The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bush v Gore didn't have the system of voting we have now, we have provisional ballots, if someone forgets to put signature on ballot or a question raises about eligibility of voter, the system is checked, electronically, I have been a poll worker. Bush v Gore, we had a manual voting system

[Skill and Chance]

Anyone think Roberts could say the heck with it and retire under Biden if the other conservatives start going around him with a bunch of sweeping 5/4 decisions the next 2 terms?

I said thats a possibility if court packing gets really aggressive. Roberts however would until he retires go with 6-3 decisions IMO. Having ACB being the swing vote would really piss D's off.

If Roberts did retire under Biden, the obvious strategic play for Dems would be to nominate a left-textualist like Kagan for the opening, but offer Gorsuch the promotion to CJ and let him watch as the Hawley wing of the senate GOP freaks out and tries to block it.  He might pull a full Souter after that.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

The Republican party knows how to fight tooth and nail for the courts. It's the Democrats who cave.

[Silent Hunter]

Clarence Thomas is 72. He's likely to be the next justice to retire.

Anyway, this will now be somewhat sidelined by the tax returns.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

The Republican party knows how to fight tooth and nail for the courts. It's the Democrats who cave.

Yep, I'm well aware Dems have caved in the past. But there are also examples where they forced the GOP to be the one to blink, like on the wall in 2019. I hope this is more like that.

[brucejoel99]

Clarence Thomas is 72. He's likely to be the next justice to retire.

He's already said that he'll be on the bench 'til he passes away.

[Storr]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

Giving up on delaying the vote until after the election. If Dems win the Presidency and Senate, which looks quite possible, it makes the Republican position even more hypocritical and possibly untenable than it already is. I doubt Republicans would not confirm Barrett even after losing the election, but such a confirmation would make an already ugly confirmation process worse (media and public opinion wise) after the "people" voted for a Democratic President and Senate to replace Ginsburg, just as they voted for a Republican President and Senate to replace Scalia. Plus, despite how unlikely it is, maybe Republicans give in following a Biden win combined with heavy public pressure against their obvious power grab. Basically, I find little advantage for Democrats in giving up fighting against this SC nomination.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

Giving up on delaying the vote until after the election. If Dems win the Presidency and Senate, which looks quite possible, it makes the Republican position even more hypocritical and possibly untenable than it already is. I doubt Republicans would not confirm Barrett even after losing the election, but such a confirmation would make an already ugly confirmation process worse (media and public opinion wise) after the "people" voted for a Democratic President and Senate to replace Ginsburg, just as they voted for a Republican President and Senate to replace Scalia. Plus, despite how unlikely it is, maybe Republicans give in following a Biden win combined with heavy public pressure against their obvious power grab. Basically, I find little advantage for Democrats in giving up fighting against this SC nomination.

Republicans won't cave. Their base would never forgive them. They're not like progressives who are pretty used to being sold out and demonized.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

But how far can they even go with those motions and bills so long as it's McConnell who decides what gets voted on when? There's a reason the Senate hasn't even considered the dozens if not hundreds of comprehensive Democratic proposals that have passed the House since Pelosi retook the gavel. The filibuster for SCOTUS judges is gone and in hindsight throwing it away for Gorsuch was a bad move.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Anyone think Roberts could say the heck with it and retire under Biden if the other conservatives start going around him with a bunch of sweeping 5/4 decisions the next 2 terms?

Roberts is a conservative Republican lmao. He gutted the Voting Rights Act in order to entrench minority right-wing rule and get more justices like Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh appointed.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

But how far can they even go with those motions and bills so long as it's McConnell who decides what gets voted on when? There's a reason the Senate hasn't even considered the dozens if not hundreds of comprehensive Democratic proposals that have passed the House since Pelosi retook the gavel. The filibuster for SCOTUS judges is gone and in hindsight throwing it away for Gorsuch was a bad move.

You can't move to proceed to most bills whenever you like, but you can make as many motions to adjourn, adjourn to date certain, postpone consideration of the nomination, and live quorum calls as you so choose, and force recorded votes on each one. You can also force  recorded votes on stuff like post office naming that is usually done in wrap up at the end of the day, and while doing that, the debate clock on the SCOTUS nomination is paused.

Also you can proceed to certain privileged legislation at any time. If the House passed a war powers resolution for instance, Democrats could immediately file a motion to proceed, and it would only need a simple majority vote as privileged legislation is not subject to the legislative filibuster. If they did move to proceed to something successfully then the Senate would have to spend valuable time debating the measure, and again if the nominee is reported to the floor by that point, the debate time on them is paused when the Senate is doing other business.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The hypocrisy of politicians amuses me, this is all about Citizens United, D's thought that Biden was gonna replace Ginsburg and Roberts was gonna reverse himself on Citizens United and give Unions not big business power over elections. That's why Act blue is asking for donations as soon as Ginsburg died.

Not only that, including Warren, all the Ds in the same week Ginsburg died, voted for Trump's lower Crt nominations. D's maybe able to pack the Crt come Jan, but overturning Citizens United isn't priority on voters minds, Covid is

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The hypocrisy of politicians amuses me, this is all about Citizens United, D's thought that Biden was gonna replace Ginsburg and Roberts was gonna reverse himself on Citizens United and give Unions not big business power over elections. That's why Act blue is asking for donations as soon as Ginsburg died.

Not only that, including Warren, all the Ds in the same week Ginsburg died, voted for Trump's lower Crt nominations. D's maybe able to pack the Crt come Jan, but overturning Citizens United isn't priority on voters minds, Covid is

Each Trump lower court nomination that came to the floor in September had been approved by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with the exception of the claims court where blue slips don't apply, had been pre-approved and given a positive blue slip by a Democratic Home State Senator.

There was thus no reason to oppose any of the nominations considered in September even if the timing is a bit late.

[Former President tack50]

Come to think about it, here is a completely dystopian scenario even if it might also be a big hot take.

If the courts get politicized so much, I would say that it is far from impossible that a Supreme Court judge could get murdered within the next 2 decades; with the objective of changing the makeup of the point, even if it has to be by gunpoint.

And I imagine that, while they probably have reasonable enough security, it must be nowhere near as much as say the President. Maybe not even as much as the average House Rep? (and one got shot not too long ago)

How much security do SC judges have around them?

[brucejoel99]

Come to think about it, here is a completely dystopian scenario even if it might also be a big hot take.

If the courts get politicized so much, I would say that it is far from impossible that a Supreme Court judge could get murdered within the next 2 decades; with the objective of changing the makeup of the point, even if it has to be by gunpoint.

And I imagine that, while they probably have reasonable enough security, it must be nowhere near as much as say the President. Maybe not even as much as the average House Rep? (and one got shot not too long ago)

How much security do SC judges have around them?

Outside of the Court, they don't really have any. Souter literally got mugged while jogging when he was on the Court. Justices rely on their relative anonymity for protection.

[President Johnson]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

Giving up on delaying the vote until after the election. If Dems win the Presidency and Senate, which looks quite possible, it makes the Republican position even more hypocritical and possibly untenable than it already is. I doubt Republicans would not confirm Barrett even after losing the election, but such a confirmation would make an already ugly confirmation process worse (media and public opinion wise) after the "people" voted for a Democratic President and Senate to replace Ginsburg, just as they voted for a Republican President and Senate to replace Scalia. Plus, despite how unlikely it is, maybe Republicans give in following a Biden win combined with heavy public pressure against their obvious power grab. Basically, I find little advantage for Democrats in giving up fighting against this SC nomination.

Thought about this as well, how hypocrite it would look like to ram it through in the lame duck after Joe Biden won a decisive victory and Democrats the senate. But given how spineless and power-hungry Republicans are, and Mitch in particular, I don't see why they shouldn't go ahead. The only thing that counts for them is whether they have the power to do so. And the unsatisfying answer is yes. They have the power until January 3rd, no matter what happens on election day. And as long as they have the power, they will use it. After a landslide loss, they don't have much to worry about anyway. And by the time the 2022 midterms roll around, nobody will talk about this any longer.

[Badger]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

We blocked a nominee without even hearing in 2016 because it was purportedly too close to the election six months ahead of time. Now your party is willing to cram one through six weeks before the election.

