Amy Coney Barrett

[Anastasis 23397]

Just now, tantric superman said:

I quoted the text of her position above.  If you can tell me how I am misstating it, be my guest. 

I am not versed in the dark arts of your profession. Just reacting to what I witnessed today. If you think that her testimony was erroneous or misleading would love to see you expound on that. 

[Anastasis 23397]

Just now, tantric superman said:

Might be easier for you, Anastasis, to explain to us how a black man's work experience isn't altered when a supervisors calls him a nigger for filing an EEOC complaint. 

Maybe actually ground your criticism in her testimony instead of deflecting to ad hominem directed at me. 

[immamac 42527]

why are senators so stupid. They should ask ACB if she would have a problem postponing the hearings and the vote even though they will respect her nomination until after the election so the senate judiciary committee that is voted in can confirm her. That is a fair as fuck compromise and one that I don't think a reasonable person sitting up for a lifetime appointment would disagree with. 

They would nail her to the cross dead to rights that she is a Trump lackey if she didn't and then just impeach her as soon as you get control.

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I am not versed in the dark arts of your profession. Just reacting to what I witnessed today. If you think that her testimony was erroneous or misleading would love to see you expound on that. 

She's being criticized for not giving any weight to a supervisor's calling an employee a nigger. She' could have said that niggers should know their place and she'd still be confirmed.

I'm not, and haven't, argued that her testimony was erroneous or misleading.

[Anastasis 23397]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

why are senators so stupid.

Because they are politicians. 

[Anastasis 23397]

Just now, tantric superman said:

She's being criticized for not giving any weight to a supervisor's calling an employee a nigger. She' could have said that niggers should know their place and she'd still be confirmed.

I'm not, and haven't, argued that her testimony was erroneous or misleading.

Maybe you should actually watch the testimony. 

[tantric superman 4667]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe actually ground your criticism in her testimony instead of deflecting to ad hominem directed at me. 

Don't be a bitch now. 

My beef is with her logic.

So answer the question:  How would being called a nigger by a supervisor after the supervisor learned he filed an EEOC case NOT alter his work experience.

I don't think you can.   Her opinion ignores what any reasonable person would feel upon being called this racial slur. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe you should actually watch the testimony. 

You're not going to answer my question, which is about the case.  Fuck man, that is weak. 

When you quote how I criticized the honesty of her testimony, I will gladly respond. 

[Anastasis 23397]

25 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

My beef is with her logic.

Please critique her legal logic as it applies specifically to the specifics of the case and her testimony. Would be best if maybe you reference her testimony. Jesus this really shouldn't be this hard. I would like to learn from you, but you make it very hard. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Anastasis

[immamac 42527]

This thread is fucking stupid. She could say that she fucked her way to the top and believes that aliens exist and tell her how to rule on her cases and she'd still be confirmed. 

Nothing matters this is all a farce. One that will be fixed when the opposing team gets an at bat.

[Brisketexan 104638]

Maybe you should actually watch the testimony. 

She testified when she wrote her opinion as a judge. IDGAF what she says about it now at a job interview. That’s how being a judge works. She wrote it. It’s now literally part of the common law. Deal with it.

[Anastasis 23397]

 

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

She could say that she fucked her way to the top

Wrong type of misogyny, imo. 

[Anastasis 23397]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

She testified when she wrote her opinion as a judge. IDGAF what she says about it now at a job interview. That’s how being a judge work. She wrote it. It’s now literally part of the common law. Deal with it.

Would honestly be interested in the non-ledge-based perspective of the legal merits for and against her legal positions as it relates to the specific cases discussed during the testimony today. 

[tantric superman 4667]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Please critique her legal logic as it applies specifically to the specifics of the case and her testimony. Would be best if maybe you reference her testimony. Jesus this really shouldn't be this hard. I would like to learn from you, but you make it very hard. 

