Amy Coney Barrett said the Supreme Court is not 'a bunch of partisan hacks'

[j brown's body]

Actually, as McConnell pointed out it was in perfect agreement with historical precedent.

Wrong again. Look it up.

I gave an example with Kennedy as to how it wasn't. And then he changed it again for Barrett.

Look it up? You want me to find support YOUR claim? Sorry, that's your job.

 

[Mr Person]

I noticed she didn’t offer any solutions on how to avoid making the court appear partisan. At least Beyer came out in favor of term limits.

I suppose, if she is truly worried about a false appearance of partisanship, she could resign her seat now, giving Biden a nomination and road to its success. She won't. Very very few people would.

That said...I truly wish people were a lot more careful about throwing these accusations around. I see a whole bunch of other left-lean people in this thread with whom I've joined in decrying DP right-lean posters who attack decisions they don't like as being those of liberal activist judges who rewrite the constitution. It kinda pains me to see a quick leap to "Barreett said they're not partisan hacks? She's a partisan hack!"

The manner of her apppointment was some of the greatest partisan douchebaggery. But that was the GOP's doing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

ZEF does not equal "Human Being."

What a horrible thing to say about these people:

 

[The AntiDonald]

Interesting that 3 Supreme Court justices worked on Bush v Gore.

Hillary always said that G. W. was not elected, he was selected. She was correct.

 

[Objective Voice]

"Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties." - Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Aren't they though?

Judicial "philosophies" is essentially is how one's ideals figure into application of the law. Put another way, it's your interpretation of what a law means and how it should be applied versus what the law is or what it was meant to do or how it was meant to be enforced. Too often, we have justices legislating from the bench providing their interpretation of how the law should be applied and then making a ruling fit their "judicial philosophy". Politics works in the same way. You through your values upon an ideology and you have your "political views", where upon you as the politician or political pundit inflict your ideals upon others sometimes forcing them upon the people simply because one political party has a legislative majority.

Judicial philosophy and political party (ideology) are relatively the same.

 

[dcsports]

I suppose, if she is truly worried about a false appearance of partisanship, she could resign her seat now, giving Biden a nomination and road to its success. She won't. Very very few people would.

That said...I truly wish people were a lot more careful about throwing these accusations around. I see a whole bunch of other left-lean people in this thread with whom I've joined in decrying DP right-lean posters who attack decisions they don't like as being those of liberal activist judges who rewrite the constitution. It kinda pains me to see a quick leap to "Barreett said they're not partisan hacks? She's a partisan hack!"

The manner of her apppointment was some of the greatest partisan douchebaggery. But that was the GOP's doing.

She's not talking about a 'false appearance of partisanship', but about false claims of partisanship (from the left).

The ironic thing about this is that it's the left who really pushes partisanship, through judicial activism. Effectively legislating from the bench. Kagan and Sotomayor are probably the worst in recent history in this regard. 'Conservatives' tend to promote judges that do just the opposite - valuing those who enforce the constitution and the law, leaving it up to the legislature to write laws.

Barrett was appointed according to the constitutional process.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I suppose, if she is truly worried about a false appearance of partisanship, she could resign her seat now, giving Biden a nomination and road to its success. She won't. Very very few people would.

That said...I truly wish people were a lot more careful about throwing these accusations around. I see a whole bunch of other left-lean people in this thread with whom I've joined in decrying DP right-lean posters who attack decisions they don't like as being those of liberal activist judges who rewrite the constitution. It kinda pains me to see a quick leap to "Barreett said they're not partisan hacks? She's a partisan hack!"

The manner of her apppointment was some of the greatest partisan douchebaggery. But that was the GOP's doing.

Bolded: That's your litmus test? What a crock of phony bullshit.

 

[Mr Person]

She's not talking about a 'false appearance of partisanship', but about false claims of partisanship (from the left).

The ironic thing about this is that it's the left who really pushes partisanship, through judicial activism. Effectively legislating from the bench. Kagan and Sotomayor are probably the worst in recent history in this regard. 'Conservatives' tend to promote judges that do just the opposite - valuing those who enforce the constitution and the law, leaving it up to the legislature to write laws.

Barrett was appointed according to the constitutional process.

The ironic thing is that you did the same thing right-lean people who always scream about "judicial activism" do when I chastise fellows on the left for their own version: you picked the one post that sounded kinda like I was on your "side" and made a show of agreeing with it.

What about this post, said in reply to a left-lean person who mistakenly thought I was saying left-lean judges rewrite the constitution:

I think you may have misread my post. I am not saying that left-lean judges re-write the constitution.​

​

I am saying that I have seen countless right-lean people claim exactly that when a decision comes down that left-lean people like. Similarly, I have seen countless left-lean people claim that judges are partisan hacks just seeking to kiss the GOP's ass when a decision comes down that right-lean people like.​

​

What I have never seen is someone actually sitting down to do the long and hard work of determining whether a given justice inexplicably changed course in a claimed judicial philosophy after taking the bench in ways that cannot be explained without the partisan motive people are constantly alleging. This would take a whole lot of research and thinking. It's much easier to sling partisan mud.​

​

If the court looks partisan - whether we're talking about a liberal saying "that conservative judge is just a hack" or a conservative saying "that liberal judge just rewrites the constitution at whim" - it's generally because appointment decisions themselves are increasingly partisan. The closest to actual partisanship I've seen is Kavanaugh's behavior at his confirmation hearing, but even that doesn't really look like partisanship to me. That looked like someone with a temperament rendering them unfit for the highest court no matter how much I agreed or disagreed with prior decisions.​

​

(And ironically enough, when I say this kind of thing to a fellow on the left, the kind of right-lean people who sling the whole "liberal activist judge" line around end up liking or agreeing with my posts.)​

Bet you don't like that one. Bet you think conservative justices who give you case outcomes you like have the One True Interpretation of the constitution. Bet you think you're right to dishonestly run your mouth about "activist judges".

It's a truly sad both-sides issue. So many of you are quick to assume partisan motive in opposite-lean judges, while also being offended by oppoiste-lean posters assuming the same about your-lean judges.

Bolded: That's your litmus test? What a crock of phony bullshit.

Meanwhile, that post is too damn stupid to be hypocrisy. It doesn't get past stupid.

 

[j brown's body]

The ironic thing is that you did the same thing right-lean people who always scream about "judicial activism" do when I chastise fellows on the left for their own version: you picked the one post that sounded kinda like I was on your "side" and made a show of agreeing with it.

What about this post, said in reply to a left-lean person who mistakenly thought I was saying left-lean judges rewrite the constitution:

I think you may have misread my post. I am not saying that left-lean judges re-write the constitution.​

​

I am saying that I have seen countless right-lean people claim exactly that when a decision comes down that left-lean people like. Similarly, I have seen countless left-lean people claim that judges are partisan hacks just seeking to kiss the GOP's ass when a decision comes down that right-lean people like.​

​

What I have never seen is someone actually sitting down to do the long and hard work of determining whether a given justice inexplicably changed course in a claimed judicial philosophy after taking the bench in ways that cannot be explained without the partisan motive people are constantly alleging. This would take a whole lot of research and thinking. It's much easier to sling partisan mud.​

​

If the court looks partisan - whether we're talking about a liberal saying "that conservative judge is just a hack" or a conservative saying "that liberal judge just rewrites the constitution at whim" - it's generally because appointment decisions themselves are increasingly partisan. The closest to actual partisanship I've seen is Kavanaugh's behavior at his confirmation hearing, but even that doesn't really look like partisanship to me. That looked like someone with a temperament rendering them unfit for the highest court no matter how much I agreed or disagreed with prior decisions.​

​

(And ironically enough, when I say this kind of thing to a fellow on the left, the kind of right-lean people who sling the whole "liberal activist judge" line around end up liking or agreeing with my posts.)​

Bet you don't like that one. Bet you think conservative justices who give you case outcomes you like have the One True Interpretation of the constitution. Bet you think you're right to dishonestly run your mouth about "activist judges".

