U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,382

VALuvsMKwan

Wandering Goy
Messages
7,968
Naw, can't be. Didn't you hear Louis? We're all overreacting. (All the time, apparently. About everything).

I do wonder how much this quote of the character of Roy Cohn from "Angels in America" might resonate with some posters here:

"Now to someone who does not understand this, homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men. But really this is wrong. Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot get a pissant antidiscrimination bill through the City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout."
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,131
To go along with the Thomas and Alito action, the head of an anti-LGBTQ group was at the ACB rose garden nomination.
The SPLC says ADF was “founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian right” and is a “legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the US and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; and claims that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society”.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,277
ACB won't comment and/or go into detail on issues that will end up before the Supreme Court, Murkowski is already backpeddling and might vote for ACB after all, some Republicans don't see a need to get tested while Democrats Senators who have tested positive to quarantine for 10 days after the last symptoms and produce two negative tests before returning to the floor. I get the two negative tests, I think the 10 day quarantine is overkill. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/republican-senators-on-track-barrett-confirmation/index.html
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,545
To go along with the Thomas and Alito action, the head of an anti-LGBTQ group was at the ACB rose garden nomination.
Lol at this point even Christian Right knows it has lost all battles against homosexuality. Now it’s only mission is making sure people can still have a business if they won’t do a same sex wedding because they believe it’s a sin. That’s it! Can people have religious exemptions from certain things.
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
16,561

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,277
ACB omitted a case for which she was one of two lead attorneys on her questionaire. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...cal-discussion-n988541/ncrd1242637#blogHeader

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett did not include on her Senate Judiciary disclosure forms a notable case in which she was one of two lead attorneys: defending a Pittsburgh steel magnate accused of helping drive a major Pennsylvania Hospital System into bankruptcy.

...

Barrett was required, per the questionnaire given to court nominees, to list the “10 most significant litigated matters which you personally handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record” and to “describe in detail the nature of your participation.” Barrett lists just three cases.

A source familiar with Barrett’s work history said her client had “filed only two even arguably substantive filings after she appeared as counsel,” so the work “is not a significant level of involvement.” Still, in two of the three cases Barrett lists, she cites her contribution as having been supporting roles such as assisting with research and briefing materials.

The case was ultimately settled as part of a separate civil suit in which she was not listed. Yet it involves one of the largest nonprofit bankruptcies in U.S. history, at $1.5 billion, which prompted numerous investigations including a criminal probe.




ETA: She also omitted two talks she gave to anti-abortion groups. One was on the anniversary of Roe v Wade and the video is now "lost". How convenient. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/kfile-amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-talks/index.html
 
Last edited:

skatingfan5

Past Prancer's Corridor
Messages
14,048
I guess it's beyond the realm of possibility that her nomination would be withdrawn or rejected on a "technicality."
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
17,034
That ACB, what a radical. She believes:
  • a judge must apply the law as written
  • judges are not policymakers, and they must set aside policy views
  • the Constitution's meaning is fixed until lawfully changed
  • courts should read the laws the same way any reasonable English speaker would read them


Until we can get rid of the abomination of the Supreme Court, we need nine justices like Barrett who recognize the role of the judicial branch. We cannot have democracy or fairness without this.

I go back to my standard line: don’t hate, legislate. Stop trying to take short cuts by having an activist Supreme Court make the law. Accept that Obamacare is terrible law, blatantly unconstitutional, and fix it before the Supreme Court rightly strikes it down.Same for Obergefell and other legislation that has produced good outcomes through bad and highly questionable means. Legislation is the answer. Legislation is always the answer.
 

Toshi_Berra

Member
Messages
96
That ACB, what a radical. She believes:
  • a judge must apply the law as written
  • judges are not policymakers, and they must set aside policy views
  • the Constitution's meaning is fixed until lawfully changed
  • courts should read the laws the same way any reasonable English speaker would read them

But....but....but muh 'bortions!!!!! :wuzrobbed :wuzrobbed :wuzrobbed :wuzrobbed :wuzrobbed :wuzrobbed
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,846
That ACB, what a radical. She believes:
  • a judge must apply the law as written
  • judges are not policymakers, and they must set aside policy views
  • the Constitution's meaning is fixed until lawfully changed
  • courts should read the laws the same way any reasonable English speaker would read them


Until we can get rid of the abomination of the Supreme Court, we need nine justices like Barrett who recognize the role of the judicial branch. We cannot have democracy or fairness without this.

I go back to my standard line: don’t hate, legislate. Stop trying to take short cuts by having an activist Supreme Court make the law. Accept that Obamacare is terrible law, blatantly unconstitutional, and fix it before the Supreme Court rightly strikes it down. Same for Obergefell and other legislation that has produced good outcomes through bad and highly questionable means. Legislation is the answer. Legislation is always the answer.
She can say she believes whatever she wants to say to get the job. Why should anybody believe her? How do you explain wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade? I think you meant "set aside personal views", not policy views, which she certainly does not do. Should the meaning of the 2nd amendment be strictly adhered to? Or should the guy next door have automatic weapons?
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
48,807
I find people arguing that judges should "just apply the law as written" and "not make policy" to be rather naive. Laws are often not written clearly enough and the whole point of judges is to interpret them. No judge can do what these conservatives judges claim they do and which their records show they don't.

Basically, these are a combination of dog whistles and platitudes.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
17,034
The solution is simple: write the laws more clearly, and if needed, amend them through the legislative branch.

Judges should not assume X means X+Y; A actually means Z; the fourth most common usage is the usage the legislators meant; that certain rights were "meant" to be granted; etc.; etc. Strict textualism is the only judicial philosophy that has any merit.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
17,034
People write confusing text all the time, on purpose - it's an art form designed to dance around issues.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,846
I just saw a little bit of Graham's opening - saying all the things RBG was for and how great she was. He didn't say "and now here's the nominee who wants to kill all of it".
 

just tuned in

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,454
If during the hearings, ACB tells Congress that she would not let her religion sway her judicial votes, and if after she gets appointed it becomes obvious that she was lying, then couldn't she be impeached for perjury?
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,846
I got home just in time to hear Kamala's statement. She DID say she was trying to undo RBG's legacy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information