U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
Wait...stop “activist” justices and stop relying on the courts to get rid of laws and rely on legislation more? And then the post moves on to using the court with the Bartlett to get rid of the LEGISLATION known as the Affordable Care Act...as in using the court with an activist judge to get rid of a law that was passed through legislation?

People truly don’t see the irony.

Anyway, the if we only relied on legislation, we still wouldn’t have universal integration and interracial marriage throughout the fifty states.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
63,893
I had this argument today with a conservative who has an autistic son and supports Trump. He tried to argue that 1. The Democrats would have done the same with regard to the court, 2 most people don't want the ACA repealled including him, and 3 Congress wouldn't repeal the law. He would not believe that with her confirmation, the ACA was gone and his own child, his wife and himself were all vulnerable to losing heslth care. He just kept saying it couldn't happen. A lot of people are in for a very rude and painful awakening.
 
Last edited:

her grace

standing with Mariah
Messages
3,803
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.

Yes, like the Voting Rights Act that passed the Senate 100-0, that the Roberts court struck down. Or the Hobby Lobby case where the Roberts court invented an exception to the ACA so that corporations can hold religious views to deny employees' medical care (but not Jehovah's witnesses regarding blood transfusions, how convenient that the religious views that matter expressly match the conservative justices). Conservatives are every bit as activist as liberals. Good PR, they've got going to deny it.
 

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,604
Roe is about abortion. This case is about sexual misbehaviour.

So I'm not sure what connection you are positing.

You seem to be implying that Roe made women 'uppity', perhaps emboldening them to stand up for their rights regarding sexual misbehavior/harrassment?

And I keep asking you, what would her motivation be to lie in court, be under the scrutiny of millions of people, go through an extremely stressful process, and be subject to death threats?

From what I can see, Becca, you don't believe women in the absence of 'solid evidence', which there is often none of in 'he said/she said' cases.

When the sad truth is that rape is largely underreported. When they do report, they tend to be treated like the accused should the case go to court. There sexual history is often used against them (hope that is less today than it was, but somehow doubt it.

It's really just one of several examples of 'keeping woman in her place'.

I do agree that something happened. I remember thinking that due to drinking etc did he even remember it. I am not excusing drinking btw. I doubt that she was lying.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
23,728
I am listening to this at the moment. Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is going through all the financial lobby groups who take cases to the Supreme Court and then tying them to Barrett. Absolutely fascinating stuff. If you want to get a good idea of who is pulling the strings then listen to it. And why Roe V Wade is under threat along with the ACA.

 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278
Last edited:

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,604
Interesting stat: Confidence in the Supreme Court started falling when Clarence Thomas was appointed.


ETA Jennifer Rubin give Dems some ideas for questions they could ask of Barrett:

Well we all remember what Clarence Ford got away with.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997
Yesterday, I thought ACB was simply evasive. But today, she couldn't list all of the five freedoms that are protected in the 1st amendment and now I think she really doesn't know a lot of the stuff and the laws that pertain to it.
And is the right to protest the same as "petition the government"?

(By the way, you have to name one of the freedoms as part of the citizenship test, so you have them all listed as an answer when you practice).
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,965
Yesterday, I thought ACB was simply evasive. But today, she couldn't list all of the five freedoms that are protected in the 1st amendment and now I think she really doesn't know a lot of the stuff and the laws that pertain to it.
And is the right to protest the same as "petition the government"?

(By the way, you have to name one of the freedoms as part of the citizenship test, so you have them all listed as an answer when you practice).
She already knows she's "in". She might as well tell every disgusting thing she is for and that she knows why trump wanted her. Why do they even bother with a hearing. You'd think it would be humiliating to know she is being used like that.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,285
One thing after the hearings: I'm reminded that Trump-speak is NOT NORMAL. All the polite greetings and the complete sentences were so different from the put-downs, insults, and word salads that is Trumpspeak.
 

allezfred

#EpidemiologistsNotEconomists
Staff member
Messages
56,660
Btw, I find it ironic that people think the best way to be a judge is to be an originalist when the original founding fathers meant for our system of government to change and grow with the times.

If she’s an originalist, surely the right thing to do would be not to be appointed as women didn’t even have the right to vote back in the day never mind become a judge and appointed to the Supreme Court. :shuffle:
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
I don't find it ironic in the least. The Founding Fathers imagined government would evolve and change via legislation (including constitutional amendments), not the Supreme Court.

Five people with so much power to override the will of the people, the rights of the states, and to interpret the law in any way they choose seems more like what we fought the American Revolution for, and antithetical to anything the Founding Fathers believed in. Most especially limited powers of federal government.

And let's let people decide for themselves who is a "feminist," and what that even means. I'm glad we have "strong women" like Nikki Haley, Kellyanne Conway, and now Amy Coney Barrett, in addition to "strong women" like Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, and Sonia Sotomayor.

ETA: Women were granted the right to vote, and in fact to become judges, by legislation, not by the Supreme Court. ACB believes the original meaning stands, unless lawfully changed. In this case, it was lawfully changed the way it should have been -- not by activist judges gone wild in a judicial branch that goes far beyond its Constitutionally granted powers in ways unthinkable to the Founding Fathers, or to any democratically minded person.

Democrat or Republican, it's time for some significant checks on the Supreme Court. I'd really like to see 6-3, 7-2, or even 9-0 consensus required. (The majority of decisions are 9-0).
 
Last edited:

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,901
Transparency. Another huge difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amy Coney Barrett.
Huh? Ruth also refused to discuss how she would rule on certain issues it’s what they do. No one screamed when Kagan did it. There is really one rule for Conservatives and another for Democrats.

And as for her not being a feminist icon. Why is it strong Conservative women get so disregarded by liberals. The women is a mother of seven! And she is also a highly educated lawyer. Before she became a judge she was a professor at a prestigious law school. I think that’s really impressive.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278
If she’s an originalist, surely the right thing to do would be not to be appointed as women didn’t even have the right to vote back in the day never mind become a judge and appointed to the Supreme Court. :shuffle:
Exactly!

Why is it strong Conservative women get so disregarded by liberals.
No one is disregarding her. They are writing articles about, devoting large portions of tv shows to her, and otherwise giving her massive amounts of attention. I assume you didn't read the article but it states clearly why not all accomplished women are feminist icons.

Also, I am so sick of conservatives telling us over and over that ACB is a mother of 7 and other things about her personal life and then saying her personal life is OFF LIMITS! That's some heavy-duty BS right there.

These stories are only part of why I want politics out of abortion. These are medical procedures and the only people who should be involved in them are the woman and her doctor and anyone she invites into the process.

 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,285
No one is disregarding ACB. She seems like an extremely intelligent lady with a beautiful family. I'm concerned about her views about reproductive rights, the ACA, the environment, LGBT rights, voting rights, civil rights. Any SCOTUS nominee has to go through the same concerns. The way the GOP is rushing through her nomination process is also troubling (and not just in a Susan Collins way).
 

oleada

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,584
Btw, I find it ironic that people think the best way to be a judge is to be an originalist when the original founding fathers meant for our system of government to change and grow with the times.
I wonder if anyone has asked her if she sees her black children as 5/8ths of her white children.

Anyway, I freaking HATED her statement talking about her kids. All her white kids got to have academic dreams and aspirations and personalities. Her adopted kids got talked about in context of their adoption. Except her black daughter who is as strong as a man. And it was a prepared statement - does she not see how messed up that is? It seemed like she and her husband are so lucky to have her white kids but her black children are so lucky to have them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information