Ed Justice Barrett

[Stacyhs]

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.

Effectively, he does not rule on the Constitutionality of laws. But you let me know when Biden interprets, implements or enforces a law passed by Congress that actually does discriminate against the LGBTQ community, OK?
He's endorsed by the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and the largest national LGBTQ rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, for a reason. There's also a reason the LGBTQ community is speaking out against the nomination of Barrett.

 

[theprestige]

Effectively, he does not rule on the Constitutionality of laws.

My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.

But you let me know when Biden interprets, implements or enforces a law passed by Congress that actually does discriminate against the LGBTQ community, OK?

He'd have to become president, first. But I can give you examples of other presidents who asserted constitutionality and were overturned by the Supreme Court. Would that be OK?

The question I'm addressing isn't whether Biden would issue some specific decision on constitutitionality. It's whether the president does in fact make meaningful decisions about constitutionality, before it ever comes before the Supreme Court.

He's endorsed by the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and the largest national LGBTQ rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, for a reason. There's also a reason the LGBTQ community is speaking out against the nomination of Barrett.

I'm sure it's because they like his views on human sexuality and related issues. It's obviosuly not because he uses "sexual preference" correctly in a sentence.

And it has nothing to do with whether the president makes decisions about constitutionality.

 

[Bob001]

My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.
.....

A bill doesn't become a law unless and until it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It is then presumed to be Constitutional unless and until it is challenged in court and overturned. The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional. For that matter, he couldn't declare that a law he doesn't like is UNConstitutional, either. That's not his role and it's not the way the system works.

 

[Ziggurat]

The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional.

That isn't totally correct. The president can and should consider the constitutionality of a bill before he signs it, and refuse to sign it if it isn't. He can also direct the DOJ to contest the constitutionality of some laws, and even refuse to enforce laws viewed as unconstitutional. The president's views are not the final word, but unlike ours they are often relevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Sure he is. Any bill the president signs into law is a bill the president deems constitutional. Moreover, the president is responsible for policy, which has much more leeway and scope than the question of constitutionality. If you think policy choices don't matter for gay rights, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A bill doesn't become a law unless and until it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It is then presumed to be Constitutional unless and until it is challenged in court and overturned. The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional. For that matter, he couldn't declare that a law he doesn't like is UNConstitutional, either. That's not his role and it's not the way the system works.

That is how the system works. All executive power is vested in a president. The supreme court rulings do not reach beyond the walls of courthouses. Nothing stops the president from ordering the continued enforcement of a law he thinks is constitutional but the supreme court does not.

 

[theprestige]

"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.

 

[acbytesla]

That isn't totally correct. The president can and should consider the constitutionality of a bill before he signs it, and refuse to sign it if it isn't. He can also direct the DOJ to contest the constitutionality of some laws, and even refuse to enforce laws viewed as unconstitutional. The president's views are not the final word, but unlike ours they are often relevant.

No, you're wrong Zig.

The President probably should consider the constitutionality of a bill sine he took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. And Trump has ignored the Constitution since he took office. But the President isn't a legal scholar.

Although Obama was in fact one, as was William Howard Taft. Remember, Obama taught Constitutional Law before he became a Senator. Still, the Constitutionality of a law is in the end is decided by the Supreme Court. But even that isn't written into the Constitution. That became part of the law through Judicial Review.

 

[Stacyhs]

My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.

As you say, that's YOUR view. That doesn't mean diddly squat legally.

He'd have to become president, first. But I can give you examples of other presidents who asserted constitutionality and were overturned by the Supreme Court. Would that be OK?

The question I'm addressing isn't whether Biden would issue some specific decision on constitutitionality. It's whether the president does in fact make meaningful decisions about constitutionality, before it ever comes before the Supreme Court.

He makes decisions that are based on political ideologies. That some are late overturned by the SC are evidence that they are not based on their Constitutionality. It is not the purview of the president to decide the constitutionality of a law. Period.

I'm sure it's because they like his views on human sexuality and related issues. It's obviosuly not because he uses "sexual preference" correctly in a sentence.

Of course. That's rather obvious, Captain.

And it has nothing to do with whether the president makes decisions about constitutionality.

EXACTLY! Which is what I said. The president does not make decisions about a law's constitutionality. That is the purview of the SC, not the president.

 

[xjx388]

As you say, that's YOUR view. That doesn't mean diddly squat legally.




He makes decisions that are based on political ideologies. That some are late overturned by the SC are evidence that they are not based on their Constitutionality. It is not the purview of the president to decide the constitutionality of a law. Period.



Of course. That's rather obvious, Captain.



EXACTLY! Which is what I said. The president does not make decisions about a law's constitutionality. That is the purview of the SC, not the president.

That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.

 

[dirtywick]

That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.

Much of what you say is true, they were treated differently for using the same terminology. However, conservative and by extension and perhaps to even a great degree, ACB's general views on sexuality are unpopular. She doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt that RBG and Biden do that they aren't using those terms with bad intent, much less that they'd enact those views upon the general public.

of course people can choose their preferences btw. I prefer to leave for work 15 minutes early in case I forget something at home and have to turn around, but that's not a core part of my identity the way sexual orientation is. And before you say that's different and a good comparison, I agree which is the point.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.

That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.

Jesus H. Christ. What part of "No, it's not different," are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the "No"? Or the "It's not different" part? Or do you still think the president decides what's constitutional? If so, I suggest a refresher course in Civics.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Really? Trump never said that one day it would disappear like a miracle? Trump didn't downplay the virus, as he admitted to Woodward that he did? Just last night, Trump was once again boasting about how he doesn't wear a mask while Biden was emphasising the importance of the same.

OTOH, Trump admits that climate change is real and, more than that, he admits that human beings are (partially) responsible for it.

It seems to me that the existence of climate change is less controversial than the infectiousness of covid 19, politically speaking, because both sides agree on the former but not the latter.

It's a feeble excuse and either you've been taken in by it, or you know how feeble it is but want to promote the correct message like a good little soldier.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the five freedoms granted by the First Amendment when asked

 

[The Don]

Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the five freedoms granted by the First Amendment when asked

She could however name all the "important" ones

The "right to protest" is over-rated, unless it's white guys in polo shirts and chinos carrying tiki torches.

 

[BobTheCoward]

She could however name all the "important" ones

The "right to protest" is over-rated, unless it's white guys in polo shirts and chinos carrying tiki torches.

Before reading the article, I tried to name them, and I came up with the same 4. Protest seems like it is covered broadly when you say speech and assembly. If you have a right to speech and a right to assemble, that seems to cover protesting.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you're wrong Zig.

The President probably should consider the constitutionality of a bill sine he took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. And Trump has ignored the Constitution since he took office. But the President isn't a legal scholar.

So what? The president doesn't need to be a legal scholar to have an opinion on the constitutionality of a bill. Plus he can obviously consult with such scholars if he so chooses.

Still, the Constitutionality of a law is in the end is decided by the Supreme Court. But even that isn't written into the Constitution. That became part of the law through Judicial Review.

And all of this makes me wrong... how? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

Seriously, this is the most bizarre argument. You say the president should consider constitutionality of a bill, but you claim he can't? How does that even make sense? And the fact that the Supreme Court is the last arbiter doesn't mean the president isn't also one. If the president doesn't sign a bill because he believes it to be unconstitutional, and thus it never becomes law, the Supreme Court doesn't get to rule on it. They can't overturn his decision to not sign a bill on that basis.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? Trump never said that one day it would disappear like a miracle? Trump didn't downplay the virus, as he admitted to Woodward that he did?

All of that requires that the virus exist to begin with, and none of it was what ACB was asked about.

You aren't very good at this.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.

The funny thing is, there's a much better excuse for Biden's use: the term wasn't considered offensive. And it still isn't considered offensive by most people, though activists are trying to change that.

The only problem with that excuse, and the reason that it isn't being used even though it's both correct and fully justifies Biden's use of it, is that it also excuses ACB's use of the term.

 

[dmaker]

I wonder in the near future if she will be called Justice Barret, or simply Ofjesse?