Welcome to New Nauvoo


Author Topic: Judge Barrett's Confirmation  (Read 319 times)

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« on: October 12, 2020, 10:21:14 am »
I'm listening to the hearings this morning. Sen. Mike Lee from Utah's speech was absolutely incredible. He put things into constitutional perspective about politicizing the role of the Supreme Court.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 11:31:05 am by Roper »
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 
The following users thanked this post: mirkwood

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2020, 11:29:57 am »
Republicans are triumphing in framing this as a constitutional issue. Democrats, with their fear mongering about what "might" happen to those with pre-existing conditions, and all the sad stories about individuals, are giving me a good reason to roll my eyes this morning. I get it. I'm not the Democrat's audience. But I can't be the only one who is seeing the hypocrisy, here. Democrats have accused Trump of fear mongering for four years, and they are doing the exact same thing with this nomination.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 12:12:55 pm by Roper »
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 
The following users thanked this post: mirkwood

JLM

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Thanked: 614 times
  • Country: us
  • Hoggity Poggity Wiggity Wack
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2020, 01:44:52 pm »
There is no constitutional provision that prevents lame duck court appointments.  However, there is a long standing tradition and common decency.  Ironically, it's the "conservatives" who have completely abandoned both.  I think Republicans see the writing in the wall of their waning influence with the electorate, and are doing as many last minute power grabs as they can.  The irony of that is that this further reduces their credibility and will only accelerate their decline
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2020, 02:09:29 pm »
Senator Lee did a pretty good job debunking the "tradition" narrative. Common decency? I think confirming Judge Barrett is a really decent thing to do. Power grab? It can only be characterized as such through the lens of partisan politics. SCOTUS is not a political body. If you make that accusation, then delaying confirmation so that Biden can make a different nomination is also a power grab.

Here is how I hope things play out by January:

- Barrett is confirmed as a new associate justice on the supreme court, reducing judicial activism and giving the court a clear majority of justices who support returning legislation to a more constitutionally aligned process.
- Republicans maintain a majority in the Senate.
- Democrats maintain a majority in the House.
- Biden is the new POTUS, because Trump.

That's my hope. Actually, I suspect Republicans are going to lose the Senate. Guilt by association.
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 

Taalcon

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Thanked: 1322 times
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2020, 02:57:54 pm »
I mean

Quote
I think confirming Judge (Merrick Garland) is a really decent thing to do. Power grab? It can only be characterized as such through the lens of partisan politics. SCOTUS is not a political body. If you make that accusation, then delaying confirmation so that (Trump) can make a different nomination is also a power grab.

This confirmation is a perfectly constitutional thing to do. So would have been holding a hearing for Garland, and also many, many, many of the other federal judges that McConnel gleefully acknolwedges he held in check so a Republican president could make those selections.

The Republicans played it dirty, but constitutionally sound. But it makes their pearl-clutching hollow when it comes to the idea of the also constitutional concept of expanding the court to more than 9 seats (it was originally 9 seats which I understand also had a relationship to the number of circuits at the time, which have also expanded since then).

The act is consititutional. The the rhetoric is insulting and gaslighting. It truly would have been better if the Republicans in 2016 had all just said, "We have the power, so we're using it to get the result we want", rather than pearl-clutching about prescedents, let the voters decide, etc, etc. All that has done is revealed all those who did such as being blatantly untrustworthy hypocrites.

And yeah, Democrats do the same thing. Whoever is actually in power enacting the hyposcricy is always the most galling at the time, and all the hand-wringing from them about why it was immoral to even hold a hearing for Garland during the beginning of an election year contrasted with right now they shove one through during actual early voting is gross.

It's always up to the people in power to actively choose to not be gross to set the prescedent, and whoever gets in power consistently choose to be gross.

It's why I have absolutely no interest in claiming a Political Party as my own, and lashing my identity to it.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 03:09:37 pm by Taalcon »
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper, Sparky, Hobbes

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2020, 03:42:17 pm »
The act is consititutional. The the rhetoric is insulting and gaslighting. It truly would have been better if the Republicans in 2016 had all just said, "We have the power, so we're using it to get the result we want", rather than pearl-clutching about prescedents, let the voters decide, etc, etc. All that has done is revealed all those who did such as being blatantly untrustworthy hypocrites.

...

It's why I have absolutely no interest in claiming a Political Party as my own, and lashing my identity to it.

Yep. I will always be politically independent, so that I can do this:

"Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles." - https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-letter-united-states-election-2020
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 
The following users thanked this post: dyany, Sparky, Taalcon

pnr

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 506
  • Thanked: 604 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2020, 04:32:47 pm »
The difference between 2016 and now is that in 2016, the president and the senate was not aligned politically and the president did not chose someone whom the Senate could consent to (because the Senate was majority Republican).   Now the president and the Senate majority is the same party and the Senate can and will give their constitutional consent to the appointment.   It isn't about shenanigans.  This has been an issue whenever the split occurred.  True that for 50 years or more Presidents tended to select people that both parties could support as well qualified, but Bork and Thomas hearings upended that tradition/get along stance.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 05:17:22 pm by pnr »
Nauvoo 1270, Feb 2005
 
The following users thanked this post: mirkwood

JLM

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Thanked: 614 times
  • Country: us
  • Hoggity Poggity Wiggity Wack
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2020, 04:42:39 pm »
SCOTUS has always been a political body, because its members are political appointees.  Some jurors try to more objective than others.  Chief Justice Roberts does a very good job at this.  Barrett's past activism has me concerned.  If confirmed, she may be the most activist member of of the court, more so than Thomas.
 

Taalcon

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Thanked: 1322 times
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2020, 05:43:45 pm »
Quote
The difference between 2016 and now is that in 2016, the president and the senate was not aligned politically and the president did not chose someone whom the Senate could consent to (because the Senate was majority Republican).