How hard is the hypocrisy and unfairness of this for you to accept? How deep into the gutter of whataboutism in both sides do it ISM do you have to stoop in order to Fritter away your values? This is supposed to go beyond partisanship.

What the Republicans are doing is court-packing, pure and simple. Just because the Senate has the power to do it doesn't make it any less defendable, particularly if you consider the Democrats with a trifecta have exactly the same power to expand the court. Strict constructionist are living Constitution Abbey aside, this is about simple fairness, tradition, and rejection of the most blatant hypocrisy. New paragraph. Up to you if you were going to stick by those values, or just say it's a nice power grab for my team unjustified because Chuck Schumer said something in 2007.

Incidentally, Democrats unanimously confirm Anthony Kennedy in 1988 despite it being an election year. The McConnell Rule with bulsh**t made up at the time out of pure power politics. Don't pretend otherwise.

I'm only bothering responding to you, osr, because you are one of the few Republicans on this list that has a x demonstrated a modicum of morality above sheer power grabbing. I sincerely hope you won't foods that away so Republicans can engage in further Court packing - - and yes, that's exactly what it is.

[Badger]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

We blocked a nominee without even hearing in 2016 because it was purportedly too close to the election six months ahead of time. Now your party is willing to cram one through six weeks before the election.

How hard is the hypocrisy and unfairness of this for you to accept? How deep into the gutter of whataboutism in both sides do it ISM do you have to stoop in order to Fritter away your values? This is supposed to go beyond partisanship.

What the Republicans are doing is court-packing, pure and simple. Just because the Senate has the power to do it doesn't make it any less defendable, particularly if you consider the Democrats with a trifecta have exactly the same power to expand the court. Strict constructionist are living Constitution Abbey aside, this is about simple fairness, tradition, and rejection of the most blatant hypocrisy. New paragraph. Up to you if you were going to stick by those values, or just say it's a nice power grab for my team unjustified because Chuck Schumer said something in 2007.

Incidentally, Democrats unanimously confirm Anthony Kennedy in 1988 despite it being an election year. The McConnell Rule with bulsh**t made up at the time out of pure power politics. Don't pretend otherwise.

I'm only bothering responding to you, osr, because you are one of the few Republicans on this list that has a x demonstrated a modicum of morality above sheer power grabbing. I sincerely hope you won't foods that away so Republicans can engage in further Court packing - - and yes, that's exactly what it is.

I couldn't swear to it, but I suspect that would run afoul of multiple Federal bribery laws.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

Giving up on delaying the vote until after the election. If Dems win the Presidency and Senate, which looks quite possible, it makes the Republican position even more hypocritical and possibly untenable than it already is. I doubt Republicans would not confirm Barrett even after losing the election, but such a confirmation would make an already ugly confirmation process worse (media and public opinion wise) after the "people" voted for a Democratic President and Senate to replace Ginsburg, just as they voted for a Republican President and Senate to replace Scalia. Plus, despite how unlikely it is, maybe Republicans give in following a Biden win combined with heavy public pressure against their obvious power grab. Basically, I find little advantage for Democrats in giving up fighting against this SC nomination.

Thought about this as well, how hypocrite it would look like to ram it through in the lame duck after Joe Biden won a decisive victory and Democrats the senate. But given how spineless and power-hungry Republicans are, and Mitch in particular, I don't see why they shouldn't go ahead. The only thing that counts for them is whether they have the power to do so. And the unsatisfying answer is yes. They have the power until January 3rd, no matter what happens on election day. And as long as they have the power, they will use it. After a landslide loss, they don't have much to worry about anyway. And by the time the 2022 midterms roll around, nobody will talk about this any longer.

As I stated before, Trump is emboldened by the fact, the D's including Warren, keep voting for his lower Crt nominees.

Anyways, if D's had the majority in the Senate and Obama, and Trump won in Nov, Schumer would have pushed thru Garland on a lake duck session. The D's didn't have the votes to do it

[Crumpets]

For those unfamiliar, MEK is a celibacy cult of Iranian exiles based in Albania known for their sophisticated information operations that make up probably 90+% of anti-Iranian regime posts on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1311071847107223557

Barrett wrote that she was one of five lawyers on a team that represented the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its U.S. representative office from 2000 to 2001 in their petition to review the State Department’s foreign-terrorist-organization designation.

The NCRI is affiliated with the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a onetime militant group comprising Iranian exiles who oppose Iran’s clerical regime. The Obama administration removed the group from the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations in 2012. The MEK has faced accusations of cultlike practices, which the organization has disputed as smears.

...

The MEK formed as a militant group in opposition to Iran’s monarchy but was forced into exile after the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah. The State Department designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, citing its involvement in the killing of Americans in Iran during the 1970s. The department, which also cited a 1992 incident in which five men with knives invaded the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, said the NCRI “functioned as part of the MEK” and “supported the MEK’s acts of terrorism.”

[lfromnj]

For those unfamiliar, MEK is a celibacy cult of Iranian exiles based in Albania known for their sophisticated information operations that make up probably 90+% of anti-Iranian regime posts on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1311071847107223557

Barrett wrote that she was one of five lawyers on a team that represented the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its U.S. representative office from 2000 to 2001 in their petition to review the State Department’s foreign-terrorist-organization designation.

The NCRI is affiliated with the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a onetime militant group comprising Iranian exiles who oppose Iran’s clerical regime. The Obama administration removed the group from the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations in 2012. The MEK has faced accusations of cultlike practices, which the organization has disputed as smears.

...

The MEK formed as a militant group in opposition to Iran’s monarchy but was forced into exile after the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah. The State Department designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, citing its involvement in the killing of Americans in Iran during the 1970s. The department, which also cited a 1992 incident in which five men with knives invaded the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, said the NCRI “functioned as part of the MEK” and “supported the MEK’s acts of terrorism.”

So she worked at a law firm and was given a task ?

[Crumpets]

For those unfamiliar, MEK is a celibacy cult of Iranian exiles based in Albania known for their sophisticated information operations that make up probably 90+% of anti-Iranian regime posts on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1311071847107223557

Barrett wrote that she was one of five lawyers on a team that represented the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its U.S. representative office from 2000 to 2001 in their petition to review the State Department’s foreign-terrorist-organization designation.

The NCRI is affiliated with the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a onetime militant group comprising Iranian exiles who oppose Iran’s clerical regime. The Obama administration removed the group from the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations in 2012. The MEK has faced accusations of cultlike practices, which the organization has disputed as smears.

...

The MEK formed as a militant group in opposition to Iran’s monarchy but was forced into exile after the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah. The State Department designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, citing its involvement in the killing of Americans in Iran during the 1970s. The department, which also cited a 1992 incident in which five men with knives invaded the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, said the NCRI “functioned as part of the MEK” and “supported the MEK’s acts of terrorism.”

So she worked at a law firm and was given a task ?

I don't think it's any more disqualifying than anything else from her past, but after years of hearing about how every case that Hillary and Kamala were involved in as lawyers somehow represented their deep-held beliefs about right and wrong, I like to imagine what would have happened if a Democrat had nominated someone for SCOTUS who had represented (and presumably got money from) a group called the People's Mujahideen of Iran that had this logo:

[Hindsight was 2020]

I pitched this idea in a different thread but is it possible Dems if they get a big enough trifecta ca. amend the constitution that the Supreme Court membership can’t go pass the amount of numbered circuit courts as was originally tradition so after Puerto Rico and DC get state hoods we get 3 new judges for the Supreme Court to make up for Mitch’s garbage while also making a tit for tat on SC size harder?

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

I pitched this idea in a different thread but is it possible Dems if they get a big enough trifecta ca. amend the constitution that the Supreme Court membership can’t go pass the amount of numbered circuit courts as was originally tradition so after Puerto Rico and DC get state hoods we get 3 new judges for the Supreme Court to make up for Mitch’s garbage while also making a tit for tat on SC size harder?

To amend the Constitution you need 2/3rd of the House and Senate... and adoption of 2/3 of the states. So the Dems would need 66 seats in the senate (more if states are added) That isn't happening  this cycle even if the Democrats win all the competitive states and add two more states.  Also that wouldn't accomplish anything as the GOP could take power and expand the number of circut courts