Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[DaveXA]

I decided to punish myself and watch a little bit.

While I don't support the nomination for a variety of reasons, I think she is handling herself very well. Most of the questioning has also been very kind and even complimentary. It's not the circus I was expecting, on either side.

As I said, I have only watched a small bit but I think she is a hard person to attack because she seems like a quality human being and good person that has been thrust into a bad situation.

It was mostly fine until Sen. Whitehouse went all conspiracy theory followed by Cruz's literal rebuttal. Smh.

 

[DaveXA]

So, I haven't been keeping close tabs on this, but I know she has defined herself as "an originalist" and I'm curious what a strict originalist makes of Amendments, just generally.

If I understood her correctly, she seems to be more of a textualist than originalist. Which are distinctly different approaches.

I may have them backwards because I'm working and watching at the same time.

 

[FullMonte]

No, he's running for President, .

Yeah...and if, over the next four years, his beliefs interfere with his ability to do his job, the American people can remove him.

It doesn't work that way for a Supreme Court justice.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah...and if, over the next four years, his beliefs interfere with his ability to do his job, the American people can remove him.

It doesn't work that way for a Supreme Court justice.

While true. There are 9 justices and one president. So it sort of evens out a bit.

 

[FullMonte]

I have a feeling that the sad reality is that she'll be an adequate Supreme Court justice, but her career will be forever tainted by this hypocritical appointment process. Every ruling she makes that someone disagrees with will rehash this process.

I'll never understand why McConnell didn't simply bring Garland up for a vote, and then have republicans vote "no." The end result is the same, and you don't have to worry about being put in a situation like they are in now.

 

[DaveXA]

I have a feeling that the sad reality is that she'll be an adequate Supreme Court justice, but her career will be forever tainted by this hypocritical appointment process. Every ruling she makes that someone disagrees with will rehash this process.

I'll never understand why McConnell didn't simply bring Garland up for a vote, and then have republicans vote "no." The end result is the same, and you don't have to worry about being put in a situation like they are in now.

Agree 100%. The Garland nomination was what started this whole mess. I wanted Garland to have an opportunity to make his case. It's one of the reasons I no longer consider myself a Republican.

 

[insidejob]

If I understood her correctly, she seems to be more of a textualist than originalist. Which are distinctly different approaches.

I may have them backwards because I'm working and watching at the same time.

You've actually got that backwards. She clerked under Scalia and even said this morning that she's an originalist not a textualist. Just like Scalia was. Sorry, but we don't need people on the highest court interpreting the law as it was written 200 years ago.

 

[SystemShock]

Well, you could say the same for Biden, as he's a Catholic as well.

Not really. Biden is pro-choice, pro LGBT+. He doesn't put Bible before Constitution.

 

[DaveXA]

Not really. Biden is pro-choice, pro LGBT+. He doesn't put Bible before Constitution.

Sure, but he was arguing that being Catholic was the disqualifying criteria.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Sure, but he was arguing that being Catholic was the disqualifying criteria.

Extremely disingenuous post.

Go back and read what i wrote, in full, instead of putting words my mouth.. Putting it into context will help explain exactly what i said.

 

[DaveXA]

Extremely disingenuous post.

Go back and read what i wrote, in full, instead of putting words my mouth.. Putting it into context will help explain exactly what i said.

I don't think it was disingenuous. You stated clearly that based on what you were taught in the Catholic faith, there was no way you could reconcile that teaching with being a neutral SC Justice. Which makes it sound like there's no way you can be an honest Catholic and and honest SC Justice at the same time. What other conclusion can I draw from that post?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I don't think it was disingenuous. You stated clearly that based on what you were taught in the Catholic faith, there was no way you could reconcile that teaching with being a neutral Justice. Which makes it sound like there's no way you can be an honest Catholic and and honest SC Justice. What other conclusion can I draw from that post?

I said a lot in that post, I’m not going to debate you if all you got was ‘Catholic = Disqualified.’


And yes, ‘What other conclusion can i draw?’ Is pretty much the definition of disingenuous.. After seeing your posts here over the years, i assumed you were capable of more.. But again, I’m not here to argue, so say whatever you like.

 

[DaveXA]

I said a lot in that post, I’m not going to debate you if all you got was ‘Catholic = Disqualified.’


And yes, ‘What other conclusion can i draw?’ Is pretty much the definition of disingenuous.. After seeing your posts here over the years, i assumed you were capable of more.. But again, I’m not here to argue, so say whatever you like.

Your very first sentence made it clear you have a problem with her faith, then you went into this explanation of why you think she wouldn't be able to put her faith aside when making a ruling. You sure made it sound like it would be impossible for her to be partial in her opinions precisely because her faith wouldn't let her.

 

[samiam5211]

They should confirm the nominee.

The nomination should not have been made until next year, but she’s the nominee.

I do not want her on the court because I don’t agree with her philosophically, but she is what a good conservative justice should be.

She is smart, authentic, prepared, and has the right disposition for a judge. I do believe that she will consider cases logically, even if her logic is informed by a different point of view than mine.

She will vote to overturn Roe v Wade because she believes that personhood begins at conception. Maybe we can convince her that corporations are not people.

She is miles better than Kav, he should be a TV judge at best.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Not really. Biden is pro-choice, pro LGBT+. He doesn't put Bible before Constitution.

Not sure what this even means. Why the need to put one before the other. As a pro-choice, pro-LGBT+ Catholic, I use the teachings of the Bible to help me make the right decisions for myself AND everyone else. Those teachings are why I'm pro-choice and pro-LGBT+.

Two distinct things...

 

[DaveXA]

They should confirm the nominee.

The nomination should not have been made until next year, but she’s the nominee.

I do not want her on the court because I don’t agree with her philosophically, but she is what a good conservative justice should be.

She is smart, authentic, prepared, and has the right disposition for a judge. I do believe that she will consider cases logically, even if her logic is informed by a different point of view than mine.

She will vote to overturn Roe v Wade because she believes that personhood begins at conception. Maybe we can convince her that corporations are not people.

She is miles better than Kav, he should be a TV judge at best.

On Roe, I think it's possible that in consulting with the justices that she or some of the other justices might be persuaded to uphold Roe vs. Wade. Even adding her to the court, I wouldn't say it's a done deal. There would need to be a convincing case before the justices for that precedent to be overturned IMHO. The court doesn't just willy nilly overturn precedent.

I know a lot of people are passionate about the subject, and right now it seems to me we're in sort of a middle ground on the issue and making big changes to that in this environment could cause a lot of upheaval. Who knows where this leads.

 

[samiam5211]

On Roe, I think it's possible that in consulting with the justices that she or some of the other justices might be persuaded to uphold Roe vs. Wade. Even adding her to the court, I wouldn't say it's a done deal. There would need to be a convincing case before the justices for that precedent to be overturned IMHO. The court doesn't just willy nilly overturn precedent.

I know a lot of people are passionate about the subject, and right now it seems to me we're in sort of a middle ground on the issue and making big changes to that in this environment could cause a lot of upheaval. Who knows where this leads.

Maybe, but Obamacare is toast.

 

[DaveXA]

Maybe, but Obamacare is toast.

Probably, but I think it was gonna be toast sooner or later anyway. I'd much rather single payer universal health care.