Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

[Admiral Beez]

I'm watching Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing on CNN and I have to say I'm not seeing from right wing zealot. That said, she will be a strict follower on the Constitution, so the days of using the court to circumvent the legislature to promote social change may be coming to an end.

Some State is going to enact a law that limits abortion access or gay marriage and those opposed will sue the State at the SCOTUS. But now, the SCOTUS will likely conclude that abortion access or gay marriage is not part of the Constitution or its Amendments, and thus such matters must be decided by the State. This means that if Americans want to protect abortion access or gay marriage, for example they need to push in two ways, one elect State governors and legislatures that support those causes; and two, push for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the right to abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution. That's it, the days of using the SCOTUS to get around the Constitution and the dominance of States rights over Federal rights is over.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm watching Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing on CNN and I have to say I'm not seeing from right wing zealot. That said, she will be a strict follower on the Constitution, so the days of using the court to circumvent the legislature to promote social change may be coming to an end.

Some State is going to enact a law that limits abortion access or gay marriage and those opposed will sue the State at the SCOTUS. But now, the SCOTUS will likely conclude that abortion access or gay marriage is not part of the Constitution or its Amendments, and thus such matters must be decided by the State. This means that if Americans want to protect abortion access or gay marriage, for example they need to push in two ways, one elect State governors and legislatures that support those causes; and two, push for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the right to abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution. That's it, the days of using the SCOTUS to get around the Constitution and the dominance of States rights over Federal rights is over.

What would a "strict follower of the constitution" say about this, I wonder?

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You shall note that Alabama didn't drop the law until 2000.

AoD

 

[afransen]

I'm watching Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing on CNN and I have to say I'm not seeing from right wing zealot. That said, she will be a strict follower on the Constitution, so the days of using the court to circumvent the legislature to promote social change may be coming to an end.

Some State is going to enact a law that limits abortion access or gay marriage and those opposed will sue the State at the SCOTUS. But now, the SCOTUS will likely conclude that abortion access or gay marriage is not part of the Constitution or its Amendments, and thus such matters must be decided by the State. This means that if Americans want to protect abortion access or gay marriage, for example they need to push in two ways, one elect State governors and legislatures that support those causes; and two, push for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the right to abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution. That's it, the days of using the SCOTUS to get around the Constitution and the dominance of States rights over Federal rights is over.

You forgot the third option of packing the courts.

Really, the social issues are a sideline. The real point is to appoint a corporatist who will defend the power and influence of companies to be able to buy election outcomes and dodge regulation, antitrust, etc.

Abortion access will be whittled away further, but that just means the wealthy will have access to abortion (through travel to other states) and the poor will have back alley abortions (or mail-order Plan B, etc.). I don't think gay marriage will be as easy to put back in the tube. Equal protection clause will likely help defend marriage equality. Even some of the justices that Trump appointed have ruled in favour of expanding LGBTQ protections, such as from termination. The majority opinion on this one was penned by Gorsuch. This one would have succeeded even if ACB dissented on it. Gorsuch's caveat that there may be legitimate cause for employers not to hire LGBTQ based on religious grounds makes me wonder if the same argument could be used for an atheist to refuse to hire theists. That way lies madness.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees

The Supreme Court says the federal ban on discrimination "based on sex" applies to gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

www.npr.org

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You forgot the third option of packing the courts.

Really, the social issues are a sideline. The real point is to appoint a corporatist who will defend the power and influence of companies to be able to buy election outcomes and dodge regulation, antitrust, etc..

Not just big businesses - but weakening the fundamentals of democracy/voting rights - masquerading as doctrine of state supremacy :

How a Pivotal Voting Rights Act Case Broke America

In the five years since the landmark decision, the Supreme Court has set the stage for a new era of white hegemony.

www.theatlantic.com

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I'm watching Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing on CNN and I have to say I'm not seeing from right wing zealot. That said, she will be a strict follower on the Constitution, so the days of using the court to circumvent the legislature to promote social change may be coming to an end.

Some State is going to enact a law that limits abortion access or gay marriage and those opposed will sue the State at the SCOTUS. But now, the SCOTUS will likely conclude that abortion access or gay marriage is not part of the Constitution or its Amendments, and thus such matters must be decided by the State. This means that if Americans want to protect abortion access or gay marriage, for example they need to push in two ways, one elect State governors and legislatures that support those causes; and two, push for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the right to abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution. That's it, the days of using the SCOTUS to get around the Constitution and the dominance of States rights over Federal rights is over.

Lets separate this out.

Neither I, nor anyone else not named Amy Coney Barrett can be certain what she thinks, or feels or how she may act in the future.

Certainly, her words in this hearing would be worth considering in any assessment of same.

But one also ought to reasonably consider her legal jurisprudence to this point, her previous public writings and statements, and consider her life, as-lived in viewing a likely outcome on any number of subjects.

On the subject of abortion rights:

We learn the following from this BBC report: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54512678

Judge Barrett voted in favour of a law that would have mandated doctors to inform the parents of a minor seeking an abortion, with no exceptions.

She also called for a state law that sought to ban abortions related to sex, race, disability or life-threatening health conditions to be reheard.

We all know she clerked for and is near sycophantic in her love of former Justice Scalia who disagreed with Roe v. Wade.

****

Beyond that, surely this statement would seem problematic:

She wrote that Catholic judges are "obliged by oath, professional commitment and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty", while also being obliged "to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters".

****

Lets also consider her record on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

In a 2017 law review essay, Judge Barrett criticised Chief Justice John Roberts's 2012 opinion on the act's individual mandate (which imposed a penalty for anyone who did not sign up for insurance).

She wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.

"He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did - as a penalty - he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

****

On Guns:

Saying "history is consistent with common sense", she argued that the government can only prohibit individuals shown to be dangerous from possessing guns.

"Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," she wrote.

************************

In summation.

Judge Barret is on record that even convicted felons have a right to own a gun; that the death penalty is constitutional; that judges have an affirmative obligation to follow their religious faith, that Obamacare is illegal, and seems open to if not enthusiastic for reversing Roe v. Wade.

Hmmm.

That's pretty fanatical to me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not just big businesses - but weakening the fundamentals of democracy/voting rights - masquerading as doctrine of state supremacy

That seems to be the way they want to run their rodeo. Every day I'm increasingly glad to be a Canadian.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That seems to be the way they want to run their rodeo.

Except who is this "they"?

AoD

 

[Towered]

Lets separate this out.

Neither I, nor anyone else not named Amy Coney Barrett can be certain what she thinks, or feels or how she may act in the future.

Certainly, her words in this hearing would be worth considering in any assessment of same.

But one also ought to reasonably consider her legal jurisprudence to this point, her previous public writings and statements, and consider her life, as-lived in viewing a likely outcome on any number of subjects.

On the subject of abortion rights:

We learn the following from this BBC report: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54512678

Judge Barrett voted in favour of a law that would have mandated doctors to inform the parents of a minor seeking an abortion, with no exceptions.

She also called for a state law that sought to ban abortions related to sex, race, disability or life-threatening health conditions to be reheard.

We all know she clerked for and is near sycophantic in her love of former Justice Scalia who disagreed with Roe v. Wade.

****

Beyond that, surely this statement would seem problematic:

She wrote that Catholic judges are "obliged by oath, professional commitment and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty", while also being obliged "to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters".

****

Lets also consider her record on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

In a 2017 law review essay, Judge Barrett criticised Chief Justice John Roberts's 2012 opinion on the act's individual mandate (which imposed a penalty for anyone who did not sign up for insurance).

She wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.

"He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did - as a penalty - he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

****

On Guns:

Saying "history is consistent with common sense", she argued that the government can only prohibit individuals shown to be dangerous from possessing guns.

"Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," she wrote.

************************

In summation.

Judge Barret is on record that even convicted felons have a right to own a gun; that the death penalty is constitutional; that judges have an affirmative obligation to follow their religious faith, that Obamacare is illegal, and seems open to if not enthusiastic for reversing Roe v. Wade.

Hmmm.

That's pretty fanatical to me.

I don't think anyone should have any illusions about her - there's a reason an inherently divisive, polarizing figure like Trump nominated her (to stick it to the "libtards"). He's ensuring his legacy will go on for many years after his presidency ends.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Except who is this "they"?

AoD

The American people. Through either active voting or omission they voted for this. And not just 2016, but through the 1970s onwards Americans have voted for Con, big business, limited government intervention and small tax candidates at State, Federal Congress and Executive levels. Obama would be a right wing Con in Canada or any other western country. We might see it as a sh#t show, but they got here through their own consent.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The American people. Through either active voting or omission they voted for this. And not just 2016, but through the 1970s onwards Americans have voted for Con, big business, limited government intervention and small tax candidates at State, Federal Congress and Executive levels. We might see it as a sh#t show, but they got here through their own consent.

I don't know how legitimate "the people" is when some people had been systematically excluded from what is supposed to be a universal and inalienable right - paramount in any modern democratic system.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think anyone should have any illusions about her - there's a reason an inherently divisive, polarizing figure like Trump nominated her (to stick it to the "libtards"). He's ensuring his legacy will go on for many years after his presidency ends.

Which is why Biden should keep his cards close to his chest before the election, and pack every court and every circuit after. Not necessarily in a hand-picked, ideological way designed to groom the overall slant - but in a way that dilutes the power of the Trump appointees through sheer diversity of choices and de-partisanize the courts.

AoD

 

[Johnny Au]

The American people. Through either active voting or omission they voted for this. And not just 2016, but through the 1970s onwards Americans have voted for Con, big business, limited government intervention and small tax candidates at State, Federal Congress and Executive levels. Obama would be a right wing Con in Canada or any other western country. We might see it as a sh#t show, but they got here through their own consent.

There was one CBC article that argued that Kamala Harris would easily be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada if she were to run for office here.

 

[afransen]

I don't think it is reasonable to translate the positions of a politician in a different political landscape to another.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which is why Biden should...pack every court and every circuit after.... in a way that dilutes the power of the Trump appointees

Why though? So far Trump's judge choices haven't meddled into policy. A judge's job is to interpret laws as they are written, not make policy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A judge's job is to interpret laws as they are written, not make policy.

I bring back that Loving v. Virginia case again. Interpret laws as they are written (in this case, the 14th Amendment) by default includes the potential for making policy. Also, not choosing to act as a result of any interpretation is also a "making a policy" (i.e. not having a policy itself is a policy).

Perhaps one of the architects of US constitution said it best himself (and I am not the first to bring this up)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/%22I_Am_Not_an_Advocate_for_Frequent_Changes_._._.%22_at_Jefferson_Memorial.jpg

(Jim KcKeeth via Wikipedia)

AoD