Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The hearings are just virtue signaling opportunities for pompous fools to blather their political positions for the the home crowd. Whether you agree with the position or not, what a bunch of blowhards. Ask a damn question of substance as compared to this verbal vomit.

[RoyGBiv]

So far the dems have not turned it into a circus.

Harris is on now. Give her her chance.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Harris is making a speech about the Affordable Care Act. Barrett cannot say how she would vote on a case - so it is a speech. A GOP female senator (didn't catch the name) was going off on religion and faith. So what.

Just speeches, no legal content or philosophy.

She is wearing a mask, so take that OrangeManBad. Mitch said the WH was a plague hotspot.

[5pins]

IIRC at this point, the members get to make an opening statement. Last time the dems used this time to run for president and attack Kavanaugh.

I don't think they will act that way this time. They think they are far enough in the polls not to risk it.

[LittleLebowski]

Is she racist yet? Does she like beer?

[ccmdfd]

Is she racist yet? Does she like beer?

Does she hang out with Squi?

[JAD]

Is she racist yet? Does she like beer?

I'm pretty sure she drinks wine, but only by accident.

[Guerrero]

I'm pretty sure she drinks wine, but only by accident.

I'm pretty sure it's intentional, but it like *every week.*

[Wondering Beard]

Transcript of her opening statement


Of note, to me:

"The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try. "

"I try to remain mindful that while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the litigants involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors, cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how I would view the decision if one of my children was the party that I was ruling against. Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in law. That is the standard that I set for myself in every case. And it is the standard that I will follow so long as I am a judge on any court. "

[GyroF-16]

Love it. Someone who understands the Constitutional role of the courts.

It’s just sad that this makes her different from many other judges.

Transcript of her opening statement


Of note, to me:

"The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try. "

"I try to remain mindful that while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the litigants involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors, cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how I would view the decision if one of my children was the party that I was ruling against. Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in law. That is the standard that I set for myself in every case. And it is the standard that I will follow so long as I am a judge on any court. "