Amy Coney Barrett [Supreme Court nominee]

[Spendulus]

Nothing new here, it's been 5-4 conservative many times.

The proposition that anything whatsoever from the Warren Court forward could be deemed “conservative” only shows that you have nothing left to conserve.
....

I agree with your view, and this is why I phrased my comment starting with...

Then from the political point of view...

[bryant.coleman]

Go ahead, confirm it's nonsense. Then from the political point of view, Barret really makes the court 5-4. (Noting John Roberts actual record).

Nothing new here, it's been 5-4 conservative many times.

I laugh at anyone who claim that John Roberts is a conservative. He may not be as liberal as Ginsburg or Sotomayor or Kagan, but he is definitely not a conservative. In 100% of the crucial judgements, he has sided with the left. Perhaps the media want to paint him as a conservative, since he was appointed by George W. Bush.

Trump is perhaps the only Republican president in the recent times who have nominated 3 "real" conservative judges (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett).

George W. Bush, during his two terms nominated one each from the liberal and conservative spectrum (John Roberts and Samuel Alito respectively). The same was the case with George H. W. Bush. He also nominated one each from the liberal and conservative camps (David Souter and Clarence Thomas). Similarly, Ronald Reagan got to nominate 4 judges to the SCOTUS, and he also picked two each from both the camps (liberals - Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, conservatives - Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist).

What makes Donald Trump different from all the other GOP presidents before him is the fact that he refused the temptation of becoming the media's darling by sticking to the conservative nominees. This is something none of the GOP presidents before him could do.

[countryfree]

I'm not American, but I'm very pleased with ACB's nomination. A congressman or a senator can be a bit wild, but you shall expect the supreme court to be very conservative.

[nullius]

I'm not American, but

Americans love to opine about other countries’ domestic policies—all too oft not with words, but with aggressive warfare and other coercion swaddled in saccharine sanctimonious bullshit, in violation of the very concept of sovereignty, delivered with stereotypical American hypocrisy.  Why shouldn’t we opine about theirs?

I'm very pleased with ACB's nomination. A congressman or a senator can be a bit wild, but you shall expect the supreme court to be very conservative.

True.  And at this point in history, ACB is probably the best that beleaguered Americans could hope for.  —I mean, the small and dwindling proportion of Americans who give even half a damn about their own freedoms.

[squatz1]

...
I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though.

Absolute nonsense. The SC will make decisions, many of them will surprise people that try to predict.

Alright here is where my line of thought is regarding high level positions such as the SC, Presidency, etc.

I think that at a certain point when you're going up the ladder the owners of our society, the super rich and wealthy, ensure that you're not a threat to them and you won't alter the status quo too much. I just don't know how someone could get to a high level position like that without being vetted by the people who run shit.

I know this is like an Illuminati level conspiracy, but that's just where my brain puts me at some points.

Go ahead, confirm it's nonsense. Then from the political point of view, Barret really makes the court 5-4. (Noting John Roberts actual record).

Nothing new here, it's been 5-4 conservative many times.

Do you actually know what I was trying to explain as my conspiracy theory or were you just writing me off? I'm BEYOND CONFUSED.

I'm not saying that ACB is the only one on the court who is some Illuminati level person. I'm saying that the upper echelon of society is only going to let people that they allow 'in' access to the most prestigious parts of government. Why would the rich and wealthy let someone get to the court, or become the President, if they're going to go against their interest.

That's what I'm talking about here. Nothing else, lol.

[Spendulus]

...
Do you actually know what I was trying to explain as my conspiracy theory or were you just writing me off? I'm BEYOND CONFUSED.

I'm not saying that ACB is the only one on the court who is some Illuminati level person. I'm saying that the upper echelon of society is only going to let people that they allow 'in' access to the most prestigious parts of government. Why would the rich and wealthy let someone get to the court, or become the President, if they're going to go against their interest.

That's what I'm talking about here. Nothing else, lol.

Okay, got it.