U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

(and that's assuming that fuckwit Manchin isn't a yes vote)

Doubt it. ACA's too important in West Virginia.

nothing new in this statement but even more than the upcoming election (though that may well change shortly), the apparently unstoppable push to install coney barrett as an agent of retroactivity has been so tremendously depressing that I've worked to tune out daily political conversation.

I read that as agent of radioactivity, and ... that, too.

My favourite video so far.

Under questioning by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Amy Coney Barrett is unable to name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. pic.twitter.com/U3KFm5FA97

— The American Independent (@AmerIndependent) October 14, 2020

He's flirting with her.

Big 👍

the majority of US Senators are in active opposition to democracy. why should a supreme court justice be a pro at the 1st amendment? being incompetent is not enough these days. it's enough to idly stand by as the republic falls apart. one must take hold of it and bring it down with greater speed. i believe in you amy barrett

otm

the majority of US Senators are in active opposition to democracy

Except for a brief spell in the mid 1950s to the late '60s, so has SCOTUS.

I mentally filled in the missing "not" in KM's antepenultimate sentence.

Showing my hand as a you-know-what even being familiar with the, um, penultimate word in my sentence.

lol

yeah, i missed the "not" in there, whoops! but thank you for putting it back in there

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