GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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?
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?
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?
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.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.
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.
[
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 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.