Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction

[Cordelier]

i know where your political stances lie and that you support many of the same things that i do. i remember you from the hannity forum. I dont like the individual mandate either though i see it as the only way the coverage for pre existing conditions was going to work. I doubt her ability to put her personal beliefs aside, and i think the GOP is banking on it. Why else would they lie and rush this through? The GOP fully believes the ends justify the means and will imprison the both of us the first chance they get, in that situation such stance on the ends not Justifying the means becomes a well missed luxury. The early stages of a fascist USA is here.

From where does totalitarianism spring, though? If the ends justify the means for left... and the right responds in kind, then where is everyone in between? What kind of a country are we then left with when nobody stands on principle anymore? Then isn't it just as well to pick your "king" and democracy be damned? The way I figure it, that's been the whole raison d'etre of the Trump Administration all along. Tear down the media. Tear down the government. Tear down the opposition. If they are all as unprincipled as me, then why not just support me regardless?

Take the Barrett nomination itself... the fact that the Republicans are hypocritically pushing it through despite their rhetoric on the Garland nomination and letting the will of the people decide is ample evidence of their willingness to let the ends justify the means. Regardless of where you stand on the merits of Judge Barrett herself, it should be ample evidence to all people, regardless of which side of the aisle they stand. I have faith that we are still a country of principles and that this blatant lack of principle on their part will be punished at the polls. Maybe I'm naive in that, I don't know... but I've got to believe we're still a better type of people than that - that at our core, we're still the kind of people who can see for ourselves when we're handed a bill of goods.

And if we're not, well, then we're on the road to Rome... and I'll make my stand with Cato.

 

[uptower]

Democrats stopped that tradition of crossing the ailse on nominees when trump came to office.

More to do with having their pick stalled for no good reason by McConnell. As far as presidents go Trump's picks are no better or worse than any other Republican leader - they pretty much come from the party since he has no idea who he wants. They're not inherently against Trump's choice because they're 'his' but against the GOP for blocking the Dems pick till it was the GOP's turn to fill it instead.

That was the unfortunate politicking over Gorsuch anyway, but it turned into a backlash against Kavanaugh because they felt that had been 'their' slot, and now a bigger one against Barrett because under the same circumstances as Gorsuch, the GOP are pulling an about face on their excuse.

 

[Cordelier]

No. It's tacit, but otherwise out in the open, much like it was with Barr. Though nobody can actually admit it then it would be illegal.As for Trump he's already said that's what he expects - again in public because he's not as sharp and Mitch and Barrett.

Trump can expect whatever he wants to expect... but Judge Barrett is under no compulsion to bow to his expectations... not as an Appellate Judge or a Supreme Court Justice. She has said under oath that she has made no "deals" with the President - either tacit or implict, and I've got no reason to doubt her word on that. No matter who sits on the Supreme Court, and no matter by whom they are appointed, at the end of the day, all we have is faith that the better angels of their nature will guide their judgments. That is the way it has always been. It's the way it must always be.

 

[bomberfox]

From where does totalitarianism spring, though? If the ends justify the means for left... and the right responds in kind, then where is everyone in between? What kind of a country are we then left with when nobody stands on principle anymore? Then isn't it just as well to pick your "king" and democracy be damned? The way I figure it, that's been the whole raison d'etre of the Trump Administration all along. Tear down the media. Tear down the government. Tear down the opposition. If they are all as unprincipled as me, then why not just support me regardless?

Take the Barrett nomination itself... the fact that the Republicans are hypocritically pushing it through despite their rhetoric on the Garland nomination and letting the will of the people decide is ample evidence of their willingness to let the ends justify the means. Regardless of where you stand on the merits of Judge Barrett herself, it should be ample evidence to all people, regardless of which side of the aisle they stand. I have faith that we are still a country of principles and that this blatant lack of principle on their part will be punished at the polls. Maybe I'm naive in that, I don't know... but I've got to believe we're still a better type of people than that - that at our core, we're still the kind of people who can see for ourselves when we're handed a bill of goods.

