U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

I swear to god I wish people would stop with the "let the people decide" argument. it fucking sucked when it was used on merrick garland and it still sucks. the reason barrett shouldn't be appointed is that she's an unqualified fundamentalist who has indicated destructive court decisions that will last for decades or centuries, not because of "reasoning" pulled out of the collective republican ass because they didn't want barack obama to get his way.

she's an unqualified fundamentalist who has indicated destructive court decisions that will last for decades or centuries

and that makes her smart "brilliant", according to her publicity team

The conservative definition of "brilliant" means "brown nosing intensely enough Fed Society satraps to get Leonard Leo to write your recommendation letters." It also means "not reading the Constitution" and "citing original intent enough to cover your deep contempt for your own profession and learning generally.

Have you guys seen the usage OfMitch yet?

of course, but it's still immensely frustrating, given the dozens of actually real points against, to watch people willingly have zero case (because "the people should decide" is not a case, it's Mitch-issue bullshit)

Prior to the nomination of Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1939, there was a long and solemn tradition of parking legal mediocrities on the SCOTUS. The Federalist Society is reviving this tradition with a vengeance. A very literal vengeance.

What would a figurative vengeance look like?

scowling a lot

Frankfurter's an interesting Earth-2 one-man proto-Federalist Society, though, recommending dozens of his clerks for New Deal positions.

SEN. FEINSTEIN after Judge Barrett explains severability: “I’m really impressed” pic.twitter.com/Qf11molwHF

— Senate Republican Communications Center (@SRCC) October 14, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_358OhIRqo
#OneThread

Somebody should ask Amy Coney Barrett if she believes Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in hell

— Stan Chera (@neoliberal_dad) October 14, 2020

looool I was saying the other day it’d be funny if someone were to ask her about a pro-Catholic bias on the Supreme Court, oh but this.. this is so much better

i could not watch one minute of this scam

barrett graduated first in her class at notre dame, she knows what the first amendment says. she's playing dumb and lying through her teeth, and that's what's truly offensive.

According to the NYT, 'Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court Could Take Us Backward'. Could. Might. Maybe. Who can say.

I haven’t watched a second of it bc it’s all just so monumentally depressing but unless I missed something filtered through soc media I’m shocked more hasn’t been made of her work on Bush v Gore, particularly in light of uh Trump’s non-concession talk

TBH, I don't find it very significant that she worked on Bush v. Gore as a third-year associate in a large firm.

I just have to say I hate almost every public discussion of "originalism" - conservatives give it too much credit and liberals give it too little. For example I often see stuff like this, which is just blatantly incorrect
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/121595418_4391209287638758_3925704783184384162_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=ZRAAbE0Lz7YAX_gbBYP&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=a2126ea136cae103c9460aa04143a4ec&oe=5FAF380C

I'm sure there's some constitutional scholar who has put this concept better than me, but I don't believe so-called "originalism" and so-called "living constitution" are entirely incompatible. The very drafting of a lot of the constitution (though not all of it) is so general and vague that it HAS to be interpreted beyond its "original public meaning." In fact I believe it was intended to be treated that way, because it's a constitution, not a statute book. That doesn't mean there are no outer limits on what it can mean. But I think living constitutionalism, within limits, IS an originalist view.

Shhh, Thomas will hear you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOWO--z1S8A

I haven't been watching the hearings, but from the coverage I've seen, it is such a sham, any consideration of why she shouldn't be confirmed is quickly swept into the dustbin of "but she will be confirmed" and equal time given to Republicans calling her the greatest human being ever. Why can't a Dem just tee off on her archaic religious views, ask her if she would submit to her husband's understanding of the constitution if it differed from hers or something? What do they have to lose at this point?

Im beyond bummed about all this and my lib/ centrist political nerd friends seem to just be shrugging, even mildly defending(!?!?) her. Tbf though they’re pretty preoccupied with a danged Cheeto in the White House and are positive he’ll end up in an orange jumpsuit one day. Then snip snap back to brunch.

actually it’s just one pal convinced she’s not “that bad”.

Why get worked up today about what you can put off until the next forty years or so that she'll be a SC justice?

JUST NOW: On the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham is holding a vote to schedule vote on Barrett nomination on Oct 22nd in violation of Committee rules. Sen Durban is only Dem present. Rules require 2 members of minority party are present. Graham holds vote anyway.

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) October 15, 2020

Disgusting, craven garbage people.

What do they have to lose at this point?

Well, if they "tee off" on her religious views they clearly would not lose you, because you seem to think that would be a reasonable strategy and would cheer them on.

otoh, the Democratic senators understand that they have nothing to gain from senselessly antagonizing the very sizable portion of the US population who take their religious beliefs seriously, including millions of BIPOC people, who might see an attack on her religion as tangentially an attack on their beliefs, too.

Yeah I would say you have to pair "What do they have to lose?" with "What do they have to gain?"

Ugh

so there's literally no recourse here? "yeah we violated the rules. so what?".

I mean why abide by any chamber rules then

I think that her particular religious views represent a very small percentage of religious Americans, let alone the American public as a whole. The first thing Republicans brought up on the announcement of her nomination was "Dems should not ask her about her religious views" and it seems like Dems just went along with that. To me, it is a completely valid line of questioning. She is a religious extremist and Republicans are forcing her extremist views on the American public through the highest court in the land for the next 40 years or whatever. Possibly offending a handful other religious extremists hardly seems worth sweeping the whole topic aside.

Make her come out and say that at work she will hold the constitution above her religious views and the she'll be the one offending people who share her extremism.

Make her come out and say that at work she will hold the constitution above her religious views and the she'll be the one offending people who share her extremism.

You seem to think that her saying that she will hold the constitution above her religious views would somehow be important. Saying it would be meaningless, because there would always be a constitutional argument to justify whatever opinion she signed onto. As for those who share her extremism, they will trust her to think as they do, right up until she joins a decision they hate, which seems unlikely.

There's nothing to be done to prevent her confirmation under Senate rules and no way she will answer any direct questions on the issues. The only strategy that makes sense to me, under the current situation is to emphasize the gravity of the issues she will be considering and how the decisions of the court could affect voters personally. This doesn't prevent her being seated, but only lays the political groundwork for making the Republicans pay a price for it.

Christian conservatives have driven our country to this precipice under the ideal that we are a christian nation and the belief that abortion and gay marriage are an affront to that ideal. They also believe that Barrett should be able to come out and say that everything she says and does is driven by her faith. They do not want a constitutional democracy, they want a theocracy and they see her confirmation as huge step in that direction. They do not care if they lose healthcare in pursuit of that goal. It is God's will. If she were forced to deny the prominence of faith over man's law in her deliberations, it would be a huge blow to them. They are not so savvy to excuse it as a political means to an end. Religion is both the means and the end, and Dems are already the enemy, so again, why not force the issue? Why let Republicans continue to pretend to practice democracy and preach theocracy?

And what would that "huge blow" look like, so that I could recognize it if I saw it?

including millions of BIPOC people, who might see an attack on her religion as tangentially an attack on their beliefs, too.

― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:29 PM (two hours ago)

Idk I have a hard time imagining a significant number of Indigenous people getting mad about this

I have a hard time seeing how we can justify questioning her religion and then arguing against questioning the religion of a muslim or jewish nominee in the future. "This religion is different" is not very compelling.

There are enough Black, Latinx and Asian-American christians to make up many millions, despite the relative paucity of indigenous people.

where is "attack on her religion" and "questioning her religion" coming from? what would be wrong about asking her how religion informs her thinking as a judge?

"How does sharia law inform your thinking as a judge. Do you believe terrorism can be justified in the name of god?"

I mean, fer chrissakes, Nancy Pelosi is a devout catholic and is outright demonized by the religious right, but Dems can't even ask Barrett to explain her religious views because it would offend christian voters? It's insane. A huge blow would be a small rift between the republican party and those Christians currently in lock step with them. You gotta start somewhere.

man alive that is a crazy jump

where is "attack on her religion" and "questioning her religion" coming from?

"Why can't a Dem just tee off on her archaic religious views..." does not conjure up a picture of calm, reasonable inquiry.

but yes, if someone wants to be a SC justice and believes in sharia law, maybe it should come up during the questioning?

if someone has a religious belief that drives their thinking on a public policy issue, why in the world would it be out of bounds?

Because it feels uncomfortably close to asking for a loyalty oath.

What you're basically implying is "Can we really trust that you will put your country/constitution above your religion?" Which is somehow only a question that ever comes up with members of certain religious groups and not others.

btw i'm not trying to side with brianB here, either. i'm not advocating trying to force barrett to admit she prefers a theocracy or whatever, and i certainly don't think that would be any "big blow" to the right or conservative christians. they're in their own universe. barrett's getting that seat. they don't care, why should they?

I'm not arguing that questions of other faiths couldn't be asked of other nominees in the future. It's easy enough to answer that religion is one thing and government is another. I'm saying that they're letting her off the hook here so that some extremist christians can continue to believe that God wants to banish abortion and gay marriage and point to her future decisions on the court as evidence of that.

Karl, I agree that it would be legitimate to inquire whether Judge Barrett would defer to established precedent over her strongly held religious beliefs, but in reality that is a softball question, because as I said every SCOTUS decision will come with a formal constitutional justification, so she will always be able to plead that the constitutional argument was uppermost in her thinking. It's child's play to deflect such a question.