• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Justice Barrett

Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point is twofold:

First, that the president makes decisions about how to implement law, and defends the constitutionality of those decisions when challenged. This is important - at least as important as the Supreme Court's role in deciding those challenges.

Second, and therefore, you are wrong to dismiss Biden's view of "sexual preference" on the grounds that he's a presidential candidate, not a Supreme Court nominee.
 
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

The part where only ACB got any flak for uttering this patently offensive phrase that everyone should know is offensive.

The President does indeed decide what is Constitutional. Any particular POTUS may not be very good at deciding that and POTUS is not the final judge of what is and isn't Constitutional; but, the President's duty, after all is to uphold the Constitution. When POTUS acts, there's an underlying assumption that the action falls under his powers in the Constitution. Assumedly, POTUS has counsel on the Constitutionality of any particular executive action. Not even Trump has acted in a way blatantly outside his enumerated powers, at least not in any way that previous Presidents have not also done. Here's an Atlantic article discussing Obama's record on the Constitutionality of his actions.
 
//Slight hijack//

Yeah the whole "Hold up the blank piece of paper to show you aren't taking notes" thing was clever but... Damn lady have you met the internet? You couldn't have sat down and designed something more open to being memed.
 
xjx388 said:
The part where only ACB got any flak for uttering this patently offensive phrase that everyone should know is offensive.
Click to expand...

Ah...so the part where I said "No, it's not different" is the part you're having difficulty understanding why it's not different. Let me see if I can put it in a more clear way for you: It was wrong for ACB to put it in those terms and it was wrong for Biden to put it in those terms. Because sexuality is not a "preference". It is not a "choice".


The President does indeed decide what is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

No, S/he does not. As you say below, the POTUS' job is to uphold the Constitution, but it is not the POTUS's job to decide what is Constitutional. That is strictly the job of the SC. If it were the POTUS' job to decide, there would be no need for the SC. For you to declare otherwise is absurd. You are tying yourself into knots trying to make a case but failing to do so.

Any particular POTUS may not be very good at deciding that and POTUS is not the final judge of what is and isn't Constitutional; but, the President's duty, after all is to uphold the Constitution. When POTUS acts, there's an underlying assumption that the action falls under his powers in the Constitution. Assumedly, POTUS has counsel on the Constitutionality of any particular executive action. Not even Trump has acted in a way blatantly outside his enumerated powers, at least not in any way that previous Presidents have not also done. Here's an Atlantic article discussing Obama's record on the Constitutionality of his actions.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
My point is twofold:

First, that the president makes decisions about how to implement law, and defends the constitutionality of those decisions when challenged. This is important - at least as important as the Supreme Court's role in deciding those challenges.

Second, and therefore, you are wrong to dismiss Biden's view of "sexual preference" on the grounds that he's a presidential candidate, not a Supreme Court nominee.
Click to expand...

See my post above to xjx388
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Slight hijack//

Yeah the whole "Hold up the blank piece of paper to show you aren't taking notes" thing was clever but... Damn lady have you met the internet? You couldn't have sat down and designed something more open to being memed.
Click to expand...

The memeification works in her favor, I think.

Having met the Internet, I've come to the conclusion that trying to avoid memeification is a fool's errand. You're much better off just doing you, and not worrying about the memes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fifth freedom is usually referred to has "redress" or "petition" but sometimes less frequently is referred to as "protest". The doesn't mean a protest like in Charlottesville or BLM in Portland. That would be covered under speech and assembly.

Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The type of protest here is to protest to the government. That means things like equal access to courts, suing the government, lobbying, filing complaints, and otherwise expressing concerns to government officials.
 
Ziggurat said:
All of that requires that the virus exist to begin with, and none of it was what ACB was asked about.
Click to expand...

All she was asked about climate change was whether it existed. You're the one that said that that was a political question because it was an issue that policymakers had to deal with.

But, okay, enlighten me - how would affirming that climate change is real violate the mandate that "the courts aren't supposed to make policy"? How does affirming that covid 19 is infectious not violate that mandate? Explain the difference.
 
The point with Barrett not being able to name the five freedoms is that this is a softball question in a job interview for one of the 9 top jobs in the field in the country. It's like she's trying to persuade a publisher to publish what she claims to be the definitive book about British pop music of the 1960s and could only name 3 of the Beatles.

