Somebody please find an opinion written by RGB where she uses the term "sexual preference."
Yes, I understand that principle. Marbury v. Madison made that clear long ago. But, still, as a matter of judicial ethics and to protect the integrity of the court, recusal should be done when necessary. There is nothing I've seen in Barrett's record, however, to indicate it would be necessary in a case involving the 2020 election. That was my point.
This recusal question is such horse shit. The reasonableness of the appearance of bias should not be determined based on anything Trump has said. Once she's on the bench, she's a member of a coequal branch of government for life. There is nothing the executive branch can do after she is confirmed to influence her judicial decisions; there is no hook left upon which her independence could be caught. The only way in which the reasonableness of any conflict she has with respect to pending litigation should be adjudicated is on the basis of HER record and HER words--it would be patently unreasonable to suggest any words or conduct of Trump's can be attributed to her simply by virtue of him being the executive who nominated her. The history of the court (including most recently with Roberts and Gorsuch) belies such an argument.
You're probably right. But that's the best part of all this, isn't it? Watching as they are powerless to stop her confirmation. I'm loving this.
It is true that this is a possibility, but it is besides the point. Durbin was misunderstanding (or feigning a misunderstanding) of Barrett's differentiation of fundamental individuals rights and collective rights. The point is this: individuals don't hold elections. If you and I were in a state of nature--i.e. in a state of things over which no government predominated--we would have no individual need to hold elections. Elections for what? These are not natural things; they are derivative of social compacts. When we have a collective, then there is a need to choose leaders, representatives, government officials, etc. To accomplish this, you could vote (as we do) or do any of the things you've suggested. But the point is, the need to establish these sort of rights (which are not inherently natural) only arise upon the formation of a collective. On the other hand, there are fundamental individual rights that do not require the formation of a collective to exist. In a state of nature, if you come to kill me, I have the individual right, derivative of no relationship I have to you or any other person, to defend myself. Thus, the right to bear arms is rightly recognized as an individual, rather than collective right. Either Durbin is too intellectually deficient to understand this point or he was deliberately trying to obfuscate Barrett's meaning (and thereby cast some sort of aspersion against her). Given how inept the Democrats appear, it could reasonably be either of these options.
What Durbin fails to understand regarding the differentiation of firearm and voting rights is this: elections exist because of the government, the right to self-defense does not. We only have elections because a government exists; we have the right to defend ourselves irrespective of the existence of a government. Thus, the two rights are distinguishable.
He's absolutely right! No more racism, no more exclusion! It's time for Francis to hand over the papacy to a black pope!
I think this belief in binary possibilities is a little narrow. Flynn is likely not deep state - otherwise, why would there have been such an unjust legal campaign against him? Q is also likely not "real" - in the sense that Q's predictions often fail to come true, and anyone who writes like Nostradamus can be interpreted as correct some amount of the time. What is real is people recognize the Q figure's ability to break the social conditioning of the masses. People are questioning narratives and the "reality" proffered by the MSM more than they ever have before. People suspect something nefarious is afoot. Why wouldn't people on the good side of the fight co-opt the Q message? It doesn't have to be true - because it is effective. When Flynn, and others, post about Q-related stuff, I think it's more of a signal that they know something is foul in the state of Denmark, that we should rally behind the idea, and perhaps in doing so we can root out the evils that plague our nation once and for all.