• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Neutrality Is a Political Fiction

ClaraD said:
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.
Click to expand...
depends on the surrounding facts-want to set them forth?
 
1602785657753.png
 
1602785700479.png
 
Trippy Trekker said:
No doubt who asked those stupid questions:


Click to expand...
You must be correct. I am not sure which one of those listed above actually asked, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
Followed by,
“Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

Wow, now those were well beyond stupid.

Not to be outdone on the Dunning-Kruger scale, one other republican senator on your list asked Barrett if she would condemn "white supremacy". He himself was an obvious product of black privilege.
Had this buffoon turned around he would have been face to face with two of Barrett's black adopted children whom she rescued from a life of poverty in Haiti. I think he thought he was Kirk Douglas.
Oh, those wacky republicans.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
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)
Click to expand...

Looks to me you, the author, as well a bunch of other liberals don't actually have a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of the courts, and their construct. This concern over "originalism" demonstrates that. By definition, all judges are supposed to be originalists. That is their job. They interpret the Constitution, as best they can, with the original understanding of those who wrote it. They are literally supposed to be a status quo institution. They are not agents of change.

The change is supposed to come from the legislature. If they want fundamental changes then they have to actually amend the Constitution. The Executive branch is neither a status quo institution nor an agent of change (so far as domestic policy). The Executive is supposed to carry out the laws passed by the Congress.

What the courts are not for is to make soft-amendments to the Constitution by changing what they think should be allowed to fit in with current popular beliefs.
 
uptower said:
www.theguardian.com

The problem with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination isn't timing. It's her views | Nathan Robinson

In case after case, she’s found procedural technicalities to justify depriving already powerless people of their basic rights
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

She even refuses to recuse herself on election matters. In a week when the *cough* NY Post delivered a *cough* 'scoop' on Biden's alleged 'corruption', we literally see the president and GOP engaging in quid pro quo with a Supreme Court Nominee.
Click to expand...

Why would she recuse herself?
 
d0gbreath said:
I'm not convinced that you are smart enough to judge the intelligence of others. If you were, you wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

It's so great to see someone with a communist logo in their tag line attempting to question the intellect of others. Very entertaining.
 


Republicans are already trying to tear down democracy.
American said:
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.
Click to expand...
get your middle finger in before you lose. Its going to be a relief when we shut you down :)
 
Rogue Valley said:
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)
Click to expand...


There ya go.

Go search for a confirmation bias article and post it.

Original thought being something of the past and all. Ya know what I mean?

You seem to thrive in being a team player and I'm sure you are winning a ton of respect from your teammates. :poop:
 
Redwing said:
You must be correct. I am not sure which one of those listed above actually asked, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
Followed by,
“Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

Wow, now those were well beyond stupid.

Not to be outdone on the Dunning-Kruger scale, one other republican senator on your list asked Barrett if she would condemn "white supremacy". He himself was an obvious product of black privilege.
Had this buffoon turned around he would have been face to face with two of Barrett's black adopted children whom she rescued from a life of poverty in Haiti. I think he thought he was Kirk Douglas.
Oh, those wacky republicans.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a few credible links to validate any of your points? Written Trump-Speak comes across as gibberish.
 
Fishking said:
It's so great to see someone with a communist logo in their tag line attempting to question the intellect of others. Very entertaining.
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about?
 
Sure. Your Google fingers broken?



 
Redwing said:
Sure. Your Google fingers broken?



Click to expand...

Figures you provided links of distinguished DEM Senators asking reasonable questions instead of the stupid questions asked by the GOP Senators.

In case you don't know, the GOP Chair of the Committee totally flipflopped:


Doh!
 
d0gbreath said:
I don't have a communist logo in my tag line.
Click to expand...

You do. Again, this just highlights that you questioning someone else's intelligence here is funny. You're going around with symbols you don't even know where they come from.
Antifa-Conference-1932.png
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Figures you provided links of distinguished DEM Senators asking reasonable questions instead of the stupid questions asked by the GOP Senators.

In case you don't know, the GOP Chair of the Committee totally flipflopped:


Doh!
Click to expand...

If you read my post I said they were stupid republican questions.
 
Redwing said:
If you read my post I said they were stupid republican questions.
Click to expand...
I read several of your posts. Take your time and try to process my next statement.

WRITTEN TRUMP-SPEAK COMES ACROSS AS GIBBERISH.​
 
Trippy Trekker said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Much as I appreciate the references to Voltaire and Machiavelli (I found Discourses to be far more informative than Prince), my viewpoint is that country should always be put above party... and I also believe the majority of voters also feel the same way, regardless of their political leanings. Accordingly, I don't think they will ever sit by indefinitely while one side or the other does irreparable harm to our institutions to gain some passing political advantage. I think the Republicans will feel their wrath in full measure this election day... and were the Democrats to attempt to pack the court, I believe they will suffer the same fate in turn.

It's not the job of the Courts to protect the interests of the majority... that's what the elected branches of Government do.... the job of the courts is to protect the interests of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. If we are to gain a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President this election, a conservative-leaning Supreme Court will go far to allay any excesses on the part of the new progressive majority. That's in the interests of us all.

Now I know at this point, you're probably thinking... "Why didn't they do more to counter the excesses of the Trump Administration and the Republicans in Congress?" And I don't disagree with that - there is much more they could have done... there is probably much more they should have done to curb Trump's excesses. Perhaps if they had, the Republicans wouldn't find themselves in the position they're in today. I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned there.

So that's why I don't object to a conservative-leaning court. It gives a valuable counterweight that keeps our ship of state from leaning too far to one side or the other. As a Democrat, you may not find that to be a good thing... but as an American, I think it's to the country's better if we're all forced to keep on our toes and up our game when we pass legislation that will face judicial scrutiny.
 
Cordelier said:
Much as I appreciate the references to Voltaire and Machiavelli (I found Discourses to be far more informative than Prince), my viewpoint is that country should always be put above party... and I also believe the majority of voters also feel the same way, regardless of their political leanings. Accordingly, I don't think they will ever sit by indefinitely while one side or the other does irreparable harm to our institutions to gain some passing political advantage. I think the Republicans will feel their wrath in full measure this election day... and were the Democrats to attempt to pack the court, I believe they will suffer the same fate in turn.

It's not the job of the Courts to protect the interests of the majority... that's what the elected branches of Government do.... the job of the courts is to protect the interests of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. If we are to gain a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President this election, a conservative-leaning Supreme Court will go far to allay any excesses on the part of the new progressive majority. That's in the interests of us all.

Now I know at this point, you're probably thinking... "Why didn't they do more to counter the excesses of the Trump Administration and the Republicans in Congress?" And I don't disagree with that - there is much more they could have done... there is probably much more they should have done to curb Trump's excesses. Perhaps if they had, the Republicans wouldn't find themselves in the position they're in today. I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned there.

So that's why I don't object to a conservative-leaning court. It gives a valuable counterweight that keeps our ship of state from leaning too far to one side or the other. As a Democrat, you may not find that to be a good thing... but as an American, I think it's to the country's better if we're all forced to keep on our toes and up our game when we pass legislation that will face judicial scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Again, let us pray your metaphysical optimism prevails!
My skepticism of our Federal Government dates back to the Vietnam War era. If so determined, I might have served in Vietnam in some type of service capacity. I chose not to.

In respect to politics and my relationship to government, I aspire to the notion "progress, not perfection." In all my affairs, I try to conduct myself with honor, sincerity, humor and, most importantly, believe Love reigns Supreme! Peace to you and yours!

Trump and the GOP-majority Senate already succeeded in rigging the USSC. In the event Biden wins AND DEMs regain control of the Senate, I expect rule changes that quickly lead to restoring balance on the USSC.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Again, let us pray your metaphysical optimism prevails!
My skepticism of our Federal Government dates back to the Vietnam War era. If so determined, I might have served in Vietnam in some type of service capacity. I chose not to.

In respect to politics and my relationship to government, I aspire to the notion "progress, not perfection." In all my affairs, I try to conduct myself with honor, sincerity, humor and, most importantly, believe Love reigns Supreme! Peace to you and yours!

Trump and the GOP-majority Senate already succeeded in rigging the USSC. In the event Biden wins AND DEMs regain control of the Senate, I expect rule changes that quickly lead to restoring balance on the USSC.
Click to expand...

Well, you've got a right to be as skeptical as you want to be... I figure a moderate dose of it is healthy for anyone. Indulge too much, though, and it's apt to be habit-forming.

I disagree with you that the Republicans "rigged" the Supreme Court.... undoubtedly they put their party interests above the country's interests with the Garland and Barrett nominations... and for that, they're apt to pay a heavy price. But I think it'd be the height of folly for the Democrats to double down on that by "stacking" the Court. That truly would be perceived as "rigging".

The only way it could possibly ever be justified is if Vice President Biden were out there making it a central issue of his campaign and he won a mandate to make that happen. But I'll tell you straight - if he did so, I'd vote 3rd party.

Peace to you and your's as well!
 
Cordelier said:
Well, you've got a right to be as skeptical as you want to be... I figure a moderate dose of it is healthy for anyone. Indulge too much, though, and it's apt to be habit-forming.

I disagree with you that the Republicans "rigged" the Supreme Court.... undoubtedly they put their party interests above the country's interests with the Garland and Barrett nominations... and for that, they're apt to pay a heavy price. But I think it'd be the height of folly for the Democrats to double down on that by "stacking" the Court. That truly would be perceived as "rigging".

The only way it could possibly ever be justified is if Vice President Biden were out there making it a central issue of his campaign and he won a mandate toi make that happen. But I'll tell you straight - if he did so, I'd vote 3rd party.

Peace to you and your's as well!
Click to expand...

The fruit of our civil discourse displays itself in my heartfelt grins! We disagree on at least two points: 1. whether Trump and the GOP-majority Senate already rigged the USSC. I say 'YES"; you say "NO". 2. What I consider restoring balance on the USSC you seem to consider rigging.

Let us agree to an impasse. Thank you for reasoning with me.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The fruit of our civil discourse displays itself in my heartfelt grins! We disagree on at least two points: 1. whether Trump and the GOP-majority Senate already rigged the USSC. I say 'YES"; you say "NO". 2. What I consider restoring balance on the USSC you seem to consider rigging.

Let us agree to an impasse. Thank you for reasoning with me.
Click to expand...

Hey... same goes for me, Trippy. I've got nothing but respect for anyone who can cite Voltaire and Machiavelli in the same post. I also figure if two reasonable adults can't come in here and disagree without being disagreeable, then what's the point?

Much as I disagree with the course(s) of action Senate Republicans have chosen to engage in... I have to concede that their actions are allowable under the rules of the Senate. So that's why I can't agree that they "rigged" the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, as desirable as balance on the Court would be, there is no constitutional mandate to make it happen. Of course, there's also nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court must always be limited to 9 Justices, either. We add Justices, then someday they add Justices in response... and pretty soon the Supreme Court becomes some unworkable "super legislature". I don't think that's in anyone's interests... least of all the country's.

The way I figure it, you take a case to Court and you face a single Judge. The outcome of that case gets appealed, and you face a panel of 3 Circuit Judges. It gets appealed again and you face 3 times as many Justices on the Supreme Court. There's an appealing symmetry there that we've come to rely on and expect and that has served the country well. I think we disturb that at our peril. To quote Henry James - author of The Turn of the Screw - "It takes an endless amount of history to make even a little tradition." Were we to throw this tradition out, we won't have to wait long for our turn to get screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom