Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court

#126
#126
LouderVol said:
What is the qualification for overly difficult?

There are 27. Over 244 years. That's one every 9 years.

Even if you want to remove the BOR that's one every 14.3 years.

Neither of those seem overly constrained. The last was passed within my relatively short life span.

The ruling document shouldnt change every election. That makes no sense. There has to be some level of consistency and then general backing for any change. And since it applies to everyone a simple majority isnt enough.

Small changes via laws are allowed, and considering how very infrequently those laws are challenged or removed it's not like we have no other option for change. The consitution backs those changes unless they are challenged.
Click to expand...

We’re headed for a point where the interpretation of the charter document changes every election year, because both sides are about to start changing the court’s composition.
 
#127
#127
McDad said:
Let me back up.

First, please accept my apology. My post wasn't meant as a dig or slight against you or your reply. Like you, i don't have a dog in the fight. I am a conscientious objector and do not vote (likely unlike you and many others).

Now to the nominee. I haven't seen anything grossly negative about her. So, I am curious what some folks would fear about her on SCOTUS. There was nothing of substance in your reply. So, to me, the 'fear' mentioned earlier in the thread is simply deriving from politics.

Hope this clears the air.
Click to expand...
What would you consider grossly negative?

It seems like finding people who meet the objective criteria is pretty easy.
 
#128
#128
Mick said:
It's obvious the Republicans should have super delegates as well, Just look at Rocket Surgeon at the pinnacle of the Republican party. He's a FN disaster and we have you to blame. The Trump voters are the worst thing to ever happen to this country.
Click to expand...

My favorite president since Reagan.

Sorry your TDS is flaring up today.

You might wanna rub a cream on it or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, StarRaider and marcusluvsvols
#129
#129
RockyTop85 said:
What would you consider grossly negative?

It seems like finding people who meet the objective criteria is pretty easy.
Click to expand...
Bad interpretations of law. Concerns about her decision making in her personal life. Stuff like that.

The abortion position, ACA, and such are (i believe) non issues at the end of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#130
#130
McDad said:
Bad interpretations of law. Concerns about her decision making in her personal life. Stuff like that.

The abortion position, ACA, and such are (i believe) non issues at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Tl;dr: I don’t think there’s anything you would characterize as “grossly negative” from what I’ve seen so far. I can understand why others might feel differently.

She is in the minority quite a bit in her circuit, which could be troubling, depending on the relative reasonableness of the circuit, which I haven’t looked into. She has a limited record based on lack of judicial experience, but apparently has a pretty strong history of academic writing (Again, haven’t gotten to that, yet). That can be both qualifying and insightful.

Her 1A-6A jurisprudence, which I have looked into a bit, seems fine. She seems about like Scalia: she’s willing to take a strong view of a defendant’s rights but was less favorable to a prisoner’s rights. She’s strong on 1A, which is a net zero because there are already 5 very strong 1A justices, and she is strong on 2A which, again, is mostly a push.

The only real issue remaining, IMO, is how strongly she will respect established precedent. I think that’s more important than most people realize with Dems threatening to pack the court. Flush that norm and we really will have a constitution that rewrites itself every time one party gains full control of the government and adds 2 seats to the court.

So, that’s why I would have some concerns about the effect of overturning Roe. There’s evidence that she’d only be the second vote to do that, if she were so inclined (of which there is almost no evidence). So, it’s not a huge concern. It would be more problematic if Hawley insists that she pledge to overturn it and she does, because I don’t think many people are going to be placated by the fact that Thomas wrote a dissent calling for it to be reversed this term and 0 justices joined him.

On balance, she seems fine so far. I don’t have anything other than procedural concerns, but that’s really unrelated to her qualification. If I found something that makes me think she’ll try to gut existing precedent, I’d change my mind. But it’s hard to find that from a lower court judge whose decisions are subject to review.

Re: ACA, I think the individual mandate will get severed and eliminated, and the bulk of the law will survive. I think this outcome will likely get 6-8 votes. Roberts will probably write the opinion and people on the right will lose their minds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and McDad
#132
#132
RockyTop85 said:
Tl;dr: I don’t think there’s anything you would characterize as “grossly negative” from what I’ve seen so far. I can understand why others might feel differently.

She is in the minority quite a bit in her circuit, which could be troubling, depending on the relative reasonableness of the circuit, which I haven’t looked into. She has a limited record based on lack of judicial experience, but apparently has a pretty strong history of academic writing (Again, haven’t gotten to that, yet). That can be both qualifying and insightful.

