Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett

Anastasis

By Anastasis
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ousuxndallas
ousuxndallas

Will the left come up with a liar like Blasey Ford accusing her off rape at an undisclosed location and undisclosed date /time?

Continental Op
Continental Op

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury f

Tom
Tom

Oh go fuck yourself, you intellectual pussy and your both sides bullshit.  Your party coalesced around the idea that a supreme court judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year just a few years a

Posted Images

GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Pancho said:

You can be a woman and still be anti-women. 

giphy.gif

Praise be

47 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

Dude is spiking the ball over support from "nearly half of voters." 

Spiking the ball? Ok. 
 

It is a clear plurality though. 

The fact that over 20% don’t know does go to show you how a large segment of the population doesn’t follow this stuff day to day. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
On 9/29/2020 at 3:11 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I agree with much of what @Anastasis wrote about "abortion as birth control", but let's be honest:  post Roe V Wade, abortion rates drop much more precipitously under Democrat administrations than Republican administrations.  This is the single most important point if one wants to be "pragmatic".

Fear based leadership decreases the sense of hope for the future. So abortion rates go up. So do crime rates. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8807

Posted
Posted

Ok, legal and constitutional scholars, is this a good idea? Given the Barrett and SCOTUS is always saying we shouldn't legislate from the bench, just forget about trying to defeat this nomination. Instead, IF the dems get the White House and both the Senate and House, let's just pass new laws for all the issues that dems are worried are going to be overturned. Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law. And do this with other issues as well. Surely there are constitutional scholars that can help Congress pass laws that will hold up in court. Sure, they'll get challenged, but if the right says the courts shouldn't legislate, then they shouldn't overturn them.

This may be a totally stupid idea, and I'm sure Surly will call me out if it is, but it seems like the best course of action. Flame away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mo Horn said:

Ok, legal and constitutional scholars, is this a good idea? Given the Barrett and SCOTUS is always saying we shouldn't legislate from the bench, just forget about trying to defeat this nomination. Instead, IF the dems get the White House and both the Senate and House, let's just pass new laws for all the issues that dems are worried are going to be overturned. Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law. And do this with other issues as well. Surely there are constitutional scholars that can help Congress pass laws that will hold up in court. Sure, they'll get challenged, but if the right says the courts shouldn't legislate, then they shouldn't overturn them.

This may be a totally stupid idea, and I'm sure Surly will call me out if it is, but it seems like the best course of action. Flame away. 

When you have the 9th circuit, who has seemingly legislated from the bench, maybe Congress isn't the whole problem.  Now with Trump nominees on the benches you may see the same thing going on in other districts.

I always wonder why judges can't remove themselves from political leanings. It seems they'd be worshipping at the alter of the law instead of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted

They need Amy to verify their voter suppression is legal and that DOTARD's taxes can remain hidden since the courts just denied DOTARD.  Those are the two reasons DJT want's her on the bench asap and when he says she needs to be seated he means she needs to be making rulings in his favor.  And she should recuse herself because the optics--the election is going on now and has been going on so their rush isn't to wait until after the election is because they may not win the election and they don't want 5-4, especially since they don't know how Roberts will for certain rule.  No, they want every advantage they can get to stack the courts.  So asking the Dems if they're going to do it disingenuous since they've already stolen an Obama pick to do just that. Preet is a pretty good listen.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

When you have the 9th circuit, who has seemingly legislated from the bench, maybe Congress isn't the whole problem.  Now with Trump nominees on the benches you may see the same thing going on in other districts.

I always wonder why judges can't remove themselves from political leanings. It seems they'd be worshipping at the alter of the law instead of politics.

Because Republicans made the law political, especially in the South where they weren't in favor of equality and still like to rule on women's issues.  As a bonus, COVID is political--who would have guessed?  Mainly, money is political and bribery has always involved judges, law enforcement and politicians.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
We get the government we deserve 
I’m thinking the dems take the senate. If so just reinstate the penalty and it’s a tax again
If not and the republicans successfully get rid of ACA without replacing it 2022 will be an absolute bloodbath for them

Not really, when 60% of the population believes differently than the government that we do not have the government we deserve. When 40% hold 60% of the seats, courts, and executive, then we have minority rule. They keep losing the popular vote but have rigged the election processes to keep power. If we can’t vote them out what are we supposed to do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Because Republicans made the law political, especially in the South where they weren't in favor of equality and still like to rule on women's issues.  As a bonus, COVID is political--who would have guessed?  Mainly, money is political and bribery has always involved judges, law enforcement and politicians.  

Yeah you can't make a blanket stametment that it's just one party.

 

when Biden and Harris make comments like we're not gonna say whether we'd pack the court or not that's about as political as you can  get and sounds a whole lot like you've got to vote for the bill to see what's in it

 

and for the record I do not want a super majority on the Supreme Court I like that it's somewhat divided

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6555

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sachick said:
  • Fuck this fucking hearing and all the fucking republican senators that have given their fucking souls to Trump.

I agree but this hearing isn’t just for Trump.  This is selling their souls to the Religious Right so they keep voting R in order to maintain power in this country.  I guarantee most of these senators don’t actually care about Roe V Wade.  I am sure some do but most don’t.  They just want the votes from the people that do care about Roe V Wade getting overturned.  They care more about dark money being allowed into politics and stuff like that.  No reason to get mad over this hearing.  Like Clayton Williams said, “If it’s inevitable just relax and enjoy it”.  I hope that quote is something that can be said to all the Republicans a few months from now when the Dems take the Presidency, Senate and House and really start to make positive changes for this country.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14138

Posted
Posted



Instead, IF the dems get the White House and both the Senate and House, let's just pass new laws for all the issues that dems are worried are going to be overturned. Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law.  


They've had that chance before and didn't do it. I'm a bit of an anarchist and hope they do this time. Just for the lulz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law.

The court will just recognize a right to life for fetuses and rule that any laws that harm the fetus violate the Constitution. 

That's the problem with the bullshit argument or conservatives and originalists. It pretends their is some magic line between judicial activism and originalism. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29261

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah you can't make a blanket stametment that it's just one party.

 

when Biden and Harris make comments like we're not gonna say whether we'd pack the court or not that's about as political as you can  get and sounds a whole lot like you've got to vote for the bill to see what's in it

 

and for the record I do not want a super majority on the Supreme Court I like that it's somewhat divided

It's amazing how often Republicans say variations of "I voted for this but I don't want this."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's amazing how often Republicans say variations of "I voted for this but I don't want this."

It's amazing how hypocritical democrats can be about their voting habits, and self righteousness.  You never fail to deliver on being a dick, per your avatar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prepuce of Doom

Prepuce of Doom 20988

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ben Sasse huffs goats

[CSB alert] I borrowed a friend's computer once during my sophomore year (back in the days when only some people had computers in their room) and used it to check my email. 

Apparently I left myself logged into the school email system, because my friend changed my display name from "Prepuce O. Doom" to "I blow goats." 

For multiple exchanges with multiple professors thereafter, I was puzzled by the occasional bizarre references to goats that were often included in our electronic correspondence. 

I didn't think to ask for clarification until a couple of years after the fact, so I went through a good two years of undergrad like that. 

[/CSB] 

 

Edited by Prepuce of Doom
Fuck Ben Sasse in the goatass.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104629

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I don't know why any of us care about this process.  She could stand up and say "I will only rule in cases however the Chosen One, decreed to rule lesser men by the Lord God on high, Donald J. Trump, tells me to rule, and also, I will do all I can to ensure that women are not allowed to vote," none of it matters.

This is a sham hearing, being held only to meet the minimum legal requirement.

She's in, we know what we're getting.

Win the election, then pack the court.  That's the game that's been declared.  Play it.  Escalate it to whatever degree necessary, because once the governor is off, its off.  Win.

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't know why any of us care about this process.  She could stand up and say "I will only rule in cases however the Chosen One, decreed to rule lesser men by the Lord God on high, Donald J. Trump, tells me to rule, and also, I will do all I can to ensure that women are not allowed to vote," none of it matters.

