Amy Coney Barrett

[Thatguy 8507]

5 hours 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. 

[TwiceHorn 31289]

6 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

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. 

 

No one attached much significance to it, but the guy who called him an n-word was black.

I'm not sure that deserves a whole lot of significance, except that we are constantly told that the word only has the toxic meaning ascribed to it by Kavanaugh (and Barrett herself) when it is uttered by a white person at a black person and becomes just another epithet, if that, when used by a black person to another black person.

Which to some extent undermines the bolded.

Also, the plaintiff had a terrible work history, full of job-related failures and discipline, none of which he apparently contested.  Which I think explains why this was a hostile environment case and not an outright discrimination case (adverse employment action/firing).  Strange, pretty weak case to try to make a big point about.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

That's not what the case says.  The case says they had started the process of having him fired.  He was too weeks away from being fired.  The last two pages are essentially saying that if you took abuse for awhile, and then someone uses the N-word, you have to provide proof that use of the N-word "made you feel worse". 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one attached much significance to it, but the guy who called him an n-word was black.

The Judge writing the opinion certainly didn't.  Would have been interesting if she had.

Seems like an issue a jury might have been able to weigh....

[Anastasis 23394]

Here is the actual opinion, unanimous, affirming the lower courts ruling. 

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

Seems to me the problem may be with the law, not the multiple judges' application of the law. Here is school house rock on the subject.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Anastasis

[TwiceHorn 31289]

23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

That's not what the case says.  The case says they had started the process of having him fired.  He was too weeks away from being fired.  The last two pages are essentially saying that if you took abuse for awhile, and then someone uses the N-word, you have to provide proof that use of the N-word "made you feel worse". 

 

True enough on the "wasn't fired yet," part.  Nonetheless, in what appears to be a six-month long "pattern of harassment," he only proved a single use of a racial epithet and nothing else from which we can conclude that the hostile environment was "race based."

And that by a black man after he had formally accused the black man of racism and after he was in the process of termination.

I consider it nothing more than a failure of proof case.

And, as I believe you are an employment lawyer, you have to concede that this is not any sort of abnormal result in Title VII litigation.  And federal trial judges are pretty aggressive with summary judgments generally, and the courts of appeals in affirming them on appeal.

I can almost always conjure what I believe to be a pretty legit fact question that, imo, ought to go to a jury.  However, when I back away from the micro details of the cases, I have to concede that in most of the cases where summary judgment is granted, it is a weak case, regardless of subject matter.

Edited October 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JBJ 3649]

 

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True enough on the "wasn't fired yet," part.  Nonetheless, in what appears to be a six-month long "pattern of harassment," he only proved a single use of a racial epithet and nothing else from which we can conclude that the hostile environment was "race based."

And that by a black man after he had formally accused the black man of racism and after he was in the process of termination.

I consider it nothing more than a failure of proof case.

And, as I believe you are an employment lawyer, you have to concede that this is not any sort of abnormal result in Title VII litigation.

They don't care about the merits of the case.  It's more about the race-baiting possibilities.

[Thatguy 8507]

12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

They don't care about the merits of the case.  It's more about the race-baiting possibilities.

in·tel·lec·tu·al·ism - the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions

you are missing the point JBJ

[safe sex 11684]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I am quite sure.  The helicopter drones are quite selective when it comes to calling out board misogyny. 

Just calling a woman a cunt barely makes me blink, especially when it's someone with as much apparent internalized misogyny as ACB, who is going to be in a position to potentially harm a lot of women. I call out board misogyny when it's really fucking bad. Is it my fault that most of the heinous things that are said come from the more conservative posters? Gee I wonder why that could be. There is simply way too much casual misogyny/bigotry thrown around the board for me to respond to it all, nor would I want to do that even if I had the time. 

Love the metaphor of me and other Surly CR ladies who speak up as mindless machines. Very cool, very chill, very not fucked up at all.

[JBJ 3649]

34 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

in·tel·lec·tu·al·ism - the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions

you are missing the point JBJ

Yeah... ummmmm...don't you think that was the point I was making?

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Love the metaphor of me and other Surly CR ladies who speak up as mindless machines. Very cool, very chill, very not fucked up at all.

Drones are highly complex implements of war, guided by skilled pilots, to deliver their munitions very selectively and precisely on target. If you are looking for misogyny on this thread, you don't you have to conjure it. Page 1 might be a reasonable place to start your search though. 

[Thatguy 8507]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yeah... ummmmm...don't you think that was the point I was making?

That was the point they were making.

