Amy Coney Barrett

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

13 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

In this particular case, the Republicans have made all judicial appointments completely and unequivocally politically biased. Withholding hearings on lawful appointments for YEARS is absolutely counter to the process and duty of the Senate, and only the Republicans have done that so far. No allowing Garland's nomination or the hundreds of other federal appointments during the last 2 years of the Obama administration was absolutely the catalyst for where we are today. Even if the Senate voted on Garland, and he wasn't approved, the process should have moved forward. Sticking your head in the sand and avoiding any discussion is the problem, and an unreasonable course of action. In doing so, the Republicans are now opening themselves up to moves that further politicize these appointments and their procedures by having a backlash once Democrats gain control of the Senate, whether it be this year or in 2-4 years. We shouldn't be in this situation, but here we are.  Court packing may be the actual counter-balance to this course of action by the R's, since they refused to even discuss an appointee for 9 months prior to an election, and are now ramming through an appointment with 1 month before an election. You can't have it both ways and expect everyone else to play by the rules. 

agree, but its not one month before an election. Its during an election.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

 

 

(it's by design, imo)

 

[Prepuce of Doom 20988]

March that old bat straight into the sea. 

[Poolflood 845]

On 10/15/2020 at 12:46 AM, washparkhorn said:

Fair enough. But, that is a broad penumbra you would consider removing from protection. Lesser rights (Citizens United) have broad protection. Corporations have enormous rights. Capital (Domestic and International) is well protected by the United States. That penumbra protects a lot of capital (along with fundamental rights for individuals, which should be the focus, but in reality is not). She is an outlier on that issue with Thomas.

The system is out of whack when someone applying for the Supreme Court will not say whether Griswold was correctly decided. That is long settled. There are innumerable reliance interests hard wired into a post-Griswold world. That reality should be enough for the Roberts 5, if they coalesce. 

ACB and Thomas will be the two writing those opinions Thomas is known for. She may be to the right of Thomas. We can't plumb her depths on that issue since she announced Griswold might be struck if she only had an appeal in front of her . . . 

So how would griswold be attacked?  Who would have standing?  Or would a privacy challenge be able to attack cases based on Griswold.  And if you could pretend I'm Michael Scott.

 

[NWBuck 8548]

21 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

So how would griswold be attacked?  Who would have standing?  Or would a privacy challenge be able to attack cases based on Griswold.  And if you could pretend I'm Michael Scott

 

[UTGrad98 2259]

On 10/15/2020 at 4:04 PM, Prepuce of Doom said:

March that old bat straight into the sea. 

Some (most) of the time I am pissed off being a Democrat. We are a bunch of pussies. It's no wonder Republicans have the power they do. We fucking hand it to them time and time and time again. Singing kumbaya while ruthless motherfuckers slit your throat will never work. And we never learn. Lincoln project needs to be on permanent consultation.  Fucking christ we are such pussies.

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Griswold

. . . inserted privacy and liberty into modern thought. Framers were from the Enlightenment, and the Justices valued that spirit of Enlightenment.  

They assumed no American would stupidly piss away freedom. Griswold was a larger than life fight for liberty, and (some) of you fuckers in the libertarian right have never heard of it.

Cato is losing its touch. 

Griswold assumed Americans had progressed from plantations and fiefdoms and that particular insanity was no longer a threat to the nation.

Now (some of) you on the trump train are trying to dress Trump up as ideology. There is no ideology behind it. The President's actions are not rational, if preservation of life and economy are valued. It's self destructive. It's a freefall. Confidence in the US dollar is in play, and we are a failure when it comes to Covid. 

From and ideological framework based on freedom, Trump gets an F - did not participate.

Edited October 18, 2020 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9935]

TLDR: Griswold ensures your right to be wrong. 

This nominee wants to reconsider that decision, apparently. 

 

[NWBuck 8548]

26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

TLDR: Griswold ensures your right to be wrong. 

This nominee wants to reconsider that decision, apparently. 

 

That's wrong of her. Does she really have the right to do it? 

[washparkhorn 9935]

15 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

That's wrong of her. Does she really have the right to do it? 

absolutely the right. 

it comes down to power next. ACB and Thomas are locked in on removing griswold protection of privacy and liberty. They need three more and then they have a majority. Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will grant cert with ACB and Thomas. They are just looking for a case now. I am hoping Gorsuch and Roberts see some benefits voting to preserve Griswold protection.

