The Democrats know they don't have the votes to stop her confirmation. Will they use procedural attempts to slow down the process and/or attempt to smear her in some way during the hearings?

I'd think they'd know that smearing her will activate more Trump supporters and maybe some undecideds, but being rational isn't necessarily a strong point with liberals. Can't wait for October 12, or whenever.

There's a rumor that the Dems are going to boycott the confirmation hearings, since they know, shy of some disqualifying bombshell, Barrett will be confirmed before the election.

I don't know if that includes the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee running the hearings or simply the rest of the Dem Senators and House members. I really HOPE they boycott it, because (1) it makes them look even more childish, and (2) it reduces the chance the hearings will devolve into another Kavanaugh debacle.

On the other hand, Dems who want to be in the 2024 Primaries will take this chance to get national exposure for themselves.

Interested to see how much of a tantrum the Dems will throw the next few weeks.

Well, I see some of them saying they will focus the attack on health care (Obamacare case early November at SCOTUS) claiming that 7 trillion people will be left to die in the streets if Barrett is confirmed.

I'd really love it if they boycotted, then the Judiciary Committee hearing would go something like this:

Chairman Lindsey Graham: "The Committee will come to order. No Democrats? Okay. Clerk, call the roll. All in favor of confirming Ms. Coney Barrett please say aye. Unanimous. Okay. That was easy. Committee adjourned."

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Supreme Court nominee
Amy Coney Barrett will strike down the Affordable Care Act if she is confirmed. 

“Judiciary Republicans are prepared to vote for whoever the nominee is, but they want to push this person through
to steal yet another Supreme Court seat, to vote down the Affordable Care
Act,” Hirono said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the future of the ACA on Nov. 10.

“She is going to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a pandemic, leaving millions and millions of people
without health care,” Hirono said.
The senator from Hawaii told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer she will not be meeting with Barrett ahead of confirmation hearings. 

“I will not be meeting with her. I will take the opportunity to question her when she is under oath,” Hirono said.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said he hopes the nominee will be confirmed by Nov. 1.

“We may not be able to stop it; we can slow it down. But the American people need to know
what's at stake,” Hirono said. “... And what’s at stake is their very health care.”

For everything everyone is saying about her being non bias because of her religious beliefs on abortion no one was willing to put money up for a bet....hmmmm I guess in the end we know what people truly believe.

I believe Flapp asked you what the time limit was.  It cannot be open ended.

True I would like to say it depends on who elected president. Republican or Democrat to be fair i would say 8 years that gives ample opportunity to both sides.  Unless you have a better idea.  Rules will be simple. If in those 8 years an abortion case gets heard by the Supreme Court if Amy votes to limit or eliminate abortion rights i win.  If she votes to keep the status quo or expand rights you win.  If no case is accepted by the court then the bet is void.

In case someone was wondering why the Senate should not delay this appointment, beyond what's already been posted, there's one aspect I don't think has gotten attention.

Let's say the Senate delays until after the election for any reason -- "muh decorum", Dem threats to retaliate, etc.  Then, after the election as long as the GOP still has a Senate majority, they will still confirm Trump's nominee in a lame duck session.  They have until January to do whatever they want before the new Congress/President are inaugurated.

This is the same tactic the Dems tried with Kavanaugh.  They knew they could not prevent confirmation with a Senate minority, so they were doing a "Hail, Mary," praying they became the Senate majority.

It didn't work 2 years ago, and it won't work this time.  The Senate has the power and the duty to consider Trump's nominee without unnecessary delay.  And the #1 issue that the Supreme Court will need to be ready to decide after Nov 1 will be a contested election.  They need all 9 seats filled to ensure they can decide the cases that may arise.

The irony is, the Dems are creating the #1 reason to not delay by increasing the probability there will be a contested election through their own actions:  changing state election rules (not counting any mail-in votes before election day, not allowing ballots with obviously mismatched signatures to be tossed, paying Democrat-leaning felons in FL so they can vote, etc.), and allowing ballot harvesting (private activist groups collecting ballots to turn them in).  Their attempts to cheat require that we anticipate legal challenges.  Good job, Dems!   

For everything everyone is saying about her being non bias because of her religious beliefs on abortion no one was willing to put money up for a bet....hmmmm I guess in the end we know what people truly believe.

but how will we know whether her religious beliefs led her to vote against the case rather than say, the law and the Constitution?
you know, what she is sworn to do, disregarding her personal biases?

That's impossible to prove question. All we know is based on the past she is anti abortion.   She's a devout catholic  which believes abortion is evil and wrong.  And she is quoted saying religion affects her life and how she lives it.  That's what the bet is about.

The Democrats know they don't have the votes to stop her confirmation. Will they use procedural attempts to slow down the process and/or attempt to smear her in some way during the hearings?

I'd think they'd know that smearing her will activate more Trump supporters and maybe some undecideds, but being rational isn't necessarily a strong point with liberals. Can't wait for October 12, or whenever.

For everything everyone is saying about her being non bias because of her religious beliefs on abortion no one was willing to put money up for a bet....hmmmm I guess in the end we know what people truly believe.

That's impossible to prove question. All we know is based on the past she is anti abortion.   She's a devout catholic  which believes abortion is evil and wrong.  And she is quoted saying religion affects her life and how she lives it.  That's what the bet is about.

so then your bet is impossible...

It's an open-ended bet.  Nobody is going to bet you something that can't be claimed for a number of years.  The longer you stretch out the deadline, the better the odds are in your favor.

Barrett herself said it's highly unlikely R v. W will be overturned in the near future.  It's a non-issue for the majority of people.

p.s. You do know that betting is illegal in Hawaii, right?  Maybe you should reconsider taking bets on a public forum, genius!   

Not really if nothing is heard then no one wins... it's void. So the length of time has no effect. I'm not even saying it's going to pass im just saying she will vote to limit abortion.  Her religion or anything about her isn't part of this bet. It's literally only one thing.  How she votes, which side she votes on a case.

To be legal I've never said it had to happen in Hawaii. We can payout in a legal state. In just mostly trying to make a point.