Amy Coney Barrett

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have to give any nominee a ton of credit. Having to sit there and listen to nonsensical stump speeches for hours on end from political numbskulls with less than the half the intellect of your local paper boy must be excruciating! I’m sure the justice must be thinking ‘and these are the idiots who’re making the laws that I have to rule on’? Sheeesh

And yet these are the candidates both political parties present to the voters each election.  The "best and the brightest" among us appear to be seeking their passions and fortunes elsewhere.   Whether you're liberal or conservative or middle of the road we owe it to ourselves and each other to ask the question "why can't we do better"? 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

And yet these are the candidates both political parties present to the voters each election.  The "best and the brightest" among us appear to be seeking their passions and fortunes elsewhere.   Whether you're liberal or conservative or middle of the road we owe it to ourselves and each other to ask the question "why can't we do better"? 

We can do better but the system is so entrenched now that it’s self perpetuating. Every year we hear the same ‘suggestions’ for improvement but nothing is done about them because the very people who enact the changes are those that are the beneficiaries of NOT changing things. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Tiberius]

This is how she came across to me as well, it was like asking a Libertarian a question about how their ideas would affect society and them just saying "It is what it is" 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/15/barrett-seeks-refuge-ignorance-evasion/

Quote

The general impression one gets from Barrett is that she is less knowledgeable about U.S. contemporary life than any Supreme Court nominee in recent memory, with the possible exception of Robert Bork. She cites theories of jurisprudence with ease, but she cannot acknowledge obvious political realities and facts about economic power, discrimination and science. That is a recipe for rigid, abstract judicial reasoning. Despite her insistence to the contrary, she seems to treat jurisprudence in a vacuum, with little regard for how it will affect others with whom she has little familiarity.

 

She and Alito should get along just fine 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This is how she came across to me as well, it was like asking a Libertarian a question about how their ideas would affect society and them just saying "It is what it is" 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/15/barrett-seeks-refuge-ignorance-evasion/

 

She and Alito should get along just fine 

You clearly don’t understand what a judge is supposed to do. 

[Reality Check]

Barrett will make a fine Justice for the SCOTUS.

[spartacus]

32 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly don’t understand what a judge is supposed to do. 

but she refuses to tell how she "feels" about global warming and other social hot buttons

[Reality Check]

Just now, spartacus said:

but she refuses to tell how she "feels" about global warming and other social hot buttons

All the Democrats care about is the management of perceptions and above all else, feelings. Zero substance.

[oldmanfan]

She will be the next Scalia.  And the world did not come to an end with Scalia on the court.  If this court tries to take away things like the rights of gays to marry there will be a big political backlash, Democrats will take over the Executivexand Legislative branches, and when Thomas and Alito retire or otherwise leave then two more liberal justices will replace them and such rights restored. Unfortunately the courts have become a political arm of the parties in power instead of meeting their constitutional function.

 

 

[Backintheday544]

21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

She will be the next Scalia.  And the world did not come to an end with Scalia on the court.  If this court tries to take away things like the rights of gays to marry there will be a big political backlash, Democrats will take over the Executivexand Legislative branches, and when Thomas and Alito retire or otherwise leave then two more liberal justices will replace them and such rights restored. Unfortunately the courts have become a political arm of the parties in power instead of meeting their constitutional function.

 

 

 

Imagine all the tax issues if they got rid of gay marriage. So many people would need to amend to file single and most likely pay higher taxes. Or the IRS could do it for them.

 

Then you have all the states as well.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

She will be the next Scalia.  And the world did not come to an end with Scalia on the court.  If this court tries to take away things like the rights of gays to marry there will be a big political backlash, Democrats will take over the Executivexand Legislative branches, and when Thomas and Alito retire or otherwise leave then two more liberal justices will replace them and such rights restored. Unfortunately the courts have become a political arm of the parties in power instead of meeting their constitutional function.

 

 

We could see the courts be a political Pinata for Dems to swing away at for a decade or two for gain. Just like Conservatives have done with "activist judges" since the 70's 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

We can do better but the system is so entrenched now that it’s self perpetuating. Every year we hear the same ‘suggestions’ for improvement but nothing is done about them because the very people who enact the changes are those that are the beneficiaries of NOT changing things. 

You've arrived at a very important insight.  I want to share a similar conclusion in my work experience several years ago.  Working on a "team" that was charged with "cultural  transformation" of the business.  Our "leader" voiced the idea that everyone on the team was an agent of change in leading the improvements of the culture and management system. 

 

My response to this was something I later regretted speaking.  I said I don't believe that because everyone in the room had risen through the ranks of the company or came to their highly compensated position through working a system they understood and benefited from.  I asked why would people who benefit most from a culture or management system want to take the risk of voluntarily replacing it with something that might result in them not fairing as well?  My statement was met with total silence.

 

While there was no direct action taken against me for daring to speak "truth", I did find that over time my assignments disappeared to the point where I found myself with nothing to do but report to work everyday.  And even if I didn't show up would anyone notice?  I had two choices, milk my free time for as long as possible or seek a transfer to another assignment.  I choose the later.  A few years later I left the company but in the end the transformation did not work and the company suffered massive losses and was marginalized in their sector by more innovative and creative competition.

 

 

[B-Man]

[The Frankish Reich]

Interesting that she strongly signaled -- at least that's the way I read it (I'm a lawyer but no Supreme Court candidate!) -- that even if she finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, she would find it severable from that rest of the ACA so that Obamacare stands. Her comment about the presumption of severability really came close to violating her own rule about commenting on cases that may come before her. There was at least that bit of coordination between her and the Repub senators who are a bit panicky about the "confirm ACB, watch ACA die" line of argument.

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Interesting that she strongly signaled -- at least that's the way I read it (I'm a lawyer but no Supreme Court candidate!) -- that even if she finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, she would find it severable from that rest of the ACA so that Obamacare stands. Her comment about the presumption of severability really came close to violating her own rule about commenting on cases that may come before her. There was at least that bit of coordination between her and the Repub senators who are a bit panicky about the "confirm ACB, watch ACA die" line of argument.

Taking people's health insurance away during a pandemic would give the Democrats a ton of political capital 

[Unforgiven]

[Just Joshin']

The Libs have an easy way to mitigate her influence on the SCOTUS:  write and pass laws that do what they intend.  Do this and she will rule in their favor.  She will not support making policy in the court - this is the real issue.

 

Why did Dems not pass a law on abortion when they controlled all three branches of government?

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

The Libs have an easy way to mitigate her influence on the SCOTUS:  write and pass laws that do what they intend.  Do this and she will rule in their favor.  She will not support making policy in the court - this is the real issue.

 

Why did Dems not pass a law on abortion when they controlled all three branches of government?

The level of passion regarding Roe v. Wade is not only due to the intrinsic nature of the issue involved, but also to the way in which it was imposed upon the country.

[Unforgiven]

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Unforgiven said:

Coincidentally, that is also a picture of Maizie Hirono's brain.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

 

Sadly, United States Senate is the 1 thing that might.  

 

(Though at this point, am expecting confirmation strictly on partisan lines, with the possible exception of Manchin voting to confirm.)