• 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

JoeMorgue said:
That's not an answer though, that's just her repeating her job back to us. She's a high level Federal Judge being speed laned to the highest court in the land. She should have some answers ready. That's not asking too much.

But no we're supposed to believe that she's been in high level law for years and where she stands on the biggest legal issues of the day have just never crossed her mind.

We're asking her opinion, not for her legal decisions.

It's like at a job interview to be a mechanic you were asked "How would you replace the fuel pump on a '87 Honda Civic" and your answer was "Well I would replace it according to the procedures for replacing an '87 Honda Civic fuel." It's a mathematician's answer, a non-answer.


No when asked she started to hem and haw and refuse to commit.
Click to expand...

She even taught law. The whole system is structured around hypothetical questions.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If she expects to recuse herself from death penalty questions because of her religious beliefs, why wouldn't she then be expected to recuse herself from abortion questions for the same reason of religious beliefs? Isn't that inconsistent?
Click to expand...


I think she would say that the death penalty question is whether the state itself has the right to kill people; the abortion question is whether abortion has Constitutional protection, or whether the matter should be left to state legislatures. I can see a difference.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?
Click to expand...


But not making definitive, final decisions on the spur of the moment without listening to the arguments on both sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on the merits, not their personal views.
 
xjx388 said:
But not making definitive, final decisions on the spur of the moment without listening to the arguments on both sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on the merits, not their personal views.
Click to expand...

We're not asking for her definitive, final decisions. We're asking for her opinions and some context on the matters.

We can't go:

"Okay lady we're about to put you on the highest court of the land, arguably making you one of the 9 most powerful people in the government. What are your opinions on X?"

*Coyish giggle* "Well you'll just have to wait until that question makes it to the courts to find out now won't you? Tee hee hee."

She can give us some suggestion of some of her opinions now. It's not asking too much.
 
Trebuchet said:
I can scarcely imagine a more pointless exercise than these hearings. Nothing is being learned, no minds are being changed.
Click to expand...

I'm literally 100% understanding why she isn't already verified. What are they waiting on? Is Susan Collins still pretending to furrow her brow?
 
alfaniner said:
And the outcome is predetermined.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but the discussion is putting important issues on the record. The Democrats are presenting specific cases of people whose lives were saved by the ACA, and who might die if it's repealed. That takes it out of the realm of legal theory. She is being challenged now on her positions regarding gun control, particularly permitting access by felons. There has also been intelligent discussion of the meaning of the establishment clause, the definition and application of originalism, etc. Both sides are engaging in responsible commentary. Hearings like this really are an insight into how the judiciary works.
 
Sen. Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
 
Bob001 said:
Sen. Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
Click to expand...

I think if you laid Stretch Armstrong, Plastic Man, Mister Fantastic, and Ms Marvel end to end, they still wouldn't be able to stretch as far as Senator Hirona.
 
Bob001 said:
What's that even supposed to mean? She's not the only person who has expressed concern.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-sexual-preference-term.html
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ocates-are-upset-at-amy-coney-barretts-use-of
Click to expand...

It means that it's a colossal stretch to try to find something objectionable in her position. It's semantic kremlinology.

The fact that Slate and The Hill buy into it doesn't surprise me, and also doesn't change my opinion of it.
 
theprestige said:
It means that it's a colossal stretch to try to find something objectionable in her position. It's semantic kremlinology.

The fact that Slate and The Hill buy into it doesn't surprise me, and also doesn't change my opinion of it.
Click to expand...


And people who seem to know quite a bit more than you about the subject say your opinion is wrong. Calling somebody "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable, too, but times change.
 
Bob001 said:
And people who seem to know quite a bit more than you about the subject say your opinion is wrong. Calling somebody "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable, too, but times change.
Click to expand...

"Know quite a bit more"? It's not a question of knowledge, it's a question of semantic preference. Just because some people have decided this is the new terminology, it doesn't mean it's caught on yet, or that the new usage is widespread. It doesn't even mean everyone has heard of it. And of course it doesn't mean that those who haven't yet adopted it are signaling some kind of dissenting worldview.

As you say, "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable. If someone back then had heard you use it (which you would, because it was perfectly acceptable), and said, "me and my friends decided this morning that the correct term is 'African American', and you saying 'colored' indicates you may be a racist", you'd laugh in their face and kick them to the curb.

Now, going on sixty years and two generations later, it's a different story, of course.
 
I hear Ms. Barrett will argue that she supports government health care programs, but only the health care that was available during the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

(I cribbed the above from humorist Andy Borowitz).
 
Barrett refused to say whether she agreed with the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
Barrett said recently that she held the same judicial philosophy as the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked in the late 1990s. Scalia dissented in the Obergefell case.

"I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said in response to questioning about Obergefell on Tuesday. "Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent."
Click to expand...

From 2015 to 2017, Barrett served on the board of trustees of Trinity Schools Incorporated, a group of Indiana private schools that in 2014 adopted a policy of barring children with unmarried parents from attending the school, The New York Times reported. Former Trinity staffers told The Times that because same-sex marriage was banned in Indiana at the time, this was clearly designed to bar the children of same-sex couples.
Click to expand...
https://www.businessinsider.com/amy-coney-barrett-says-being-lgbtq-is-a-sexual-preference-2020-10

Obergefell v. Hodges began in 2012. All courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It was pretty clear as the case wound its way to the SC that it could also well find in favor of Obergefell and the right of same sex marriage. Note that the school adopted the policy in 2014 and Barrett joined the Board shortly thereafter with the SC hearing the case in April 2015. Coincidence? Sure.
 
My predictions, in order of time:
1. The committee will send the nomination to the full Senate on a party line vote.
2. The Senate will confirm, by a party line vote.
3. The election will happen. Republicans will file multiple lawsuits to overturn the results.
4. Even before the above is settled, Barrett will join a 5-4 majority to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare.
5. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn the will of the people and make Donald Trump the winner of the election.
6. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn Roe and Obergfell, probably before the end of 2021.
7. We are all so screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom