Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[GRHorn 105]

Topical 

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Another compelling piece from the National Catholic Registry: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/raising-questions-about-amy-barretts-beliefs-not-anti-popery-riot

 

[Gap03 3,286]

This guy is always worth a listen, if for no other reason than him coining phrases such as "greasy Kentucky fuck turtle" and "pant-shitting combination of The Handmaid's Tale and the Book of Fucking Revelations"  ...

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

It is time to expand the Court and the number of Senate and House seats anyway. The Court has been larger (10) and smaller. Congress decides how many are on the Court. 

 

[Anastasis 23,395]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Ana - see above.

And remember, she was never a judge before Trump appointed her to the 7th Cir.

That's a hit piece Wash, not in any way a fair representation.  I am honestly surprised you are falling down this hole. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's a hit piece Wash, not in any way a fair representation.  I am honestly surprised you are falling down this hole. 

National Catholic Reporter does "hit pieces" on Catholics. Seems relevant. 

[jimmyjazz 45,559]

Is there a good reason for this not to go something like 97-3?  I don't see why Dems would create controversy when the cake is baked.  #clayton #lieback

[wildcat09 29,256]

Without delving too deeply into the (horrible) legal analysis in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, my concern about adding any overly-religious person to the Court is that they will further widen the gaping hole that Hobby Lobby tore in our laws in order to relieve Christian employers of any obligation to, or liability arising from, any generally applicable laws. It is already a startlingly broad ruling with no limiting principles. For example, it can easily be used to argue that a Christian employer (which could be a massive publicly traded corporation just bullshitting about it being a religious corporation) should be exempted from requirements to pay their employees because their employees might take some of their wages and spend it on contraceptives, and that would violate the employer's religion. It sounds ludicrous but this is almost exactly what happened in that case and the Court failed to lay out any limitations. A perhaps more realistic concern along the same lines would revolve around a company getting caught stealing wages (which happens literally every day all over the country) and making a similar argument to avoid any civil liability.

Employers already enjoy an enormous amount of control over the lives of their employees and employees already have too few legal protections. The Court expanding Hobby Lobby to allow employers to opt-out of compliance with more and more laws intended to protect employees is a very real danger. And we will certainly see more and more claims brought under RFRA in other contexts, in an attempt to re-establish a substantial amount of the Lochner era's substantive due process doctrine under the guise of religious freedom.

These are concerns that would generally apply for anyone that any Republican would appoint, but there are differences between individual judges in how far they want to stretch this get out of jail free card. Based on what little I know about her, Amy Coney Barrett seems like she'd probably stretch it further than most.

[formermav43 4,599]

23 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The National Catholic Registry explains the dogma well: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/prospective-supreme-court-nominee-puts-spotlight-people-praise

 

 

Their lives are not their own? That's right out of 1 Corinthians 6. If that is your underlying concern, your beef is with all Christians. And I don't see how questioning her spiritual advisor is any different than questioning someone's priest/pastor/preacher whatever on what counsel they might give. 

[Anastasis 23,395]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

National Catholic Reporter does "hit pieces" on Catholics. Seems relevant. 

I don't know a lot about NCR, but spent three seconds researching it and found it described as pro-choice progressive outlet. I figure that you did a similar search unless your vetting process didn't go any deeper than the banner at the top of the page. You know that that piece is and the motivation behind it.  

[DDD Dad 14,251]

4 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

fuck Ted Cruz

 

 

 

Tantrum!

[DDD Dad 14,251]

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

"Controlling spiritual advisor".  Come on wash.  This is anti-catholic trope adjacent nonsense. 

It's not like he accused her of being a Soros operative.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

5 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Their lives are not their own? That's right out of 1 Corinthians 6. If that is your underlying concern, your beef is with all Christians. And I don't see how questioning her spiritual advisor is any different than questioning someone's priest/pastor/preacher whatever on what counsel they might give. 

Sure - if Jerry Falwell, Jr. controls your decisions, he is fair game in your nomination.

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't know a lot about NCR, but spent three seconds researching it and found it described as pro-choice progressive outlet. I figure that you did a similar search unless your vetting process didn't go any deeper than the banner at the top of the page. You know that that piece is and the motivation behind it.  

Those articles were written as she was nominated by Trump for the 7th Cir. job with no prior judicial experience. 

If I worshipped under the Cult of Ayn Rand and was nominated for a Supreme Court seat, are my worshipping practices immune from inquiry?

And NCR is not Fox or MSNBC. You know that. They dive deep into issues that affect Catholics. If they have some aversion to a Catholic/Pentecostal hybrid sect, they are worth a listen.