Her 1A-6A jurisprudence, which I have looked into a bit, seems fine. She seems about like Scalia: she’s willing to take a strong view of a defendant’s rights but was less favorable to a prisoner’s rights. She’s strong on 1A, which is a net zero because there are already 5 very strong 1A justices, and she is strong on 2A which, again, is mostly a push.

The only real issue remaining, IMO, is how strongly she will respect established precedent. I think that’s more important than most people realize with Dems threatening to pack the court. Flush that norm and we really will have a constitution that rewrites itself every time one party gains full control of the government and adds 2 seats to the court.

So, that’s why I would have some concerns about the effect of overturning Roe. There’s evidence that she’d only be the second vote to do that, if she were so inclined (of which there is almost no evidence). So, it’s not a huge concern. It would be more problematic if Hawley insists that she pledge to overturn it and she does, because I don’t think many people are going to be placated by the fact that Thomas wrote a dissent calling for it to be reversed this term and 0 justices joined him.

On balance, she seems fine so far. I don’t have anything other than procedural concerns, but that’s really unrelated to her qualification. If I found something that makes me think she’ll try to gut existing precedent, I’d change my mind. But it’s hard to find that from a lower court judge whose decisions are subject to review.

Re: ACA, I think the individual mandate will get severed and eliminated, and the bulk of the law will survive. I think this outcome will likely get 6-8 votes. Roberts will probably write the opinion and people on the right will lose their minds.
Click to expand...

No surprise, I am sure, that I am not a fan of precedent. I think all decisions which influence the decisions of SCOTUS should only pass muster on a Constitutionality assessment.

With that said, so far it doesn't sound like there are many "skeletons in the closet" with her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#133
#133
RockyTop85 said:
Tl;dr: I don’t think there’s anything you would characterize as “grossly negative” from what I’ve seen so far. I can understand why others might feel differently.

She is in the minority quite a bit in her circuit, which could be troubling, depending on the relative reasonableness of the circuit, which I haven’t looked into. She has a limited record based on lack of judicial experience, but apparently has a pretty strong history of academic writing (Again, haven’t gotten to that, yet). That can be both qualifying and insightful.

Her 1A-6A jurisprudence, which I have looked into a bit, seems fine. She seems about like Scalia: she’s willing to take a strong view of a defendant’s rights but was less favorable to a prisoner’s rights. She’s strong on 1A, which is a net zero because there are already 5 very strong 1A justices, and she is strong on 2A which, again, is mostly a push.

The only real issue remaining, IMO, is how strongly she will respect established precedent. I think that’s more important than most people realize with Dems threatening to pack the court. Flush that norm and we really will have a constitution that rewrites itself every time one party gains full control of the government and adds 2 seats to the court.

So, that’s why I would have some concerns about the effect of overturning Roe. There’s evidence that she’d only be the second vote to do that, if she were so inclined (of which there is almost no evidence). So, it’s not a huge concern. It would be more problematic if Hawley insists that she pledge to overturn it and she does, because I don’t think many people are going to be placated by the fact that Thomas wrote a dissent calling for it to be reversed this term and 0 justices joined him.

On balance, she seems fine so far. I don’t have anything other than procedural concerns, but that’s really unrelated to her qualification. If I found something that makes me think she’ll try to gut existing precedent, I’d change my mind. But it’s hard to find that from a lower court judge whose decisions are subject to review.

Re: ACA, I think the individual mandate will get severed and eliminated, and the bulk of the law will survive. I think this outcome will likely get 6-8 votes. Roberts will probably write the opinion and people on the right will lose their minds.
Click to expand...
The individual mandate and penalty is the biggest issue i have with the ACA from a legal standpoint (i have a couple of other issues from a hospital managed standpoint)
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#134
#134
McDad said:
No surprise, I am sure, that I am not a fan of precedent. I think all decisions which influence the decisions of SCOTUS should only pass muster on a Constitutionality assessment.

With that said, so far it doesn't sound like there are many "skeletons in the closet" with her.
Click to expand...
That standard works and is applicable to lower courts, but when the court is actually deciding what the “constitutionality assessment“ is, and what “constitutional” means, it fails. The constitution is too imprecise to be subject to this type of binary pass/fail analysis.

The fact that justices like Kagan and Roberts won’t back off of precedent even when they disagree with it is pretty much the only thing preventing the court from becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of whatever party controls the government.

Otherwise, don’t like how the court ruled in the latest abortion case? Add 4 seats and try again. While we’re at it, we can repeal D.C. v. Heller and Shelby County v. Holder, and whatever else we want, because precedent doesn’t matter.
 
#135
#135
RockyTop85 said:
That standard works and is applicable to lower courts, but when the court is actually deciding what the “constitutionality assessment“ is, and what “constitutional” means, it fails. The constitution is too imprecise to be subject to this type of binary pass/fail analysis.

The fact that justices like Kagan and Roberts won’t back off of precedent even when they disagree with it is pretty much the only thing preventing the court from becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of whatever party controls the government.

Otherwise, don’t like how the court ruled in the latest abortion case? Add 4 seats and try again. While we’re at it, we can repeal D.C. v. Heller and Shelby County v. Holder, and whatever else we want, because precedent doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Precedent matters when supported by the framer's intention in drafting the Constitution. Precedent shouldn't matter because justices and decisions are not infallible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and hog88
#136
#136
McDad said:
Precedent matters when supported by the framer's intention in drafting the Constitution. Precedent shouldn't matter because justices and decisions are not infallible.
Click to expand...
There’s your gross negative, then. Barrett would tell you the farmer’s intent is irrelevant. The plain meaning of the words at the time they were written is what matters.

Ginsburg would have looked at their intent.
 
#137
#137
RockyTop85 said:
There’s your gross negative, then. Barrett would tell you the farmer’s intent is irrelevant. The plain meaning of the words at the time they were written is what matters.

Ginsburg would have looked at their intent.
Click to expand...
did you gather this from her rulings and/or writings.
 
#140
#140
RockyTop85 said:
We’re headed for a point where the interpretation of the charter document changes every election year, because both sides are about to start changing the court’s composition.
Click to expand...
Only when/if challenged, and only if a Scotus gets replaced every 4 years. Or if the Dems get their way expanding the scotus to 15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and hog88
#141
#141
McDad said:
did you gather this from her rulings and/or writings.
Click to expand...
Yes. She has written that the original public meaning of the constitution is the law and that justices and legislators have a duty of fidelity to the text of the constitution.

That’s what originalism, her school of jurisprudential thought, is. It’s definitional.

This is the problem with the right/wrong dichotomy of constitutionality that you proposed. It’s a matter of opinion. There exist more than two schools of constitutional interpretation. If any can form coalitions that simply toss out the others’ rulings, whenever they please, then control of the court becomes more significant and these confirmations will become more fraught.

This is why originalist academics, including Barrett, have written extensively about how to resolve conflicts between precedent and originalism when overturning “wring” precedent would do more harm than good. It’s why SCOTUS changes tend to be incremental adjustments to existing doctrines (like Miranda) rather than wholesale abandonment.

Source: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl
 
#142
#142
LouderVol said:
Only when/if challenged, and only if a Scotus gets replaced every 4 years. Or if the Dems get their way expanding the scotus to 15.
Click to expand...

At this point, what is restraining them from doing that, other than lack of control of the government, a barrier that they seem poised to clear in about 5 weeks?
 
#144
#144
RockyTop85 said:
Yes. She has written that the original public meaning of the constitution is the law and that justices and legislators have a duty of fidelity to the text of the constitution.

That’s what originalism, her school of jurisprudential thought, is. It’s definitional.

This is the problem with the right/wrong dichotomy of constitutionality that you proposed. It’s a matter of opinion. There exist more than two schools of constitutional interpretation. If any can form coalitions that simply toss out the others’ rulings, whenever they please, then control of the court becomes more significant and these confirmations will become more fraught.

This is why originalist academics, including Barrett, have written extensively about how to resolve conflicts between precedent and originalism when overturning precedent would do more harm than good. It’s why SCOTUS changes tend to be incremental adjustments to existing doctrines (like Miranda) rather than wholesale abandonment.

Source: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl
Click to expand...
Perhaps I erred.

Let me verify my understanding of framer's intent.

eta: i define framer's intent differently than what is accepted as the definition.
 
Last edited:
#145
#145
RockyTop85 said:
At this point, what is restraining them from doing that, other than lack of control of the government, a barrier that they seem poised to clear in about 5 weeks?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the point of Barrett? If anything it seems like a reason to vote for Trump. Nothing proposed or discussed will change that ability.

And if we get there we seem to be on the opposite end of your OP about the Consititution being too difficult to change.
 
#149
#149
LouderVol said:
What does that have to do with the point of Barrett? If anything it seems like a reason to vote for Trump. Nothing proposed or discussed will change that ability.

And if we get there we seem to be on the opposite end of your OP about the Consititution being too difficult to change.
Click to expand...

You changed the subject and now you’re asking me what my reply to your subject change has to do with the original subject?

Day drinking?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top