It's a truly sad both-sides issue. So many of you are quick to assume partisan motive in opposite-lean judges, while also being offended by oppoiste-lean posters assuming the same about your-lean judges.





Meanwhile, that post is too damn stupid to be hypocrisy. It doesn't get past stupid.

Indeed, any decision one does not like comes with the cry of judicial activism.

 

[Mr Person]

Indeed, any decision one does not like comes with the cry of judicial activism.

It drives me crazy. I can't rule out all possibility of ill partisan motive in a justice. How could I? People do far more evil things.


But man, it just doesn't work that way (rewarding those who appointed you) from anything I've seen, whether while clerking or while practicing (though I must cede that I wouldn't expect to see much political bias in a criminal appeal of an indigent defendant's conviction).

Meanwhile, the real answer is sitting right there: look at how we appoint justices.

Of course you're going to get people who consistently decide the same kinds of cases the same way.

 

[j brown's body]

She's not talking about a 'false appearance of partisanship', but about false claims of partisanship (from the left).

The ironic thing about this is that it's the left who really pushes partisanship, through judicial activism. Effectively legislating from the bench. Kagan and Sotomayor are probably the worst in recent history in this regard. 'Conservatives' tend to promote judges that do just the opposite - valuing those who enforce the constitution and the law, leaving it up to the legislature to write laws.

Barrett was appointed according to the constitutional process.

Nothing inherently wrong with judicial activism in pursuit of justice. People claim the landmark decision, Brown v Board, was judicial activism. And defend The Dred Scott decision by saying it was constitutional.

As the great Learned Hand said, don't rely on constitution to defend your liberty if it doesn't live in your hearts. And McConnell gaming the constitution to create a permanent consensus (which is the antithesis of democracy) shows that liberty is clearly noting his heart.

He has probably made impossible for any president whose party doesn't control the senate to ever appoint a SCOTUS justice ever again. That is a serious attack on democracy.

 

[JMR]

LOL, Amy Barrett would have much more credibility declaring herself non partisan if she had objected to the Federalist Society branding her as sufficiently conservative to please the right before her nomination, and then skipped the reception at the McConnell Center, honoring a man who has publicly stated his life's ambition is to swing the court to a permanently conservative majority.

She was nominated because she was perceived to be a "hack" and the Minority Leader wants to make sure that enough "hacks" are on the court to get the decisions he would like.

She'll impress me a little if she has the "judicial philosophy" to decide that a state law offering bounties to people to report the reproductive activity of others to the authorities has no place in America.

 

[j brown's body]

It drives me crazy. I can't rule out all possibility of ill partisan motive in a justice. How could I? People do far more evil things.


But man, it just doesn't work that way (rewarding those who appointed you) from anything I've seen, whether while clerking or while practicing (though I must cede that I wouldn't expect to see much political bias in a criminal appeal of an indigent defendant's conviction).

Meanwhile, the real answer is sitting right there: look at how we appoint justices.

Of course you're going to get people who consistently decide the same kinds of cases the same way.

The judges, of course, like to believe they aren't partisan and sometimes, for a number of reasons, rule in ways that suggest they aren't. But this belief is held by the public because they are out of the limelight and thus, present a facade of aloofness, being above it.

If their hearings were televised and people could hear their remarks played over and over again, that facade would probably crack.

 

[Mr Person]

The judges, of course, like to believe they aren't partisan and sometimes, for a number of reasons, rule in ways that suggest they aren't. But this belief is held by the public because they are out of the limelight and thus, present a facade of aloofness, being above it.

If their hearings were televised and people could hear their remarks played over and over again, that facade would probably crack.

What I take the most serious aim at is the idea that because someone is a "conservative" judge or appointed by the GOP, they're going to go "I want the political result to be X." Then they start their outline of a decision and fill the conclusion in first: "therefore, this law is upheld/struck/etc". Then they work there way back"

No. I haven't seen it. I don't recall ever hearing of any people who previously clerked talking about how justices are doing such a thing. It would basically have to be this super double secret plot.

(And hey, maybe psychology plays a role. I wouldn't want to believe that I've lied to myself for the last X years about what I do, would I?)



I will say this. Roe looks less sensible the less capable one is of abstract thought. "There's no right to privacy!" etc. But if you understand what so much of the Bill of Rights was getting at, in context of the time of its drafting, then you understand the penumbras remark. You understand the room for privacy protecting a decision about doing something to one's body that includes abortion. Apart from some truly disastrous interventions, I think the closest anything in common knowledge was was herbal remedies - poison - that could induce a miscarriage. Or kill a person.

There certainly wasn't any remotely modern understanding of medicine or fetal development, and everything was religion-soaked to the point that a true agnostic would have to pretend to be a God fearin' man who maybe only disagreed with specific organized religions.. etc

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Garland could not be named, according to McConnell, because 10 months from an election was too close. That is a break from democratic tradition. Kennedy was nominated to the court within a year of an election, so it was just McConnell gaming the system.

Then Barrett was named after voting in an election had already begun, not only violating democratic tradition again, but violating McConnell his own rule that he had made up before.

Thus, both were incorrect.

Oh stop being a sore loser.
We all know that if the democrats had an open court seat and the votes to fill in and it was literally a day before the election they’d fill it in 24 hours if they had to.

 

[KingLeo]

Hilarious that the partisan hack, asked to speak at an event sponsored by another partisan hack (McConnell), was taken back that her and her right wing collegues recent partisan decisions are being questioned.

 

[dcsports]

The ironic thing is that you did the same thing right-lean people who always scream about "judicial activism" do when I chastise fellows on the left for their own version: you picked the one post that sounded kinda like I was on your "side" and made a show of agreeing with it.

What about this post, said in reply to a left-lean person who mistakenly thought I was saying left-lean judges rewrite the constitution:

I think you may have misread my post. I am not saying that left-lean judges re-write the constitution.​

​

I am saying that I have seen countless right-lean people claim exactly that when a decision comes down that left-lean people like. Similarly, I have seen countless left-lean people claim that judges are partisan hacks just seeking to kiss the GOP's ass when a decision comes down that right-lean people like.​

​

What I have never seen is someone actually sitting down to do the long and hard work of determining whether a given justice inexplicably changed course in a claimed judicial philosophy after taking the bench in ways that cannot be explained without the partisan motive people are constantly alleging. This would take a whole lot of research and thinking. It's much easier to sling partisan mud.​

​

If the court looks partisan - whether we're talking about a liberal saying "that conservative judge is just a hack" or a conservative saying "that liberal judge just rewrites the constitution at whim" - it's generally because appointment decisions themselves are increasingly partisan. The closest to actual partisanship I've seen is Kavanaugh's behavior at his confirmation hearing, but even that doesn't really look like partisanship to me. That looked like someone with a temperament rendering them unfit for the highest court no matter how much I agreed or disagreed with prior decisions.​

​

(And ironically enough, when I say this kind of thing to a fellow on the left, the kind of right-lean people who sling the whole "liberal activist judge" line around end up liking or agreeing with my posts.)​

Bet you don't like that one. Bet you think conservative justices who give you case outcomes you like have the One True Interpretation of the constitution. Bet you think you're right to dishonestly run your mouth about "activist judges".

It's a truly sad both-sides issue. So many of you are quick to assume partisan motive in opposite-lean judges, while also being offended by oppoiste-lean posters assuming the same about your-lean judges.





Meanwhile, that post is too damn stupid to be hypocrisy. It doesn't get past stupid.

You are a bit all over the place with that. Perhaps some reflection?

There are some that look for a judgement that fits 'their side'. However, for the most part, the "conservative" judges appointed to the bench tend to follow the constitution / law. They tend toward correct judgements - even if that, at times, isn't the 'side' I would want. The left leaning judges (again, Kagan and Sotomayor are at the front) tend to try to craft rulings that follow a more partisan ideology.

 

[dcsports]

Nothing inherently wrong with judicial activism in pursuit of justice. People claim the landmark decision, Brown v Board, was judicial activism. And defend The Dred Scott decision by saying it was constitutional.

As the great Learned Hand said, don't rely on constitution to defend your liberty if it doesn't live in your hearts. And McConnell gaming the constitution to create a permanent consensus (which is the antithesis of democracy) shows that liberty is clearly noting his heart.

He has probably made impossible for any president whose party doesn't control the senate to ever appoint a SCOTUS justice ever again. That is a serious attack on democracy.

Judicial activism IS inherently wrong. It's not the role of the courts to craft law.

 

[Hamish Howl]

"Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court during a speech Sunday and expressed concerns about the public's perception of the court.

"My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,"

I'm not sold.

 

[Bonnot]

Sure you aren't Amy.

 

[Metric Mouse]

This reminds me of when Ruth Bader Ginsburg praised Kavanaugh as a "very decent, very smart individual." and how everyone told her to shut up for being too partisan.

 

[Court Jester]

This is hilarious or incredibly stupid or both. If what she said is true, Garland, not Gorsuch, would be on the Supreme Court and Biden would have selected the latest judge. These people live in a fantasy world.

She was defending the justices, she made no comment about the politics in the selection process. But she pretty much said EXACTLY what liberal democrat nominated Justice Steven Bryer said just the other day.

 

[SheWolf]

I suppose, if she is truly worried about a false appearance of partisanship, she could resign her seat now, giving Biden a nomination and road to its success. She won't. Very very few people would.

That said...I truly wish people were a lot more careful about throwing these accusations around. I see a whole bunch of other left-lean people in this thread with whom I've joined in decrying DP right-lean posters who attack decisions they don't like as being those of liberal activist judges who rewrite the constitution. It kinda pains me to see a quick leap to "Barreett said they're not partisan hacks? She's a partisan hack!"

The manner of her apppointment was some of the greatest partisan douchebaggery. But that was the GOP's doing.

I wonder how much money she was paid to give this speech at the McConnell center. The entire system seems wrong. I think if her concerns were sincere, she would have raised those concerns during her hearings. Nothing about it was normal, she didn’t take notes, and it gave the appearance of a person confident she would get through. It was a very easy and laid back process for her. Now she just looks like Susan Collins saying, “I am very concerned.”

 

[SheWolf]

"Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties." - Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Aren't they though?

Judicial "philosophies" is essentially is how one's ideals figure into application of the law. Put another way, it's your interpretation of what a law means and how it should be applied versus what the law is or what it was meant to do or how it was meant to be enforced. Too often, we have justices legislating from the bench providing their interpretation of how the law should be applied and then making a ruling fit their "judicial philosophy". Politics works in the same way. You through your values upon an ideology and you have your "political views", where upon you as the politician or political pundit inflict your ideals upon others sometimes forcing them upon the people simply because one political party has a legislative majority.

Judicial philosophy and political party (ideology) are relatively the same.

I know. I find her statements to be offensive, insincere, and virtue signaling. How much money was she paid to give this speech in a center named after McConnell?

 

[TurtleDude]

"Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court during a speech Sunday and expressed concerns about the public's perception of the court.

"My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett said, according to USA Today. "Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties."

Barrett was speaking at an event for the 30th anniversary of the University of Kentucky's McConnell Center, which was founded by Sen. Mitch McConnell, who introduced Barrett at the event."

Link

This is hilarious or incredibly stupid or both. If what she said is true, Garland, not Gorsuch, would be on the Supreme Court and Biden would have selected the latest judge. These people live in a fantasy world.

uh that is a really stupid analysis-how they got there has nothing to do with how they rule. If your correlation was true, Souter and Stevens would have voted for Bush in Bush v Gore.