Ed Justice Barrett

[The Great Zaganza]

I mean, the job of the Court is to rule on whether something is constitutional, not whether it's peaceful or moral or desirable. If something lacks a constitutional basis or a legal precedent, they should say so, not keep their mouths shut or lie about their jurisprudence.

Are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't call for a peaceful transition of power?

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact she thinks it is controversial brings into question her mental fitness for the job in the first place.

But objectively it IS controversial, in the sense that lots of people have very different opinions on it. And that's the sense that matters for the court, prior to hearing a case on the matter.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Seems like someone doesn't understand the role of the courts. The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.

Well she had no problem stating her opinion on if cigarettes causes cancers and if the corona virus is infectious... But an opinion on if climate change is a fact or not is suddenly not something a judge should declare.

 

[theprestige]

The issue isn't the term itself. The issue is what it means to someone who will hold the power to invalidate same-sex marriages, and who has expressed reservations about the Obergefell decision and other decisions that protect LGBTQ rights. That person is not Biden.

Exactly. The issue isn't the term itself. If she's expressed reservations about Obergefell, I bet you anything they're legal and constitutional reservations. Hirono could have asked about her legal reasoning about Obergefell, and about other questions of LGBTQ rights. That's the whole point of the confirmation hearings. Not to go on tangential rants about terminology because of the implications. Hirono had the nominee right there in front of her, taking direct questions. There was no need to get into implications at all.

Same thing with the "dark money" speech. Did the senator present any evidence that Barrett is connected to dark money? Did he ask the nominee any direct questions about her dark money connections?

If the senators can find good reasons not to confirm Barrett, fine. But this grandstanding crap isn't it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.

Why is that not true for covid 19? Would you say that policies about and around covid 19 have been uncontroversial in the US?

And she wasn't asked to make policy. She was asked to state whether she believed climate change was real.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But objectively it IS controversial, in the sense that lots of people have very different opinions on it. And that's the sense that matters for the court, prior to hearing a case on the matter.

Objectively it isn't controversial. The idea that some mouth breathers disagree with evidence does not mean it arises to a controversy.

Flat earth and evolution are not controversial either because some people have religious beliefs.

 

[theprestige]

Are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't call for a peaceful transition of power?

No.

I am arguing that whatever the Constitution calls for, the Court needs to see that and say that, clearly, regardless of whether it means peace or violence.

But now that you ask, and I'm thinking about it... I don't think the Constitution calls for a peaceful transition of power. Article 2, for example, says nothing about the transition, let alone making a call for a peaceful transition. Neither does the 20th Amendment.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 doesn't talk about peaceful transitions, but it does talk about orderly transitions:

Accordingly, it is the intent of the
Congress that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid
or minimize any disruption. In addition to the specific provisions
contained in this Act directed toward that purpose, toward that purpose, it is the intent
of the Congress that all officers of the Government so conduct the
affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility and
authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions
in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to
avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.
​

There's your call for peaceful transitions. I would say that if there were a constitutional challenge to this law, it would be important for the Court to rule on the constitutionality of it, regardless of whether the ruling opened the door to a less-than-peaceful transition.

Do you disagree?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Given US history and precedent, I see that the need for a peaceful transition has been understood by every President except Trump and his claqueurs.
It is also not up to the Supreme Court to call for violent action, should the President refuse to relinquish power.

Therefore, it was never a judicial question for Barrett to make - it was a question about her commitment to democracy.
And she refused to committ to supporting democracy - because doing so might endanger her nomination.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is that not true for covid 19?

For what aspects of Covid 19? The existence of the virus? No, that's not true.

 

[theprestige]

Then you'd be wrong. The belief that homosexuality is a voluntary choice is a common belief among people in anti-gay groups and communities. That's why they believe in and support gay conversion programs, and why they oppose having gays be one of the groups covered by anti-discrimination laws and policies. A common refrain among people in such groups is that being Black is a way some people are born, something that can't be changed, so it's fair to have anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination against Blacks, but being gay is a choice and something people can change if they choose to so it's wrong to include gays in anti-discrimination laws.

Now you can say that those people say such things but don't really believe it if you want, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they're lying about believing that. There are parents who forced gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy -- which has been an unpleasant and emotionally harmful program for many of the people who have been forced to undergo it -- because the parents apparently held a genuine belief their children could be helped to renounce homosexuality and choose to be heterosexual by undergoing such treatment.

If those parents really did not believe homosexuality was voluntary and could be changed, as you are asserting when you say "I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing", then those parents were deliberately inflicting pain and harm on their children. Do you believe that?

That would be a criminal offense for them to force their children to undergo such treatment if they knew it could not help and knew that it would inflict pain and suffering. So do you believe that parents who put their children in gay conversion programs should be prosecuted for that crime? I don't recall you ever having expressed that opinion, and it doesn't sound like an opinion I'd expect you to hold.

I don't believe those parents were deliberately torturing their children. I think they honestly believed they were helping their children, based on the opinion they had heard repeatedly from speakers in the anti-gay movement that homosexuality is a choice. They honestly believe being gay is simply a choice, a lifestyle, which is why many people in anti-gay groups resist using the term "sexual orientation" and continue to use the phrase "sexual preference" instead.




Then I think you're wrong again. There are many people who have been speaking out about this issue over the past decade, and they appear to me to be sincere. And since this issue about homosexuality being a sexual orientation rather than a sexual preference is something which arose long before Amy Coney Barrett became a supreme court nominee, the current controversy is not simply something people created in order to oppose her confirmation -- it's about an important underlying issue, the use of the phrase "sexual preference" by people who oppose gay rights as part of their effort to keep gay women and men from being covered by anti-discrimination laws.