Nobody here should give a **** if they or other posters can't name the five freedoms - because nobody here is interviewing for a position as a constitutional expert appointed to the highest court in the US.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The point with Barrett not being able to name the five freedoms is that this is a softball question in a job interview for one of the 9 top jobs in the field in the country. It's like she's trying to persuade a publisher to publish what she claims to be the definitive book about British pop music of the 1960s and could only name 3 of the Beatles.

Nobody here should give a **** if they or other posters can't name the five freedoms - because nobody here is interviewing for a position as a constitutional expert appointed to the highest court in the US.
Click to expand...

.I see four freedoms. Maybe it's down to different schools of thought.

Religion, speech, assembly, petition. Any answer that encompasses those four concepts is satisfactory, in my opinion. It accurately describes the amendment, and accurately reflects the mainstream intererpetation of the amendment.
 
We'll see just how much of a rainy day originalist Barrett is if she gets sworn in in time to vote on the Census question the SCOTUS has fast-tracked for a hearing. She clerked with Scalia, another rainy day originalist.

An "originalist" should go by the words on the paper, not make her own determination of what the men writing the Constitution meant.

NPR: Supreme Court Speeds Up Case On Trump's Push To Alter Census For House Seats
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to a speedy review of President Trump's attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census numbers used to reallocate seats in Congress.

Last month, a lower court ruling blocked Trump's push, calling a presidential memo that called for that unprecedented change unlawful. And now the justices have expedited consideration to hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 30.

The hearing is set to take place a month before federal law says the latest state population counts for reapportioning the 435 seats in the House of Representatives among the states are due to the president. The timing increases the potential for Trump to try to make the change to who is included in the numbers during his current term in office.
Click to expand...

For the record, the TX GOP changed redistricting in between the Censuses so I hope Biden remembers that if he needs to negate any of Trump's meddling.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
.I see four freedoms. Maybe it's down to different schools of thought.

Religion, speech, assembly, petition. Any answer that encompasses those four concepts is satisfactory, in my opinion. It accurately describes the amendment, and accurately reflects the mainstream intererpetation of the amendment.
Click to expand...

It's an utterly standard question -- not unlike name three branches of government. I didn't know she flubbed it until students enthusiastically brought it to my attention because I ask the same damn thing in a 101 class. As noted, she didn't miss an overlap between speech and the press. She flubbed petition.

It's interesting to see the reactions from young people, as they parrot what they see in the media. "She's not answering any of the questions!" Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were so much more forthcoming? And these brats complain about "anxiety" when taking timed quizzes, they can't show their faces on Zoom (or even speak on the mic), yet they're quick to criticize someone who boffed an interview question in a marathon hearing before a national audience. Of course, if a person of color missed it, Internet Republicans would be saying much worse.

The other thing students bring up is that they feel she's not going to "properly" interpret the law, and she's just going to legislate her own views. That's the criticism of every Supreme Court justice. An activist judge is someone you don't like.

Liberals still bask in the soft glow of judicial review because of the monumental decisions from the sixties. We didn't really have a right to freedom of expression (among other things) until enlightened men in the 1960s made good on the Refounding of the 1860s. It was a good run, but I wish people would question the concept of judicial review.

Upending that idea would probably promote constitutional literacy rather than leaving these matters to an elite but largely unknown/unaccountable super-legislature of nine. Maybe instead of a 1619 Project we should have an 1868 Project. The 14th Amendment is kind of a big deal. Some dead White guy famously uttered something along the lines about how "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." American Jesus had helped present the New Testament to the Constitution, which said states did not have the authority to create oppressive laws.

After Reconstruction failed, this was largely lost, and people reverted to glorifying the Founders, mostly because they could be stanned by Northerners and Southerners.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
We'll see just how much of a rainy day originalist Barrett is if she gets sworn in in time to vote on the Census question the SCOTUS has fast-tracked for a hearing. She clerked with Scalia, another rainy day originalist.

An "originalist" should go by the words on the paper, not make her own determination of what the men writing the Constitution meant.

NPR: Supreme Court Speeds Up Case On Trump's Push To Alter Census For House Seats

For the record, the TX GOP changed redistricting in between the Censuses so I hope Biden remembers that if he needs to negate any of Trump's meddling.
Click to expand...

The meanings of words change over time. An originalist must necessarily inquire into the original meaning of the words.

I don't know if there's a term for interpreting the law based purely on what the words mean to you at the time you read them, but I can't imagine how it would lead to a coherent application, let alone a desirable one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom