Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't agree that I'm hair splitting over a non-issue, because I think it's one of the larger issues with her as a nominee. I respect your right to think how you think.

If there's little agreement whether she broke a rule, it's ultimately going to be a non-issue. I think far more people can be persuaded that her experience and resume is on the thin side and that she's made some questionable comments about her views on jurisprudence in the past. Those will get a lot more traction than something she signed off on.

Jmho anyway.

 

[superchuck500]

I do not know what the facts are surrounding this petition Barrett signed. SO I could be wrong in these thoughts - but it seems like another instance where the White House has sort of boxed themselves in. This strikes me as a small issue - important perhaps, but still relatively small. But by coming out and making the claim that she did not have to report it seems to exacerbate the issue - allowing Democrats to spend time on it in committee if they choose and does nothing more than put Barrett on the defensive.
Had the WH said something more along the lines of "this got through the cracks [again, have no idea what actually happened, so maybe the cannot] and we are going back through to see if we left anything else out." then it would seem not to box Barrett in so much. Perhaps even, if you can, push the idea/fact that Barrett considered/considers this group political and in favor of a constitutional amendment as opposed to advocating for particular judicial decisions.
I don't know - it just seems like the WH takes another very aggressive stance, whereas some more tact might help themselves out a lot more currently and in the future.

Nuance is lost on this White House (similar to failure to understand 'soft power').

I agree that the White House could have (a) not said anything at all, it's the Senate's questionnaire, or (b) said "look she's written and contributed to so many important articles and analysis over the years, something that she signed off on but didn't write, 14 years ago, just didn't come to mind, but it was published and in the public record, nobody is trying to hide anything here."

 

[LA - L.A.]

A SCOTUS judge takes a backseat to no one outside the court. Not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it doesn't apply in this situation imo. Not only that, being a part of any organization doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with everything the organization espouses. When i was a minister, I didn't necessarily agree with everything my church taught.

There is no backseat to take in one's role as a justice except to other justices. A female justice can very much take a backseat to men by deferring to the male justices on the court just because they are men and she's a woman.

A woman doesn't have to agree with anything about their organization to take a backseat to the men in their organization. In fact, taking a backseat to men inherently implies that a woman accepts something she doesn't agree with simply because she puts the opinions of men above the opinions of women.

If a woman is in agreement with the men in her organization, then she's not taking a backseat if she goes along with them. In that case, she shares their opinion. She'd only being taking a backseat if she doesn't agree with the men, but goes along with the men because she thinks the opinions of women don't matter as much as the opinion of men.

 

[DaveXA]

There is no backseat to take in one's role as a justice except to other justices. A female justice can very much take a backseat to men by deferring to the male justices on the court just because they are men and she's a woman.

A woman doesn't have to agree with anything about their organization to take a backseat to the men in their organization. In fact, taking a backseat to men inherently implies that a woman accepts something she doesn't agree with simply because she puts the opinions of men above the opinions of women.

If a woman is in agreement with the men in her organization, then she's not taking a backseat if she goes along with them. In that case, she shares their opinion. She'd only being taking a backseat if she doesn't agree with the men, but goes along with the men because she thinks the opinions of women don't matter as much as the opinion of men.

I think the relevant question is whether you think she'll avoid dissenting because of the men on the court. I don't see her doing that. She'll concur when she thinks she should and she'll dissent when she thinks she should. I don't think she'll vote to concur just because the men are doing such.

I don't know her personally, but I don't see someone who's been an appellate judge for 3 years going along just to get along.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the relevant question is whether you think she'll avoid dissenting because of the men on the court.

I think it's definitely a possibility based on everything I do and do not know about her and that's just one reason why I don't trust or want her to be a member of the Supreme Court.

It doesn't help that she was Trump's favorite and Trump has a bad history of liking and associating with untrustworthy people. McConnell and the senate Republicans have shown repeatedly that the character of Supreme Court justice is not as important to them as a justice voting in favor of a their agenda. Otherwise, they would not have denied Garland's appointment.

The integrity of any nominee is always going to reflect the integrity and impartiality of the people nominating and approving them. Trump has no integrity and impartiality. McConnell and the senate Republicans have no integrity and impartiality, so I think it's a mistake to assume that Barrett has any integrity and impartiality.

 

[DaveXA]

I think it's definitely a possibility based on everything I do and do not know about her and that's just one reason why I don't trust or want her to be a member of the Supreme Court.

It doesn't help that she was Trump's favorite and Trump has a bad history of liking and associating with untrustworthy people. McConnell and the senate Republicans have shown repeatedly that the character of Supreme Court justice is not as important to them as a justice voting in favor of a their agenda. Otherwise, they would not have denied Garland's appointment.

The integrity of any nominee is always going to reflect the integrity and impartiality of the people nominating and approving them. Trump has no integrity and impartiality. McConnell and the senate Republicans have no integrity and impartiality, so I think it's a mistake to assume that Barrett has any integrity and impartiality.

The fact that you have to judge someone by who they're nominated by rather than on their own merits says we won't ever agree. I judge people by what they do and say, not by who they're associated with or what someone else thinks about them. But, if it works for you, good for you. It doesn't make sense to me to use logic that basically says no one picked by Trump can be worthy of consideration.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The fact that you have to judge someone by who they're nominated by rather than on their own merits says we won't ever agree. I judge people by what they do and say, not by who they're associated with or what someone else thinks about them. But, if it works for you, good for you. It doesn't make sense to me to use logic that basically says no one picked by Trump can be worthy of consideration.

It seems that you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that I judge a person on their own merits as well as the merits of the people who are putting them into a position of power.

I'm saying both matter and that both should be considered. In the case of Barrett, I have concerns about her on her own merits and the merits of those trying to put her on the Supreme Court.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with anything I say, as long as they disagree with what I am actually saying.

I didn't say a single thing that you just said that I said. In the future, please pay better attention to what I'm actually saying.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think we're splitting hairs over a relative non-issue. There are other larger issues I have with her as a nominee for the Court.

They don't have much to attack her on besides being too religious and adopting black kids from Haiti.

 

[superchuck500]

With Lee and Tillis positive for Covid, it raises the concern that ACB won’t be able to get out of committee, at least not until Lee and Tillis are there.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

They don't have much to attack her on besides being too religious...

That's enough for me. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to the Middle East.

 

[Nebaghead]

With Lee and Tillis positive for Covid, it rises the concern that ACB won’t be able to get out of committee, at least not until Lee and Tillis are there.

Graham said he is still starting October 12th. I wonder if that will change.

 

[DaveXA]

That's enough for me. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to the Middle East.

We're a long, long way from a theocracy.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We're a long, long way from a theocracy.

Maybe in distance, but not in the amount of time it takes to get there. We're a lot closer to a theocracy than some may realize. It wouldn't take many actions or time to tip us over the edge. Try to image what living in the US as a non-Christian is like.

How would people feel if a Muslim or Hindu person who said their religion comes before the law were nominated to the Supreme Court? Or a Satanist, Druid, Wiccan or atheist for that matter?

Putting "my religion first" justices from the same religion in charge of the Supreme Court is one of those things that would have to happen to tip us over the edge. That's why we should avoid even the possibility of those type of justices being placed on the court. Barret has given us ample reason to believe she just might be one of those type of justices.

 

[DaveXA]

Maybe in distance, but not in the amount of time it takes to get there. We're a lot closer to a theocracy than some may realize. It wouldn't take many actions or time to tip us over the edge. Try to image what living in the US as a non-Christian is like.

How would people feel if a Muslim or Hindu person who said their religion comes before the law were nominated to the Supreme Court? Or a Satanist, Druid, Wiccan or atheist for that matter?

Putting "my religion first" justices from the same religion in charge of the Supreme Court is one of those things that would have to happen to tip us over the edge. That's why we should avoid even the possibility of those type of justices being placed on the court. Barret has given us ample reason to believe she just might be one of those type of justices.

People might put religion over the law in their worldview, but in practice, not so much.

 

[LA - L.A.]

People might put religion over the law in their worldview, but in practice, not so much.

What about when they explicitly say that in their practice of the law they put their religious beliefs first?

What would you think if someone who explicitly said that they put their Shiite Muslim beliefs first in their practice of the law were nominated to the Supreme Court? Would it give you no pause for concern at all?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

We're a long, long way from a theocracy.

Depends on one's perspective. In my opinion, putting someone on the Supreme Court who has made it clear from her scholarly writings and speeches that she would have issues putting secular law above her personal faith is troubling for a democratic republic.

"In practice" there is literally nothing stopping her from doing that once she is confirmed by the Senate. To be clear, I don't have much of an issue with Gorsuch who, while I disagree with his philosophy, I think he is intellectually honest. Kavanaugh... eh... more of an arrogant politician type who is results-oriented.

 

[JimEverett]

What about when they explicitly say that in their practice of the law they put their religious beliefs first?

What would you think if someone who explicitly said that they put their Shiite Muslim beliefs first in their practice of the law were nominated to the Supreme Court? Would it give you no pause for concern at all?

If that is the case then I believe that is a disqualification. I don't think that is even close to what Barrett has said - but I will also admit I may be wrong in that assessment.

For example - she has ruled in favor of death penalty sentences - or upholding death penalty sentences even after writing that her Catholic faith would only view such sentences as legitimate in very narrow circumstances which, in my quick reading, would not apply to the cases she had decided.

But - to be clear - I agree with what Chuck wrote earlier: she herself has put her faith front and center in relation to her legal duties, so it is fair game imo.

 

[LA - L.A.]

If that is the case then I believe that is a disqualification. I don't think that is even close to what Barrett has said - but I will also admit I may be wrong in that assessment.

For example - she has ruled in favor of death penalty sentences - or upholding death penalty sentences even after writing that her Catholic faith would only view such sentences as legitimate in very narrow circumstances which, in my quick reading, would not apply to the cases she had decided.

But - to be clear - I agree with what Chuck wrote earlier: she herself has put her faith front and center in relation to her legal duties, so it is fair game imo.

In line with that, I'm not saying definitively that she would put her Catholicism first as a theocrat, but things she has said and written make that a legitimate concern which makes her too questionable and risky to put on the court in my opinion.

She said what she said and she has ruled on too few cases for her rulings to carry enough weight to cancel out the things she has said and written through the years. It's too close a call and I think we should err on the side of caution which would be to not confirm her to the court.

I'm fully aware that my opinion has no influence at all over the outcome of her confirmation.