There have been a number of good articles written about this over the past decade or so. Here's a link for you to one of these, a Slate article by Jesse Bering from 2013:




That last bit I quoted is especially relevant to the current controversy, so I'd like to talk about that a little. But since this comment is probably already a bit long for some people, I'll do that in a separate comment.

Thanks. Looks like I have some rethinking to do.

 

[theprestige]

Given US history and precedent, I see that the need for a peaceful transition has been understood by every President except Trump and his claqueurs.
It is also not up to the Supreme Court to call for violent action, should the President refuse to relinquish power.

Therefore, it was never a judicial question for Barrett to make - it was a question about her commitment to democracy.
And she refused to committ to supporting democracy - because doing so might endanger her nomination.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If a question comes to the Court about whether the President is constitutionally empowered to do X, but doing X will lead to violence, what should the Court rule? Should they rule based on what the Constitution actually says about the question? Or should they rule based on what ruling is less likely to cause violence?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If a question comes to the Court about whether the President is constitutionally empowered to do X, but doing X will lead to violence, what should the Court rule? Should they rule based on what the Constitution actually says about the question? Or should they rule based on what ruling is less likely to cause violence?

I am not talking about making a ruling.
I am talking about making a commitment to democracy as an American.

 

[theprestige]

I am not talking about making a ruling.
I am talking about making a commitment to democracy as an American.

I think you must be alluding to an exchange that happened during the confirmation hearings. Do you happen to know where I can find that exchange in the transcript?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think you must be alluding to an exchange that happened during the confirmation hearings. Do you happen to know where I can find that exchange in the transcript?

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-2-transcript

Cory Booker: (02:21:08)
Do you believe that every president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power?

Amy Coney Barrett: (02:21:42)
Well, Senator, that seems to me to be pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said that he would not peacefully leave office. And so to the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it and I don’t want to express a view on.

Cory Booker: (02:22:04)
So judge, I appreciate you what you’ve said about respecting our founding fathers about the originalism. It’s remarkable that we’re at a place right now that this is becoming a question and a topic, but I’m asking you in light of our founding fathers in light of our traditions, in light that everyone who serves in that office has sworn an oath where they “swear to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the United States.”

Cory Booker: (02:22:31)
I’m just asking you, should a president commit themselves like our founding fathers I think had a clear intention like the grace that George Washington showed to the peaceful transfer of power. Is that something that presidents should be able to do?

Amy Coney Barrett: (02:22:47)
Well, one of the beauties of America from the beginning of the Republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power and that disappointed voters have accepted the new leaders that come into office. And that’s not true in every country. And I think it is part of the genius of our constitution and the good faith and goodwill of the American people that we haven’t had the situations that have arisen in so many other countries where there have been, where those issues have been present.

so she failed to committ, even when asked for her opinion, not judgement.
This should have been as easy as condemning White Supremacy - which the Constitution actually used to have an answer about.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Everyone knows that Barrett is an activist judge, just like Scalia was. Trying to get Trumpublicans to admit it is moot. They are appointing her to SCOTUS because she is an activist judge. Hell, even Lindsey Graham all-but-admitted it in his proclamation that he's happy an unabashed pro-lifer is getting voted in for the job.

 

[theprestige]

A commitment to peaceful transition of power is not the same as a commitment to democracy.

I don't think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power.

I think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the constitutional transfer of power.

I also think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to use force if necessary to prevent an unconstitutional transfer of power, or to ensure a constitutional transfer of power.

Also, as you say, this isn't even a question of constitutional jurisprudence. There was no good reason for Senator Booker to ask it here, and no good reason for Judge Barrett to answer it. The only purpose it serves is to feed you bogus talking points about "commitment to democracy". In other words:

The real question is whether the justice thinks there should be an unconstitutional transfer of power, as long as it's peaceful.

 

[Mader Levap]

A commitment to peaceful transition of power is not the same as a commitment to democracy.

Oh, we all are aware that Republican party is wanna-be authoritarian party working hard on removal of "wanna-be" part.

I don't think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power.
I think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the constitutional transfer of power.
I also think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to use force if necessary to prevent an unconstitutional transfer of power, or to ensure a constitutional transfer of power.

I see you are laying groundwork for installing Trump as el presidento against wishes of majority of population. I mean, it wouldn't be first time in this degenerated pseudo-democracy, but certainly most blatant.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, we all are aware that Republican party is wanna-be authoritarian party working hard on removal of "wanna-be" part.



I see you are laying groundwork for installing Trump as el presidento against wishes of majority of population. I mean, it wouldn't be first time in this degenerated pseudo-democracy, but certainly most blatant.

And yet I'm not the one saying that a commitment to constitutional transfers of power is undemocratic.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
No doubt people are expressing the same concern about Joe Biden, who used the term "sexual preference" a few months ago.

That's different because reasons.

No, it's not different. But Biden isn't deciding on whether laws discriminating against LGBTQs are Constitutional or not, is he? So it's just a tad more important on how Barrett views things.

 

[theprestige]

No, it's not different. But Biden isn't deciding on whether laws discriminating against LGBTQs are Constitutional or not, is he?

Effectively, he is. The President is responsible for interpreting, implementing, and enforcing the laws passed by Congress. He sets policy for federal agencies and federal employees. He decides what Title IX means, in terms of practical application. He decides whether the armed forces can accommodate various sexes and genders, and if so how.

Pretty much any time the federal government is a party to a case before the Supreme Court, it's a case where the Executive branch has already made its own determination about the constitutionality of the law (or regulation, or policy) in question.

The president can set policy for two million federal employees with the stroke of a pen (and for millions more who receive government funding). Such policy can persist for months or years before the Supreme Court finally rules on its constitutionality. So I'd say a presidential candidate's view of human sexuality is at least as important as the view of a SCOTUS nominee.