Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (3 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[wardorican]

The man in the video says CBS was going to put the full interview on their website, but I couldn't find it there. What she says in the video does not appear to be incorrect or even troubling. However, Barrett doesn't project the gravitas of a member of the Supreme Court either. Her answers seemed rather elementary to me and didn't seem to be put forth with the intelligence we have seen from members of the Court. From this interview and other quotes I have seen or read, she appears to be kind of a lightweight appointment. While I viewed Gorsuch as a more traditional appointment, I saw Kavanaugh as a lesser light intellectually and this choice seems to me to be more similar to Kavanaugh. She may turn out to be a legal giant on the Court, but my early impressions are that she is more likely to be a Clarence Thomas background type of Justice rather than one of the Court's great thinkers.

I think she just needs more seasoning. Of course, this video is from 2016, before she was appointed. That being said, she was being pretty neutral.

She's been a judge for what, 3 years?

 

[Richard]

I think she just needs more seasoning. Of course, this video is from 2016, before she was appointed. That being said, she was being pretty neutral.

She's been a judge for what, 3 years?

Yes, I believe that's right. I was just taken by her vanilla explanation of her stance. I could have made the same statement. When someone worthy of a SCOTUS seat speaks, I want to hear a legal position with foundation, not a dumbed down version for the masses. The media can parse what she says, so I would think she could site chapter and verse why she thinks what she does. To be fair, the video was a excerpt from the interview, so she very well could have spoken with more clarity and depth. I just haven't seen or read it yet in any of her public statements.

 

[superchuck500]

I think she just needs more seasoning. Of course, this video is from 2016, before she was appointed. That being said, she was being pretty neutral.

She's been a judge for what, 3 years?

She’s been an appellate judge for three years - no other judicial experience. She was a young associate lawyer for about three years. She never argued a case at trial or on appeal. She never served as lead counsel on any matter.

She’s been was a staff professor at Notre Dame law for 15 years. Her nomination appears to be based on nothing more than her strongly conservative views and the fact that she is 48.

We are now seeing where the lifetime appointment and a confirmation process has ceased to be about a Senate ensuring quality and more about party-politics leads to choosing a young (vastly inexperienced by relative standards) judge on the basis of that judge’s commitment to the core values of the political party.

 

[CoolBrees]

As I understand it the life time appointment is a constitutional decree and there fore would require change of the Constitution, correct?

I know the Dems proposed an 18year limit but how would that work?

 

[superchuck500]

As I understand it the life time appointment is a constitutional decree and there fore would require change of the Constitution, correct?

I know the Dems proposed an 18year limit but how would that work?

It would require constitutional amendment.

 

[superchuck500]

If confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett would also be the only justice that didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale law school. She would join Thomas as the only justice that didn’t go to undergrad at either Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Columbia (Thomas went to Holy Cross).

By no means am I suggesting that one must attend these schools to be qualified. But truly exceptional jurists tend to have that background. One could be exceptional with a different background to be sure - but I just don’t see anything about her resume that even suggests a jurist of the highest-order.

 

[zztop]

(this is really funny, but in a sad in a profound way)

The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host said he wanted to see how far “would be too far” for Republicans to support President Donald Trump. So, his show’s “Lie Witness News” team hit the street to ask people how they felt about the president nominating daughter Ivanka Trump to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court.

One guy said Trump’s daughter is a “good pick” and will be “good for the economy.” As for her lack of a law degree, no problem.

 

[JimEverett]

[

She’s been an appellate judge for three years - no other judicial experience. She was a young associate lawyer for about three years. She never argued a case at trial or on appeal. She never served as lead counsel on any matter.

She’s been was a staff professor at Notre Dame law for 15 years. Her nomination appears to be based on nothing more than her strongly conservative views and the fact that she is 48.

We are now seeing where the lifetime appointment and a confirmation process has ceased to be about a Senate ensuring quality and more about party-politics leads to choosing a young (vastly inexperienced by relative standards) judge on the basis of that judge’s commitment to the core values of the political party.

Not much difference between Barrett and Kahan in terms of experience. Kagan did serve as solicitor general for about a year where she argued a handful of cases, but never did trial work otherwise and did not have 3 years judicial experience.

 

[JimEverett]

The man in the video says CBS was going to put the full interview on their website, but I couldn't find it there. What she says in the video does not appear to be incorrect or even troubling. However, Barrett doesn't project the gravitas of a member of the Supreme Court either. Her answers seemed rather elementary to me and didn't seem to be put forth with the intelligence we have seen from members of the Court. From this interview and other quotes I have seen or read, she appears to be kind of a lightweight appointment. While I viewed Gorsuch as a more traditional appointment, I saw Kavanaugh as a lesser light intellectually and this choice seems to me to be more similar to Kavanaugh. She may turn out to be a legal giant on the Court, but my early impressions are that she is more likely to be a Clarence Thomas background type of Justice rather than one of the Court's great thinkers.

Imo Thomas is an intellectual heavyweight and has been for some time. Thomas's reputation has been hurt because he is a type of originalist and was therefore always going to be second fiddle to Scalia - who overshadowed everyone on the court due to his legal intellect, much more over someone who shared similar views.

But I think if you read Thomas you will see he has a great legal mind, and has more than grown into the position he has.

 

[superchuck500]

[

Not much difference between Barrett and Kahan in terms of experience. Kagan did serve as solicitor general for about a year where she argued a handful of cases, but never did trial work otherwise and did not have 3 years judicial experience.

I think there’s a lot more to it. Kagan was 11 years older than Barrett and in that time, earned quite a bit of diverse experience at a very high level. After graduating SCL from Princeton she earned a masters at Oxford and then graduated MCL from Harvard law. Yes, she had similar time in private practice, but she also served as associate White House counsel for a year before two separate policy posts at the White House (a total of four years there). Like Barrett, Kagan was a law professor for 15 years total (two stints) but she wasn’t just a staff professor - she was Dean of Harvard Law for five years. And perhaps most importantly, as Solicitor General, Kagan personally argued six cases at the Court and led the effort on others.

I would agree that ACB’s background is perhaps most similar to Kagan’s background at confirmation if you want to find a current justice for comparison, but if you look at the details further, it’s not even close. Kagan’s educational background is just outstanding. ACB has nothing like Kagan’s four years at the White House (as counsel and in the drafting and advice on key policy areas), and Kagan actually argued cases at the Court . . . ACB never even argued a motion in any court. ACB’s primary experience (before joining 7th Cir. in 2017) is as a staff professor at Notre Dame law. Kagan was Dean at Harvard.

That’s quite a bit different.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't see a lot of value as being dean of a law school for judicial experience - even at Harvard. The bulk of a dean's job is not related to the law - although maybe it's different at Harvard.
Nonetheless, you make some good points.

Regardless, I am guessing Trump sees problems in his evangelical base? Politically I think this is a huge gamble.

 

[Ayo]

the expected is official

bye bye healthcare... I hope they hammer this point home in the campaign's stretch run. Not get caught up in the morass of moralizing that won't be practically useful in either the short- or long-term

 

[superchuck500]

I don't see a lot of value as being dean of a law school for judicial experience - even at Harvard. The bulk of a dean's job is not related to the law - although maybe it's different at Harvard.
Nonetheless, you make some good points.

Regardless, I am guessing Trump sees problems in his evangelical base? Politically I think this is a huge gamble.

I think Trump’s interests are now fully aligned with his base. He relishes being their hero, he wants to deliver their agenda - even if there isn’t much risk of losing support otherwise. They are one and the same now.

 

[zztop]

This whole thing is really pissing me off

a president should not be able to appoint a justice during an election year? Call it what you will, it was blatant obstructionism

not enough votes to get Gorsuch on the bench? Republicans change the rules so less votes are needed

Kavanaugh might have some skeletons in his closet? No matter. We'll rush him through. What happened in the past is the past. Oh, you want an investigation? You have such a short time to do it and only investigate in very limited scope and we will do everything possible to block the investigation that it is "investigation" in name only. Seems like a fair

"hold my words against me" : oops, not so fast. It doesn't matter that I'm a hypocrite, I'm just going to be a Peice of work and do the opposite of what I argued against when Obama was president

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The higher you go up the judicial ladder, the easier the job. Trial court judges have to manage a docket of hearings and trials and still often issue sizeable written opinions. The intermediate appellate level is almost pure theory, plus you sit in panels and the workload/research requirements are a lot less. The United States Supreme Court is pure theory. In that way, a law school professor is almost ideally suited for the position because all they do is research and write law review articles (leaning heavily on research assistants or, in the case of appellate/SC, their law clerks).

 

[MT15]

This seems quite backward to me:

 

[MT15]

And irony just got taken off life support

 

[Richard]

Admittedly, I did not watch this entire video, but I watched long enough that I am somewhat less disturbed by Barrett's appointment. If she adheres to her message of "duty, not politics," she may turn out to be someone less inclined to fall in line with expected outcomes.