GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterGrandAdmiral
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Surely there is someone better than Barrett? I say that with full knowledge that they already put in Kavanaugh, so I do understand that judicial integrity isn’t uppermost in McConnell’s mind.
I think Barrett would bring out fierce opposition from moderates to liberals. My first impression of her is that she is truly radical in her beliefs.
Oh, and Richard I think you hearing rumors of Thomas and Alito considering retirement is more a reflection of pressure from McConnell rather than their own thoughts. We all saw what happened to Kennedy.
I think Barrett would bring out fierce opposition from moderates to liberals. My first impression of her is that she is truly radical in her beliefs.
Oh, and Richard I think you hearing rumors of Thomas and Alito considering retirement is more a reflection of pressure from McConnell rather than their own thoughts. We all saw what happened to Kennedy.
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
There will be a constitutional crisis after Trump claims election fraud and the case is brought in front of the SC with his 3 nominations deciding the case.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
When has that ever bothered the GOP or Trump supporters before?
N.O.Bronco
Well-known member
Offline
Who else has done likewise to McConnell in the modern era? I can’t think of any examples post FDR. Republicans like to sometimes claim the Garland situation was because of Robert Bork, but that’s absurd. For one Bork was given a vote, but turns out, at one point in our history, when you participate in covering up for the political firing of prosecutors looking into a president’s criminality and improprieties(and vowed to roll back civil rights laws, which was also on brand for the apartheid loving Reagan administration), even your own party feels they will suffer consequences. So Bork was voted down and Reagan submitted Kennedy.
I’m not sure whether what Buttigieg proposed is politically feasible, but it is politically needed. And I guess I’m just straining to wrap my head around this notion that because correcting for illiberal governance not supported by a majority of the public is perceived, but not proven, to not engender a broad enough consensus that we should preemptively let the illegitimate outcomes stand uncorrected? And then market that decision as a stand in solidarity with maintaining integrity.
If the problem is that less in touch citizenry will be jarred by the shift, unable to see the full picture, the solution is not to continue propping up a false reality to avoid shocking them, but to explain the reality in a way that persuades them to the necessary cause. If it is because you truly believe accepting improper procedure and activity is worth legitimizing, I need a better explanation. Because it’s not a conclusion I am willing or able to draw.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #167
Offline
There were rumors, but I have no idea whether those rumors were based on reality or the wishful thinking of people wanting Trump to have two more bites at the apple.
I don’t know much about Barrett other than she is considered to be a devout Catholic and had expressed opposition to the way Roe v. Wade was decided. What has she said/done that makes her radical? Personally, I don’t have objections to a nominee who is thought to be strongly liberal or conservative in their personal beliefs as long as it hasn’t been an obstacle to their ability to decide cases according to the Constitution.
N.O.Bronco
Well-known member
Offline
Every justice decides cases according to the constitution, they just interpret it in the way they want to justify the outcomes they desire.
Been this way forever.
As LA rightfully points out, if this court was so impartial and so disconnected from their politics, you wouldn’t have billion dollar organizations representing religious and industry spending decades breeding these ultra conservative judges like Barrett, only getting the okay by these groups, and therefore telling Republicans they are good to go, by demonstrating certain views judiciously in their professional careers. You wouldn’t have McConnell tearing down every norm he can to satisfy his donors that demand him do everything to attain these seats with certain types of people. You wouldn’t have mostly predictable outcomes of every ruling based simply on the ideological leanings of the judges.
She has only three years on the bench, having been appointed by Trump in 2017. Why the big rush? Surely there are more accomplished women with a longer judicial record. The realistic fear is that she will rule based on her fervent religious beliefs, even though she says she won’t. And we don’t have much evidence to support her statements due to her short time on the bench.
Per a WaPo article, written about her confirmation in 2017 (emphasis mine): “That article and others by Barrett drew pointed questions from Senate Democrats during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Barrett was pressed on an article she co-wrote in 1998, in the Marquette Law Review, that said judges should not be compelled to rule in ways that contradict their religious views and that Catholic judges might therefore recuse themselves from some death penalty cases.”
Her membership in People of Praise raises questions about her beliefs as well. This is a very small movement mainly within the Catholic Church although membership is open to any Christian. They do not allow women to hold any leadership positions within the organization and teach that women should always be subservient to their husbands. Similar to Pentecostal Protestant organizations.
Im not saying she doesn’t have the right to these beliefs, but I’m not convinced by her words alone that she won’t rule in ways that are unduly influenced by her beliefs. We simply don’t have enough time seeing her on the bench to elevate her to the highest court in the land.
Per a WaPo article, written about her confirmation in 2017 (emphasis mine): “That article and others by Barrett drew pointed questions from Senate Democrats during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Barrett was pressed on an article she co-wrote in 1998, in the Marquette Law Review, that said judges should not be compelled to rule in ways that contradict their religious views and that Catholic judges might therefore recuse themselves from some death penalty cases.”
Her membership in People of Praise raises questions about her beliefs as well. This is a very small movement mainly within the Catholic Church although membership is open to any Christian. They do not allow women to hold any leadership positions within the organization and teach that women should always be subservient to their husbands. Similar to Pentecostal Protestant organizations.
Im not saying she doesn’t have the right to these beliefs, but I’m not convinced by her words alone that she won’t rule in ways that are unduly influenced by her beliefs. We simply don’t have enough time seeing her on the bench to elevate her to the highest court in the land.
Leaving aside the absolutely toxic hypocrisy of allowing a nomination to come to a vote at this point in the election, I’ve come to think this:
If Trump and McConnell push a vote through before the election it will be because they are convinced that Trump will lose the election. If they delay, it will be because they think Trump has a real chance.
If Trump and McConnell push a vote through before the election it will be because they are convinced that Trump will lose the election. If they delay, it will be because they think Trump has a real chance.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
..
Because Catholics are so tragically underrepresented on the Supreme Court?
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
CNN's engulfed with looking for those "key" Republicans Senators that "might" buck Trump and McConnell on the SC pick, smh. We've seen this BS for the last 4 years. It happened once with McCain, it's not happening again. This whole hoping and wishing is stupid and pointless.
Dems just need to be clear that if the Republicans go through with this, they're going to take the drastic steps necessary to correct these power grabs. Eliminating the fillabuster and adding SC justice. Give the voters a clear choice. And if they're given power by the voters, carry it out quickly and without reservation, along with other measures like HR 1. Show strenght and commitment to their ideals for once.
Dems just need to be clear that if the Republicans go through with this, they're going to take the drastic steps necessary to correct these power grabs. Eliminating the fillabuster and adding SC justice. Give the voters a clear choice. And if they're given power by the voters, carry it out quickly and without reservation, along with other measures like HR 1. Show strenght and commitment to their ideals for once.
bdb13
Well-known member
Offline
If the Democrats win everything here, can they eliminate the filibuster and then reinstate it prior to Republicans potentially taking back power in Senate and/or House in 2022 election?
Nebaghead
Well-known member
Offline
At the beginning of each senate session they make the rules. It can be restored at anytime but once the precedent is set it likely won’t go back. The dems did it when the GOP filibustered every Obama judicial candidate and now the GOP has used it to put anyone in they want, including SC nominations.
I don't either, but then I read this from her address to the graduating class at Notre Dame back in 2006:
"So what then, does it mean to be a different kind of lawyer? The implications of our Catholic mission for your legal education are many, and don’t worry - - I’m not going to explore them all in this short speech. I’m just going to identify one way in which I hope that you, as graduates of Notre Dame, will fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer. And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Fr. Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer."
I am Catholic, but I staunchly believe in the need for separation of church and state. I think it's fundamental. I don't see much from her that is reassuring in that same regard.
full speech: https://www3.nd.edu/~lawlib/news/Graduation Speech.pdf
SaulGoodmanEsq
Well-known member
Offline
Indeed. You'll also notice the way Collins and Murkowski are phrasing it: that they won't vote before the election and not that they would wait until after inauguration day. Collins obviously doesn't want to lose. Murkowski has always been a bit of a moderate and might be opposed to Barrett but she's only one vote out of a necessary four to block.
There is definitely no shortage of material on Barrett that objectively demonstrates her religious/philosophical leanings and that she, in practice, would not put them aside. It's no secret that the main goal of the right is to overturn Roe v. Wade. And, to them, it is more of an 'ends justify the means' type of decision.
I fully expect Trump to nominate her and milk the 'see, Democrats are anti-religion' angle when the Democrats object for as many votes as he can. It is all very calculated.
If they put her in before the election, I do believe they will lose the senate. Americans who are not part of the Trump cult have a sense of fairness and honor. They will know that what Trump and McConnell did is rank hypocrisy, a greedy power grab, after what they did 4 years ago. It will cost them, IMO. Not to mention a very sizable majority of the American people do not want Roe overturned.
It would be politically better for them to have Trump nominate his radical judge and dangle it as a carrot for his base. If they don’t do that, I think they will lose. It will mobilize both Dems and moderate independents.
It would be politically better for them to have Trump nominate his radical judge and dangle it as a carrot for his base. If they don’t do that, I think they will lose. It will mobilize both Dems and moderate independents.
Nebaghead
Well-known member
Offline
I think they will dangle the carrot and try to help the senators in competitive races. If they lose they can still have the vote and have no real repercussions in this election cycle.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.