• 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

theprestige said:
As far as I know, there's no requirement that a federal judge actually be a legal professional. It would be interesting to see a "lay" justice nominated and confirmed. And even if it were Chelsea Clinton, I wouldn't object. I mean, I'd have partisan misgivings about the shift in the court's political makeup, of course. But in terms of procedure and qualifications I don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

You are correct that there is no requirement of legal experience or expertise, but to date all justices have studied the law.

It should be noted that Barrett is adding some diversity that the court has needed for a long time. It has been overly dominated by Harvard and Yale graduates and it is good that another school is making the list of those that have trained justices, Notre Dame.

It is interesting that some of the most memorable justices came from schools that only produced one Supreme Court Justice: Marshall, Black, Harlan (I and II), Warren, and Burger. I can't help wonder that she will make a significant mark on the history of the court.
 
The Don said:
I can see them ruling that preventing travel from a state where abortion is illegal to a state where it is legal for the purposes of procuring an abortion is illegal because preserving the life of the unborn child (or preventing a murder) is pre-eminent whereas.
Click to expand...

It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days. :boggled:
 
jrhowell said:
It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days. :boggled:
Click to expand...

You aren't going to find a single judge on the Supreme Court, including ACB, who wouldn't immediately say that this runs afoul of the full faith and credit clause. You're just engaging in disaster porn fiction.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Exactly. This is why there is minority rule in the U.S.A. Democrats play by the rules and fight fair. When Democrats lose, they comply with the defeat and try different tactics within the rules to win again. Republicans don't care about rules or fairness, they are not handcuffed with such nonsense and that's why they have power now.
Click to expand...

Wow. If there was an award for most dishonest statement made on the forum, I'd nominate this one.
 
Ziggurat said:
You aren't going to find a single judge on the Supreme Court, including ACB, who wouldn't immediately say that this runs afoul of the full faith and credit clause. You're just engaging in disaster porn fiction.
Click to expand...

Did the gay marriage issue run afoul of the full faith and credit clause? I seem to recall there was a period of some years in which it was legal in some states but unrecognized in others. I don't remember full faith and credit being applied to that question.
 
uke2se said:
Zig said the quiet part out loud in the post you quoted. It's about winning and losing, and not about what's good for the country. Sucks for him that at the moment, Trump's losing, and the Goopers have created the precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as nobody stops you. Hello expanded court! There's gonna be so many judges, you've never seen so many judges.
Click to expand...

It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
 
xjx388 said:
It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be out of spite, and it isn't just something that Democrats should do, it's something they will have to do in order to get anything done. Republicans have completely destroyed how politics are played in the US, and they have shown that they will challenge anything Democrats pass to the Supreme Court. US politics have always been somewhat of an uneasy truce. If one side escalates, the other side can either respond in kind or surrender. It has worked because both sides have more or less followed the established rules of what is done and how. Republicans have completely tossed out the rulebook and established the precedent that might makes right. If Democrats are to have any hope of making the changes that are necessary in the US, the Supreme Court needs to be balanced, if not completely reformed.

Republicans made this necessary.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
Click to expand...

When the number of seats was moved from 8 to 9 it was to match the number of circuit courts at the time.

There are currently twelve. Thirteen is also a way to discourage ties. It's also a damn fine number.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Did the gay marriage issue run afoul of the full faith and credit clause? I seem to recall there was a period of some years in which it was legal in some states but unrecognized in others. I don't remember full faith and credit being applied to that question.
Click to expand...

Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it. Punishing them for it would be the equivalent to what's being proposed here, and that was never in the cards.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's not an equivalent problem. Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it.
Click to expand...

Not recognizing a person's marriage is a punishment. Same as with inter-racial marriages. Or do you want to get rid of Loving vs Virginia to go away as well? I'd love to hear your made-up, nonsense, self-serving excuse why inter-racial marriage is different from gay marriage.

"We're not punishing you, we're just treating you like second class citizens" is not a good argument.
 
Ziggurat said:
Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it. Punishing them for it would be the equivalent to what's being proposed here, and that was never in the cards.
Click to expand...

Which is not the same question as "full faith and credit" then, is it? Because full faith and credit means my TN drivers license is valid in VA, even if the requirements to get a VA license are different than those of TN. Marriage would pretty much have to be the same way, wouldn't it? If one is legally married in one state, that marriage is valid in all states under full faith and credit...unless, for some reason, certain states decided to skip out on honoring that part of their constitutional obligation.
 
tyr_13 said:
When the number of seats was moved from 8 to 9 it was to match the number of circuit courts at the time.

There are currently twelve. Thirteen is also a way to discourage ties. It's also a damn fine number.
Click to expand...

That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.

I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
 
xjx388 said:
I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
Click to expand...

I like nine too. Perhaps impeachment of justices will become the new norm to adjust the political affiliation of the court.
 
uke2se said:
It wouldn't be out of spite, and it isn't just something that Democrats should do, it's something they will have to do in order to get anything done. Republicans have completely destroyed how politics are played in the US, and they have shown that they will challenge anything Democrats pass to the Supreme Court. ....If Democrats are to have any hope of making the changes that are necessary in the US, the Supreme Court needs to be balanced, if not completely reformed.
Click to expand...

or break up the country as Colin Quinn suggested in "Red State, Blue State" (a sentiment I'm increasingly agreeing with). With Barrett, expansions to ACA or other health care expansion measures will likely get struck down, abortions will be outlawed in red states, gay rights will be reduced, no national reforms on gun control will get through. I don't see any hint of reconciliation. While Biden is a middle of the road guy, I don't see the core Trump supporters warming to him.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Not recognizing a person's marriage is a punishment. Same as with inter-racial marriages. Or do you want to get rid of Loving vs Virginia to go away as well? I'd love to hear your made-up, nonsense, self-serving excuse why inter-racial marriage is different from gay marriage.

"We're not punishing you, we're just treating you like second class citizens" is not a good argument.
Click to expand...

You are confused. I’m in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isn’t punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesn’t get married, and that’s just an absurd twisting of language.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are confused. I’m in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isn’t punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesn’t get married, and that’s just an absurd twisting of language.
Click to expand...

What? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom