Home | About | Donate

Rights Advocates and Dems Reiterate Calls to #BlockBarrett as McConnell Vows to Confirm Trump Nominee on Monday

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/20/rights-advocates-and-dems-reiterate-calls-blockbarrett-mcconnell-vows-confirm-trump

1 Like

The Democratically controlled House could pass a privileged action that would require the Senate to act before the Barrett confirmation thus delaying the confirmation… but they won’t do it.
(1) Barrett is pro-corporation just like the Democrats so they don’t WANT to stop her.
(2) The Democrats do not want to rock any boats because they are afraid of the voters. It is easier to do nothing and say that the Barrett confirmation is all due to the Republicans. “There is nothing that we could do so your only recourse is to elect more Democrats to the Senate.”


If you want a powerful, heartbreaking report on what America will be like for women if the right-wing 6-3 SCOTUS gets its way, listen to this evocative Michael Moore podcast about abortion rights…

Moderate Delaware Senator, Chris Coons, just discussed expanding the Court. I think many Dems have witnessed the GOP’s absolute running roughshod over the nomination process and are finally tired of it. I think court reform, District on up, is already on the agenda.


I hope that someone is listening to Prof Samuel Moyn (~https://law.yale.edu/samuel-moyn) on this topic. Not being a lawyer, I do kind of guess at what I think of is reasonable when listening from an engineering perspective, but I liked his explanation of how court packing may be just as hard to make happen as another change he would prefer instead which (amazingly to me) involves passing legislation with essentially a provision that says the Supreme Court is not allowed to rule on this legislation. I wouldn’t have believed that made sense if I wasn’t listening to a Yale law professor. I’ve heard him on Katie Halper a couple times now and I’ve been impressed, but I’ll try to read his piece I just found (~https://newrepublic.com/article/159710/supreme-court-reform-court-packing-diminish-power) which covers the blocking of judicial review and see what I think when I’m not listening to what is for me a persuasive speaking style.

I also like the change to 18 year (or even 12 year - 8 year seems a bit short though) terms that Ro Khanna proposed (hopefully the messenger doesn’t matter to you as I realize you don’t think much of him now).


I sure hope you are correct.

Suspect the reason for the rush is to have scotus rule on election results. And not just the potus election. Sounds very much like an attempt at making sure the “right” people stay in office.
My 2 bits.


On this, Prof Samuel Moyn (see my post above) was clear from the moment Ginsberg’s death was announced - there is nothing they could do. Whether some Democrats secretly prefer her to be on the court is immaterial - if they had a majority there would have been a huge pressure to stay in line and even Joe Manchin has pledged to stay in line.

The process is pretty messed up along with a whole lot of other stuff about our government so maybe forcing some change is a silver lining.

1 Like

The senate gave us Kavanaugh. The senate is giving us Barrett.
The house has the purse strings, but the senate hovers over them. The dems had better take the senate and keep it at all costs.
Ever feel like someone has stomped on your foot on purpose, twice, and said get over it bub?

Trump has a bank account in China. Anyone surprised?


Sounds like 20 dollars to me.

Great article by Jessica Corbett and video from The Leadership Conference, Vanita Grupta.

The Supreme Court can be very protective of its jurisdiction and justices have been pensive about jurisdiction stripping by Congress, historically speaking. While nobody doubts Congress’s prerogative at the appellate and district level—courts made by Congress—at the Supreme Court level, things are different. The Supreme Court has seen jurisdiction stripping as an attack on Article III and judicial review (see US v. Klein), though it has permitted Congress to amend laws to ameliorate a particular issue before the Court (see Northwest Timber Compromise). In short, I don’t see jurisdiction stripping as any easier than adding seats to the Court, which Congress has done and can do.

I think Samuel Moyn agrees (it isn’t any easier). He argues that it can give a better result in the long run though. I’ll know more after I read his article.

Packing the SC by a dem controlled Senate and WH would be a failed long term strategy IMHO. Clinton’s impeachment proved the right will seek revenge for even justified action by the left, think Nixon’s impeachment. When the right gains control again, and they will with the current dem party leaders, they will also expand the court even further, to once again tilt the court towards the right, and blame the dem party for their actions to do so.
Unable to even identify the protections afforded in the first amendment, Barrett has proven without a doubt she is unfit to sit on the court. Couple that with Kavanaugh’s provable perjury during his conformation hearings, and a solid case for impeachment could be made for both justices’ removals. This will leave the repugs with nothing to seek revenge for, as long as the Biden administration appoints squeaky clean replacements.


Interesting. I’ll have to read it. My issue is that jurisdiction only works if the Supreme Court agrees it can. There are several cases where it said Congress can’t do that, and I’m very skeptical the most conservative court since the Taft Court would accede to allowing a Democratic Congress to invade its Article III powers. Politically, it’d be an easier lift than expanding the Court, and I think it’s worth a try, but I think expanding the Court would enable longer lasting change. That’s me though.

1 Like

Ralph Nader has a nice piece that, among other things, says that had former Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl.) called out Rick Scott, former CEO of a health company that was involved in a large scandal, for which they had to pay a fine, Nelson may well have kept his seat. But the Dems ran to the right-center and lost ND, MO, FL and other states in 2016 and 2018. Had the Dem brand been in the least bit attractive we would not be confronting this monster, Coney Barrett.

As an aside, where were these “rights groups” and advocates in 2016 when they should have gotten behind Bernie Sanders??? But ultimately, it’s not the DNC, but a lazy, selfish and uninformed electorate – I’m talking Democratic primary electorate. Thanks, guys!

1 Like

Rick Scott has been called out for that since he first ran for Governor. The guy scammed Medicare. The problem is that there are a lot of Republicans in Florida who don’t care, including conservative Cuban voters who don’t like socialism.


The gloves are off donkeys, time to put up or shut up once and for all! Republicans will only understand if they get their self righteous bull shit shoved right back up their ass. Cowering afraid of retaliation is what the elephants are counting on. We’re paying for 50 years of this donkey nonsense of not standing up and fighting! Enough!


1 Like

Barrett’s going to surprise a few people in both directions.

But that’s not an attractive narrative when there is terror to be sold for the easily gulled.

1 Like

If this witch doesn’t recuse herself and hands Trump the election, there will be hell to pay. - I could easily see that as the beginning of Left Wing militias.