First of all,  the point is that this is NOT how the Republicans presented their reasons. That explanation came after they had been succesful in holding off having the hearing.

Second of all, Obama specifically selected Garland as someone many of the Senate Rs already had stated on record their respect for. A lot of Democrats initially didn't like the selection of Garland, because they didn't think he was Left enough! Obama specifically selected a more moderate option to work with the Senate Rs.

Related to this, there have been many times where the President and Senate were mixed parties, and still had nominations and confirmations of judges.

The explanations are revisionist. You can go and read and listen and even watch the explanations Republicans were giving in 2016 (and later!). (and specifically some of them stating if a vacancy arose in the 4th year of Trump's presidency, that they wouldn't fill it).

There is no difference. The Republicans had power to keep Obama from even getting a hearing on Federal Judges in 2014-2016, and they have power to give Trump all the judges he wants now.

The only difference is how they explained it then, and how they justify it now.

Democrats have no legal reason to halt this appointment. Their arguments as to why Garland should have gotten a hearing are just as valid with Barrett. A President is elected for 4 years, each of those years he should be able to nominate and have a hearing on that judge. McConnell gambled with his use of power, and he won big time. (There was discussions among Senate Rs of, if Hillary won, keeping the seat open throughout her presidency, and holding out having any Federal court appointments being made by her, period.)

It was a slimy way to do it that substantially contributed to the widening partisan divide and acrimony. But it was all fully legal.

And he knows it!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPgUrVPXeI
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 05:59:58 pm by Taalcon »
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper, Hobbes

Taalcon

  • MembersOnly
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Thanked: 1322 times
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2020, 06:06:04 pm »
Related: This is why I'm also actively voting for my Democratic Senate candidates to push McConnell out of power. I believe he has abused the power given him. If the Democrats take control of the Senate and the majority leader abuses their power, I will likely vote to rebalance the next opportunity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jen, Iggy, Roper

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2020, 10:18:02 am »
Listened to more hearings this morning. Sen. Feinstein kept pushing for Judge Barrett to commit to a position of support for specific laws and policies if they came before the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett consistently answered that she would approach any hypothetical case in accordance with how judges are required to approach a case--by examining the text of the law, by studying precedent, etc. Sen. Feinstein would ask the exact same question but in a different context, and Judge Barrett would patiently answer the same way. Finally Judge Barrett said, "If I gave a personal opinion about a political issue at this point, I would become a pundit. I don't believe that's what America wants in a Supreme Court Justice. I promise I will always conduct myself guided by the rule of law."

The more I listen to Judge Barrett, the more I think she is EXACTLY who we need on the Supreme Court.
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 
The following users thanked this post: mirkwood, Sparky

Roper

  • Administrator
  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Thanked: 2904 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Barrett's Confirmation
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2020, 01:05:51 am »
Cognitive dissonance is good way to describe much of the opposition to Judge Barrett.  We've become used to women on the court being liberal. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor are childless. Now, we have an upcoming Justice who is conservative, who has seven children, two of them adopted, and whose convictions are decidedly pro-life. American women who are conservative, and trying to balance a professional career with having children, and who are opposed to abortion, now have someone on the court who can relate to them. We haven't had anyone on the court like that. Justice O'Connor was kinda like that, but she was more moderate than conservative. It's interesting that the party of "tolerance" won't tolerate a woman who dares to think differently than them.

"What??!! A woman who has similar experience to what Justice Kagan had for her nomination, who is a mother to seven children--two who are adopted and one who has special needs, who is devoutly religious, and who (can you believe it) is conservative?  How can this be? This is just unheard of! This must be some evil Republican plot! Take her down!"
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 01:24:51 am by Roper »
All grown-ups were once children...but only few of them remember it. ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, "The Little Prince."
 
The following users thanked this post: mirkwood

 


* Calendar

October 2020
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31

No calendar events were found.

* Recent Posts

Re: White Privilege by Jason
[October 29, 2020, 11:07:01 pm]


Re: White Privilege by Sparky
[October 29, 2020, 03:01:07 pm]


Re: White Privilege by Taalcon
[October 29, 2020, 11:58:25 am]


White Privilege by Roper
[October 29, 2020, 11:05:31 am]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Taalcon
[October 29, 2020, 09:23:27 am]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by JLM
[October 29, 2020, 12:13:18 am]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Roper
[October 28, 2020, 10:52:37 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Taalcon
[October 28, 2020, 09:08:17 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Roper
[October 28, 2020, 08:50:42 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Roper
[October 27, 2020, 07:13:57 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by pnr
[October 27, 2020, 05:56:56 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by LMAshton
[October 27, 2020, 04:39:52 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Taalcon
[October 27, 2020, 02:49:34 pm]


Re: President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by JLM
[October 27, 2020, 02:43:23 pm]


President Oaks: "Of Course Black Lives Matter!" by Taalcon
[October 27, 2020, 02:24:34 pm]

* Top Posters

Roper Roper
2021 Posts
Curelom
1565 Posts
dyany dyany
1210 Posts
Taalcon
768 Posts
N3uroTypical N3uroTypical
648 Posts

* Board Statistics

  • stats Total Members: 114
  • stats Total Posts: 15032
  • stats Total Topics: 1081
  • stats Total Categories: 8
  • stats Total Boards: 35
  • stats Most Online: 197

  • averages Average Posts: 10
  • averages Average Topics: 1
  • averages Average Members: 0
  • averages Average Online: 22

* Forum Staff

AndrewR_admin admin AndrewR_admin
Administrator
dyany admin dyany
Administrator
Roper admin Roper
Administrator
LMAshton admin LMAshton
Administrator
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal