Amy Coney Barrett [Supreme Court nominee]

[PrimeNumber7]

I am particularly impressed by Trump's nominee to replace RGB to the Supreme Court. It appears she is a staunch Originalist and Textualist. I believe that Barrett if confirmed will apply the law and Constitution as written, as opposed to making laws that the electorate would not vote for. This gives businesses and citizens (and the government) the confidence they can know and understand if something is legal or illegal at the time an action is taken, as opposed to when activist judges create rights out of thin air.

This should force both sides of the political aisle to compromise more because the left will no longer be able to rely on the courts to unilaterally make laws. This may also result in more constitutional amendments as the electorate decides there are rights US citizens should have that are not in the US Constitution.

I don't anticipate there being the same type of circus as there was in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Senate Democrats performed poorly after the Kavanaugh circus, and I don't forsee anyone being able to fabraciate the same type of dirt against Barrett.

What do you think about ACB? Is she qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[Spendulus]

...rate decides there are rights US citizens should have that are not in the US Constitution.

I don't anticipate there being the same type of circus as there was in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Senate Democrats performed poorly after the Kavanaugh circus, and I don't forsee anyone being able to fabraciate the same type of dirt against Barrett.

What do you think about ACB? Is she qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

The same kind of circus?

Lol, at the very end of the hearings, you can bet they'll put a rabbit out of the hat. The very end of the last day.

[bryant.coleman]

The margin in senate is very thin right now. Democrats already have 49 on their side (including the two RINOs - Murkowski and Collins, as well as the "conservative" Democrat Joe Manchin). Since Biden is leading the polls right now, I won't be surprised if one or two more RINOs defect to the Democrat side, hoping to get some carrots after the November elections.

There is something I have noticed. Senators from "red" states, such as Manchin, Murkowski, Doug Jones and Jon Tester are voting against the conservative nominee, despite claiming that they are "conservative" politicians. On the other hand, senators from all the "blue" states are united in their opposition against ACB. This just shows how easy it is to fool the conservative voters. Can you imagine that they could fool the conservative voters and elect a liberal senator from West Virginia, where Trump won 69% of the vote in 2016?

[squatz1]

Personally I'd have to say that I am impressed as well. This hearing has not been as personal or as emotionally charged as Kavanuaghs was, so that's a pretty nice thing to see as well. Makes sense that it isn't as personal, because they're not accusing her of raping someone 30 something years ago.

But I did see some 'scandal' that's been circulating social media. Cory Booker brought it up in a hearing, and Barrett was able to shoot it right back at him in saying that he was mischaracterizing what was said. I'm assuming the dems thought this was their GOTCHA moment on her, but it was not. Here's some info on that from NPR:

Then Booker grilled Barrett further, pointing to her recent opinion in a work discrimination case that he said did not square with that statement.

The 2019 case involved a Black Illinois transportation employee who sued the department after he was fired. He said his supervisor had created a hostile work environment and called him the N-word.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the employee had failed to prove that he had been fired because of his race. In her opinion, Barrett wrote that the N-word is an "egregious racial epithet," but she argued that the employee couldn't win by simply proving the N-word was said to him.


Barrett defended her decision, saying that Booker mischaracterized what she said. The key part of that case was that the defendant did not "tie the use of the N-word into the evidence that he introduced for his hostile work environment claim," Barrett said. He based his argument on the use of expletives spewed at him, but those expletives presented to the court did not include the N-word.

"And so as a panel, we were constrained to decide based on the case the plaintiff had presented before us," Barrett explained. "So the panel very carefully wrote the opinion to make clear that it was possible for one use of the N-word to be enough to establish a hostile work environment claim if it were pled that way."

[Gyfts]

...

Cory Booker takes 1st place for the dumbest person in the United States senate. He is insufferable. He asked Barrett if she was a fucking white supremacist with her two black adopted children in the background...

Nothing screams white supremacy like a catholic mother of 7 with two adopted children from Haiti.

[squatz1]

...

Cory Booker takes 1st place for the dumbest person in the United States senate. He is insufferable. He asked Barrett if she was a fucking white supremacist with her two black adopted children in the background...

Nothing screams white supremacy like a catholic mother of 7 with two adopted children from Haiti.

Yeah I don't really understand the narrative there, guy looks like a real dumbass when he's saying it. Plus the fact that like, I highly doubt that line resonates with many voters. Plus the whole case that he was trying to grill her about was pretty straightforward.

She's not someone who is going to make policy from the bench, so it makes sense that she refers to the letter of the law. If the Congress wants to expand what racial discrimination and a hostile workplace is then they can, but at the moment she's totally in the right. WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON THE CASE WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION.

[Spendulus]

...

Cory Booker takes 1st place for the dumbest person in the United States senate. He is insufferable. He asked Barrett if she was a fucking white supremacist with her two black adopted children in the background...

Nothing screams white supremacy like a catholic mother of 7 with two adopted children from Haiti.

I did read the transcripts from that hearing and was very impressed with the way she handled a large number of questions. The Demos have a right to pry and ask questions to attempt to detect if she is some kind of crackpot under the surface. But it does seem like she not only holds her own in debate, but always takes the lead.

[PrimeNumber7]

ACB was confirmed last night on a 52-48 party line vote with only Senator Collins voting against her nomination.

Her confirmation should mark the beginning of a conservative court. Based on Biden’s signaling that he will appoint a commission to pack the SC, who knows how long it will last.

[eddie13]

Trump has done well!!
3 JUDGES!!

Hope we can get one more good scotus pick..
It is the main reason real conservatives vote trump..

So what do you think will happen if he lets one get confirmed before the election?

Was just thinking about it...seems like his best play is to sabotage whoever he nominates and blame the democrats.  

After RGBs seat, it's unlikely there will be another opening in the next decade let alone next 4 years. Think about it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but Trump letting a confirmation happen or seem inevitable before election day seems like it would be a big mistake.

What? No...
SCOTUS picks are more important than him winning the election..
If the main reason for electing him is to install good conservative judges, why would I want him to delay appointing a judge?

He should most definitely slam one through while he can, Incase he loses in November..
SCOTUS picks should not be some pawn to be toyed with to try to gain a little edge in an election..

If he can get his judge in before the election, we will be happy that he did what we put him in there to do..
He has been doing a quite fine job with this thus far.. He has been a pretty darn good president from my view..

3 good judges, better than expected...
Damn good thing we elected Trump in 2016 and not Clinton..

I still think trump is going to win regardless of any SCOTUS games you may like for him to play..
I saw Theymoses post on this too, and I would rather have the pick than one more or less little edge for him in the election..

That’s like risking losing your kids in a divorce to argue about who gets to keep the cat..

For any that say he hasn't kept his campaign trail promises, this was the biggest and most important one to most conservatives, and he has blown it out of the water above and beyond expected..

[Febo]

For any that say he hasn't kept his campaign trail promises, this was the biggest and most important one to most conservatives, and he has blown it out of the water above and beyond expected..

LOL.  You need to post that meme of that dog drinking coffee while his house burns while saying what you just posted. Who cares if I broke all promises and house burn down. As long as I have my coffee and 3 judges a is perfectly fine.

[franky1]

when presented as a 'person of unquestionable character' .. it really means if you ask her a question, she doesnt give an answer. thus you cant really question her

2. A: it would be improper as a sitting judge to opine on that
3a. A:it would be improper as a sitting judge to opine on that
3b. A: refer to 3a response
3c. A: refer to 3a response
4a. A: it will be improper to opine on that
4b. A: refer to 4a response
5a. A: it will be improper to opine on that
5b. A: refer to 5a response

you can guess by now what she said in 6a

then she gives in other questions a lengthy answer and then says please refer to earlier answer.. many many times

[nullius]

Is the NCLA’s below-quoted evaluation of Barrett correct?

To be clear, I am trying to evaluate the NCLA’s suitability for my charity bet with theymos.  theymos suggested the NCLA to me; it looks good, at a glance.  Unfortunately, I am much more pessimistic than you folks.  I think that you were long ago doomed and foredoomed, no matter who gets onto the SCOTUS now:  Horses, barn door...  I can’t be arsed to read the NCLA’s below-linked PDFs just to see if they are really good enough to receive 0.01 BTC from me if Trump loses.

Thanks in advance for any advice about the NCLA’s evaluation of Amy Coney Barrett!

“Administrative law” tyranny:

... A president could for example wield the administrative state in such a way as to make it very difficult to use Bitcoin without existing in the shadows, and a Biden administration is probably more likely to move in this direction than a Trump administration. ...

... “administrative law” tyranny.  I think that most American consider the U.S. Code to be “Federal law”; well, what about that other conjoined-twin body of Federal law, the C.F.R.? ...

NCLA Applauds Supreme Court Nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Record on Administrative Power

Washington, DC (September 26, 2020) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance commends President Trump’s nomination of the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

NCLA, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group devoted to protecting constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State, analyzed Judge Barrett’s interpretation of administrative power issues, including any record of questioning judicial deference or bias in favor of agencies in a white paper of prospective nominees released this week.

NCLA strongly believes we need federal judges who are willing to protect the civil liberties of individual Americans from unlawful administrative power. If courts will not check administrative abuses when they occur and force federal agencies to stick to constitutional pathways, then the government will run amok and civil liberties will be lost.

[Gyfts]

^^^

I like the NCLA and they'd be a fine group to donate too.

Just take a look very briefly at their Amicus Briefs to see what they advocate for because only you can make the call as to whether they're a good organization or not. - https://nclalegal.org/amicus-briefs/ They file litigation in response to federal civil rights violations.

And btw, they are right on their assessment of ACB. An originalists view of the constitution is the only interpretation that protects civil liberties and ACB fits that category. She's a self described originalist.

[nullius]

Bottom line up front:

And btw, they are right on their assessment of ACB.

Ah!  That is the principal information that I sought.  For you see, I used my bet-related question about the NCLA as a sly excuse to slip in some substantive information about Amy Coney Barrett, the topic of this thread.

I hope that blurb and especially, those PDFs are useful to someone here.

An originalists view of the constitution is the only interpretation that protects civil liberties and ACB fits that category.

A true “originalist” would need to chuck stare decisis out the window, and run a wrecking ball through—I think probably most SCOTUS decisions, Federal legislation, and Federal regulations since the Roosevelt era.  To start with.

Just for instance:  Do you seriously expect for ACB, or anyone else nowadays to return the Commerce Clause to the interpretation that it had before the 1930s?  (Let alone an “original” interpretation.)

Anyway—I am glad to know about this.  If some of my political posts seem odd, it may be because in my study of Americanism, I have studied more about history (including modern political history) than current events.  I didn’t know much at all about ACB.  Now, I know a bit more.  Thanks.

I like the NCLA and they'd be a fine group to donate to.

Thanks.  Good to know.  At this point, theymos’ suggestion is looking so good that I almost hope to lose the bet.  —Except it would mean that your president would be Biden!  That would be perhaps about 2–3% worse than Trump; and in the long term, the difference will be negligible.  Eh.  More importantly, it would not make liberals cry.  So, I hope that I win the bet. ;-)

[squatz1]

Bottom line up front:

And btw, they are right on their assessment of ACB.

Ah!  That is the principal information that I sought.  For you see, I used my bet-related question about the NCLA as a sly excuse to slip in some substantive information about Amy Coney Barrett, the topic of this thread.

I hope that blurb and especially, those PDFs are useful to someone here.

An originalists view of the constitution is the only interpretation that protects civil liberties and ACB fits that category.

A true “originalist” would need to chuck stare decisis out the window, and run a wrecking ball through—I think probably most SCOTUS decisions, Federal legislation, and Federal regulations since the Roosevelt era.  To start with.

Just for instance:  Do you seriously expect for ACB, or anyone else nowadays to return the Commerce Clause to the interpretation that it had before the 1930s?  (Let alone an “original” interpretation.)

Anyway—I am glad to know about this.  If some of my political posts seem odd, it may be because in my study of Americanism, I have studied more about history (including modern political history) than current events.  I didn’t know much at all about ACB.  Now, I know a bit more.  Thanks.

I like the NCLA and they'd be a fine group to donate to.

Thanks.  Good to know.  At this point, theymos’ suggestion is looking so good that I almost hope to lose the bet.  —Except it would mean that your president would be Biden!  That would be perhaps about 2–3% worse than Trump; and in the long term, the difference will be negligible.  Eh.  More importantly, it would not make liberals cry.  So, I hope that I win the bet. ;-)

To all of this: Most of the modern originalists who are picked to fill the court are from the Federalist Society. They're vetted intensely to even get to the point of getting to the appeals court, imagine the amount of vetting that goes in to make it to the Presidents shortlist, which is handpicked by the Federalist society.

Not to say that people that come out of the Federalist Society are wrong in some way. Though I'm really not a fan of most modern justices view on executive power. And we all know the view of Scalia's when it comes to unitary executive theory, which will most likely extend to ACB as she was a clerk and a mentee of his.

I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though.

[PrimeNumber7]

An originalists view of the constitution is the only interpretation that protects civil liberties and ACB fits that category.

A true “originalist” would need to chuck stare decisis out the window, and run a wrecking ball through—I think probably most SCOTUS decisions, Federal legislation, and Federal regulations since the Roosevelt era.  To start with.

stare decisis allows citizens to make decisions based on what they know the law to be. It is harmful when something that has been legal for many years, even after trips to the SC, and all of a sudden it is no longer legal.

I find 'absolutism' to be extreme and undesirable. I am generally opposed to 'always' or 'never' standpoints on things. I believe it is a sign that someone with these types of views is unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints, and that these standpoints will lead to unintended consequences.

[Spendulus]

...
I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though.

Absolute nonsense. The SC will make decisions, many of them will surprise people that try to predict.

[squatz1]

...
I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though.

Absolute nonsense. The SC will make decisions, many of them will surprise people that try to predict.

Alright here is where my line of thought is regarding high level positions such as the SC, Presidency, etc.

I think that at a certain point when you're going up the ladder the owners of our society, the super rich and wealthy, ensure that you're not a threat to them and you won't alter the status quo too much. I just don't know how someone could get to a high level position like that without being vetted by the people who run shit.

I know this is like an Illuminati level conspiracy, but that's just where my brain puts me at some points.

[Spendulus]

...
I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though.

Absolute nonsense. The SC will make decisions, many of them will surprise people that try to predict.

Alright here is where my line of thought is regarding high level positions such as the SC, Presidency, etc.

I think that at a certain point when you're going up the ladder the owners of our society, the super rich and wealthy, ensure that you're not a threat to them and you won't alter the status quo too much. I just don't know how someone could get to a high level position like that without being vetted by the people who run shit.

I know this is like an Illuminati level conspiracy, but that's just where my brain puts me at some points.

Go ahead, confirm it's nonsense. Then from the political point of view, Barret really makes the court 5-4. (Noting John Roberts actual record).

Nothing new here, it's been 5-4 conservative many times.

[nullius]

Nothing new here, it's been 5-4 conservative many times.

The proposition that anything whatsoever from the Warren Court forward could be deemed “conservative” only shows that you have nothing left to conserve.

Substantive reply to PN7 later, maybe.