And if we're not, well, then we're on the road to Rome... and I'll make my stand with Cato.

the way i see it, the left would just be responding in kind. The thing about your position is... i really want to believe it that we can remain a country of principles but I can only take so much before the writing on the wall becomes undeniable. I dont want a king, i dont think the left wants a king, if anything the American left has been about fighting unjust power structures.

Im not going to chide you for your stance, i like it. As for Barrett herself, i personally dont know much beside roe v wade and the ACA. The worrying thing is i know why she is being nominated. Twump wants to use the courts to put the final nail in the coffin of decades of progress.

 

[bomberfox]

Trump can expect whatever he wants to expect... but Judge Barrett is under no compulsion to bow to his expectations... not as an Appellate Judge or a Supreme Court Justice. She has said under oath that she has made no "deals" with the President - either tacit or implict, and I've got no reason to doubt her word on that. No matter who sits on the Supreme Court, and no matter by whom they are appointed, at the end of the day, all we have is faith that the better angels of their nature will guide their judgments. That is the way it has always been. It's the way it must always be.

Ive just got every reason to doubt her staring me in the face.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not convinced that you are smart enough to judge the intelligence of others. If you were, you wouldn't do that.

I am...

 

[Bullseye]

Why else would they rush her through and go back on their word while twump is telling us loud and clear hes going to pull another bush v gore or just outright defy the election.

Go back on what word?

 

[Bullseye]

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction



Illuminating monologue by Eric Levitz allows one to cut through Barrett's obfuscating bullshit at the confirmation hearing and pin her down for what she obviously is ... uber-conservative.

No judge is recommended by the Federalist Society unless they have an abundant history of conservative rulings and papers. Barrett came highly recommended.

And make no mistake, the Federalist Society acts as a conduit for judicial dark money donations from wealthy conservative individuals and organizations.

For example, some entity (Mercer family? Koch family?) wrote the Society a $17 million check to recommend/lobby for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)

Liberals have no idea what "court packing is". And their grasp on reality isn't that strong, either.

 

[skeptic llc]

Judge Barrett is doing an excellent job in the hearings and will be confirmed as a justice for the Supreme court before the end of this month.
The democrats on the judiciary committee are a pitiful bunch. Just a bunch of election year grandstanding. Hardly
a question about Judge Barrett;s qualifications.

Forgive me if I am missing stuff, as I haven't been following this closely. However, I did not think there were any questions about her qualifications (well, not serious questions at least) as an accomplished legal professional. Isn't the debate just about whether (1) Rs should get to grab another seat on the court, and (2) she will follow the law when it comes to Trump or R issues?

 

[Integrityrespec]

From where does totalitarianism spring, though? If the ends justify the means for left... and the right responds in kind, then where is everyone in between? What kind of a country are we then left with when nobody stands on principle anymore? Then isn't it just as well to pick your "king" and democracy be damned? The way I figure it, that's been the whole raison d'etre of the Trump Administration all along. Tear down the media. Tear down the government. Tear down the opposition. If they are all as unprincipled as me, then why not just support me regardless?

Take the Barrett nomination itself... the fact that the Republicans are hypocritically pushing it through despite their rhetoric on the Garland nomination and letting the will of the people decide is ample evidence of their willingness to let the ends justify the means. Regardless of where you stand on the merits of Judge Barrett herself, it should be ample evidence to all people, regardless of which side of the aisle they stand. I have faith that we are still a country of principles and that this blatant lack of principle on their part will be punished at the polls. Maybe I'm naive in that, I don't know... but I've got to believe we're still a better type of people than that - that at our core, we're still the kind of people who can see for ourselves when we're handed a bill of goods.

And if we're not, well, then we're on the road to Rome... and I'll make my stand with Cato.

All your whining isn't going to stop the Barrett appointment. It's an a fast track to happen pre-election. All legal, all constitutional. The real hypocrisy is that the democrats act as if they would not being doing the same if the positions were reversed.

 

[Cordelier]

the way i see it, the left would just be responding in kind. The thing about your position is... i really want to believe it that we can remain a country of principles but I can only take so much before the writing on the wall becomes undeniable. I dont want a king, i dont think the left wants a king, if anything the American left has been about fighting unjust power structures.

Im not going to chide you for your stance, i like it. As for Barrett herself, i personally dont know much beside roe v wade and the ACA. The worrying thing is i know why she is being nominated. Twump wants to use the courts to put the final nail in the coffin of decades of progress.

To quote Gandhi, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... responding in kind necessarily takes us further down the road to where we don't want to be. If you want to change the trend, then you need to rise above it and ensure that the people responsible for it are punished at the polls.

I can't tell you how to see the Barrett nomination... it may be, as you put it, the last nail in the coffin of decades of progress. Personally, I figure the Supreme Court has been headed that way ever since Nixon was elected and Barrett is the last note in that song... and now it starts swinging the other way again.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Forgive me if I am missing stuff, as I haven't been following this closely. However, I did not think there were any questions about her qualifications (well, not serious questions at least) as an accomplished legal professional. Isn't the debate just about whether (1) Rs should get to grab another seat on the court, and (2) she will follow the law when it comes to Trump or R issues?

Why is there any question about should the R's get another seat on the court. It's about timing, and who is in control of the Senate and who is the President. It's circumstances and that's it. Same party controls the Senate and the Presidency, they get a judge. Sort like the democrats control the House and so they got to have an impeachment hearing and trial.

 

[Cordelier]

All your whining isn't going to stop the Barrett appointment. It's an a fast track to happen pre-election. All legal, all constitutional. The real hypocrisy is that the democrats act as if they would not being doing the same if the positions were reversed.

I can't say that I'm surprised that you'd feel that way.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Last month, Trump laid out his overarching plan to win reelection via a Rigged 9 member USSC. It does not take much imagination to fill in some of the strategy.

1. Use as many tactics as possible to suppress the Anti-Trumper vote.
2. Encourage Trumpers to disrupt the Election process.
3. Ram the Barrett nomination through the GOP-majority Senate.
4. File bogus lawsuits alleging wide spread voter fraud by Anti-Trumpers.
5. Count on the USSC to rule in Trump's favor. Shucks, two of the justices (Roberts, Crybaby K) and the presumptive replacement for Notorious RBG (Barrett) helped on the Bush v. Gore case.





If Biden wins and the DEMs regain the Senate majority, I anticipate an adjustment in the number of justices.... and a HUGE collective whine by Conservative Elites.
.

 

[skeptic llc]

Why is there any question about should the R's get another seat on the court. It's about timing, and who is in control of the Senate and who is the President. It's circumstances and that's it. Same party controls the Senate and the Presidency, they get a judge. Sort like the democrats control the House and so they got to have an impeachment hearing and trial.

Didn't used to be. That's why in 2016 Rs said a bunch of bogus stuff about letting the next president decide, will of the people, etc. But now, you have accurately stated the test, which is pure power. So much for a civilized anything.

 

[uptower]

Trump can expect whatever he wants to expect... but Judge Barrett is under no compulsion to bow to his expectations... not as an Appellate Judge or a Supreme Court Justice. She has said under oath that she has made no "deals" with the President - either tacit or implict, and I've got no reason to doubt her word on that. No matter who sits on the Supreme Court, and no matter by whom they are appointed, at the end of the day, all we have is faith that the better angels of their nature will guide their judgments. That is the way it has always been. It's the way it must always be.

Well I'll drink to that and hope for the best, because she's a shoo-in.

 

[Cordelier]

Well I'll drink to that and hope for the best, because she's a shoo-in.

In the end, that's all we can do with any of'em.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Just as there is a clear pattern in conservative jurisprudence of siding with the boss over the worker, the cop over the citizen, and the powerful over the marginalized, so too is there a pattern of conservative justice's preserving the right's minority rule.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[American]

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction



Illuminating monologue by Eric Levitz allows one to cut through Barrett's obfuscating bullshit at the confirmation hearing and pin her down for what she obviously is ... uber-conservative.

No judge is recommended by the Federalist Society unless they have an abundant history of conservative rulings and papers. Barrett came highly recommended.

And make no mistake, the Federalist Society acts as a conduit for judicial dark money donations from wealthy conservative individuals and organizations.

For example, some entity (Mercer family? Koch family?) wrote the Society a $17 million check to recommend/lobby for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)

Conservative rulings doesn't mean they're wrong. Time for you to move on dude, you don't have a winning hand. She's a ****ing genius compared to the leftwing idiots questioning her in that Senate hearing. It's laughable watching them flail in their attempt to discredit her with their books of papers, while she sits there batting the feeble attempts without a single note in front of her.

 

[American]

The good news is this

Barrett is MUCH smarter than any of the dems on the committee. The Democrats don't realize that. Most of them look like morons trying to trip her up. Some, like the twit from Hawaii, demonstrate she shouldn't be anywhere near an office that has power over other citizens. Amy Klobuchar stated she was hoping to be nominated for a USSC position-sorry Amy, you don't have the wattage-and you are by far the smartest dem on that committee

She is much smarter than most of the republicans too-and they know that too and don't attempt to outshine Barrett's intellect. Now Ted Cruz might be brighter-and perhaps he should be on the court, but he realizes she's an intellectual peer. Hawley is brilliant as well-summa at Stanford, JD Yale and he clerked for CJ Roberts

I look forward to her being on the court and that she is going to replace someone who was a hard core socialist is even better news

These Senate clowns don't even comprehend what they're up against. It's quite entertaining.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Trump can expect whatever he wants to expect... but Judge Barrett is under no compulsion to bow to his expectations... not as an Appellate Judge or a Supreme Court Justice. She has said under oath that she has made no "deals" with the President - either tacit or implict, and I've got no reason to doubt her word on that. No matter who sits on the Supreme Court, and no matter by whom they are appointed, at the end of the day, all we have is faith that the better angels of their nature will guide their judgments. That is the way it has always been. It's the way it must always be.

The tone of many of your posts in this thread suggest:

1. you did not tune in and listen intently to Barrett's Senate Judicial Committee Hearing.
2. you embrace heaping doses of dubious metaphysical optimism in the manner of Voltaire's character 'Pangloss' in Candide.

The central message Voltaire conveys in Candide is that all is not for "the best in the best of all possible worlds." The book satirizes and debunks that philosophy, which had gained traction in the mid-eighteenth century (when Voltaire wrote this work).

Let us pray your optimistic view prevails!

My cynicism aligns more with Machiavellian philosophy: (paraphrasing) a man who wishes to make a profession of Goodness will necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good. Therefore, use this knowledge (or not use it) accordingly.

To me, Barrett replacing Notorious RBG totally and dangerously distorts the balance on the USSC. Dark Conservative Money followed Barrett throughout her post Law School career. At some point in the future (hopefully this election cycle), I anticipate the DEMs regaining the Senate Majority, then affecting rule changes that lead to an appropriate increase in the number of justices on the bench.

 

[ClaraD]

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction



Illuminating monologue by Eric Levitz allows one to cut through Barrett's obfuscating bullshit at the confirmation hearing and pin her down for what she obviously is ... uber-conservative.

No judge is recommended by the Federalist Society unless they have an abundant history of conservative rulings and papers. Barrett came highly recommended.

And make no mistake, the Federalist Society acts as a conduit for judicial dark money donations from wealthy conservative individuals and organizations.

For example, some entity (Mercer family? Koch family?) wrote the Society a $17 million check to recommend/lobby for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)

yep, she actually ruled that a black guy being called the n word by his supervisor didn't make a hostile work environment...which is ridiculous.

 

[d0gbreath]

I am...

No comment.

 

[TurtleDude]

These Senate clowns don't even comprehend what they're up against. It's quite entertaining.

right now they are talking about COVID. Its a campaign an ad for Biden.