View Full Version : ACB Hearings
I see Portlanders are celebrating Columbus Day by knocking down statues and smashing storefronts. The rest of the country is commencing the case for and against Judge Barrett’s appointment to the SCOTUS. The first day is traditionally the silliest, with some of the weirdest sound bites. With the Biden team insisting voters don’t have the right to know their position on court packing, this may give us the best indication of whether the Democrats can get themselves outraged enough to attempt it. They seem to have backed away from attacking her as a mackerel-snapping Left Footer in favor of the usual wild surmises about the new dark age she wants to impose.
I don’t understand why the republicans are even bothering with a hearing. Talk about a waste of time. It’s not as though any of them will actually make a decision about her confirmation based on what she says.
I don’t understand why the republicans are even bothering with a hearing. Talk about a waste of time. It’s not as though any of them will actually make a decision about her confirmation based on what she says.
Unlike the thoughtful and reflective Democrats?
I see there's a dozen or so Handmaid's Tale cosplayers kneeling on the Supreme Court steps this morning.
It’s not as though any of them will actually make a decision about her confirmation based on what she says. I think that observation works even better on the Democratic side of the hearings. We all know she's going to be confirmed just as we all know the Democrats will use the hearings to destroy her if possible and make every effort to stain her character based upon nothing more than politics if not. I find it horrifying and yet entertaining at the same time.
It's a shame that the court has become completely politicized. RBG was confirmed with something like 96 votes. Some sort of reform needs to take place because a supreme court that is just another political tool is not an actual judicial system in any meaningful way.
I think term limits are the answer.
frugal-one
10-12-20, 11:57am
I see Portlanders are celebrating Columbus Day by knocking down statues and smashing storefronts. The rest of the country is commencing the case for and against Judge Barrett’s appointment to the SCOTUS. The first day is traditionally the silliest, with some of the weirdest sound bites. With the Biden team insisting voters don’t have the right to know their position on court packing, this may give us the best indication of whether the Democrats can get themselves outraged enough to attempt it. They seem to have backed away from attacking her as a mackerel-snapping Left Footer in favor of the usual wild surmises about the new dark age she wants to impose.
Laughable... court packing... that is what the republicans are doing.
The right-wing Judicial Crisis Network has spent $27 million in dark money to block President Barack Obama's 2016 Supreme Court nominee, only to turn around and spend millions ushering Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh through their confirmation process, reported The Daily Poster.
JCN will now spend at least $10 million to promote the also controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg just weeks before the presidential election. Republican hypocrites!
ETA.. Actually during the election process....
frugal-one
10-12-20, 11:59am
I see there's a dozen or so Handmaid's Tale cosplayers kneeling on the Supreme Court steps this morning.
I think that observation works even better on the Democratic side of the hearings. We all know she's going to be confirmed just as we all know the Democrats will use the hearings to destroy her if possible and make every effort to stain her character based upon nothing more than politics if not. I find it horrifying and yet entertaining at the same time.[/COLOR]
You need to listen to what she is spouting and what her previous records are. I agree with LDAHL in that there needs to be term limits.
BTW.. She actually was called a handmaid by People of Praise. Reading about this group is disturbing.
Imagine the freak out and scrutiny that would be happening if she were in a fringe Muslim group instead of a fringe catholic group.
Imagine the freak out and scrutiny that would be happening if she were in a fringe Muslim group instead of a fringe catholic group.
I doubt we’d be hearing much from the opposition. Some forms of bigotry seem more acceptable than others.
I doubt we’d be hearing much from the opposition. Some forms of bigotry seem more acceptable than others.
And if you don't think republicans would be howling to the moon if a democratic president nominated even a mainstream muslim to the court I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 1:14pm
Personally, I'd like to see more variety on the court. I don't know how we ended up with six Catholics and three Jews--talk about lack of diversity.
Republican hypocrites!
It appears both parties have changed their mind on this one, but, that's politics.
iris lilies
10-12-20, 1:17pm
Personally, I'd like to see more variety on the court. I don't know how we ended up with six Catholics and three Jews--talk about lack of diversity.
Damn, we need us some white anglo saxon Protestants there!
i had no idea it is 3 Jews and 6 Catholics.
Imagine the freak out and scrutiny that would be happening if she were in a fringe Muslim group instead of a fringe catholic group.
Yes, the left would love her rather than despise her. That's the funny thing about identity politics, it's goofy.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 1:20pm
Damn, we need us some white anglo saxon Protestants there!
i had no idea it is 3 Jews and 6 Catholics.
One of the Catholics I referenced (I forget who) is attending an Episcopal church; I guess he's the diversity, though I'm sure the Catholic Church still claims him.
Personally, I'd like to see more variety on the court. I don't know how we ended up with six Catholics and three Jews--talk about lack of diversity.
Yes. The too many Asians at Harvard argument
Yes, the left would love her rather than despise her. That's the funny thing about identity politics, it's goofy.
If we thought she was capable of making legal decisions based on the law rather than on her personal religious opinions sure. Unfortunately ACB has made enough public statements to make it clear that she’s not likely to be honorable as far as that goes.
If we thought she was capable of making legal decisions based on the law rather than on her personal religious opinions sure. Unfortunately ACB has made enough public statements to make it clear that she’s not likely to be honorable as far as that goes.I'm glad there's no religious test for public office. Well, not if it's a Liberal or Progressive, but we need to watch out for those dishonorable potential Conservatives.
I'm always impressed though with how our Justices seldom turn out to be the stereotypical ideologues their opponents make them out to be, so I can't place much credence in the Democrats attempts to malign Judge Barrett.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 2:39pm
...
I'm always impressed though with how our Justices seldom turn out to be the stereotypical ideologues their opponents make them out to be, so I can't place much credence in the Democrats attempts to malign Judge Barrett.
I'm hoping she'll hew to the "strict interpretation" thing, and not to the "my husband tells me what to think, as my cult leader prescribes" thing. You're right though--you can't always tell how they'll fall on the spectrum.
I'm hoping she'll hew to the "strict interpretation" thing, and not to the "my husband tells me what to think, as my cult leader prescribes" thing. You're right though--you can't always tell how they'll fall on the spectrum.
I was glad to see the Democratic Senators back away from the religious background concerns that seem to bother so many of their constituents. Maybe it will trickle down?
Personally I hope the democratic senators back away from Mike Lee. Republicans haven't a very good record with not infecting people with the covid so it's anyone's guess whether he's actually been cleared as non-contagious or is just making shit up to justify being there and speaking without a mask.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 3:29pm
I was glad to see the Democratic Senators back away from the religious background concerns that seem to bother so many of their constituents. Maybe it will trickle down?
Or maybe not. Living in a theocracy, no matter how benign it may seem, holds no appeal for me.
Or maybe not. Living in a theocracy, no matter how benign it may seem, holds no appeal for me.Oh, I don't know. Thou Shalt Not Kill seems to be a pretty good rule in a civilized society.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 4:32pm
Oh, I don't know. Thou Shalt Not Kill seems to be a pretty good rule in a civilized society.
Unless you're a peace officer, unless you're a soldier, unless a kid with Skittles throws a punch at you when you accost him, etc. etc.
You don't need religion to know right from wrong.
You don't need religion to know right from wrong.
I believe that's true, but I also find it interesting when people make statements against theocracy when there are so many intersection points in religion and secularism. I wonder which good things you'd sacrifice in order to banish the taint of theocracy?
I'm always impressed though with how our Justices seldom turn out to be the stereotypical ideologues their opponents make them out to be, so I can't place much credence in the Democrats attempts to malign Judge Barrett.
Apparently republican politicians are not similarly Impressed. Otherwise they would have given their consent for Merrick garland, a plenty qualified jurist. And now they are ramming through ACB because they are well aware that anyone picked by biden will undoubtedly not be sufficiently republicanly partisan. And considering how many predictable five/four decisions have come out of the court in recent years I’d say that the republican politicians’ view is probably more accurate.
Apparently republican politicians are not similarly Impressed. Otherwise they would have given their consent for Merrick garland, a plenty qualified jurist. And now they are ramming through ACB because they are well aware that anyone picked by biden will undoubtedly not be sufficiently republicanly partisan. And considering how many predictable five/four decisions have come out of the court in recent years I’d say that the republican politicians’ view is probably more accurate.So would you be in favor of a President Biden attempting to pack the court with however many sufficiently partisan liberal justices it may take to ensure a progressive majority?
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 5:25pm
I believe that's true, but I also find it interesting when people make statements against theocracy when there are so many intersection points in religion and secularism. I wonder which good things you'd sacrifice in order to banish the taint of theocracy?
I'm not sure what "good things" you're referring to? Religious holidays? Personally, I think religion should be a private matter, practiced on the margins, and not involved in the slightest with the machinations of government.
So would you be in favor of a President Biden attempting to pack the court with however many sufficiently partisan liberal justices it may take to ensure a progressive majority?
I suppose he could just roll over and let the past several years of republican court packing go unaddressed.
This just seems like yet another instance of republicans saying ‘yeah, we did that but it would be really unseemly if the democrats behave the same way’.
I suppose he could just roll over and let the past several years of republican court packing go unaddressed.
This just seems like yet another instance of republicans saying ‘yeah, we did that but it would be really unseemly if the democrats behave the same way’.I think you're confusing the Senate's constitutional responsibility for 'advice and consent' with court packing. That's ok, I see that much of the media has been suddenly confused on the difference as well. I'm curious if the difference will be much more obvious next year.
frugal-one
10-12-20, 6:37pm
It appears both parties have changed their mind on this one, but, that's politics.
I don't think so. Seeing republicans talking one way and what they talked about actually happens, they reverse course. That is hypocrisy.
frugal-one
10-12-20, 6:41pm
So would you be in favor of a President Biden attempting to pack the court with however many sufficiently partisan liberal justices it may take to ensure a progressive majority?
You keep saying this but the republicans have packed the court totally their way. There should be a balance.
iris lilies
10-12-20, 6:41pm
I'm hoping she'll hew to the "strict interpretation" thing, and not to the "my husband tells me what to think, as my cult leader prescribes" thing. You're right though--you can't always tell how they'll fall on the spectrum.
This is astonishing. Why in the world do you think Amy Barrett operates according to what her husband Says? That is just… I have no words.
frugal-one
10-12-20, 6:42pm
I'm not sure what "good things" you're referring to? Religious holidays? Personally, I think religion should be a private matter, practiced on the margins, and not involved in the slightest with the machinations of government.
Separation of church and state!
frugal-one
10-12-20, 6:45pm
This is astonishing. Why in the world do you think Amy Barrett operates according to what her husband Says? That is just… I have no words.
She was part of the People of Praise and called a handmaid. Read up about her. It is disturbing to say the least.
I think you're confusing the Senate's constitutional responsibility for 'advice and consent' with court packing. That's ok, I see that much of the media has been suddenly confused on the difference as well. I'm curious if the difference will be much more obvious next year.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the republicans the last 6-8 years it’s that political norms are for suckers. Nine justices on the Supreme Court is merely a political norm. Might as well blow that norm up too.
I think the dems are holding their cards on court packing as leverage or a scare tactic, but would not do it. They've been floating around the idea of term limits (Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act) even before RBG's opening. Eighteen years and and each president can nominate two justices was the vague original plan. I can see that making some sense. It even had some GOP support, but would probably not get past a Republican senate.
Jane v2.0
10-12-20, 6:55pm
This is astonishing. Why in the world do you think Amy Barrett operates according to what her husband Says? That is just… I have no words.
It is astonishing--that people can believe this stuff in time in history. But if they do, that's their business until they make it ours. I'm not at all convinced she can, ultimately, act on her own.
Separation of church and state!
I've always been intrigued by this concept. Of course we want our government to be secular and not unduly influenced by any particular religion, that's why we're led by a President rather than a Pope. But we don't lose our constitutional right to freedom of religion when we're in public office, that's why we're promised that no religious test may be imposed on any public office. And the cool thing about that is that it works both ways, you cannot require a public office holder to be of a certain religion and you cannot deny them because of whatever religion they practice.
The only real prohibition on religion is in the First Amendment's provision preventing the government from establishing a national religion. I think Thomas Jefferson's comments on separation of church and state were wise, but terribly mis-understood by most.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the republicans the last 6-8 years it’s that political norms are for suckers. Nine justices on the Supreme Court is merely a political norm. Might as well blow that norm up too.
Would you still believe that if the Republicans were to add 3 or 4 more justices before the election?
Would you still believe that if the Republicans were to add 3 or 4 more justices before the election?
It’s interesting that the best the republicans can come up with when their norm breaking is pointed out and Dems threaten to do similar norm breaking is ‘but what if we behave even worse?’
Probably the only reason they haven’t done this yet is because they are confident they can jam this nomination through and that at the end of the day the party that still has morals and ethics will chicken out in behaving equally deplorably.
It’s interesting that the best the republicans can come up with when their norm breaking is pointed out and Dems threaten to do similar norm breaking is ‘but what if we behave even worse?’
Probably the only reason they haven’t done this yet is because they are confident they can jam this nomination through and that at the end of the day the party that still has morals and ethics will chicken out in behaving equally deplorably.What norms have been broken?
This is astonishing. Why in the world do you think Amy Barrett operates according to what her husband Says? That is just… I have no words.
Because the Catholic cult that she was a part of believed that women should do exactly as their husbands say in all matters.
She seems to be a qualified candidate, properly nominated by a sitting President. The Senate should perform its duty.
Of course, that's what I also thought when Obama nominated Garland.
Bother.
She seems to be a qualified candidate, properly nominated by a sitting President. The Senate should perform its duty.
Of course, that's what I also thought when Obama nominated Garland.
Bother.
And they should have performed their duty when Obama nominated three well qualified individuals for the DC court of appeals well before the election (not that that matters obviously as we're now seeing). But since the republicans, with mitch at the helm, didn't consider any democrat to be a legitimate winner of the public trust to do their constitutional duties we ended up with a frustrated Harry Reid implementing the "nuclear" option of abolishing the filibuster for all but supreme court vacancies. A policy that mitch doubled down on. And now we're at the point where the democrats would be perfectly within reason to change the entire structure of the supreme court. And with republicans all the while whining that the dems shouldn't escalate, but never peeping about the fact that every democratic party escalation is a result of previous republican escalation of the destruction of norms. At least the democrats have the fact that the majority of citizens don't like republican policies (are there actually any republican policies at this point beyond jam as many partisan hacks onto the courts?) or attitudes. Eventually that will shove them into the dustbin of history as they so richly deserve. And the majority of Americans will say "good riddance to bad rubbish".
