• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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)
So? No nominee and no person nominated and no person nominated and voted to sit on the federal bench, SCOTUS included, was a tabula rasa at the time of nomination or whose nomination was voted in favor of to sit on the bench.

Practically, bias cannot mean a tabula rasa, a blank slate for a judge. By the time a person is nominated for the bench, they have formulated beliefs, ideas, a world view, a legal view, and a legal philosophy, along with legal opinions, and political beliefs, a political identity, and political ideology. From this view, there isn’t one person nominated for or who sat on the bench who wasn’t “bias.”
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
To address the OP of this thread... I don't think "neutrality" is an asset in the Supreme Court Justice. I figure anyone that doesn't stand for anything will fall for everything. I would much rather have a Supreme Court made of liberals and conservatives who are passionate about their beliefs, will fight tooth and nail for them in chambers, but, by the same token, are open-minded enough to realize when the other side has the superior argument and vote accordingly.
That is, practically, a rational and very strong view of what it means to be “neutral.” Excellent POV.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Other than the fact she is pretty much going to be for twump’s insane agenda, for getting rid of improved healthcare which twump and she vowed to get rid of. Decades of progress can be killed by this federalist society lacky. I see absolutely no benefit of repukes thrusting this tool in the court. If anything, these games lately have de-legitimized the court.....
The fact you or anyone else perceives “no benefit” isn’t a compelling reason to deny her a seat on SCOTUS. The fact you personally believe “decades of progress” from your perspective, “can be killed” isn’t a compelling reason to keep her off the bench.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
“Dangerously distorts the balance” on SCOTUS. How exactly is that determined?

What is an “appropriate” increase for SCOTUS? How so that determined?
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
“Rigging”? How exactly did the GOP Senate “rig” SCOTUS?
 

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
2,423
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
“Dangerously distorts the balance” on SCOTUS. How exactly is that determined?

What is an “appropriate” increase for SCOTUS? How so that determined?
Please avail yourself of research resources to help you define words and explore ideas.

Perhaps you believe the implementation of justice melds with some idealistic notion of exact determinations? I do not. I believe variances exist between actual processes and ideal processes.

If Biden wins and the Senate flips, I could picture a Task Force with Pete Buttigieg in a leadership role examining the question of expanding the number of Justices on the USSC with a goal of significantly reducing partisanship. IMO, the Congressional Budget Office currently benefits from a generally accepted bipartisan consensus. Our current USSC does not. I hope to see improved mechanisms of justice, not perfect ones. Again, in an opinion shared by more than just me, ramming ACB through this confirmation process required a partisan power play replete with serious future consequences. We shall see!
 

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
2,423
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
“Rigging”? How exactly did the GOP Senate “rig” SCOTUS?
Come on ND! You can do better. Stop with the ridiculous! How exactly did you arrive in DP? How exactly did you come about using the screen name NotreDame? How exactly did you choose not to put additional space between Notre and Dame? How exactly did you learn to use written English language to communicate?
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Come on ND! You can do better. Stop with the ridiculous! How exactly did you arrive in DP? How exactly did you come about using the screen name NotreDame? How exactly did you choose not to put additional space between Notre and Dame? How exactly did you learn to use written English language to communicate?
Oh is that ridiculous? The request for you to articulate how you deduced GOP Senate “rigged” SCOTUS?

If you can’t be bothered to fill in the blank page for your claims, then that’s your problem.

What’s ridiculous is your modus operandi of make a claim, support it with nothing, and then call it ridiculous that you’re asked how you reached such a claim.

It is readily apparent you labor under the impression you can’t be bothered or expected to actually articulate how and why you reached a certain conclusion or belief.

You can do better to actually support your remarks with substance than resorting to the nonsense above of asking twenty questions.
 

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
2,423
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh is that ridiculous? The request for you to articulate how you deduced GOP Senate “rigged” SCOTUS?

If you can’t be bothered to fill in the blank page for your claims, then that’s your problem.

What’s ridiculous is your modus operandi of make a claim, support it with nothing, and then call it ridiculous that you’re asked how you reached such a claim.

It is readily apparent you labor under the impression you can’t be bothered or expected to actually articulate how and why you reached a certain conclusion or belief.

You can do better to actually support your remarks with substance than resorting to the nonsense above of asking twenty questions.
There you go again, not answering a single one of my questions. What exactly do you not understand about synchronized discussion?
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Again, in an opinion shared by more than just me, ramming ACB through this confirmation process required a partisan power play replete with serious future consequences. We shall see!
That may be true, and I do not necessarily disagree. This has happened before. The Dems treatment of Bjork had repercussions, arguably still does today.

Please avail yourself of research resources to help you define words and explore ideas.
None of that will tell me what you think and what is your argument. You seemingly want the benefit of making claims but can’t be bothered to actually support them. Maybe you need to “avail yourself of research resources to help you...explore ideas” of the concept of burden of proof, your posts being anemic in such an area is the problem.

After all, this is your idea under discussion, not someone else’s.