[formermav43 4599]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Drones are highly complex implements of war, guided by skilled pilots, to deliver their munitions very selectively and precisely on target. If you are looking for misogyny on this thread, you don't you have to conjure it. Page 1 might be a reasonable place to start your search though. 

There’s also a healthy dose of anti-religious bigotry back there, but that’s one of the cool bigotries. 

[Anastasis 23394]

I would be sincerely interested though on thoughts as to ACB's apparent internalized misogyny. Maybe we can get to the root of what standards represent the acceptable orthodoxy. 

[TwiceHorn 31289]

10 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yeah... ummmmm...don't you think that was the point I was making?

I mean she said what she said.

But, the commentary about what she said is out of context.

Guy got fired because he was a shit employee.  He had some foul-mouthed, kind of nasty supervisors.

He tried to turn it into a race discrimination case, but his lawyer apparently decided he didn't have the horses for that.

So he made it into a hostile environment case, when the only evidence he could generate of race-based hostility was one black guy calling him a nagger when it was all over but the shouting.  And, after he had filed a racial discrimination case against said black guy.

Not a real good case from which to generalize.

[GRHorn 105]

15 hours ago, BradInATX said:

You know if this were a "normal" election I would agree with you that the Democrats should answer. It's not. This is a president and GOP that has adopted constant lying, distorting, and gaslighting as a policy. Not typical politician "you ask me if the sky is blue? Well, there are lots of ways to answer that...", but full blown "the sky is pink!" type lying. Everything is lying, attacking, and distorting. So if you're the Democrats, why are you going to make an intellectually honest attempt to have a conversation about a very nuanced issue that requires critical thinking, when the other side of the conversation has no intention of doing any of that? 

You don't get to call someone out for not coming to the table for a conversation when you are wholly incapable of and unwilling to participate in rational conversation. They can demand honest discourse when they give it back instead of defaulting to lying and gaslighting almost 100% of the time. Until that happens, they can go sit at the kids' table with the idiot rednecks that have bought the bullshit they're selling.

You want to know why Biden isn't answering you? Because you don't deserve an answer.

You’re arguing with a hallucination in your head. I didn’t say he should have to answer. I explained why I thought he wasn’t answering.

[GRHorn 105]

15 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Where the fuck you getting your information? Plurality? Seriously? Best I've seen it's about 50/50. And trust me, if Trump gets away with it, I'm 100% in favor of Biden expanding the court - and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. Funny thing is, no one ever asks me (ie - I never get polled on these things).

 

15 hours ago, UncleSonny said:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-want-to-wait-until-after-the-election-to-fill-the-supreme-court-vacancy/

These polls are from before ACB was nominated, but I can't imagine Trump's last few weeks and Barrett specifically being the nominee has swung the numbers very positively. 

As for court packing being less popular...I haven't seen figures on that either way. But you being so wrong about where voters stand moving forward with ACB doesn't really give me any sense that you know what you are talking about. Regardless, that will just be a messaging battle like everything else and I think one Dems can win.

 

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

1 - he knows the truth.

2 - he's lying.

It's the Trump way.  The sooner you realize that every word out of the mouth of a Trump supporter is either a direct lie or based on a lie, the sooner you can understand them.  And disregard them.

Here’s today’s update, loyal readers. 
 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Yeah but her students thinks she's the bestest

[Horn Dog 9674]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean she said what she said.

But, the commentary about what she said is out of context.

Guy got fired because he was a shit employee.  He had some foul-mouthed, kind of nasty supervisors.

He tried to turn it into a race discrimination case, but his lawyer apparently decided he didn't have the horses for that.

So he made it into a hostile environment case, when the only evidence he could generate of race-based hostility was one black guy calling him a nagger when it was all over but the shouting.  And, after he had filed a racial discrimination case against said black guy.

Not a real good case from which to generalize.

Yea I gotta say after reading Anastasis link of the full opinion, this particular case was probably misrepresented.  Did not know his supervisor was also black and his comment doesn’t seem racial as originally presented when read in context.  I am downgrading my criticism  of ACB to “twat”.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Horn Dog

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Yeah but her students thinks she's the bestest

Not one colleague from the law school. But thanks for sharing the input from mostly liberal arts professors. Pretty shocking to hear that they’re opposing this. 

[wildcat09 29261]

I've already said it, but her support for the dissent in King v. Burwell is all anyone needs to know about her. In a sane country, it alone would disqualify her from any position of power whatsoever. 

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've already said it, but her support for the dissent in King v. Burwell is all anyone needs to know about her. In a sane country, it alone would disqualify her from any position of power whatsoever. 

What specifically do you find disqualifying?

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&context=law_faculty_scholarship

 

[wildcat09 29261]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What specifically do you find disqualifying?

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&context=law_faculty_scholarship

 

Why do you think I'm going to play your game of calvinball?

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Why do you think I'm going to play your game of calvinball?

I would be sincerely interested in what you see in there that is specifically disqualifying. If you are not willing to explain your statement that is ok I guess. 

[softlynow 1784]

The other day I was thinking we’ll miss not having Escriva/Laphoaig/LonghornLaw for this thread. But Anastasis has filled the role nicely. 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

The other day I was thinking we’ll miss not having Escriva/Laphoaig/LonghornLaw for this thread. But Anastasis has filled the role nicely. 

I feel like there should be some intermediate between "cunt" and "twat".  "Gash", maybe?

[Thatguy 8507]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would be sincerely interested in what you see in there that is specifically disqualifying. If you are not willing to explain your statement that is ok I guess. 

Geezus Christ.....Her position is in opposition of pre existing conditions and they are rushing her through before Novemeber 10th. Guess what the Supreme court is doing on November 1oth??

[softlynow 1784]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I feel like there should be some intermediate between "cunt" and "twat".  "Gash", maybe?

You do realize I was paying you a compliment, right?

As to that question, I only state such opinions verbally, when there's no record being made.

[BradInATX 9208]

46 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You’re arguing with a hallucination in your head. I didn’t say he should have to answer. I explained why I thought he wasn’t answering.

I'm speaking to the GOP, Trump, and all of his enablers in general. I'm also speaking to the "just asking questions!" crowd. 

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

You do realize I was paying you a compliment, right?

That wasn't really intended as a clapback directed at you or anything.

If wildcat is unwilling, would be interested in your take re: King vs. Burrell?  Do you find anything specifically disqualifying in her book review? 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Anastasis

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

 

[Anastasis 23394]

"Orange cloud over your nomination..."

LOFL. 

[immamac 42524]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

exactly.

Why aren't they asking her some hard questions that would automatically disqualify her by making her partisan by nature.

Tie her to trump exclusively. Make her say that she knows that she was chosen purely for political gain. Then push her through and then impeach her immediately when the senate turns.

[Anastasis 23394]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Tie her to trump exclusively. Make her say that she knows that she was chosen purely for political gain. 

Durbin just took this approach, but in the form of a statement rather than a question she would just deflect on. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Anastasis

[formermav43 4599]

Just now, immamac said:

exactly.

Why aren't they asking her some hard questions that would automatically disqualify her by making her partisan by nature.

Tie her to trump exclusively. Make her say that she knows that she was chosen purely for political gain. Then push her through and then impeach her immediately when the senate turns.

Senators never ask real questions, they make speeches, and potential Justices never commit themselves in answers.

It’s like you’ve never seen one of these before.

[Anastasis 23394]

Durbin and Barrett having a little go at it. 

[Anastasis 23394]

27 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Geezus Christ.....Her position is in opposition of pre existing conditions...

Is that in her book review?

[wildcat09 29261]

Unlike ACB, I don't need to pretend to limit my thoughts to the specific text of her law review article. King v. Burwell (and it's parallel case Halbig v. Burwell) was the ultimate exercise in bad faith partisan ruling from Republican judges. It was a completely frivolous claim, wrong on the facts and the law, without any coherent legal reasoning or consistent application of judicial principles, and should have been dismissed at summary judgment and never heard from again. Anyone who pretends that it was a serious legal challenge with a meritorious claim is utterly and completely full of shit, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Republican legal commentariat felt the need to fabricate a post-hoc theory about a secret Congressional intent to deny subsidies for federally-run Obamacare exchanges.

The real giveaway that the whole thing was absolute bullshit wasn't just that the briefs filed by the plaintiff's attorneys directly contradicted briefs the same counsel filed in NFIB v. Sebelius, because lawyers are obviously going to argue on behalf of their clients. Given the obvious partisan advocacy at stake we can still call a little bullshit on it, but lawyers are gonna lawyer. The real giveaway that the whole thing was absolute bullshit was that the conservative dissents in the two cases directly contradicted each other. From the joint dissent in NFIB in 2012, discussing the ACA's medicaid expansion:

Quote

If Congress had thought that States might actually refuse to go along with the expansion of Medicaid, Congress would surely have devised a backup scheme so that the most vulnerable groups in our society, those previously  eligible for Medicaid, would not be left out in the cold. But nowhere in the over 900-page Act is such a scheme to be found. By contrast, because Congress thought that some States might decline federal funding for the operation of a “health benefit exchange,” Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State. See 42 U. S. C. §18041(c)(1). Likewise, knowing that States would not necessarily provide affordable health insurance for aliens lawfully present in the United States—because Medicaid does not require States to provide such coverage—Con- gress extended the availability of the new federal insurance subsidies to all aliens. See 26 U. S. C. §36B(c) (1)(B)(ii) (excepting from the income limit individuals who are “not eligible for the medicaid program . . . by reason of [their] alien status”). Congress did not make these subsidies available for citizens with incomes below the poverty level because Congress obviously assumed that they would be covered by Medicaid. If Congress had contemplated that some of these citizens would be left without Medicaid coverage as a result of a State’s withdrawal or expulsion from the program, Congress surely would have made them eligible for the tax subsidies provided for low-income aliens.

From Scalia's dissent in King v. Burwell three years later:

Quote

Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.” Ante, at 14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only when it is patently obvious to a reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the mistake. The occurrence of a misprint may be apparent from the face of the law, as it is where the Affordable Care Act “creates three separate Section 1563s.” Ante, at 14. But the Court does not pretend that there is any such indication of a drafting error on the face of §36B. The occurrence of a misprint may also be apparent because a provision decrees an absurd result—a consequence “so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” Sturges, 4 Wheat., at 203. But §36B does not come remotely close to satisfying that demanding standard. It is entirely plausible that tax credits were restricted to state Exchanges deliberately—for example, in order to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. We therefore have no authority to dismiss the terms of the law as a drafting fumble.

This was pure calvinball. None of us actually have to take this bullshit seriously. We don't have to pretend that this was the product of a good faith application of consistent and reasoned legal principles. They didn't like the ACA for political reasons and would say anything and pretend to give credence to any argument and any lie that would help them eliminate it. Anyone who would look at this case and attack the majority's reasoning shouldn't be trusted to park someone else's car, much less sit on the Supreme Court.

[GRHorn 105]

20 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

 

[softlynow 1784]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That wasn't really intended as a clapback directed at you or anything.

If wildcat is unwilling, would be interested in your take re: King vs. Burrell?  Do you find anything specifically disqualifying in her book review? 

My take is that her support for that dissent is:

1. a player playing the game; above all she wants power/career advancement and by writing that article, she set herself up nicely;

2. more of the same when it comes to the arguments conservative jurists use; when the political end requires it, the opposite reasoning is just as useful.

King v. Burwell is clearly a case about a typographical or drafting error. The idea that a law about expanding health insurance coverage that would allow its opponents an easy way to prevent that expansion, and in a way anticipated in the very text of the law itself, is absurd, and the dissenters know that.* It's also obviously a case about one of the biggest hot-buttons of the era. What side you're on matters most. That Scalia, Thomas and Alito would take the tack they did when the opposite argument has been in their repertoire before is unsurprising. I agree with wildcat's assessment in that neutral, thinking people, should see through both Scalia's dissent and Barrett's support of it. They should see someone for whom the reasoning is just a means to an end. But membership in the 9 (for now) isn't about being a fair-minded jurist. It's about power and priority.

I don't think less of Ms. Barrett because of her support of King v. Burwell. I don't even think less of the state of conservative legal intellectual thought because of that case and its use in subsequent jurisprudential discussion. My regard for the latter went to zero long ago. That Barrett feels she has to play that game to achieve her life goals is all I need know about her. But, of course, my opinion of her doesn't matter; she will be confirmed, and another Alito will occupy the Court for 40+ years. Shit happens, Texas hires coaching frauds and conservatives acquire power however they feel best. So she's to be the Ted Cruz of the Supremes? C'est la vie.

That case does confirm to me that Roberts will likely be, in the main, a fair-minded justice. He's made some rulings I dislike. However, it appears he at least has some intellectual integrity.

.* Scalia has written eloquently and on the limits of textualism, pointing out that when an absurd result is reached, that should not be the interpretation.

[softlynow 1784]

37 minutes ago, immamac said:

exactly.

Why aren't they asking her some hard questions that would automatically disqualify her by making her partisan by nature.

Tie her to trump exclusively. Make her say that she knows that she was chosen purely for political gain. Then push her through and then impeach her immediately when the senate turns.

[Anastasis 23394]

11 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I agree with wildcat's assessment in that neutral, thinking people, should see through both Scalia's dissent and Barrett's support of it.

This is the extent to which King v. Burrell is discussed at all in the book review that I linked.  Seems like a bit of a stretch to turn this into a pivotal disqualifying position. 

To the extent that NFIB v. Sebelius expresses a commitment to judicial restraint by creatively interpreting ostensibly clear statutory text, its approach is at odds with the statutory textualism to which most originalists subscribe. Thus Justice Scalia, criticizing the majority’s construction of the Affordable Care Act in both NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell, protested that the statute known as Obamacare should be renamed “SCOTUScare” in honor of the Court’s willingness to “rewrite” the statute in order to keep it afloat.66 For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text, the measure of a court is its fairminded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads. By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result. All of this is to say that Barnett is not alone in his skepticism of either the Roberts Court’s conception of judicial restraint or its approach to statutory interpretation. Indeed, this is a point on which those who treat the original public meaning of text as a constraint might agree, regardless whether they embrace Barnett’s Republican Constitution.

 

Also, an NPR panel Barrett participated in that discusses the case.  She starts @ 2:25. 

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2015/06/25/scotus-obamacare-upheld-john-roberts-antonin-scalia

[BradInATX 9208]

Man, she looks like a vile woman. Some people you can just tell. 

[High Plains Drifter 10979]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Here is the actual opinion, unanimous, affirming the lower courts ruling. 

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

Seems to me the problem may be with the law, not the multiple judges' application of the law. Here is school house rock on the subject.

 

 

Although i do like the comparison to a three ring circus, not as catchy as the classic "I'm Just a Bill"

[JBJ 3649]

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

That was the point they were making.

They who? I'm referring to the commentaries ignoring the facts of the case and those parroting it here.  They weren't making an intellectual point at all.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I consider it nothing more than a failure of proof case.

And, as I believe you are an employment lawyer, you have to concede that this is not any sort of abnormal result in Title VII litigation.  And federal trial judges are pretty aggressive with summary judgments generally, and the courts of appeals in affirming them on appeal.

I can almost always conjure what I believe to be a pretty legit fact question that, imo, ought to go to a jury.  However, when I back away from the micro details of the cases, I have to concede that in most of the cases where summary judgment is granted, it is a weak case, regardless of subject matter.

But the logic behind it seems kind of strange.  She's really relying on this subjective prong of the test.  The immediate issue that struck me was sort of the conclusion that he was so abused my management in the past, that one racial slur near the end of his tenure should only be read as not making his tenure any worse, rather than a reflection of what management may have been doing to him in the past.

If someone uses a slur such as this, it seems to me it could be used as evidence of racial animus in the past as well as related to later conduct.  Certainly, the idea that hearing a slur would have NO subjective effect on one's work environment seems an extreme conclusion.

Declaration/Affidavit Practice Pointer - after each statement where you were called a slur, type:  "That made me feel even worse than I already did."

The black supervisor aspect reminded me of this:

 

[GRHorn 105]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Man, she looks like a vile woman. Some people you can just tell. 

She really has you worked up. 
 

I’ve said this here before I think, but having 7 kids, 2 of which are adopted, almost precludes the mom from being a vile person. The amount of self sacrifice is off the charts. 

[softlynow 1784]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is the extent to which King v. Burrell is discussed at all in the book review that I linked.  Seems like a bit of a stretch to turn this into a pivotal disqualifying position. 

To the extent that NFIB v. Sebelius expresses a commitment to judicial restraint by creatively interpreting ostensibly clear statutory text, its approach is at odds with the statutory textualism to which most originalists subscribe. Thus Justice Scalia, criticizing the majority’s construction of the Affordable Care Act in both NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell, protested that the statute known as Obamacare should be renamed “SCOTUScare” in honor of the Court’s willingness to “rewrite” the statute in order to keep it afloat.66 For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text, the measure of a court is its fairminded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads. By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result. All of this is to say that Barnett is not alone in his skepticism of either the Roberts Court’s conception of judicial restraint or its approach to statutory interpretation. Indeed, this is a point on which those who treat the original public meaning of text as a constraint might agree, regardless whether they embrace Barnett’s Republican Constitution.

 

Also, an NPR panel Barrett participated in that discusses the case.  She starts @ 2:25. 

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2015/06/25/scotus-obamacare-upheld-john-roberts-antonin-scalia

Of course it's not disqualifying. The constitution only lists “good Behavior” as a limitation. Everything else is up to the particular asshat doing he nominating and the douche canoes voting to confirm. If you or I had a paddle this shit would matter. 

[formermav43 4599]

29 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Man, she looks like a vile woman. Some people you can just tell. 

How?