And they should have performed their duty when Obama nominated three well qualified individuals for the DC court of appeals well before the election (not that that matters obviously as we're now seeing).
You might enjoy this article JP1:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/opinion/sunday/institutions-trust.html
You might enjoy this article JP1:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/opinion/sunday/institutions-trust.html
I’ve always liked Yuval Levin. He’s written a couple of good books on this topic. Of course, the Times being the Times, the comments section is often the most telling part. Look at all the rabidly political commentary about an article saying rabid politics is harming our institutions. I hope some editor doesn’t lose his job over letting a piece by an AEI fellow slip through.
catherine
10-13-20, 5:39pm
Imagine the freak out and scrutiny that would be happening if she were in a fringe Muslim group instead of a fringe catholic group.
I was thinking of EXACTLY the same thing watching Cruz's sanctimonious blether about how terrible it is that some courts have taken down The 10 Commandments and Christian crosses on public property. So what are the chances that they would let a star and crescent fly on public grounds?
Everyone is entitled to their own belief as long as it isn't different than mine.
Well, we learned today that she truly is a partisan hack. Despite trump stating on multiple times that he wanted her sworn in before the election so that she could be on his side in any election related matters she refused to state that she would recuse herself from those matters. And even took fake umbridge at the idea that her integrity was being called into question with the question. I guess we’ll potentially get to see soon enough if she does lack the integrity she felt that that question implied.
I’m disappointed though. That would have been a great moment for fake outrage and crocodile tears to please the fat orange man and give the hearing at least a fake sense that something real was happening because as it has been so far I doubt she would be willing to answer a question regarding the color of the sky.
Well, we learned today that she truly is a partisan hack. Despite trump stating on multiple times that he wanted her sworn in before the election so that she could be on his side in any election related matters she refused to state that she would recuse herself from those matters. And even took fake umbridge at the idea that her integrity was being called into question with the question. I guess we’ll potentially get to see soon enough if she does lack the integrity she felt that that question implied.
I’m disappointed though. That would have been a great moment for fake outrage and crocodile tears to please the fat orange man and give the hearing at least a fake sense that something real was happening because as it has been so far I doubt she would be willing to answer a question regarding the color of the sky.
I like the way she cited the Ginsburg rule of “no hints, no previews”. It seemed to enrage them.
iris lilies
10-14-20, 10:14am
I don’t agree with the idea that women must always support women. Nor do I think her role as mother with school age children is especially important in bringing a point of view to the Supreme Court I find that concept irritating. I think her age, the fact that she’s not ancient, might be a bit of fresh air.
She can separate her personal religious beliefs from interpretation of the law. She talks about it quite a bit. It is ridiculous, the idea that her husband is going to guide her point of view on the bench. Do you think she’s gonna go home at night and ask about what she should do? Really? Did she do that in her current court appointment? Do you have the evidence?
early morning
10-14-20, 10:19am
OTOH, it seems ridiculous to ME that she would willingly belong to, and support, an organization in which a husband's "guidance" is a central principal - and then not even pretend to follow it. And I don't see why that membership, and her beliefs regarding male dominance and authority, should not be strongly questioned.
Teacher Terry
10-14-20, 10:34am
I watched the hearing yesterday and it’s pathetic that she doesn’t know what’s plainly illegal but Amy klobacher was happy to read the law to her. Yes it’s disturbing that she belongs to a fringe Catholic group that until recently called themselves handmaidens and allowed their husbands to make their decisions. It’s a joke that she was nominated but so is the person that nominated her.
It's interesting to see the effect of all the politicking going on in this hearing and in the media. And even more interesting to see how many people are taken in by it and then expose themselves as the judgmental wags they'd otherwise condemn.
While I really enjoy our ability to watch and sit in on important hearings such as this, I wonder if the way they've been perverted for political gain and the willingness of the masses to be duped isn't counterproductive.
At least she did inadvertently explain how she intends to justify overturning marriage equality.
At least she did inadvertently explain how she intends to justify overturning marriage equality.I must have missed that. I have noticed over these past few days how every other questioner has spent the majority of their 30 minute questioning period trying to imply her intention to overturn everything that's dear to them, but haven't seen her approach the bait.
What did I miss?
frugal-one
10-14-20, 4:40pm
I don’t agree with the idea that women must always support women. Nor do I think her role as mother with school age children is especially important in bringing a point of view to the Supreme Court I find that concept irritating. I think her age, the fact that she’s not ancient, might be a bit of fresh air.
She can separate her personal religious beliefs from interpretation of the law. She talks about it quite a bit. It is ridiculous, the idea that her husband is going to guide her point of view on the bench. Do you think she’s gonna go home at night and ask about what she should do? Really? Did she do that in her current court appointment? Do you have the evidence?
You obviously have not looked up the group that her parents and family were/are an integral part of.
You obviously have not looked up the group that her parents and family were/are an integral part of.I think it more likely that she simply hasn't made the same assumptions as you.
frugal-one
10-14-20, 4:52pm
I think it more likely that she simply hasn't made the same assumptions as you.
The tenets of the group were unequivocally spelled out. There is no assuming.
I must have missed that. I have noticed over these past few days how every other questioner has spent the majority of their 30 minute questioning period trying to imply her intention to overturn everything that's dear to them, but haven't seen her approach the bait.
What did I miss?
She inadvertently stated that she views sexual orientation as a choice.
At least she did inadvertently explain how she intends to justify overturning marriage equality.
She inadvertently stated that she views sexual orientation as a choice.What does her view have to do with marriage equality and why do you think she intends to overturn it?
Because she’s said as much. And she’s going to justify it by stating that not being heterosexual is a choice therefore not subject to the same rights as other people.
She very specifically was willing to agree with being against marriage discrimination yesterday when asked about black people deserving equal rights and very not willing to do so with regard to LGBT people. You can ignore it all you want but if a case giving her the opportunity comes up I fully expect her to vote to overturn marriage equality and I will be here to sadly say i told you so.’ It won’t affect me either way because I live in a progressive state but it WILL harm people in less progressive states.
Because she’s said as much. And she’s going to justify it by stating that not being heterosexual is a choice therefore not subject to the same rights as other people. I suppose you're basing all this on her use of the phrase "sexual preference" rather than the preferred "sexual orientation" while answering a question. I know that we can all often read very much from very little but I have to admire the leap you took on that one. ;)
When did “sexual preference” become offensive? The media is full of instances of people on the left using it. Is it one of those terms permissible only to particular speakers?
Apparently it has been an ongoing evolution of the language.
The New York Times Style Guide from 2013 says:
sexual orientation. Never sexual preference, which carries the disputed implication that sexuality is a matter of choice. Cite a person's sexual orientation only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. Also see bisexual; gay; lesbian; straight.
An article from 1991 in American Psychologist says:
"The term sexual orientation is preferred to sexual preference for psychological writing and refers to sexual and affectional relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual people. The word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice that is not necessarily reported by lesbians and gay men and that has not been demonstrated in psychological research."
catherine
10-14-20, 7:40pm
LDAHL, in terms of the left use of the word "preference" you may be confusing "sexual preference" for preferences for gender/pronoun identification which is a preference for how one wants to be identified from a gender, not sexual perspective.
Words matter
And lawyers choose them VERY carefully because they understand this better than the rest of us.
It's actually pretty remarkable that she made this slip considering how completely robotic and inhumanly devoid of opinions she has managed to make herself seem otherwise, which makes it all the more telling that it happened.
Yes. I saw it as a big tell, most likely revealing two things: 1. Her own opinion and 2. The opinions and words used by those she spends the bulk of her time with.
Yes. I saw it as a big tell, most likely revealing two things: 1. Her own opinion and 2. The opinions and words used by those she spends the bulk of her time with.
It is entirely possible that a wealthy white woman of her age, of her religion, of her culture might not be up on the current terms used in other communities.
If it's not something one has interest in, it's probably foreign.
https://transstudent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/genderunicornexample1-scaled.jpg
LDAHL, in terms of the left use of the word "preference" you may be confusing "sexual preference" for preferences for gender/pronoun identification which is a preference for how one wants to be identified from a gender, not sexual perspective.
If that’s the case, where was the outrage when RBG used it? Or Joe Biden? This whole kerfuffle seems awfully contrived to me.
This whole kerfuffle seems awfully contrived to me.
Agreed.
I greatly dislike this trend of making a kerfuffle out of every small thing, when there are quite serious things freely available to make kerfuffles about.
mschrisgo2
10-14-20, 10:40pm
I watched a little bit yesterday, and some today. Generally, I was just disgusted. I’ve never watched these hearings in the past, because I was working. But this was thinly veiled campaigning, coupled with also thinly veiled, IMO, insults. Not befitting of “great leaders.”
Agreed.
I greatly dislike this trend of making a kerfuffle out of every small thing, when there are quite serious things freely available to make kerfuffles about.
As someone who would potentially be harmed if we retire and move to a state that doesn't believe in marriage equality I would state that the small things matter. It won't seem like a minor kerfuffle if I'm told at the ER that I'm not allowed to be with SO because our soon to be done marriage (we've decided to elevate him, and myself I suppose, from SO to DH now that we own a home) isn't "real". Details matter.
rosarugosa
10-15-20, 5:43am
As someone who would potentially be harmed if we retire and move to a state that doesn't believe in marriage equality I would state that the small things matter. It won't seem like a minor kerfuffle if I'm told at the ER that I'm not allowed to be with SO because our soon to be done marriage (we've decided to elevate him, and myself I suppose, from SO to DH now that we own a home) isn't "real". Details matter.
Congratulations, JP!
Congratulations, JP!
Thanks! It’s not going to happen this month but if it did it would be the same month as several of our friends, and my sister, twelve years ago. Twelve years ago in October a lot of LGBT folks in California got married because of a justifiable fear that Prop 8 would take away their right to marry. As it did. The fact that that happened just 12 years ago in blue blue California is why it’s perfectly reasonable to expect ACB will be harming us as soon as she has the chance if the republicans succeed in jamming her sad confirmation through. She’s not the opinionless twit she’s pretending to be for the tv cameras.
Congratulations, JP. It is the details and the language that show attitude. She will be making the world worse for many people.
I don’t see that it is the job of judges to make the world a better or worse place (whatever your conception of better or worse may be). They are there to maintain a process of ensuring that the law as written is observed, not to create newer, more congenial laws. That is the job of a different branch of government.
iris lilies
10-15-20, 9:46am
I don’t see that it is the job of judges to make the world a better or worse place (whatever your conception of better or worse may be). They are there to maintain a process of ensuring that the law as written is observed, not to create newer, more congenial laws. That is the job of a different branch of government.
You sound like Amy C. Barrett.
You sound like Amy C. Barrett.
We don’t demand that referees hand the victory to the most virtuous or popular team. We don’t demand auditors certify results based on how deserving the audited party is. We don’t demand teachers grade tests based on who’s being tested. Why should we demand judges who seek out penumbras and creative interpretations of the law to achieve an outcome consistent with the current fashion in social justice?
There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.
iris lilies
10-15-20, 11:18am
There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.
Are there credible lawsuits challenging gay marriage rights Working their way through district courts? I ask sincerely, I don’t know what may come up in front of the supreme court on this topic.
As far as the chart bae posted, that’s a nice and succinct codification of all these concepts. But I don’t care enough to study it. I just don’t care. The current brouhaha over word choice ( preference? Orientation?) is just for me OK whatever y’all can go off and debate that but I won’t be joining you.
There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.
We’ve been hearing this sort of thing ever since the perfervid predictions about “Robert Bork’s America”.
If you don’t like a law, that’s what legislatures are for.
Teacher Terry
10-15-20, 11:33am
JP, congrats! Some good friends of mine are also worried about their marriage. I never understood people that don’t want others to have rights. Don’t have a abortion, don’t marry someone of the same sex if you are against it but mind your own business. Sensationalism makes for great news but rarely is the truth. Late term abortions are done because the baby will die soon after birth and often the mom’s life is in danger. Or the baby will suffer greatly before dying. These procedures usually involve delivering the baby by induction or C section and the parents are devastated. It’s not done because someone changes their mind. But that’s what the pro life people want you to believe.
If you don’t like a law, that’s what legislatures are for.
Unless you’re a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didn’t change the ACA. Heck, they didn’t even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.
Unless you’re a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didn’t change the ACA. Heck, they didn’t even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.
I don’t disagree with that. They should have fixed or euthanized that thing when they had the chance.
Unless you’re a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didn’t change the ACA. Heck, they didn’t even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.If the Democrats take over in January do you think they'll kill the ACA in favor of Medicare for all?
If the Democrats take over in January do you think they'll kill the ACA in favor of Medicare for all?
I wish but no. We might get higher Social Security payments though which could help with all the Medicare letters of the alphabet costs for seniors. They are looking to be a strong demographic for Biden.
My understanding was that Biden says he would lower the ceiling on ACA premiums to 8.5% of income and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60. Not sure how he would pay for it.
iris lilies
10-15-20, 1:38pm
My understanding was that Biden says he would lower the ceiling on ACA premiums to 8.5% of income and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60. Not sure how he would pay for it.
That whole “pay for it “thing is quite an old concept.
Please try to keep up. The United States budget it is whatever we want it to be.
I can hardly wait for Obama care premiums to move to 8.5% of income. People will still scream that it’s too much. I guarantee it when I query those who screamed to me that it was too much, this will make no difference. It really needs to be “free” To resonate with that crowd.
My understanding was that Biden says he would lower the ceiling on ACA premiums to 8.5% of income and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60. Not sure how he would pay for it.
The same way one might pay for a tax cut for rich people?
ApatheticNoMore
10-15-20, 1:58pm
8.5% of income (as if that was a fixed predictable thing - the whole idea is badly thought out) for premiums in plans with high deductibles where one still might not be able to afford to see a doctor just due to the deductible alone. The 8.5% is not maximum out of pocket afterall. "Not free" might be small costs at point of service, this isn't even affordable.
The same way one might pay for a tax cut for rich people?
Yes. Convince a gullible public that deficits don’t matter, borrow as much as you can and pay it back in debased dollars. Nobody suffers except savers and lenders, and if they complain accuse them of greed.
Teacher Terry
10-15-20, 6:27pm
The public wasn’t consulted when the rich get tax cuts.
ApatheticNoMore
10-15-20, 6:32pm
Yes. Convince a gullible public that deficits don’t matter, borrow as much as you can and pay it back in debased dollars. Nobody suffers except savers and lenders, and if they complain accuse them of greed.
or foolishness, for not investing better and why not, the same foolishness we would accuse people of when their job is outsourced etc, should have planned better is the usual response.
I mean sure I'd like 6% returns on a savings account or whatever, would be nice but …
In truth government spending is only inflationary in certain conditions, but that 6% on a savings account still isn't happening.
My understanding was that Biden says he would lower the ceiling on ACA premiums to 8.5% of income and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60. Not sure how he would pay for it.
For the second one raising the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes seems the obvious answer, since costs have skyrocketed since the program began. Other alternatives are not politically palatable. They could include:
Setting wage and price controls in the medical industry, especially where there is a monopoly (say, only one maker of a device) or an oligopoly
Restricting access in government programs a la the UK, as in you don't get to run up 80% of your lifetime medical costs in the last few weeks of your life when you are terminal, we will help you die in no pain at home or in a hospice instead of giving you false hope that you can live forever
Yes. Convince a gullible public that deficits don’t matter, borrow as much as you can and pay it back in debased dollars. Nobody suffers except savers and lenders, and if they complain accuse them of greed.
That seems like the policy we've lived with for the last 3.5 years and maybe longer, so maybe no change? I'd just like to earn enough on my savings to keep up with or beat inflation by a little instead of losing money by being safe with savings..
I'm pissed off at Barrett's refusal to engage in any meaningful conversation...seems she's just flipping off Congress by refusing to give any answers at all. I guess this is a savvy political move, one I would expect from a consummate lawyer..and that she thinks avoiding commitment and covering her ass is appropriate and smart, which is why a lot of Americans have no respect for the legal profession anymore. She may actually turn out to have some integrity and independance - Kavanaugh and Roberts haven't turned out to be exactly the obedient syncophants the Trump administration expected..but I wouldn't be surprised if she goes hardcore "handmaiden" with reactionary, ultra-conservative decisions after all. That is certainly what the Republican agenda would want from her.
she wouldn't even given an answer as to whether a President could pardon himself???!!?
she wouldn't even given an answer as to whether a President could pardon himself???!!?
Is that a matter of settled law?
Are there precedents?
Would the answer depend on the specific fact pattern?
I'm pissed off at Barrett's refusal to engage in any meaningful conversation...seems she's just flipping off Congress by refusing to give any answers at all. I thought it was interesting to see Senators trying to get her to commit to their favored legal activism while simultaneously decrying potential legal activism. Refusing to play that game was smart.
she wouldn't even given an answer as to whether a President could pardon himself???!!?I believe without precedent to glean an answer from, it's an untested legal theory requiring more than an off the cuff answer.
ApatheticNoMore
10-16-20, 7:46pm
There is no escape from judicial activism with a court that has power it shouldn't have, that should be in elected representatives.
To throw out the ACA, ridiculous, the supreme court never should have the ability to weigh in on legislative matters like that, actual governance is too important to leave to unelected lifetime appointments.
To throw out the ACA, ridiculous, the supreme court never should have the ability to weigh in on legislative matters like that, actual governance is too important to leave to unelected lifetime appointments.
So you're not a fan of their decision in Marbury v. Madison?
As is often the case Supreme Court cases often get decided because of quirky ‘technicalities’ for lack of a better word. It will be interesting to see if the court feels that the individual mandate in the ACA is considered to be severance from the rest of the law. Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have, in other decisions, leaned towards the belief that provisions of laws that get struck down as unconstitutional should be severed if possible, leaving the remainder of the law in force. Will they come to that conclusion with the current ACA case? Only time will tell.
I see the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent the nomination forward. The Democrats stayed away and sent cardboard figures in their stead.
I see the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent the nomination forward. The Democrats stayed away and sent cardboard figures in their stead.
Indeed. And ignored their own rule that two members of the minority party needed to be present.
Indeed. And ignored their own rule that two members of the minority party needed to be present.I don't think they ignored the rule, they waived it due to the minority party's refusal to attend. Boy, when the Democrats abandoned the filibuster as a means to their preferred end they opened up a real can of worms, didn't they?
I don't think they ignored the rule, they waived it due to the minority party's refusal to attend. Boy, when the Democrats abandoned the filibuster as a means to their preferred end they opened up a real can of worms, didn't they?
Expect to hear a lot of punditganda that it’s not court packing, it’s court reform.
frugal-one
10-22-20, 7:18pm
Expect to hear a lot of punditganda that it’s not court packing, it’s court reform.
I guess I don't understand... how is not court packing by putting Barrett in during the election right now? How was it not court packing when Merrick Garland was not allowed to be part of the SCOTUS because it was too close the election (what 8 months later)? I am not trying to snark but don't understand the difference.
I guess I don't understand... how is not court packing by putting Barrett in during the election right now? How was it not court packing when Merrick Garland was not allowed to be part of the SCOTUS because it was too close the election (what 8 months later)? I am not trying to snark but don't understand the difference.It's simple, the Republicans used the power of the majority to prevent Garland from being confirmed, they also used the power of the majority to confirm Barrett. That's not packing, that's an example of advise and consent, no Republican administration has ever attempted to pack the court. It's not a collegial way to operate but it is effective and there's no doubt the Democrats would do the same.
Court packing is increasing the number of Justices in order to achieve an ideological majority. FDR tried to do it a few generations ago and Biden is considering the same as President, or at least he has refused to say he won't make the attempt.
It's simple, the Republicans used the power of the majority to prevent Garland from being confirmed, they also used the power of the majority to confirm Barrett. That's not packing, that's an example of advise and consent, no Republican administration has ever attempted to pack the court. It's not a collegial way to operate but it is effective and there's no doubt the Democrats would do the same.
Court packing is increasing the number of Justices in order to achieve an ideological majority. FDR tried to do it a few generations ago and Biden is considering the same as President, or at least he has refused to say he won't make the attempt.
Webster’s is going to need to get busy.
Since the republicans used the power of their majority to change the ideology of the court and now democrats are contemplating doing the same thing I don’t really see a difference.
Since the republicans used the power of their majority to change the ideology of the court and now democrats are contemplating doing the same thing I don’t really see a difference.
Is there a requirement somewhere I'm not aware of that says the court requires an ideological balance? I think the justices would be repulsed by any suggestion they approach their duties in an ideological manner.
Is there a requirement somewhere I'm not aware of that says the court requires an ideological balance?
Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.
Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.Really? Wasn't it Harry Reid who abolished the filibuster in order to make it easier to put Democrat approved federal judges into the courts? I believe they called that the 'Nuclear Option' didn't they?
Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.
That seems foolish. The Court isn't supposed to be "ideological", at least in the left/right, Republican/Democrat, Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Muslim/..., Harvard/Yale/Princeton sense.
Really? Wasn't it Harry Reid who abolished the filibuster in order to make it easier to put Democrat approved federal judges into the courts? I believe they called that the 'Nuclear Option' didn't they?
And why was the republican senate not confirming well qualified justices?
That seems foolish. The Court isn't supposed to be "ideological", at least in the left/right, Republican/Democrat, Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Muslim/..., Harvard/Yale/Princeton sense.
I agree 1000%. But the reality is that we have to deal with the republicans we have, not the republicans we wish we had. Personally I’d be fine with something other than adding justices, such as term limits for justices.
And why was the republican senate not confirming well qualified justices?I don't know, that was a Democratic majority Senate.
I agree 1000%. But the reality is that we have to deal with the republicans we have, not the republicans we wish we had. Personally I’d be fine with something other than adding justices, such as term limits for justices.
I think we should establish mandatory retirement ages for lots of positions. President, Senator, Congressman, judges of all sorts.
Mandatory retirement age for air traffic controller is 56 years. I'd be OK with that as a starting point. And I'm a bit north of that age.
I don't know, that was a Democratic majority Senate.
Good deflection. It completely misses the point but slow clap slow clap slow clap...
Good deflection. It completely misses the point but slow clap slow clap slow clap...It's not a deflection, I honestly don't know how many judges made it through the system with bipartisan support or how many were blocked by Republicans. I do know that Reid used the power of the majority to make it easier to get what he wanted by changing the rules to require a simple majority only for Federal Judge appointments. I also recall that he was warned by Republicans that his actions would come back to bite him in the butt. It's obvious that neither party is above using their majority status to achieve short term results regardless of long term consequences. You can rage at Republicans if you want but you can't just close your eyes to the Democrats equal lust for power.
I think we should establish mandatory retirement ages for lots of positions. President, Senator, Congressman, judges of all sorts.
Mandatory retirement age for air traffic controller is 56 years. I'd be OK with that as a starting point. And I'm a bit north of that age.
Since so many people insist that the court must function as a legislature of last resort, seeking desired outcomes rather than ensuring constitutional consistency, and looking at the quality of the advise and consent function since Bork, I am prepared to surrender to the idea of term limits.
If we stagger 18 year terms so that a new appointment comes up every two years, then the rabidly political view of the court won’t view each one as pivotal to the advance of their agenda. The level of gamesmanship, hypocrisy and hysteria would be reduced if over time the composition of the court came to be a sort of lagging reflection of election results.
It's not a deflection, I honestly don't know how many judges made it through the system with bipartisan support or how many were blocked by Republicans. I do know that Reid used the power of the majority to make it easier to get what he wanted by changing the rules to require a simple majority only for Federal Judge appointments. I also recall that he was warned by Republicans that his actions would come back to bite him in the butt. It's obvious that neither party is above using their majority status to achieve short term results regardless of long term consequences. You can rage at Republicans if you want but you can't just close your eyes to the Democrats equal lust for power.
In the entire history of the nation through Obama’s presidency 168 judicial nominees were denied by cloture motions. 82 of those (just under half) happened during Obama’s presidency. So no, your both sideserism doesn’t hold water.
In the entire history of the nation through Obama’s presidency 168 judicial nominees were denied by cloture motions. 82 of those (just under half) happened during Obama’s presidency.Thanks for that interesting bit of info, I enjoyed that so much it caused me to do a little looking up myself. Imagine my surprise to find that there were 2 Supreme Court Justices and 377 other Federal Judges appointed and confirmed by the Senate during those years, with a good deal of them confirmed through Unanimous Consent in the Senate. I wonder what made those 82 questionable?
Good question but you’d probably have to ask Mitch McConnell. Pretty much everyone else admitted that Merrick garland was more than well qualified.
Well, now that Amy covid Barrett has been confirmed just 8 Short days before the election it will be interesting to see how that plays out over the next few months.
Teacher Terry
10-27-20, 12:36am
It’s such a sad day for so many people especially women.
iris lilies
10-27-20, 9:20am
It’s such a sad day for so many people especially women.
oh please. There is so much projection about this competent young(ish) woman and the evil she will bring.
I just dont see it.
The ACA case will ( ?) turn on the sticky wicket of the bugabear mandatory purchase issue. At least, from the skim reading i’ve done, that seems to be the point of law being argued. You have to do some mighty mental gymnastics to find a Handmaid’s Tale in that point of law.
I don’t see much in all the “theocracy” tripe either. I like a judge who prefers the letter of the law to social justice outcomes. I think she will serve the Court and the country well over the next few decades.
I think the furious effort to redefine “court packing” is indicative of the nonsense to come.
Teacher Terry
10-27-20, 12:32pm
She hasn’t been a federal judge long at all. There’s so many more qualified judges that could have been appointed. Merrick Garland was much more qualified. Her appointment is another travesty just like the G appointment. It’s a race to the bottom. Being appointed now by this administration is actually a insult. Qualified judges not wanted.
She hasn’t been a federal judge long at all. There’s so many more qualified judges that could have been appointed. Merrick Garland was much more qualified. Her appointment is another travesty just like the G appointment. It’s a race to the bottom. Being appointed now by this administration is actually a insult. Qualified judges not wanted.
And yet everyone who actually knows her academic and judicial history disagrees with you. Isn't that great?
Teacher Terry
10-27-20, 1:38pm
Most of her colleagues that she taught with at the university all signed a letter opposing her appointment. That’s not disagreement:))
And yet everyone who actually knows her academic and judicial history disagrees with you. Isn't that great?
Yes, but merely being rated well-qualified by the ABA is not enough. There is the higher Ideological standard of the cosplaying culture warriors demanding promises in advance to rule certain approved ways for certain cases.
Most of her colleagues that she taught with at the university all signed a letter opposing her appointment. That’s not disagreement:))
Their objection was to the circumstances of her appointment, not to her qualifications.
iris lilies
10-27-20, 2:21pm
Most of her colleagues that she taught with at the university all signed a letter opposing her appointment. That’s not disagreement:))
terry, look at your source.Are any of the dissenters law school colleagues? Nope.
I do realize that several librarians signed the petition to remove Amy CB’s name (and yes, it was about circumstances of her appointment, not so much her qualifications ) so if you consider librarians to be the pinnacle of correctness, well then. There we have it, Amy is out! Probably the American Library Association has a resolution about it because that is so much their business. Not.
I stopped sending membership dues to the American Library Association more than a decade before I retired because I became very tired of their political strife and how much energy that sucked up from the organization. The straw that broke the camels back was, for me, an endless debate at a convention that had to do with Cuban dissidents, were they librarians or not? It was an intellectual freedom issue which normally interests me, this whole debate about their status just not worthy of 60 minutes of furious shouting.
frugal-one
10-27-20, 2:58pm
oh please. There is so much projection about this competent young(ish) woman and the evil she will bring.
I just dont see it.
The ACA case will ( ?) turn on the sticky wicket of the bugabear mandatory purchase issue. At least, from the skim reading i’ve done, that seems to be the point of law being argued. You have to do some mighty mental gymnastics to find a Handmaid’s Tale in that point of law.
Seriously? Have you read about her?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-christian-group-people-of-praise/ar-BB19LQqM
frugal-one
10-27-20, 3:02pm
It’s such a sad day for so many people especially women.
