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.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Here is a good example of a sitting justice describing why a decision could have been wrongly decided while not believing that his personal POV about the issue at hand should enter into his perspective on the ruling itself. That is the kind of reasoning that should be expected of nominees as well in describing their thoughts on decided cases they have issue with. That is also why the probing of Barrett should be intense - not to determine her POV on the issue itself, but how she views the role of the Court and the responsibility of justices in interpreting the Constitution.

Scalia -- although a tad arrogant on occasion -- was a brilliant man and very fair minded. This short clip is an excellent breakdown of how the conservative wing view Substantive Due Process. The problem, imo, is that the younger conservative judges -- despite their academic achievements and often having served as his law clerk -- are shallow. They were weened in a world of greater partisanship. The Federalist Society has slowly degraded from a legitimate academic society to somewhat of a cult.

 

[Ayo]

Then why have the Senate in charge of the process? I think your argument is most compelling for moving the confirmation to another body. Senators represent their constituents on the issues - do you see this responsibility discreet from that?

I don't, because I don't know how you can tell them to legislate like that, as their confirmed role, but then set it aside for confirming a Justice.

I'm fine with finding another method, personally. But I don't see how your vision works, Richard, with the Senate's legislative role.

 

[Richard]

Then why have the Senate in charge of the process? I think your argument is most compelling for moving the confirmation to another body. Senators represent their constituents on the issues - do you see this responsibility discreet from that?

I don't, because I don't know how you can tell them to legislate like that, as their confirmed role, but then set it aside for confirming a Justice.

I'm fine with finding another method, personally. But I don't see how your vision works, Richard, with the Senate's legislative role.

It’s all a part of the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution. The president nominates and the Senate provides advice and consent. It seems counter intuitive to me that the Senate would insist that nominees be expected to adhere to the political leanings of the dominant party at a given point in time. Expecting the Court to reflect the electorate or the views of a particular Senate to hold sway over a nominee runs counter to the idea of an impartial court beholding to nothing but the Constitution.

It is the role of Congress to make law and the responsibility of the Court to interpret those laws in the light of the Constitution. The Senate’s legislative role should have no bearing on the suitability of a nominee.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s all a part of the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution. The president nominates and the Senate provides advice and consent. It seems counter intuitive to me that the Senate would insist that nominees be expected to adhere to the political leanings of the dominant party at a given point in time. Expecting the Court to reflect the electorate or the views of a particular Senate to hold sway over a nominee runs counter to the idea of an impartial court beholding to nothing but the Constitution.

It is the role of Congress to make law and the responsibility of the Court to interpret those laws in the light of the Constitution. The Senate’s legislative role should have no bearing on the suitability of a nominee.

The advice and consent the Senate provides on nominees is one of their checks and balances on the executive branch. The President is the dominate member of the executive, so their party is the dominate party of the executive branch. The president nominates justices that align with their political leanings and the political leanings of their party.

Why is it that it's okay for the president to nominate based on political leanings, but it's not okay for the Senate to challenge nominees based on their political leanings?

Advice and consent does not mean rubber stamp. If I ask a woman to let me kiss her, her consent does not require that she just say yes and let me do whatever I want. That's not how consent works and I don't think that's how the Senate's advice and consent role was suppose to work. It's one of the checks and balances by Congress over the Executive. If the Senate just rubber stamps the president's nominee, then they are shirking their responsibility to provide checks and balances.

That extends to the non-dominant party in the Senate as well. They have a responsibility to publicize and challenge the political leanings of the president's nominee. That's especially true when you consider when the president did not win a majority of votes and the collective representation of the senators of the dominant party do not represent a majority of US citizens.

There should be no deferrence from the non-dominant party in the Senate to Senators that do not represent the majority of citizens and a president that lost the popular vote of citizens by millions of votes.

 

[zztop]

meanwhile in loathsome turtle turd news

McConnell called off floor proceedings but not Barrett’s hearings

“The Senate’s floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair and historically supported confirmation process,”

I wonder if he can even look himself in the mirror being the hypocrite that he is

 

[MT15]

I wouldn’t want to be in a closed room with any R senators right now. That’s just asking to get infected.

 

[Ayo]

It’s all a part of the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution. The president nominates and the Senate provides advice and consent. It seems counter intuitive to me that the Senate would insist that nominees be expected to adhere to the political leanings of the dominant party at a given point in time. Expecting the Court to reflect the electorate or the views of a particular Senate to hold sway over a nominee runs counter to the idea of an impartial court beholding to nothing but the Constitution.

It is the role of Congress to make law and the responsibility of the Court to interpret those laws in the light of the Constitution. The Senate’s legislative role should have no bearing on the suitability of a nominee.

I still don’t see a clear justification for the Senate’s role, then. What seems counter intuitive to you seems to be exactly what we are seeing play out.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I still don’t see a clear justification for the Senate’s role, then. What seems counter intuitive to you seems to be exactly what we are seeing play out.

The reality is the high-minded principles with which the Framers crafted the Constitution have long since died on the vine. But here we are stuck with an archaic document guiding our future as a nation. Other western democracies know better.

 

[Ayo]

The reality is the high-minded principles with which the Framers crafted the Constitution have long since died on the vine. But here we are stuck with an archaic document guiding our future as a nation. Other western democracies know better.

yea, I guess that’s more or less what I was getting at. At some point we are gonna have a reckoning with the document itself. Although I might’ve thought this would do it - this administration - but without the political will, I guess there’s no reason to.

what a weird time

 

[MT15]

I was just reading tonight that she gave five paid speeches to an organization that the SPLC classifies as a hate group because of their extreme views on homosexuality and transgender people.

IIRC they want to criminalize homosexuality and want forced sterilization for trans individuals. The snippet I read said she claimed to not know what their stance was, but she gave 5 speeches and kept the money.

This is a bit troubling. Who are we elevating to the highest court on a lifetime appointment?

 

[Richard]

The advice and consent the Senate provides on nominees is one of their checks and balances on the executive branch. The President is the dominate member of the executive, so their party is the dominate party of the executive branch. The president nominates justices that align with their political leanings and the political leanings of their party.

Why is it that it's okay for the president to nominate based on political leanings, but it's not okay for the Senate to challenge nominees based on their political leanings?

Advice and consent does not mean rubber stamp. If I ask a woman to let me kiss her, her consent does not require that she just say yes and let me do whatever I want. That's not how consent works and I don't think that's how the Senate's advice and consent role was suppose to work. It's one of the checks and balances by Congress over the Executive. If the Senate just rubber stamps the president's nominee, then they are shirking their responsibility to provide checks and balances.

That extends to the non-dominant party in the Senate as well. They have a responsibility to publicize and challenge the political leanings of the president's nominee. That's especially true when you consider when the president did not win a majority of votes and the collective representation of the senators of the dominant party do not represent a majority of US citizens.

There should be no deferrence from the non-dominant party in the Senate to Senators that do not represent the majority of citizens and a president that lost the popular vote of citizens by millions of votes.

I never suggested that nominees be rubber stamped. In fact, I stated that it was the Senate’s responsibility to investigate and probe the nominee to determine if there is a disqualifying factor. Your opposition to the Electoral College and the current composition of the Senate is noted. But it seems to me that the greatest difference in our opinions is that you appear to believe that a nominee must reveal how they would rule on cases before they have been argued and the Senators should vote for or against nominees based on politics and perceived policy positions. I believe they should receive up or down votes based on their character, their legal acumen and their commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

If you want to abolish the Electoral College, change the way Senators are apportioned or hold a constitutional convention, now we are back to a discussion of legislative matters. We can have those discussions, but they aren’t really relevant to determining the fitness of Supreme Court justices. Senators decide their own standards for their confirmation votes and I am sure that some would agree with your position. I don’t.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I believe they should receive up or down votes based on their character, their legal acumen and their commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

I acknowledged that this is your standard the first time you said it.

As I said in resonse to that, I don't see how one can know a justice's commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution, if we don't question them very specifically and very thoroughly about how they would rule on matters of the law and the Constitution. If a nominee has a long history as a judge, then you can look at their history as a judge to get some insight on them.

We don't have that with Barrett. To gauge her commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution doesn't involve just trusting that she because she's deemed to be "of good character and acceptable legal acumen" by a rushed confirmation process that doesn't investigate and question anywhere near what the seriousness of her lifetime appoint warrants.

If Barret was Muslim and her past comments about the religion and the law where Muslim based instead of Catholic based, I have no doubt in my mind that very few of the people currently support and excusing her would still support and excuse her.

I also doubt they would continue to support and excuse Trump for appointing her and McConnell and the senate Republicans for hypocritically ramrodding her confirmation through.

The thing about corruption like this, from Trump, McConnell and the Republican senators, it's a lot like racism. It's easy to be okay with it or even supportive of it, if you're not the one who is going to end up being harmed by it.

To everyone that has read this, please be very much aware that I'm not calling anyone a racist or this corruption racially motivated. I say that, because I want to kill any and all of those strawman arguments before they make it to the crib.

 

[wardorican]

I'm under the impression, that as the quarantine goes, so long as no Democrats show, the Senate cannot have a quorum, and they definitely wouldn't have a majority to push her nomination.

 

[DaveXA]

I acknowledged that this is your standard the first time you said it.

As I said in resonse to that, I don't see how one can know a justice's commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution, if we don't question them very specifically and very thoroughly about how they would rule on matters of the law and the Constitution. If a nominee has a long history as a judge, then you can look at their history as a judge to get some insight on them.

We don't have that with Barrett. To gauge her commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution doesn't involve just trusting that she because she's deemed to be "of good character and acceptable legal acumen" by a rushed confirmation process that doesn't investigate and question anywhere near what the seriousness of her lifetime appoint warrants.

If Barret was Muslim and her past comments about the religion and the law where Muslim based instead of Catholic based, I have no doubt in my mind that very few of the people currently support and excusing her would still support and excuse her.

I also doubt they would continue to support and excuse Trump for appointing her and McConnell and the senate Republicans for hypocritically ramrodding her confirmation through.

The thing about corruption like this, from Trump, McConnell and the Republican senators, it's a lot like racism. It's easy to be okay with it or even supportive of it, if you're not the one who is going to end up being harmed by it.

To everyone that has read this, please be very much aware that I'm not calling anyone a racist or this corruption racially motivated. I say that, because I want to kill any and all of those strawman arguments before they make it to the crib.

Maybe I'm missing it, but what exactly is the corruption you're referring to?

 

[DaveXA]

I'm under the impression, that as the quarantine goes, so long as no Democrats show, the Senate cannot have a quorum, and they definitely wouldn't have a majority to push her nomination.

I don't remember parliamentary procedure for determining a quorum in the Senate, but, iirc, it's 51 must present. For that to be prevented from happening, you'd need 3 or 4 Republicans to be not present. I think 3 may not be enough because technically the VP can break ties. But idk if that counts for purposes of a quorum.

As for confirming ACB, you'd need every Democrat plus 4 Republicans to oppose. I see 3 possible no votes from the Republicans, but i don't know where that 4th one will come from.

 

[brandon]

I think 3 may not be enough because technically the VP can break ties. But idk if that counts for purposes of a quorum.

I think I read somewhere where VP doesn’t count for quorum.

 

[DaveXA]

I think I read somewhere where VP doesn’t count for quorum.

Yeah, in that case you'd need 3 Republicans not present to prevent a quorum. The balance sits at 53-47 currently. With 3 currently infected, it's gonna be an interesting couple of weeks leading up to the confirmation hearings.

 

[MT15]

It’s not just the three that are infected is it? There are several others who should be in quarantine for two weeks I thought.