I quoted the case.   And about 10 posts up from mine the article quotes the decision as well.  Emphasis is mine.  I'm asking you quote simply if you believe as she apparently does that being called the n-word requires proof that there has been a change in the subjective experience of a black man at work?   Further, in what world is evidence of being called a nigger NOT evidence that the prior conduct was because of race?

We need not address the objective prong of the analysis, because Smith falters on the subjective prong. He introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his sub-jective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological dis-tress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record. He clashed with his supervisors over pay, and they confronted him with foul language. As early as August—the first month of his employment—he sent memoranda to the Department complaining of a “hostile work environ-ment.” On Smith’s own account, his supervisors made him miserable throughout his employment at the Department. But as we have already discussed, he has no evidence that his su-pervisors were lashing out at him because he was black.

 

[Anastasis 23397]

Just now, tantric superman said:

I quoted the case.   And about 10 posts up from mine the article quotes the decision as well.  Emphasis is mine.  I'm asking you quote simply if you believe as she apparently does that being called the n-word requires proof that there has been a change in the subjective experience of a black man at work?   Further, in what world is evidence of being called a nigger NOT evidence that the prior conduct was because of race?

We need not address the objective prong of the analysis, because Smith falters on the subjective prong. He introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his sub-jective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological dis-tress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record. He clashed with his supervisors over pay, and they confronted him with foul language. As early as August—the first month of his employment—he sent memoranda to the Department complaining of a “hostile work environ-ment.” On Smith’s own account, his supervisors made him miserable throughout his employment at the Department. But as we have already discussed, he has no evidence that his su-pervisors were lashing out at him because he was black.

 

It is too bad that none of the specifics of this case were  discussed today, which could be maybe relevant. 

[Anastasis 23397]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

She testified when she wrote her opinion as a judge. IDGAF what she says about it now at a job interview. That’s how being a judge works. She wrote it. It’s now literally part of the common law. Deal with it.

Y'alls law thing is an interesting animal indeed. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Also from the case, Anastasis:

he first incident in which race played a part was his Jan-uary 16th run-in with Colbert. By then, things were already at a breaking point. The Department had initiated termination proceedings against Smith two weeks before, so he knew that he was about to be fired. And while things certainly could have gotten worse for Smith after the racially charged con-frontation with Colbert, he offers no evidence that they did. Instead, Smith presents the confrontation as yet another in-stance of the same ill treatment that he had been receiving all along.

That last bolded sentence IS evidence that race may have been the reason for the prior ill treatment.

She's working incredibly hard to downplay the racial slur.  And she closes the case stating that no reasonable jury could find a hostile environment when a supervisor calls an employee a nigger.  In fact the facts as she has just laid out, including some of her own statements, reveals just the opposite. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Anastatis, you're working as hard to avoid answering the questions as the good judge did in downplaying a supervisor calling an employee a nigger.

For anyone interested, the testimony about the case starts around 17:00.  (I have no idea if she discussed it with anyone other than Booker.)  Her final statement about "making clear that the slur alone could be the basis of a hostile environment claim" seems belied by the incredible efforts she made to show that in the Smith case the slur plus other conduct would not allow a reasonable jury to find a hostile environment. 

 

[Brisketexan 104638]

Also from the case, Anastasis:
he first incident in which race played a part was his Jan-uary 16th run-in with Colbert. By then, things were already at a breaking point. The Department had initiated termination proceedings against Smith two weeks before, so he knew that he was about to be fired. And while things certainly could have gotten worse for Smith after the racially charged con-frontation with Colbert, he offers no evidence that they did. Instead, Smith presents the confrontation as yet another in-stance of the same ill treatment that he had been receiving all along.
That last bolded sentence IS evidence that race may have been the reason for the prior ill treatment.
She's working incredibly hard to downplay the racial slur.  And she closes the case stating that no reasonable jury could find a hostile environment when a supervisor calls an employee a nigger.  In fact the facts as she has just laid out, including some of her own statements, reveals just the opposite. 

This. She didn’t even let the question go to the jury.

Because there is apparently no way (not unlikely, but NO WAY) a reasonable jury could have found that Colbert’s use of “nigger” at the end of the road was the open culmination of a process of race-based hostility and animus.

It’s horrible reasoning and an embarrassing opinion.

[Anastasis 23397]

She is probably a racist. Too bad we don’t have more  insight on that topic. 

[tantric superman 4667]

 

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It is too bad that none of the specifics of this case were  discussed today, which could be maybe relevant. 

Booker was pretty straightforward.  He told her that Kavanaugh himself thought the word in and of itself established a hostile environment, and her case finds that the word does not.  She discussed that it was a pleading issue, but the case doesn't really say that.  In fact, she herself links the slur to the prior conduct, which is the very essence of a hostile environment claim.  Throughout the case decision, she references how he subjectively felt ill treated, and yet she claims he didn't mean the subjective element of the test.    Very forced. 

[Satchel 6908]

58 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Might be easier for you, Anastasis, to explain to us how a black man's work experience isn't altered when a supervisors calls him a nigger for filing an EEOC complaint. 

Justice Kavanaugh might be able to help:

 

“Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then serving as a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C, said one utterance was enough. “But, in my view, being called the n-word by a supervisor ... suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment. That epithet has been labeled, variously, a term that ‘sums up . . . all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America,’ ‘pure anathema to African-Americans,’ and ’probably the most offensive word in English,” Kavanaugh wrote. “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment actionable” under federal anti-discrimination laws.”

https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-discrimination-amy-coney-barrett-4380ef16b3da79836151bcaaa7eda224

 

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

She is probably a racist. Too bad we don’t have more  insight on that topic. 

I'd say a person who, like Scalia, is more proud of her intellectual gamesmanship than she is in finding a just or reasonable result, if that is the only case we are relying upon.

[Brisketexan 104638]

I'd say a person who, like Scalia, is more proud of her intellectual gamesmanship than she is in finding a just or reasonable result, if that is the only case we are relying upon.

This. She doesn’t believe that type of claim should be allowed (she’s not a fan of the statute that allows it), so she doesn’t invalidate the statute (she can’t do that)...she just effectively writes out any possibility of bringing a claim under it (because nobody ever says “I’m going to run you out of this job because you’re a nigger.”)

 

Conservatives call that sort of usurpation of legislative choices “judicial activism.”

[wildcat09 29265]

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'd say a person who, like Scalia, is more proud of her intellectual gamesmanship than she is in finding a just or reasonable result, if that is the only case we are relying upon.

Y’all realize this is why he’s Stanning for her, right?

[Anastasis 23397]

Sorry for partying.  Thought that intellectualism was maybe something we could appreciate in a scotus nominee. My daughter I hope appreciated it more than the posters here. I hope her brain is never addled by law school though. 

[TwiceHorn 31302]

In slight defense of Barrett, the n-word came from a black supervisor (Colbert) with whom Smith had had numerous run-ins and complaints over his tumultuous six month career at the Department.

He did not cite a single racial slur over that six month period** until he was in the process of being terminated.  At which point, he filed his internal Equal Opportunity complaint and Colbert called him a stupid nagger.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D08-21/C:18-2948:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2386807:S:0

I'm not a big fan of the way TItle VII claims get handled on summary judgment, but this one is a bit harder to argue with than many of them.

Had there been more competent evidence of racial animus in his run-ins with his supervisors prior to termination, this would have had a different outcome, possibly.

**He had an affidavit that said he got called nagger a lot, but it was stricken for lacking detail sufficient to evaluate it.  HIs lawyer seems to have been a dumbfuck.

Also worth noting that the trial judge, whom Barrett affirmed, is an Asian Obama appointee.

Edited October 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Ted Lange 16054]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

This thread is fucking stupid. She could say that she fucked her way to the top and believes that aliens exist and tell her how to rule on her cases and she'd still be confirmed. 

Nothing matters this is all a farce. One that will be fixed when the opposing team gets an at bat.

1000%. But the just asking questions @Anastasis wants to pretend this hearing is in good faith.  It’s a fucking farce.   
 

If the Ds can win the Senate and Presidency then they should do everything in their power to “pack the court”.  It’s the new can of worms the GOP have opened.  Game on bitches. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Ted Lange

[Brisketexan 104638]

Sorry for partying.  Thought that intellectualism was maybe something we could appreciate in a scotus nominee. My daughter I hope appreciated it more than the posters here. I hope her brain is never addled by law school though. 

Intellectualism is fine.

Intellectualism that’s too cute by half in order to reach a desired conclusion that just so happens to rescue and bolster a conservative worldview that a specific statute sent to the trash is just well-dressed judicial activism.

A certain 5th circuit justice bumped into me at a kids birthday party several years ago. The day before, a rather important decision had been published, he dissented. He came up to me, excited and proud - “did you see my dissent in XYZ?” (It really was that shameless - he was as excited as a little kid). I hadn’t, but promised I’d read it.

It was brilliantly written. Truly, a great piece of legal writing. Intellectually impressive, to be sure.

But it was hot garbage. The conclusion was garbage because his starting premises were detached from reality.

You can perform the most brilliant, elegant math in the world. But if you start out using the wrong numbers, then it doesn’t matter how pretty your work is - the result is garbage. A well-written, brilliantly explained wrong decision is still just a wrong decision. Like a beautifully hit ball caught at the warning track is just another out.

I don’t want or need intellectuals on my courts. I want and need good judges. If being an intellectual helps them get there, great. If not, IDGAF.

Our system of laws governs human beings. Thinking like one is pretty fucking helpful, and from self-styled intellectuals more focused on how they’re writing and reasoning than on what they are actually DOING, we don’t get much of that.

[Anastasis 23397]

8 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

1000%. But the just asking questions @Anastasis wants to pretend this hearing is in good faith.  It’s a fucking farce.   
 

If the Ds can win the Senate and Presidency then they should do everything in their power to “pack the court”.  It’s the new can of worms the GOP have opened.  Game on bitches. 

Death spiral on imo. But that’s not new ground. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Anastasis

[Ted Lange 16054]

So should the Ds not do everything in their power to pack to court, after what the GOP has done over the last 5 years?  
 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Ted Lange

[TwiceHorn 31302]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In slight defense of Barrett, the n-word came from a black supervisor (Colbert) with whom Smith had had numerous run-ins and complaints over his tumultuous six month career at the Department.

He did not cite a single racial slur over that six month period** until he was in the process of being terminated.  At which point, he filed his internal Equal Opportunity complaint and Colbert called him a stupid nagger.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D08-21/C:18-2948:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2386807:S:0

I'm not a big fan of the way TItle VII claims get handled on summary judgment, but this one is a bit harder to argue with than many of them.

Had there been more competent evidence of racial animus in his run-ins with his supervisors prior to termination, this would have had a different outcome, possibly.

**He had an affidavit that said he got called nagger a lot, but it was stricken for lacking detail sufficient to evaluate it.  HIs lawyer seems to have been a dumbfuck.

Also worth noting that the trial judge, whom Barrett affirmed, is an Asian Obama appointee.

Tl;dr

This case isn't really quoted or characterized accurately.  She didn't say use of the n-word never creates a hostile environment.  She mostly said, it doesn't when the only instance you cite is after you got fired.

[Anastasis 23397]

1 minute ago, Ted Lange said:

So should the Ds not do everything in their power to pack to court, after what the GOP has done over the last 5 years?  
 

 

Go for it. 

[Anastasis 23397]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Tl;dr

This case isn't really quoted or characterized accurately.  She didn't say use of the n-word never creates a hostile environment.  She mostly said, it doesn't when the only instance you cite is after you got fired.

But what about my birthday party exchanges with 5th circuit justices. 

[Ted Lange 16054]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Go for it. 

That’s where I’m at.  If Ds take the presidency and senate whatever rules they can use to pack the court, the GOP has made it clear, those are the new rules. 11 SCOTUSes, 12, 15.  All good by me and the large % of Americans about to vote these clowns out. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Ted Lange

[wildcat09 29265]

ACB thinks King v. Burwell was wrongly decided. Nobody really needs more than that to know that she’s intellectually dishonest and driven by purely partisan goals. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In slight defense of Barrett, the n-word came from a black supervisor (Colbert) with whom Smith had had numerous run-ins and complaints over his tumultuous six month career at the Department.

He did not cite a single racial slur over that six month period** until he was in the process of being terminated.  At which point, he filed his internal Equal Opportunity complaint and Colbert called him a stupid nagger.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D08-21/C:18-2948:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2386807:S:0

I'm not a big fan of the way TItle VII claims get handled on summary judgment, but this one is a bit harder to argue with than many of them.

**He had an affidavit that said he got called nagger a lot, but it was stricken for lacking detail sufficient to evaluate it.  HIs lawyer seems to have been a dumbfuck.

Correct. A couple of things: His use of the word is indicative of a deeper bias using a reasonable person standard. It's a question of fact. Racists generally talk racism only to close friends, yet this is his supervisor. She opposed en banc review and used this opinion to justify her decision. 

Given the current balance of power, the Citizens United coalition in the Court is firmly in control. And will be stronger with ACB. 

Sen. Whitehouse explains the judicial undercurrents with the Roberts 5+ACB.

I am not sure this Court will agree with legislation that does not serve moneyed and property interests in some fashion. Citizens United is still strong as ever - neither party gives a damn. The Court was the last line in the sand. 

She should do the honorable thing and ask for the hearings to be postponed (as said above) until after the new President and Congress are seated. The People are speaking right now and voting. She won't. 

 

[Captainant 27471]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

ACB thinks King v. Burwell was wrongly decided. Nobody really needs more than that to know that she’s intellectually dishonest and driven by purely partisan goals. 

 

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y’all realize this is why he’s Stanning for her, right?

 

[Ted Lange 16054]

It doesn’t matter what ACB thinks.  ZERO.  she is getting confirmed by these ghouls who know they are on their way out. 
 

what matters is how to rebalance the the courts.  GOP has made it clear that decorum and rules don’t matter.   Winner takes all.   

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But what about my birthday party exchanges with 5th circuit justices. 

He was describing an outlier. 

[Brisketexan 104638]

But what about my birthday party exchanges with 5th circuit justices. 

So, you think that a superior dropping the n-bomb at you at the end of a pattern of hostile treatment couldn’t POSSIBLY be evidence that there was racial animus behind the pattern of treatment? Because that’s how she held. NO reasonable jury could POSSIBLY reach that conclusion. You agree with that?

Cool. Makes your admiration for “intellectualism” that much more laughable.

Anastasia - “Would you look at how well he hits those deep fly balls, every one of which is caught for an out? Best hitter in the game!”

[Anastasis 23397]

I’ll  concede that acb is probably a white supremacist and that influenced her decision.  Seems logical. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I’ll  concede that acb is probably a white supremacist and that influenced her decision.  Seems logical. 

Boo. 

[Captainant 27471]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I’ll  concede that acb is probably a white supremacist and that influenced her decision.  Seems logical. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

We need a House of Commons. 

[Anastasis 23397]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Boo. 

White supremacy adjacent?

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

White supremacy adjacent?

 

[Ted Lange 16054]

I know @Anastasis mocks @Brisketexan nothing maters mantra.  But when it comes to this nomination it is absolutely true.   ABC could stand up and yell F NI@@ers and the senate GOP would absolutely confirm her.  This is a sham, but affirmation that the GOP senators internal polls are matching up with the external polls. They know the gig is up.   
 

Now I hope the the Democrats are just as ruthless and are willing to do whatever to makeup for this fucking farce.  

[Anastasis 23397]

7 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

ABC could stand up and yell F NI@@ers and the senate GOP would absolutely confirm her.

Strawman. Something something something. 

[Ted Lange 16054]

Well, I’m not staying that is argument, I’m saying that it is a fact.   Strawman argument fail.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Ted Lange