I agree. This is a step backward.
frugal-one
10-27-20, 3:04pm
I don’t see much in all the “theocracy” tripe either. I like a judge who prefers the letter of the law to social justice outcomes. I think she will serve the Court and the country well over the next few decades.
I think the furious effort to redefine “court packing” is indicative of the nonsense to come.
After this, I hope the Dems win and do court packing. After all, that is what the Republicans just did.. 6-3 is not an equitable split. At least add a few more to make it more of an even balance.
frugal-one
10-27-20, 3:06pm
And yet everyone who actually knows her academic and judicial history disagrees with you. Isn't that great?
Not everyone. The vote to confirm her was not 100%.
Not everyone. The vote to confirm her was not 100%.Oh that's just politics, it had nothing to do with her qualifications.
iris lilies
10-27-20, 3:52pm
Seriously? Have you read about her?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-christian-group-people-of-praise/ar-BB19LQqM
tell me in your own words what you object to in her qualifications.
tell me in your own words what you object to in her qualifications.
Is not a Princeton alumna. Next!
iris lilies
10-27-20, 4:01pm
Is not a Princeton alumna. Next!
haha, she did address that whole Ivy identity and lack thereof in the hearings about her competence.
haha, she did address that whole Ivy identity and lack thereof in the hearings about her competence.
To be fair, Notre Dame is a pretty good trade school.
Even McConnell admitted that he doesn’t think she has judicial integrity. He stated on Fox ‘news’ that he expects she will be a political asset to republicans in any upcoming election decisions.
And McConnell was probably right since she's already appeared in a campaign commercial for the president, the filming of which happened at the white house which would seem to violate the hatch act. Tell me again how she supposedly has good judgement?
frugal-one
10-27-20, 8:56pm
tell me in your own words what you object to in her qualifications.
READ ABOUT HER.
iris lilies
10-27-20, 9:11pm
READ ABOUT HER.
Yep, I have READ ABOUT HER.
READ ABOUT HER.
I've read lots about her, but I haven't gotten to the Margaret Atwood novel many seem to be basing their impressions on. Do you think that's worth pursuing?
I've read lots about her, but I haven't gotten to the Margaret Atwood novel many seem to be basing their impressions on. Do you think that's worth pursuing?
Not really. Just the actual details about the nutty fringe group she belongs to. Combine that with the fact that she’s comfortable showing up at political events the day after her confirmation and you might get an idea why the rest of us question her ability to carry out her duties with even a vague semblance of judicial temperament. I don’t expect you will actually do this but I’m going to try and act as optimistic as ldahl is.
Not really. Just the actual details about the nutty fringe group she belongs to. Combine that with the fact that she’s comfortable showing up at political events the day after her confirmation and you might get an idea why the rest of us question her ability to carry out her duties with even a vague semblance of judicial temperament. I don’t expect you will actually do this but I’m going to try and act as optimistic as ldahl is.
Has she shown a lack of judicial temperament previously?
I don’t expect you will actually do this but I’m going to try and act as optimistic as ldahl is.
Why wouldn’t I be optimistic? Soon the frumious bandersnatch will be defeated, and we can go about creating a country we can be proud of. We can pack the court with right-thinking jurists. We can even pack the flag with new states populated by people who understand their true interests are best served by a wise and compassionate elite who knows them better than they do. We can finally dispense with Citizens United and go about creating the Bill of Rights 2.0. We will cleanse the Earth and create new jobs as rainbow benders and unicorn wranglers; and we’ll just send the bill to rich jerks nobody likes anyway. Dangerous organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Federalist Society will finally be rooted out by a new breed of superprosecutors. It will be great.
Has she shown a lack of judicial temperament previously?
How many episodes of judicial distemper do we need? One, the day after she was confirmed isn't enough for us to be concerned?
Teacher Terry
10-28-20, 2:16pm
JP, some people can’t wait for others to lose their rights. Any facts will fall on deaf ears.
JP, some people can’t wait for others to lose their rights. Any facts will fall on deaf ears.
It's more like some people don't get worked up about others dystopian fantasies. By the way, what "rights" do you fear losing?
It's more like some people don't get worked up about others dystopian fantasies. By the way, what "rights" do you fear losing?
I don’t personally face this infringement on my rights but if I were black I’d fear my right ‘not to be called the N word by my boss With no consequences to him. Personally I’m more concerned about my right to adopt children from an agency that receives government funding. Or my right to get married.
Teacher Terry
10-29-20, 12:28am
As a older white woman I don’t anticipate losing rights. Younger women will lose their right to control their own bodies and JP mentioned some others. 20 years ago it was still a felony in some states to have sex with someone of the same sex. People did get prosecuted. In the past a man could rape a woman causing a pregnancy and then be raped again by society by not being able to make her own choice about the pregnancy. If states get to make individual decisions on this issue only women with enough money will have the right to choose.
ApatheticNoMore
10-29-20, 12:35am
I FULLY anticipate older people losing rights!!!
The court has already weakened protection against age discrimination in employment (an already weak law before that), technically that's everyone over 40, though probably happening more over 50. It's gendered too as it affects more women than men. But I don't expect some who could never even imagine being affected by the problems others face to grasp it.
A right more immediately affected for some is the right to vote of course, now I don't worry about that because I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, but it affects others.
I FULLY anticipate older people losing rights!!!
My father, who is ~80, is currently directing the medical care of his husband, who is ~85. A process made simpler as they are legally married. If one predeceases the other, the survivor will be able to continue living in their home, and eating food, because the deceased's pension benefits will fall to the surviving spouse.
Teacher Terry
10-29-20, 1:06pm
I am worried about same sex marriages. Bae, like you mentioned big things are at stake for these couples.
frugal-one
10-29-20, 1:43pm
we can go about creating a country we can be proud of. It will be great.
I agree. This needs to be done.
frugal-one
10-29-20, 1:46pm
I FULLY anticipate older people losing rights!!!
The court has already weakened protection against age discrimination in employment (an already weak law before that), technically that's everyone over 40, though probably happening more over 50. It's gendered too as it affects more women than men. But I don't expect some who could never even imagine being affected by the problems others face to grasp it.
A right more immediately affected for some is the right to vote of course, now I don't worry about that because I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, but it affects others.
OR where there is so much gerrymandering that your vote does not matter.
Has she shown a lack of judicial temperament previously?
She's only been a judge for an eyeblink--let alone a SCOTUS justice. She's spectacularly untested.
She's only been a judge for an eyeblink--let alone a SCOTUS justice. She's spectacularly untested.
On the 7th Circuit she has written 79 majority opinions, 4 concurring opinions, and 6 dissenting opinions. Should provide some idea of her reasoning/writing skills.
Has she shown a lack of judicial temperament previously?
She's only been a judge for an eyeblink--let alone a SCOTUS justice. She's spectacularly untested.
So, should we assume the answer is 'No'?
So, should we assume the answer is 'No'?
Time will tell; she appears to be another iteration of Scalia--complete with the wacky religious cult. We survived him, I suppose.
Time will tell; she appears to be another iteration of Scalia--complete with the wacky religious cult. We survived him, I suppose.
Which wacky religious cult did Scalia belong to?
Time will tell; she appears to be another iteration of Scalia--complete with the wacky religious cult.
We can only hope so.
Which wacky religious cult did Scalia belong to?
I had understood that Scalia was also a member of the People of Praise, but I can't find any evidence of it, so perhaps that was just "fake news." Also, he apparently stood slightly to the left of Coney Barrett, philosophically.
Depending on who you believe, the People of Praise are either a bunch of tongue-talking snake handlers or merely a studious, Socratic off-shoot of the Catholic church. And as I said, time will tell what kind of justice she will prove to be.
frugal-one
10-29-20, 8:08pm
We can only hope so.
YOU can hope. The rest of us have our doubts!
We can only hope so.
Yeah the truth will tell hopefully sooner than later. She’s already made clear that she’s partisan by showing up for a post confirmation event at the White House. Because of course Supreme Court justices should appear at partisan events... Based on what’s coming up on the Supreme Court agenda we’ll likely know how hackish she is before too long. And then her defenders will share with all of us how privileged they are when they try to justify her decisions because of course the only people defending her will be straight white Christians while the rest of us look on in justified horror.
Some wag already predicted she'll vote to overturn Loving vs. Virginia, leaving Clarence Thomas and his wife in the lurch. I'm pretty sure that isn't likely. Maybe.
I wonder what it's like for her to suddenly become the most powerful person in the world, at least in the mind of her critics?
iris lilies
10-30-20, 10:37am
Some wag already predicted she'll vote to overturn Loving vs. Virginia, leaving Clarence Thomas and his wife in the lurch. I'm pretty sure that isn't likely. Maybe.
This cant be serious.
In what universe is this issue coming Before the
supreme Court? The universe of wackos?
JaneV2.0
10-30-20, 10:58am
This cant be serious.
In what universe is this issue coming Before the
supreme Court? The universe of wackos?
No, it wasn't serious. One hopes. But she is supposedly an "originalist," whatever that means.
I wonder what it's like for her to suddenly become the most powerful person in the world, at least in the mind of her critics?
She seems to find the whole thing amusing. I know I do.
No, it wasn't serious. One hopes. But she is supposedly an "originalist," whatever that means.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion out there. Certain poorly informed or disingenuous people seem to think it means stopping the clock in the 18th century.
There was a hilarious series of ads of various celebrities sneering “Hey Amy, if you’re an originalist why do you vote?”. In fact the original mechanics set in place by the founders provided the process to legalize women’s suffrage.
This cant be serious.
In what universe is this issue coming Before the
supreme Court? The universe of wackos?
One of the few times she actually said something at the hearing she was clear that discrimination on the base of race was wrong. She most pointedly was not willing to extend that view to sexual orientation. It won’t be loving that she overturns, but Obgerfell.
One of the few times she actually said something at the hearing she was clear that discrimination on the base of race was wrong. She most pointedly was not willing to extend that view to sexual orientation. It won’t be loving that she overturns, but Obgerfell.
I think that is where the conflict comes. Between those who want judges to be arbiters of right and wrong and those who assign them the much humbler role of determining whether a particular law is consistent with the Constitution. The first group demands a sort of campaign promise from nominees on how they would rule in a particular instance, and the second group is more interested in a more general judicial philosophy.
There was a hilarious series of ads of various celebrities sneering “Hey Amy, if you’re an originalist why do you vote?”. In fact the original mechanics set in place by the founders provided the process to legalize women’s suffrage.
I think people who blather about "originalist" in that fashion have likely not read the Constitution, or examined the history of the text at all.
See Article V of the text, for example.
I also note 27 amendments to the text, the last one in 1992.
I also note 27 amendments to the text, the last one in 1992.And interestingly enough, it took that last one 203 years to make it through the state ratification process. I like it when government is deliberative.
And interestingly enough, it took that last one 203 years to make it through the state ratification process. I like it when government is deliberative.
It took my County 7 years to craft a dangerous dog control ordinance, which by comparison seems a positively dizzying pace.
frugal-one
10-30-20, 2:20pm
One of the few times she actually said something at the hearing she was clear that discrimination on the base of race was wrong. She most pointedly was not willing to extend that view to sexual orientation. It won’t be loving that she overturns, but Obgerfell.
Did you see the Pope's stance on LGBT? Perhaps, all is not lost.
I think that is where the conflict comes. Between those who want judges to be arbiters of right and wrong and those who assign them the much humbler role of determining whether a particular law is consistent with the Constitution. The first group demands a sort of campaign promise from nominees on how they would rule in a particular instance, and the second group is more interested in a more general judicial philosophy.
Actually I think the conflict comes when people try to claim the wordy high ground as if reasonable people can't disagree on the meaning of something. It's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that not discriminating based on sex would also mean not discriminating based on sexual orientation because the two are inextricably linked. The fact that Barrett doesn't seem to agree with that doesn't make her smarter or more constitutiony.
Did you see the Pope's stance on LGBT? Perhaps, all is not lost.
Plenty of conservative catholics have spoken out against that. I would fully expect Barrett shares their feelings on the matter.
Actually I think the conflict comes when people try to claim the wordy high ground as if reasonable people can't disagree on the meaning of something. It's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that not discriminating based on sex would also mean not discriminating based on sexual orientation because the two are inextricably linked. The fact that Barrett doesn't seem to agree with that doesn't make her smarter or more constitutiony.
It is not the job of referees to move the ball down the field. It is not the job of the courts to advance some favored social cause. The people demanding ideological litmus tests want advocates or legislators, in the place of judges.
Maybe the new justice will listen to the Pope now on LGTBQ issues. Maybe being a practicing Catholic will be a good thing!
Perhaps it's time to re-open the discussion on what exactly the definition of "packing the courts" is. Apparently now we've gone from "eight months before an election is too close for us to be confirming judges in case the incumbent party loses" to "even though our president lost the election we're going to jam through as many judges as we can".
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-gop-defy-precedent-with-lame-duck-judicial-confirmations?campaign=4E56C03E-29F0-11EB-AC93-B5C04F017A06&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk
Perhaps it's time to re-open the discussion on what exactly the definition of "packing the courts" is. To me, "packing the courts" means creating new court positions in order to gain an ideological advantage, something the Biden camp has refused to discount. That is different from filling existing openings due to death or retirement.
It was interesting to see that there used to be an unspoken rule that federal judge nominees of a lame duck administration would not be confirmed by the Senate. It's a shame that the Democrats abandoned that during the last days of the Carter administration, opening the doors for the Republicans to do the same.
Redefining or creating terms to meet the needs of the moment will probably take a new direction when the Democrats get a bit more power, although Georgia may determine the practical extent of their creative wordsmithery. We will hear less about superprecedents and norm-breaking, and more about judicial reform and regulatory reinterpretation.
New language may be required to explain the need to grant statehood to Brooklyn or put an addition on the SCOTUS or prune back the overgrowth in the Bill of Rights.
Brace for a linguistic revolution, probably based on a hybrid of wonktalk and wokespeak.
If the end result is the same how is what the republicans are currently doing any different than an administration ignoring the political norm of nine supreme court justices?
Oh, I think both parties have a proud history of ignoring history when it suits their purposes. And both do well enough at disregarding the beam in their own eye when the situation calls for it. Politics has always been more about power than virtue-signaling. That’s why checks and balances (aka obstructionism) are so important.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.