If they don't, we lose a shit-ton of freedom. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9935]

Griswold has been what's for dinner on the puritan right for a while now.

"When they scream ‘Roe,’ they whisper ‘Griswold."

[NWBuck 8548]

22 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

absolutely the right.

(totally get it. pointing out the logical irony) 

[Sawbonz 27439]

7 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

absolutely the right. 

it comes down to power next. ACB and Thomas are locked in on removing griswold protection of privacy and liberty. They need three more and then they have a majority. Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will grant cert with ACB and Thomas. They are just looking for a case now. I am hoping Gorsuch and Roberts see some benefits voting to preserve Griswold protection.

If they don't, we lose a shit-ton of freedom. 

What case in the pipeline will reach the S.C. to allow a test?

[TwiceHorn 31288]

On 10/14/2020 at 10:37 PM, DDD Dad said:

Not sure I agree with the whole penumbra doctrine myself.

Yeah.  Its' a little shaky doctrinally, perhaps.  But I think the outcome of it is consistent with constitutional ideals.  In other words, it's to me probably a legitimate use of "living constitution" doctrine.

But as a theoretical matter, it does raise the question whether it is better addressed by legislative action, to include constitutional amendments.

As pointed out in On the Basis of Sex, the Constitution doesn't mention women or freedom, so those things are a tad bit shadowy or "penumbral" if you will. /sarcasm font

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31288]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

What case in the pipeline will reach the S.C. to allow a test?

Well, as Barrett herself noted, first a state would have to enact a facially unconsitutional, and no doubt wildly unpopular, limitation on birth control (at least to test it directly).  That seems pretty unlikely.

Nevertheless, such practical realities are no answer to the fundamental question.

[DDD Dad 14252]

Yeah.  Its' a little shaky doctrinally, perhaps.  But I think the outcome of it is consistent with constitutional ideals.  In other words, it's to me probably a legitimate use of "living constitution" doctrine.
But as a theoretical matter, it does raise the question whether it is better addressed by legislative action, to include constitutional amendments.
As pointed out in On the Basis of Sex, the Constitution doesn't mention women or freedom, so those things are a tad bit shadowy or "penumbral" if you will. /sarcasm font
 

Pretty much where I am. In light of the fact that our system as a whole is pretty much broken I’m okay with the result, just not the rationale.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

8 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Griswold has been what's for dinner on the puritan right for a while now.

"When they scream ‘Roe,’ they whisper ‘Griswold."

This raises an interesting issue.  The hardest of hardcore Catholics are opposed not only to abortion, but to all artificial (and probably "natural" as well) methods of birth control.  Probably a few fundagelicals, as well.  To them, it's not so much an issue of "murder" or "life," but rather interference with God's will or the natural order of things.  Fucking must be rewarded or penalized with childbirth, except as biological processes dictate otherwise.

It would be interesting to know how many right-to-lifers extend their beliefs that far.

Edited October 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27439]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, as Barrett herself noted, first a state would have to enact a facially unconsitutional, and no doubt wildly unpopular, limitation on birth control (at least to test it directly).  That seems pretty unlikely.

Nevertheless, such practical realities are no answer to the fundamental question.

Unless you consider practical realities important, but of course I’m no lawyer

[TwiceHorn 31288]

29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Unless you consider practical realities important, but of course I’m no lawyer

Well, you understand that, theoretically, the law is a black box from which, given certain inputs, a predictable result will be output.

All sorts of practical realities intrude on that process, so that the "black box" is almost entirely theoretical and never a realistic thing, except possibly in commercial cases governed by the UCC, where predictability of the output is more important than the actual output itself (we just need a rule, not necessarily a good one).

But most people I think agree that we can't use "the ends justify the means"  or "it just seems right" as a universal basis of decision.

If you intimate that you disagree with Griswold v. Connecticut, it's probably incumbent upon you to explain why (subject to ethical obligations) rather than say "it doesn't matter because it will never come up."

Edited October 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tantric superman 4667]

Jesus Christ, we face an existential crisis of overpopulation and abuse of natural resources and people still are fucking loony about birth control and abortion.

[Poolflood 845]

11 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

TLDR: Griswold ensures your right to be wrong. 

This nominee wants to reconsider that decision, apparently. 

 

Ok I appreciate the response.   I was asking to the mechanics of a potential far right overturn.  I'm assuming it wouldn't be a case with facts akin to griswold itself, which was my first post inarticulate question, it would be a case that attacked privacy closer to obergefell, Lawrence or casey?

And to further to sawbonz is there a case working through the courts that could challenge either griswold or cases based on its finding.

I did find a review of the case from the late 60's with the following closing line I thought humorous 

Quote

The Griswold principles are virgin and subject to semination;
the manner in which the seeds will germinate will depend upon judicial in-
clination.

 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

Ok I appreciate the response.   I was asking to the mechanics of a potential far right overturn.  I'm assuming it wouldn't be a case with facts akin to griswold itself, which was my first post inarticulate question, it would be a case that attacked privacy closer to obergefell, Lawrence or casey?

And to further to sawbonz is there a case working through the courts that could challenge either griswold or cases based on its finding.

I did find a review of the case from the late 60's with the following closing line I thought humorous 

 

As indicated above, generally speaking, any case that is based upon the "right of privacy" could potentially be one in which Griswold is overruled.  That happened recently with Korematsu in a case not directly on point as far as incarcerating based on national origin.  That kind of thing happens when a decision is so clearly wrong in light of subsequent events and jurisprudence.

A case like Roe or Griswold is probably going to have to be overturned in a case with similar facts, i.e. regulation or banning of abortion, or birth control, respectively, by a state legislature.

[Cacti 191]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Jesus Christ, we face an existential crisis of overpopulation and abuse of natural resources and people still are fucking loony about birth control and abortion.

Maybe the outlook isn’t so grim; the world population seems to be headed for an adjustment:

Quote

 

Earth will be home to 8.8 billion souls in 2100, two billion fewer than current UN projections, according to a major study published Wednesday...

China's [population] will fall from 1.4 billion people today to 730 million in 80 years.

These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions.

 

Link

[NWBuck 8548]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would be interesting to know how many right-to-lifers extend their beliefs that far.

And still fail to extend the right to life logic to issues like the death penalty, health care, and militarism

(you emphasized 'how MANY', I read it as 'HOW many') 

Edited October 18, 2020 by NWBuck

[formermav43 4599]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Jesus Christ, we face an existential crisis of overpopulation and abuse of natural resources and people still are fucking loony about birth control and abortion.

No, we don’t. By the time we die, there will be handwringing about declining population.

Edit: beaten to the punch by @Cacti

Edited October 18, 2020 by formermav43

[wildcat09 29261]

Griswold won’t be overturned, they’ll just invite challenges and continually allow the right to privacy to be chipped away at. Old decisions don’t need to be overturned to be rendered ineffective as precedent.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Griswold won’t be overturned, they’ll just invite challenges and continually allow the right to privacy to be chipped away at. Old decisions don’t need to be overturned to be rendered ineffective as precedent.

That too.

It's unnecessary to flatly overturn a precedent to weaken it beyond recognition.  

But because righties are all about symbolism and not much else, nothing short of overturning Roe will do.

The somewhat unsteady doctrinal footing of Griswold and Roe has led to an "intermediate scrutiny" and tolerance of regulation not ordinarily extended to infringement of the more "fundamentally fundamental" rights.

Edited October 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tantric superman 4667]

23 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

No, we don’t. By the time we die, there will be handwringing about declining population.

I'll take handwringing over economic dislocation over environmental destruction any day of the week.   

[formermav43 4599]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'll take handwringing over economic dislocation over environmental destruction any day of the week.   

Ok? But overpopulation isn’t a thing, let alone a contributing factor to any of that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

Ok? But overpopulation isn’t a thing, let alone a contributing factor to any of that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

I don't see anything in that article that finds that a higher population leads to less environmental destruction and that overpopulation "isn't a thing".  That article says it is "overstated".  Okay, sure.  Since we are talking about climate change, you can say it is overstated relative to other current factors.  The raw human population of the earth may not indeed be the biggest driver of climate change.  The article also seems to fail to account for food production issues already being caused by climate change, and apparently frozen technology (childless couple taking trips).   (The author seems unable to envision that there may be more childless couples doing all that traveling a higher populations).

It seems to me that 8 billion people have a greater change of negatively influencing other species or themselves, once they get to that population.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by tantric superman

[safe sex 11684]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This raises an interesting issue.  The hardest of hardcore Catholics are opposed not only to abortion, but to all artificial (and probably "natural" as well) methods of birth control.  Probably a few fundagelicals, as well.  To them, it's not so much an issue of "murder" or "life," but rather interference with God's will or the natural order of things.  Fucking must be rewarded or penalized with childbirth, except as biological processes dictate otherwise.

It would be interesting to know how many right-to-lifers extend their beliefs that far.

What's "funny" is that these people also tend to be those who meddle most with God's will when it comes to their loved ones and traumatic accidents/illnesses. In my personal experience anyway.

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

[Jive Turkey 12568]

 

[workswithseed 2037]

On 10/19/2020 at 5:23 AM, trauma babe said:

What's "funny" is that these people also tend to be those who meddle most with God's will when it comes to their loved ones and traumatic accidents/illnesses. In my personal experience anyway.

As in kill them themselves?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

In case anyone missed it, I'm reposting the Whitehouse video from earlier. It's a good watch, half an hour. Cornyn has been doing the whole talking point thing this weekend to try and stave off any voter objections in his projections and in conjunction with the ads running during games today. (Olear was replying to Cornyn's faux outrage tweet regarding Barrett and overturning ACA)

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Can’t watch the video right now. Who is behind the dark money?

[washparkhorn 9935]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Can’t watch the video right now. Who is behind the dark money?

She is a part and parcel of the Lewis Powell memorandum coalition - better things through wealthy and corporate governance. 

Whitehouse lays is out well in the video. 

In a nutshell:

Quote

 

First, it's easy for even Washington insiders to forget how we actually got here. Back in the 1970s, corporate interests had grown uneasy with what they saw as attacks on their financial interests by the anti-war, environmental, civil rights and women’s rights movements. Napalm manufacturers were being protested; big companies faced workers organizing for fairer wages and working conditions, and a more just society. Polluters — like the chemical and fuel extraction businesses of the Koch family — faced accountability for damage they were doing to our air and water. Big Tobacco was rightly convinced it would be facing liability from the steadily mounting (and increasingly public) evidence that their product kills people and that they knew it.

A corporate lawyer for Big Tobacco — Lewis Powell (who shortly after writing the memo was appointed to the Supreme Court — had an answer. In a memo, he implored the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the corporations and ideologues in its ranks to organize a new campaign to influence government in corporations’ favor. In particular, Powell wanted corporate interests to focus on the judiciary.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-rose-corporations-crusade-power-over-supreme-court-ncna1243251

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Can’t watch the video right now. Who is behind the dark money?

She is a part and parcel of the Lewis Powell memorandum coalition - better things through wealthy and corporate governance. 

Whitehouse lays is out well in the video. 

In a BIGASS nutshell:

Quote

 

First, it's easy for even Washington insiders to forget how we actually got here. Back in the 1970s, corporate interests had grown uneasy with what they saw as attacks on their financial interests by the anti-war, environmental, civil rights and women’s rights movements. Napalm manufacturers were being protested; big companies faced workers organizing for fairer wages and working conditions, and a more just society. Polluters — like the chemical and fuel extraction businesses of the Koch family — faced accountability for damage they were doing to our air and water. Big Tobacco was rightly convinced it would be facing liability from the steadily mounting (and increasingly public) evidence that their product kills people and that they knew it.

A corporate lawyer for Big Tobacco — Lewis Powell (who shortly after writing the memo was appointed to the Supreme Court — had an answer. In a memo, he implored the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the corporations and ideologues in its ranks to organize a new campaign to influence government in corporations’ favor. In particular, Powell wanted corporate interests to focus on the judiciary.

The courts, he said, are possibly “the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change” in American government. Weeks after Powell wrote that memo, President Richard Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court as Justice Powell.

Powell’s wish has come true. The corporate-funded Federalist Society now not only signs off on Republican judicial nominees, but the organization is “in-sourced” to the Trump White House, and Trump admitted it picks his nominees. And a dark-money-funded private organization, the Judicial Crisis Network, takes anonymous donations — some as much as $17 million — to fund political ad campaigns for those nominees’ confirmations.

Meanwhile, dark-money-funded private organizations hunt for plaintiffs of convenience to bring cases before the Supreme Court that advance the big donors’ agenda, while other dark money-funded organizations appear at the court by the orchestrated dozenas “friends of the Court” to instruct the corporate-selected judges how to rule.

There is every reason to believe the anonymous funders behind all of these groups are the same big interests.

The scheme bears all the marks of a covert operation — one being run against our own citizens, to undermine the independence of a branch of government that had been previously beyond the reach of lobbyists and special interests. It happens behind the scenes, through front groups and hidden money; the sources of the funds and the interests of the donors behind it are masked. But the goal is clear: to cement pro-corporate and partisan donors' interests in law by controlling our courts.

With a 5-4 court, those interests have already run up 80 partisan victories (the 73 counted here, plus seven more since). Now, they’re on the cusp of the prize they’ve coveted for generations: a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court to rule in their favor every time.

What might a 6-3 court promise? Rulings that boost corporate and special interest power: limits on worker protection and the right to organize for fairer pay and wages; limits on Americans’ ability to sue companies when they’ve been harmed; limits on effective environmental and health protections; and new restrictions on minority voting — all while protecting unlimited corporate dark money in politics.

Job number one will probably be tearing down the Affordable Care Act: The moment the ink was dry on the health care law in 2010, the dark money-funded National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation and 26 Republican attorneys general sued to strike it down. The Heritage Foundation and other dark money-funded groups activated to support the litigation and undermine the law in the eyes of the public. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity spent enormous amounts on astroturfing and political attack ads to secure the Senate majority that Mitch McConnell — and eventually Donald Trump — needed to pack the courts.

The big ideological donors’ obsession with striking down the ACA likely explains the mad rush we are seeing from Republicans now. The deadline rush to jam Trump’s pick through may not be based on the election at all, but the argument date for the ACA case in the Supreme Court on Nov. 10. They failed to strike it down when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress; they failed even with a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court

In the midst of a pandemic that has already claimed 200,000 American lives, Republicans and the powerful interests who back them are fixated on undoing the health care protections regular Americans gained with the Affordable Care Act. Replacing Ginsburg’s vote to protect the law with the vote of a publicly anti-ACA Trump nominee gives them that chance.

The Trump administration is urging the court to overturn the ACA and thus undo protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, and Trump himself promised that his “judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush’s appointment John Roberts, on Obamacare.”

So on Nov. 10, the ACA’s Medicaid expansion — covering 17 million Americans — is on the chopping block, along with coverage for basic services like maternity care, cancer screenings and contraception. Nearly 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions stand to lose insurance protections. Millions of seniors stand to pay billions more for prescriptions.

And then, of course, it’s on to Roe v. Wade.

Republicans in the Senate still have a choice. They can still provide a legitimate Senate process and defend the integrity of our judiciary. But if you look at where else the power of this dark money covert operation has been deployed, you can understand why they likely won’t.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-rose-corporations-crusade-power-over-supreme-court-ncna1243251

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

That is one of the things he explains in the videos is that while it is one big scheme, the multiple "foundations" that are funding the briefs, the pr, and the rest of it are able to hide the donors by essentially scrubbing their identity. The amounts of money were staggering, his little board displays were quite fascinating.

Put a post it on your desk to watch it when you can. It won't make a difference in the nomination vote on Monday and is a little depressing, but damn it's nice to see someone come into the Senate with receipts and a working brain.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Double post.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins

[hornmpa96 2598]

Thanks for posting that video. Watching that was eye-opening. 

An 80-0 record in cases with significant Republican donor interest.

[safe sex 11684]

20 hours ago, workswithseed said:

As in kill them themselves?

As in keep family members artificially alive long after they should have been allowed to die of natural causes. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Superspreader The Sequel: Are You Feeling Lucky?

 

[EuroHorn 3204]

Today is Hillary’s birthday. Maybe it’s a birthday party!

 

[Firemans4Horn 17838]

Win the senate

pack the court

[swraith 336]

Whelp that's out of the way.  Lets see how many justices the Supreme Court has come 2022.

[TexEx15 17487]

 

[immamac 42521]

Hell yeah more judges. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

I'm more depressed about this than I thought I'd be. And I'm out of weed. And booze. Fuck 2020.