Perhaps you believe the implementation of justice melds with some idealistic notion of exact determinations? I do not. I believe variances exist between actual processes and ideal processes.
I believe in evidence and reasoned argument to support claims, conclusions, and beliefs. You’ve made claims of : 1.) Appropriate in relation to something and and 2.) Dangerously in relation to something.

I wouldn’t have qualified conclusory remarks in such a manner because factually they will be difficult to support given the rather subjective nature of the word “appropriate” in this context and the equally problematic use of the word “dangerously.”

If Biden wins and the Senate flips, I could picture a Task Force with Pete Buttigieg in a leadership role examining the question of expanding the number of Justices on the USSC with a goal of significantly reducing partisanship.
A problem with this approach is the presumption partisanship already exists. This is a problem with much of your views. Your views come preloaded with assumptions of what is factual, what is reality. The above assumes “partisanship.” Does it exist?

Another issue is whether partisanship can be reduced by creating new seats on SCOTUS and filling the seats with a particular ideology, philosophy, and beliefs. That doesn’t strike you as partisanship?
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There you go again, not answering a single one of my questions. What exactly do you not understand about synchronized discussion?
What exactly do you not understand about the concept of if you make an affirmative claim, you have the burden of supporting it?

I understand your twenty questions aren’t germane to you articulating your point of view and supporting what you claim.

Oh it is such as Sisyphean task to articulate what one says and support what one says and claims.

Evidently you think you have the quality of being inoculated from the horror and burden, the very scourge inflicted upon the rest of us, to articulate views and support claims, beliefs, and assertions of what is factual.
 

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
2,423
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That may be true, and I do not necessarily disagree. This has happened before. The Dems treatment of Bjork had repercussions, arguably still does today.



None of that will tell me what you think and what is your argument. You seemingly want the benefit of making claims but can’t be bothered to actually support them. Maybe you need to “avail yourself of research resources to help you...explore ideas” of the concept of burden of proof, your posts being anemic in such an area is the problem.

After all, this is your idea under discussion, not someone else’s.



I believe in evidence and reasoned argument to support claims, conclusions, and beliefs. You’ve made claims of : 1.) Appropriate in relation to something and and 2.) Dangerously in relation to something.

I wouldn’t have qualified conclusory remarks in such a manner because factually they will be difficult to support given the rather subjective nature of the word “appropriate” in this context and the equally problematic use of the word “dangerously.”



A problem with this approach is the presumption partisanship already exists. This is a problem with much of your views. Your views come preloaded with assumptions of what is factual, what is reality. The above assumes “partisanship.” Does it exist?

Another issue is whether partisanship can be reduced by creating new seats on SCOTUS and filling the seats with a particular ideology, philosophy, and beliefs. That doesn’t strike you as partisanship?
Your excessive use of passive verbs renders your posts into barely comprehensible word salads. In my view, underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary. I often hear lip service to the Rule of Law, mindful our government maintains over 1000 military bases on foreign soil.

The Constitution specifies our POTUS submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. I merely watch from a proverbial sideline and render my opinions and prognostications. I do not support ACB. In the event Biden wins and Senate flips, I anticipate legislation that increases the number of USSC justices.
 

Rogue Valley

Say Her Name - Breonna Taylor
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
54,448
Reaction score
38,940
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So? No nominee and no person nominated and no person nominated and voted to sit on the federal bench, SCOTUS included, was a tabula rasa at the time of nomination or whose nomination was voted in favor of to sit on the bench.

Practically, bias cannot mean a tabula rasa, a blank slate for a judge. By the time a person is nominated for the bench, they have formulated beliefs, ideas, a world view, a legal view, and a legal philosophy, along with legal opinions, and political beliefs, a political identity, and political ideology. From this view, there isn’t one person nominated for or who sat on the bench who wasn’t “bias.”
In no other SC nomination do we have a president nominating a candidate for the publicly articulated reason of casting a vote to award him the election.


 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
510
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Constitution specifies our POTUS submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. I merely watch from a proverbial sideline and render my opinions and prognostications. I do not support ACB. In the event Biden wins and Senate flips, I anticipate legislation that increases the number of USSC justices.
Maybe. Such escalation will only continue, as the next Republican President and Senate add seats to wipe out the advantage gained by the Dems adding of new seats and filling them with candidates who share their views previously.

Your excessive use of passive verbs renders your posts into barely comprehensible word salads.
Your annoyance at being asked to fully develop your point of view to support your claim is reflected in the factually inaccurate statement above. That statement is a tactic reflecting defensiveness, a consequent possibly of the fact you hadn’t given much thought to your views, hence, all you had were claims to make but no immediate substance to support them. So, possibly, when asked for a substantive articulation of your supporting POV, you retort viscerally with nonsense like the statement above.

In my view, underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary.
Yes, it is widely known to anyone reading you have a “view.” Here’s a revelation for you to ruminate, your view may not be accurate, or it may be accurate, and not everyone concurs with your view.

Human perception has been wrong in the past, will be wrong in the present, and future. This necessarily means your view may not be an accurate assessment of reality.

There’s some evidence your view isn’t accurate, at least for SCOTUS. The conservatives just had their butts handed to them in a series of cases. Bostock, Dept. of Homeland Securty v Regents, FDDA v American College of OBGYN, along with the Court rejection of a core argument by Trump regarding his taxes. Last term: Trump lost his bid to add a question about citizenship to the census, conservatives lost their quest to limit or do away with Auer deference, and prior terms: Obergefell, Windsor, King v Burwell.

Yet, your view is SCOTUS has “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary.”

Now let’s look at the rest of the federal judiciary.
1. There are 94 federal district courts.
2. There are 13 federal appellate courts.

You think you have a firm grasp of what they’re doing, of how they’re deciding cases, etcetera, to conclude this federal judiciary “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary”?

I’m incredulous you have such knowledge of the federal judiciary to support your claim, your view, the judiciary has “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary.”

You have your “view” with nothing at the moment to show your view is factual, comports with realiry
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
10,148
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The fact you or anyone else perceives “no benefit” isn’t a compelling reason to deny her a seat on SCOTUS. The fact you personally believe “decades of progress” from your perspective, “can be killed” isn’t a compelling reason to keep her off the bench.
Its a reason SCOTUS matters and republicans know it, its why they are going back on their word. They want to pack the courts.
 

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
2,423
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Maybe. Such escalation will only continue, as the next Republican President and Senate add seats to wipe out the advantage gained by the Dems adding of new seats and filling them with candidates who share their views previously.



Your annoyance at being asked to fully develop your point of view to support your claim is reflected in the factually inaccurate statement above. That statement is a tactic reflecting defensiveness, a consequent possibly of the fact you hadn’t given much thought to your views, hence, all you had were claims to make but no immediate substance to support them. So, possibly, when asked for a substantive articulation of your supporting POV, you retort viscerally with nonsense like the statement above.



Yes, it is widely known to anyone reading you have a “view.” Here’s a revelation for you to ruminate, your view may not be accurate, or it may be accurate, and not everyone concurs with your view.

Human perception has been wrong in the past, will be wrong in the present, and future. This necessarily means your view may not be an accurate assessment of reality.

There’s some evidence your view isn’t accurate, at least for SCOTUS. The conservatives just had their butts handed to them in a series of cases. Bostock, Dept. of Homeland Securty v Regents, FDDA v American College of OBGYN, along with the Court rejection of a core argument by Trump regarding his taxes. Last term: Trump lost his bid to add a question about citizenship to the census, conservatives lost their quest to limit or do away with Auer deference, and prior terms: Obergefell, Windsor, King v Burwell.

Yet, your view is SCOTUS has “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary.”

Now let’s look at the rest of the federal judiciary.
1. There are 94 federal district courts.
2. There are 13 federal appellate courts.

You think you have a firm grasp of what they’re doing, of how they’re deciding cases, etcetera, to conclude this federal judiciary “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary”?

I’m incredulous you have such knowledge of the federal judiciary to support your claim, your view, the judiciary has “underlying partisanship and seething raw power drive almost every aspect of our judiciary.”

You have your “view” with nothing at the moment to show your view is factual, comports with realiry
Whoa! I appreciate your incredulity. You specialize in verbosity and rambling word salads. Do you consider your writing style concise and effective? NB, cut to the chase! Just write "I support ACB."

Ask a few people you respect to give you honest responses. Not to suggest you lack subject proficiency or intelligence, your mumbo jumbo makes for really dull reading!
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
10,148
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
“Rigging”? How exactly did the GOP Senate “rig” SCOTUS?
By holding a seat open for several months for the express purpose of trying to pack the court in case a republican president came into office.

Sen.Whitehouse gave a good explanation as to why this is worrying.
 

Cordelier

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,590
Reaction score
1,636
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That is, practically, a rational and very strong view of what it means to be “neutral.” Excellent POV.
Thanks ND... I wish the Senate Republicans had held the same point of view in 2016.
 

Redwing

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
415
Reaction score
173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

GummyVitamins

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
511
Reaction score
101
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority male who hasn't lived that life."
 

GummyVitamins

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
511
Reaction score
101
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Harris was elected District Attorney of San Francisco.
The district attorney who gets elected is the one who has support from the party establishment.
 

Cordelier

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,590
Reaction score
1,636
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The district attorney who gets elected is the one who has support from the party establishment.
The San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee didn't endorse anyone in that race.
 

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
1,008
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't have a problem with conservatives being on the Court, but I do have a problem when justices are picked for being reliably partisan. SCOTUS is extremely powerful and the ideological array of its justices should at minimum be representative of the public. Otherwise you have a situation like we have now, where a conservative supermajority will exist purely by luck of vacancies and timing (as well as the undemocratic ways in which POTUS and Senate elections work, in which the popular vote does not determine who controls either the Presidency or the balance of the Senate).

SCOTUS justices should be people who have a record of deciding big issues based on their facts and the law and not based on personal ideologies. I hope Barrett isn't one of those people, but she's only been on the bench a few years, which leads me to believe she was selected based on her ideology, not her judicial record.
To be fair, if confirmed she would be among the MOST experienced (as far as years in the bench) of the female justices on the bench currently
 
Top Bottom