• 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

thaiboxerken said:
Republicans are arguing against straw-men. They're trying to make the case that Democrats hate her because she is religious or because she's a woman.
Of course, all Republicans have are lies.
This hearing is all about convincing to public that this lady is or isn't a good choice. We all know she's a shoe-in because the Republicans have all the votes. I'm certain that the majority of people understand that this lady is a poor/dangerous choice.
Click to expand...
First question: Given her previous public stances on healthcare and abortion, will she recuse herself from any SCOTUS cases involving these subjects? Because if she recuses herself from any decisions it becomes a hung SCOTUS again and it is possible the SCOTUS will not rule to overthrow legislation, i.e. "make policy".

This question allows fully that she may have religion and gender based positions on these subjects. Nobody is denying her that, so the question is hardly objectionable.

But these are the exact subjects and reason why she is being fervently courted and thrown into this bear-pit by the GOP: They want her to rule in their favour. Lindsay Graham is casting the last remaining shreds of his integrity to the winds and turning himself inside-out to make it happen (aside: someone has something on him, surely...). Why else is the GOP trying to put her there? To beautify the SCOTUS bench with her presence? Impress everyone with her fine turn of a legal phrase?
 
If Dems manage to make her commit on recusing her from critical subjects, and then she doesn't when a case comes up, that would be a reason to impeach her.
 
Bob001 said:
There's no chance that she would make such a commitment. She has no reason to.
Click to expand...

She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.
Since anti-choice advocates claim that abortion is the same as murder, that might be another case where she, according to her own standards, should recuse herself.

But I agree - she is too smart to do more than dog-whistling.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.
Click to expand...

Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
Click to expand...

Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
Click to expand...

See: Kim Davis.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
Click to expand...

It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.
Click to expand...
Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that. Death penalty cases would be a small part of the job. It would be more honest and generally better to recuse herself in those specific cases than to remain on them and impose her pre-conceptions. Every judge might see some cases (previous experience, knowing the parties etc.) that would require recusal. That's part of the system.
 
Jim_MDP said:
Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?
Click to expand...

It isn't a straw man....it is my position. I can't straw man my own position.
 
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...

Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.

I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?
 
Does Judge Barrett have a little bit of a valley girl vibe? She seems to say "you know" a lot, she referred to the Congress as "you guys," and she's a less compelling speaker than you might expect from a veteran university law professor and federal judge.
 
Bob001 said:
Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.
Click to expand...

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.
I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?
Click to expand...

No when asked she started to hem and haw and refuse to commit.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom