. It's a dangerous can of worms to open.

 

[Seano]

A Justice died and it's not their duty to "wait and see"? Ayyyyyyy lmao

No, its not.
One of the main duties of a sitting president is to nominate SC justices. I don't recall reading anything about mourning periods or election years.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Total hypocrites. That doesn't justify escalating to court packing. It's a dangerous can of worms to open.

You're right, it absolutely is. Quite frankly, I resent this entire situation. A lot. Speaking for myself, I'm now in a place where I feel like the only way to protect my community -specifically Native children- is to support a destruction of norms which compromises my values. But what good does it do to cling to those values in the face of a potential ruling that guts the Indian Child Welfare Act? It's awful. The whole thing is a giant steaming pile.

 

[Limbo Pete]

No, its not.
One of the main duties of a sitting president is to nominate SC justices. I don't recall reading anything about mourning periods or election years.

Tell it to ol Mr. Mitch, brosef

 

[panamaican]

You're right, it absolutely is. Quite frankly, I resent this entire situation. A lot. Speaking for myself, I'm now in a place where I feel like the only way to protect my community -specifically Native children- is to support a destruction of norms which compromises my values. But what good does it do to cling to those values in the face of a potential ruling that guts the Indian Child Welfare Act? It's awful. The whole thing is a giant steaming pile.

I think that's a perfectly justified position. Norms don't work if they're predicated on you and your loved ones maintaining a lower social order. Those specific "norms" have to be excised and replaced with new standards.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're right, it absolutely is. Quite frankly, I resent this entire situation. A lot. Speaking for myself, I'm now in a place where I feel like the only way to protect my community -specifically Native children- is to support a destruction of norms which compromises my values. But what good does it do to cling to those values in the face of a potential ruling that guts the Indian Child Welfare Act? It's awful. The whole thing is a giant steaming pile.

No matter what there's gonna be ~half the people claiming they got screwed on any given ruling. I'd say wait until a ruling actually takes place and then either suck it up, push for an Amendment, or start talking secession. We all got our problems and grievances, and they aren't all the same.

 

[Seano]

Tell it to ol Mr. Mitch, brosef

Is this about Garland? Obama nominated Garland. The senate decided not to vote, which they could have done with Barret, had they so chosen.

 

[Limbo Pete]

No matter what there's gonna be ~half the people claiming they got screwed on any given ruling. I'd say wait until a ruling actually takes place and then either suck it up, push for an Amendment, or start talking secession. We all got our problems and grievances, and they aren't all the same.

I disagree with the first part. Rulings don't effect everyone equally and, sometimes, they are so specific that it's not even close. There are very real, very serious concerns for tribal sovereignty coming through the docket.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Is this about Garland? Obama nominated Garland. The senate decided not to vote, which they could have done with Barret, had they so chosen.

Well perhaps, should the conditions be favorable, a dem House/Senate will simply choose to expand the court. You know, since means and legality is the only thing that matters.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I disagree with the first part. Rulings don't effect everyone equally and, sometimes, they are so specific that it's not even close. There are very real, very serious concerns for tribal sovereignty coming through the docket.

No offense, but I have no sympathy for the sovereignty of a small group of people. States had theirs stripped by the Civil War. If we're a nation then let's all play by the same rules. If not, then you should go your separate way and fend for yourselves. I'll vote yes on your secession.

 

[shockaholic12]

Well perhaps, should the conditions be favorable, a dem House/Senate will simply choose to expand the court. You know, since means and legality is the only thing that matters.

Exactly. The GOP senate changed the number of justices from 9 to 8 for a quite awhile then back to 9 when it was politically advantageous. Any bitch fits about a Democrat senate changing the number of justices for their political benefit is just selective outrage that should be ignored.

 

[Limbo Pete]

No offense, but I have no sympathy for the sovereignty of a small group of people. States had theirs stripped by the Civil War. If we're a nation then let's all play by the same rules. If not, then you should go your separate way and fend for yourselves. I'll vote yes on your secession.

I neither need nor want your sympathy lol. Spare me, dude. I was explaining my own position. It is interesting that your concern for people's rights appears to diminish based on them being a minority though.

 

[IGIT]

Well perhaps, should the conditions be favorable, a dem House/Senate will simply choose to expand the court. You know, since means and legality is the only thing that matters.

heya Limbo,

i been away for a bit, and this is a long thread. could you tell me, have any of the advocates of Mrs. Barrett argued against this point?

i think Mr. McConnell was masterful in denying President Obama's nominee a hearing. i didn't like it much, but i thought it was a smart move.

i'd say the same thing about an expansion of the SCOTUS, if a President Biden has the votes to pull it off. do any on the right here in the War Room disagree with this?

- IGIT

 

[Rod1]

Is this about Garland? Obama nominated Garland. The senate decided not to vote, which they could have done with Barret, had they so chosen.

Mitch decided not to vote, not the Senate.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I neither need nor want your sympathy lol. Spare me, dude. I was explaining my own position. It is interesting that your concern for people's rights appears to diminish based on them being a minority though.

Touch a nerve there, bud?

Might explain your dumb framing on that last part. My comment was about the special treatment it sounds like you want, and if it's good for one then it should be good for all (i.e. not a select few).

 

[rokzilla]

heya Limbo,

i been away for a bit, and this is a long thread. could you tell me, have any of the advocates of Mrs. Barrett argued against this point?

i think Mr. McConnell was masterful in denying President Obama's nominee a hearing. i didn't like it much, but i thought it was a smart move.

i'd say the same thing about an expansion of the SCOTUS, if a President Biden has the votes to pull it off. do any on the right here in the War Room disagree with this?

- IGIT

My only issue with it is where do you draw the line? 15? 19? Every time we switch parties during an election we appoint more justices to swing the pendulum?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Touch a nerve there, bud?

Might explain your dumb framing on that last part. My comment was about the special treatment it sounds like you want, and if it's good for one then it should be good for all (i.e. not a select few).

Special treatment? Well now I'm curious what on Earth you're talking about lol

 

[IGIT]

My only issue with it is where do you draw the line? 15? 19? Every time we switch parties during an election we appoint more justices to swing the pendulum?

hiya rokzilla,

i don't know.

i don't like it, to be honest. i'd rather have an understanding that, parliamentary maneuvers in the congress aside, an understanding or law could be enacted that would keep the number of SCOTUS judges finite.

i'd rather Democrats and lefties who voted for Nader and lefties who said "NEVER HILLARY" all agree that they took it on the chin and just digest this loss over the next half century or so. personally, i'd rather not see an arms race to degrade the nature of the SCOTUS.

i just don't see much hope in that.

- IGIT