This is a sham hearing, being held only to meet the minimum legal requirement.

She's in, we know what we're getting.

Win the election, then pack the court.  That's the game that's been declared.  Play it.  Escalate it to whatever degree necessary, because once the governor is off, its off.  Win.

If she said that, she'd get confirmed even quicker. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3649

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Ok, legal and constitutional scholars, is this a good idea? Given the Barrett and SCOTUS is always saying we shouldn't legislate from the bench, just forget about trying to defeat this nomination. Instead, IF the dems get the White House and both the Senate and House, let's just pass new laws for all the issues that dems are worried are going to be overturned. Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law. And do this with other issues as well. Surely there are constitutional scholars that can help Congress pass laws that will hold up in court. Sure, they'll get challenged, but if the right says the courts shouldn't legislate, then they shouldn't overturn them.

This may be a totally stupid idea, and I'm sure Surly will call me out if it is, but it seems like the best course of action. Flame away. 

Not stupid.  That's the idea behind restraint. 

But originalism and restraint aren't same thing.  They are just both things made popular by the same influential justice.  A lot of judges have been swayed by the Scalia brand of originalism, but are skeptical of hardline judicial restraint - mostly due to Chevron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31288

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Ok, legal and constitutional scholars, is this a good idea? Given the Barrett and SCOTUS is always saying we shouldn't legislate from the bench, just forget about trying to defeat this nomination. Instead, IF the dems get the White House and both the Senate and House, let's just pass new laws for all the issues that dems are worried are going to be overturned. Pass new laws, that are constitutionally based, that honor the rights of women to choose for themselves. Then don't worry about Roe V Wade, because it's no longer the current law. And do this with other issues as well. Surely there are constitutional scholars that can help Congress pass laws that will hold up in court. Sure, they'll get challenged, but if the right says the courts shouldn't legislate, then they shouldn't overturn them.

This may be a totally stupid idea, and I'm sure Surly will call me out if it is, but it seems like the best course of action. Flame away. 

The idea of "legislating from the bench" is bogus, except in one sense.  Rights groups decided some years back to get through the Supreme Court things they couldn't get legislatively, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was bigotry among the legislatures and electorate more broadly.  Another reason is they can get some states to do what they want legislatively, but really want or require a national solution.  

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.  Most fair-minded people believe the Court often acts as a "conscience" or super-ego to the population at large:  granting rights that ought to be granted but aren't majority-popuar.

But by the same token, the Court is the least democratic institution in our government and ought not lightly thwart the will of the legislature as a democratic representative of the people.  Most of the time, that comes in the form of ruling legislation unconstitutional rather than "creating" rights or "legislating" by the Court.  But, as in the previous paragraph, it also happens when the Court grants a right that the legislature has heretofore refused to create.

Anyway, the Court, regardless of partisan political composition, has to navigate this role carefully.

Using Roe as an example.  If it were overturned, then initially the role of regulating abortion would fall on the states.  A federal law could be theoretically passed guaranteeing a right to an abortion within the first trimester, say.  This assumes, and it's a big assumption, that the Congress could get its shit together on that.

That law would be tested in the courts, but rather than being looked at as part of a "right to privacy," which is where Roe was based, it would be on the federal Congress' ability to legislate in that area.  It would be an almost entirely different constitutional analysis than Roe. 

I assume such a law would be based on interstate commerce clause, maybe something else, I'm drawing a blank.  It so happens that conservative jurists tend to be opposed to using the interstate commerce clause to justify federal laws, for reasons entirely unrelated to abortion or rights of privacy or sexual politics of any kind.

So yean, it's possible in most cases to legislatively undo Court rulings.  It requires a functioning legislature, though, and it's not a perfect solution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34172

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, JBJ said:

legislate from the bench

legislating from the bench is how we got private property in our legal tradition.  we've legislated from the bench for damn near 1000 years.  you'd think people would be used to it by now.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...