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Without delving too deeply into the (horrible) legal analysis in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, my concern about adding any overly-religious person to the Court is that they will further widen the gaping hole that Hobby Lobby tore in our laws in order to relieve Christian employers of any obligation to, or liability arising from, any generally applicable laws. It is already a startlingly broad ruling with no limiting principles. For example, it can easily be used to argue that a Christian employer (which could be a massive publicly traded corporation just bullshitting about it being a religious corporation) should be exempted from requirements to pay their employees because their employees might take some of their wages and spend it on contraceptives, and that would violate the employer's religion. It sounds ludicrous but this is almost exactly what happened in that case and the Court failed to lay out any limitations. A perhaps more realistic concern along the same lines would revolve around a company getting caught stealing wages (which happens literally every day all over the country) and making a similar argument to avoid any civil liability.

Employers already enjoy an enormous amount of control over the lives of their employees and employees already have too few legal protections. The Court expanding Hobby Lobby to allow employers to opt-out of compliance with more and more laws intended to protect employees is a very real danger. And we will certainly see more and more claims brought under RFRA in other contexts, in an attempt to re-establish a substantial amount of the Lochner era's substantive due process doctrine under the guise of religious freedom.

These are concerns that would generally apply for anyone that any Republican would appoint, but there are differences between individual judges in how far they want to stretch this get out of jail free card. Based on what little I know about her, Amy Coney Barrett seems like she'd probably stretch it further than most.

I loathe both Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, especially to the extent that they extend First Amendment (any Bill of Rights right) to corporations.  Corporations are not and never have been natural persons.  On occasion, they are treated as natural persons, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

I don't see either of those two cases as being philosophically conservative.  Politically conservative, sure.  Gross either way.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29,256]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I loathe both Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, especially to the extent that they extend First Amendment (any Bill of Rights right) to corporations.

I don't see either of those two cases as being philosophically conservative.  Politically conservative, sure.  Gross either way.

Hobby Lobby is probably the case I hate the most from any of the Court's modern jurisprudence. Right up there with Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and Shelby County in terms of bad law that is clearly politically motivated and has an enormous impact on the country, but what really sets it apart is just how fucking dumb and poorly reasoned it is. That's because Alito is legitimately stupid and couldn't be a more effective hack.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,283]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Hobby Lobby is probably the case I hate the most from any of the Court's modern jurisprudence. Right up there with Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and Shelby County in terms of bad law that is clearly politically motivated and has an enormous impact on the country, but what really sets it apart is just how fucking dumb and poorly reasoned it is. That's because Alito is legitimately stupid and couldn't be a more effective hack.

I fucking hate Leegin. It's one of the most consequential decisions in decades for most Americans and completely upended the relationship between retail and manufacturers at what turned out to be a crucial time. 

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I fucking hate Leegin. It's one of the most consequential decisions in decades for most Americans and completely upended the relationship between retail and manufacturers at what turned out to be a crucial time. 

Well, if we're going to geek out, I also hate Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.

[troph 24,562]

Hobby Lobby is shockingly bad law and overturned tons of precedent frankly. Citizens United is just bizarre too. Corporations don’t have first amendment rights that’s just insane.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

ginsburg was approved 96-3 in the senate. sure, it was a democratic majority, but that was a different time. 

A completely different time.  Hell, it wasn't until late in W's second term that you really saw the ugliness start.  

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

On 9/20/2020 at 1:27 PM, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I donated to the Get Mitch fund and also to my U.S Congress race.

What's the best way to donate to Biden/Harris? Through Act Blue? Or is that even worth doing? Should I take that money (not a huge amount) and instead give again to one or more Senate races?

LOL I got negged by Slorch for this post

[washparkhorn 9,935]

13 minutes ago, troph said:

Citizens United is just bizarre too. Corporations don’t have first amendment rights that’s just insane.

Thank Justice Lewis Powell for his memo and loyalty to corporations/trusts. He came up with the idea that corporations had protected First Amendment rights in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). What a fucking asshole. 

[DDD Dad 14,251]

21 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

A completely different time.  Hell, it wasn't until late in W's second term that you really saw the ugliness start.  

There might have been some ugliness a few years prior (Bork, Thomas).

[JBJ 3,649]

"Congress shall make no law..." the 5 freedoms in first amendment are universal.  Period.  The 3rd and 4th freedoms don't even make sense unless applied to corporations.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by JBJ

[GopherRock 1,765]

If you want to kill corporate personhood, you have to go all the way back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

6 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

If you want to kill corporate personhood, you have to go all the way back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific.

The funny thing about that decision was that the Court did not make that ruling.

A court reporter - tied to a railroad - drafted a headnote stating corporations had equal protection rights and, somehow, that became precedent.

Utter bullshit.

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

To be fair, Citizens United is a really complex decision applied to fairly narrow facts.  It can certainly be read to reinforce First Amendment rights of corporations in the election context.  But I am not sure it wholly precludes campaign restrictions on corporations.

It's just historically been a bitch to pass election/campaign reform measures, and that is certainly a roadblock to future legislation.

[wildcat09 29,256]

This might come as quite a shock to a few of you, but It’s actually completely possible and reasonable to decide that corporations have legal personhood for certain limited purposes and not for others.

[Celery Man 20,886]

Can the dems just not show up? I don't mean to block it, but to avoid pretending like there is any legitimacy to this.

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This might come as quite a shock to a few of you, but It’s actually completely possible and reasonable to decide that corporations have legal personhood for certain limited purposes and not for others.

Yep, the original concern with corporations, often referred to and still in France as "anonymous societies" was that they were not persons and thus not subject to the laws governing persons.

They have subsequently and selectively been subjected to the laws governing persons.  But they should probably not be given individual human rights.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Can the dems just not show up? I don't mean to block it, but to avoid pretending like there is any legitimacy to this.

It wouldn't be stupid, but this seemed applicable.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texas St. Armadillos 1,381]

Trump should just go ultimate heal and nominate 39-year-old Patrick Wyrick from Oklahoma.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Can the dems just not show up? I don't mean to block it, but to avoid pretending like there is any legitimacy to this.

That's what I suggested a bit upthread. I assume we'd just have a final vote of 53 yea, 47 abstain. It's what they should do, but they won't.

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

1 minute ago, Texas St. Armadillos said:

Trump should just go ultimate heal and nominate 39-year-old Patrick Wyrick from Oklahoma.

Edith Jones or  Priscilla Owen from the FIfth Circuit.

The most toxic Supreme Court nominee evar.

[UpperWestside 6,136]

42 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

LOL I got negged by Slorch for this post

Badge of honor I would think. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

I'm thinking that William Stickman should be nominated after his judgement recently.

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

A completely different time.  Hell, it wasn't until late in W's second term that you really saw the ugliness start.  

 

51 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

There might have been some ugliness a few years prior (Bork, Thomas).

So weird. It sounds like it was all one sided ugliness until McConnell ignores Garland’s nomination. Then it’s the end of the world? 
 

 

[Foosters 17,733]

nvrmnd

Edited September 23, 2020 by Foosters

[wildcat09 29,256]

“How dare the Dems not summarily approve the racist and sex pests we’ve nominated! We didn’t ever accuse RBG of rape even though we could’ve made some shit up!”

[David Dennison 18,658]

34 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Can the dems just not show up? I don't mean to block it, but to avoid pretending like there is any legitimacy to this.

Sure. 

[TwiceHorn 31,280]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

So weird. It sounds like it was all one sided ugliness until McConnell ignores Garland’s nomination. Then it’s the end of the world? 
 

 

There was bipartisan ugliness, mostly with hearings, though, rather than stonewalling nominations.

I think, though, Schumer raised the stakes a bit in the later Shrub administration both with his "we shouldn't confirm any more Shrub nominees" rhetoric and with actual stalling of hearings.  It's been downhill from there.

As far as I can tell, until McConnell, the Republican imbalance in appointing Justices has simply been luck of the draw.  Maybe with a bit of "tactical retirement" thrown in.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18,658]

58 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

There might have been some ugliness a few years prior (Bork, Thomas).

Both of them got a vote.

What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented.

[DDD Dad 14,251]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

So weird. It sounds like it was all one sided ugliness until McConnell ignores Garland’s nomination. Then it’s the end of the world? 
 

 

Abe Fortas says hi.

[DDD Dad 14,251]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Both of them got a vote.

What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented.

Not really.  It was a shitty and hypocritical move, but senate filibuster has prevented a vote (caused a nomination to be withdrawn) before.

[David Dennison 18,658]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not really.  It was a shitty and hypocritical move, but senate filibuster has prevented a vote (caused a nomination to be withdrawn) before.

The filibuster was not an issue in Merrick Garland's nomination.

[DDD Dad 14,251]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The filibuster was not an issue in Merrick Garland's nomination.

Let's not split hairs.  Politics has played a role in Supreme Court nominations a number of times in modern history.  The level of partisanship and hypocrisy has escalated, no doubt.  I imagine many on the right side of the aisle feel that Kavanaugh was brutalized, though I thought his rant before the judiciary committee rendered him unqualified for the office, regardless of the veracity of the allegations against him.

Edited September 23, 2020 by DDD Dad

[David Dennison 18,658]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Let's not split hairs.  Politics has played a role in Supreme Court nominations a number of times in modern history.

Who was the last Supreme Court nominee to be denied a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

[DDD Dad 14,251]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Who was the last Supreme Court nominee to be denied a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Jesus you're almost as tiresome as Bad Teammate.  Give it a rest.

[wildcat09 29,256]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Let's not split hairs.  Politics has played a role in Supreme Court nominations a number of times in modern history.  The level of partisanship and hypocrisy has escalated, no doubt.  I imagine many on the right side of the aisle feel that Kavanaugh was brutalized, though I thought his rant before the judiciary committee rendered him unqualified for the office, regardless of the veracity of the allegations against him.

Also and more importantly, Christine Blasey Ford was obviously telling the truth and everyone on earth fucking knew it. That wasn’t some manufactured political hit job.

[Hank Scorpio 17,723]

Lol answer the question bitch

[David Dennison 18,658]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Jesus you're almost as tiresome as Bad Teammate.  Give it a rest.

It's not my fault you make claims that you cannot back up with facts.