Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[Ridgerunner]

Whether he meant it this way or not, it came across as his asserting the superiority of genes that produce attractive, blond, fair-skinned, intelligent white people. Commenting upon a family’s “good genes” is awfully tone-deaf where some of the children are obviously adopted, regardless of their race.

He was not talking about the Barretts. He was talking about the Scalia family. Here’s what he said:

“And we are honored to have his wonderful wife, Maureen — where is Maureen? Maureen Scalia — with us today. (Applause.) Thank you. And our great Secretary of Labor, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Very good genes in that family, I will say. Very good genes.”

And there’s nothing wrong with being blond or fair, but Antonin Scalia, of Italian extraction, was neither.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Whether he meant it this way or not, it came across as his asserting the superiority of genes that produce attractive, blond, fair-skinned, intelligent white people. Commenting upon a family’s “good genes” is awfully tone-deaf where some of the children are obviously adopted, regardless of their race.

He was not talking about the Barretts. He was talking about the Scalia family. Here’s what he said:

“And we are honored to have his wonderful wife, Maureen — where is Maureen? Maureen Scalia — with us today. (Applause.) Thank you. And our great Secretary of Labor, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Very good genes in that family, I will say. Very good genes.”

And there’s nothing wrong with being blond or fair, but Antonin Scalia, of Italian extraction, was neither.

I stand corrected. I just heard snippets, and thought he was talking about the Barretts.

I have deleted my prior comments on the matter.

 

[Suudy]

Wanna bet? I expect it to be at least as bad as the Bork/Thomas/Kavanaugh circuses. Other than personal denigration what is there?

I think the Democrat are likely to try and avoid the personal attacks, and will go with procedural games. With Kavanaugh, they couldn’t drag things out forever. For ACB, there is a short window between now and the election, or even inauguration/seating of new congressmen. All they have to do is stall things until then.

I think it will be procedural tricks, such as quorum calls, procedural tactics in the senate judiciary committee (already seen before in other committees), refuse unanimous consent decrees and demand a vote on everything. There is already talk of games like were done in Texas and refuse to even seat a quorum, with Dem senators fleeing DC to avoid a vote. Can the Dems get 50 to flee and refuse to return? Shrug.

We’ll see how it plays out. But I think all the Dems need are a couple of months of delays.

 

[1cthlctrth]

And similarly, I hope those who supported Obama’s but do not support Trump’s are given the same treatment.

But but …this is different don’t you know!?

Circa 2016:

Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year | Blaze Media

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ginsburg added.
Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good

“Elections have consequences,” then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. “The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”

“The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent,” Biden wrote in a New York Times op-ed in 2016.
“It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend,” he wrote.

 

[1cthlctrth]

since her confirmation will be rammed down the throats of the Democrats

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-2/

Powers and duties of the President, according to the Constitution of the United States:
Section 2. Clause 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court

 

[Ridgerunner]

But you see, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the Democrat saint, unless she agrees with Trump on something.

 

[on_the_hill]

Except Trump has never been qualified

Over and over again, the media said, “This will be the turning point…”. “This will be the moment when he seats acting presidential…”
and it never happened

I’m not a liberal, I’m well aware that the left has an agenda and exploits Trump’s shambolic administration to gain the political advantage.

Nonetheless, I think he’s the worst president in our history.

 

[27lw]

In the most charitable terms, I think he was not mentally, psychologically, emotionally prepared for the job, was overwhelmed from the start and hasn’t been able to handle it.

I blame the media for his presidency, because if they had ignored him as a sideshow then he never would’ve been elected. Instead they put his antics on display and people bought him.

You should “blame” the media. It is not Trump vs Democrats, it’s Trump vs the democrats and their
Bedfellows the mainstream media.
The condescension and hatred dished out by the media against conservatives for the last 50-some years has turned conservatives against the media. Witness Sandmann and Covington Catholic High.
The Democrats and media don’t even seem to begin to understand this. The Republicans are on to you, and we’re not standing for it any more.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Except Trump has never been qualified

I can’t say I care for his personal manner, though he can be — can be — very gracious. His accomplishments are a mixed bag, I have to say in fairness, more good than bad, his “build the wall” tantrum, when he closed down the federal government, was not his best hour. I don’t think he’s ever going to “act presidential” as that expression is commonly understood — that’s not his personality. I have read that LBJ could be crude to the point that he would have made Trump look like Jimmy Carter by comparison. CAF guidelines probably prohibit me from describing some of these crude moments.

 

[Aulef]

Here is a hearing that happened in 2017 with Mrs. Barret.

Sorry if someone else already posted it

 

[JSRG]

Theo520:

I agree, they will pull out all stops to try cancel the vote, but they won’t go overboard to denigrate the nominee. This is a politically respectable approach, as when the GOP stonewalled Merrick Garland without denigration.

Wanna bet? I expect it to be at least as bad as the Bork/Thomas/Kavanaugh circuses. Other than personal denigration what is there?

The strongest argument Democrats have, and it’s not a bad one, is to point to some statements Barrett made that indicates she disapproved of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision (the one that upheld the Affordable Care Act). With the Supreme Court taking up the case again, and approval for the Affordable Care Act being at an all-time high amidst the pandemic, this is actually a very powerful argument. I expect even many of those that don’t like the Affordable Care Act do not think that simply striking it down without any replacement at the ready is a good idea.

Pragmatically speaking, though, the Supreme Court is almost certain, with or without Barrett, to not strike down the Affordable Care Act in this case. Someone may say “well the original decision was 5-4 and Barrett replaced one of the people who voted to uphold it!” Problem is, even if one does believe that the ACA should’ve been struck down in that case, that case was also much stronger; there was a much better argument to be made that the individual mandate couldn’t be severed from the rest of the law than there is now (severed means the SCOTUS would strike down only the individual mandate, leaving the rest of the law in place), and the fact that the penalty had been reduced to zero means someone has to argue that someone is actually being injured by the individual mandate despite there being no penalty for not buying insurance. And you also have the issue of disruption. While the SCOTUS has been willing to hand down rulings that disrupt society, there is still some desire to avoid those when possible, and taking away a law that people have been relying on for 10+ years is a much bigger disruption than taking out a law that had only recently been passed, so even if they did buy everything up to the question of severability, the major societal disruption would be strong reason to only strike down the individual mandate (which as of right now, basically does nothing) rather than the full law.

But those specifics aren’t known to a lot of people. And even with that knowledge, someone can still be worried about the possibility the Supreme Court still strikes it down, unlikely as it seems. Focusing on this potential threat to the currently-very-popular ACA would probably be the smartest play by Democrats.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Pragmatically speaking, though, the Supreme Court is almost certain, with or without Barrett, to not strike down the Affordable Care Act in this case. Someone may say “well the original decision was 5-4 and Barrett replaced one of the people who voted to uphold it!” Problem is, even if one does believe that the ACA should’ve been struck down in that case, that case was also much stronger; there was a much better argument to be made that the individual mandate couldn’t be severed from the rest of the law than there is now (severed means the SCOTUS would strike down only the individual mandate, leaving the rest of the law in place), and the fact that the penalty had been reduced to zero means someone has to argue that someone is actually being injured by the individual mandate despite there being no penalty for not buying insurance. And you also have the issue of disruption. While the SCOTUS has been willing to hand down rulings that disrupt society, there is still some desire to avoid those when possible, and taking away a law that people have been relying on for 10+ years is a much bigger disruption than taking out a law that had only recently been passed, so even if they did buy everything up to the question of severability, the major societal disruption would be strong reason to only strike down the individual mandate (which as of right now, basically does nothing) rather than the full law.

I say “bring it on!”. I personally benefit from ACA in that I am low-income (it’s complicated), not old enough for Medicare, and at the moment, I do not work. I look at certain identity groups and tut-tut to myself, “you claim to be pro-life, yet you vote for Democrats because they look out for the interests of your group and you benefit from their policy decisions”. You can’t have it both ways. You want to talk about “integrity”? Part of “integrity” is putting your money where your mouth is. If the mix of the Supreme Court eventually ensures some protections for some of the unborn, but if that same mix takes away ACA, so be it. It would be the lesser of two evils. If I have to go back to work (probably just part-time), and make some other arrangements for the care of my elderly, disabled parents, and possibly even have to re-imagine our homeschooling setup, so be it. I won’t be cowed into supporting pro-choice Democrats to try and save “my precious ACA”.

“For what does it profit a man…”

 

[JimG]

Well, ACB is a happily married woman with seven children and is a practicing Catholicc. By that very fact she is already a threat to liberal Dems. She’s in a real marriage, welcomes children, and practices her faith, things which are a threat to their worldview. On the other hand, she affirms that the law and constitution should be read as written, and not interpreted in light of her personal whims. Expect a lot of hysterical questions about her Catholicism which would not be asked if she were Methodist or Episcopalian.

 

[Ender]

The strongest argument Democrats have, and it’s not a bad one, is to point to some statements Barrett made that indicates she disapproved of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision (the one that upheld the Affordable Care Act). With the Supreme Court taking up the case again, and approval for the Affordable Care Act being at an all-time high amidst the pandemic, this is actually a very powerful argument. I expect even many of those that don’t like the Affordable Care Act do not think that simply striking it down without any replacement at the ready is a good idea.

This argument is not only not powerful, it is atrocious. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to prefer justices who vote like politicians rather than do what judges are supposed to do: judge on the basis of the laws? Should a justice really decide a case base on the preferred outcome?

Focusing on this potential threat to the currently-very-popular ACA would probably be the smartest play by Democrats.

Probably so. The Dems have turned the SCOTUS nominee process into a search for outcomes. Arguing that ACA is threatened is all of a piece with that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

JSRG:

The strongest argument Democrats have, and it’s not a bad one, is to point to some statements Barrett made that indicates she disapproved of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision (the one that upheld the Affordable Care Act). With the Supreme Court taking up the case again, and approval for the Affordable Care Act being at an all-time high amidst the pandemic, this is actually a very powerful argument. I expect even many of those that don’t like the Affordable Care Act do not think that simply striking it down without any replacement at the ready is a good idea.

This argument is not only not powerful, it is atrocious. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to prefer justices who vote like politicians rather than do what judges are supposed to do: judge on the basis of the laws? Should a justice really decide a case base on the preferred outcome?

If the ACA were struck down, it would probably happen too late, to change anything during open enrollment season this year. There are contracts and whatnot in place that, so it seems, would have to be honored. So there would be, probably, at least a one-year “burn-in” period. Put another way, even if ACA were struck down in some collective judicial fit of ideological purity, it wouldn’t all happen overnight.

Focusing on this potential threat to the currently-very-popular ACA would probably be the smartest play by Democrats.

Yep, that’s about right, a “search for outcomes”. The Supreme Court has morphed into a de facto third house of the legislative branch, a type of tenure-for-life rump super-Senate. Note the way that practically everybody refers to SC Justices as “voting”. Judges do not vote. They decide.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

The strongest argument Democrats have, and it’s not a bad one, is to point to some statements Barrett made that indicates she disapproved of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision (the one that upheld the Affordable Care Act). With the Supreme Court taking up the case again, and approval for the Affordable Care Act being at an all-time high amidst the pandemic, this is actually a very powerful argument. I expect even many of those that don’t like the Affordable Care Act do not think that simply striking it down without any replacement at the ready is a good idea.

This argument is not only not powerful, it is atrocious. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to prefer justices who vote like politicians rather than do what judges are supposed to do: judge on the basis of the laws? Should a justice really decide a case base on the preferred outcome?

“Does anyone really think” that? A lot of people think that. I think even most people think that. They might disguise it to others or even themselves by saying they want judges to follow the Constitution but what that really means to most people is “the interpretation of the Constitution that benefits policies I support.”

People by and large don’t look at the NFIB v. Sebelius decision and actually ask themselves whether the Commerce Clause or Taxation Clause permits the individual mandate or not. It’s mostly “hey, I like the ACA, so the arguments that it’s constitutional are the right ones” or “hey, I don’t like the ACA, so the arguments that it’s unconstitutional are the right ones.”

Probably so. The Dems have turned the SCOTUS nominee process into a search for outcomes. Arguing that ACA is threatened is all of a piece with that.

It’s not like the Republicans aren’t guilty of turning the SCOTUS nominee process into a search for outcomes either.

 

[Lea101]

Well, ACB is a happily married woman with seven children and is a practicing Catholicc. By that very fact she is already a threat to liberal Dems. She’s in a real marriage, welcomes children, and practices her faith, things which are a threat to their worldview. On the other hand, she affirms that the law and constitution should be read as written, and not interpreted in light of her personal whims. Expect a lot of hysterical questions about her Catholicism which would not be asked if she were Methodist or Episcopalian.

Honestly, all of these things do not matter. It’s simply because she’s chosen by Trump, and her personal values. They’ll be crazy even if she’s black, single, has no children, etc as long as she’s pro life and is against democrat policies.

It’s interesting to see how people can’t seem to act as if she’s a horrible person. Her liberal students have come out and said she was a nice woman…but they don’t support her because of her political views. Something about how she’s an example of how a sweet and smiling face can think you aren’t worthy of rights…blah.

 

[otjm]

This is likely to be Round 2 on Catholicism as I don’t think the Democrats can possibly conceal their contempt for someone who is a faithful believer - and on top of that a Catholic. Already the cheap shots are being made; she went through a painfully prejudiced series of questions with her last appointment and the shots are multiplying - questions thinly veiled that adopting children of a different race is actually a sign of racism; questions as to the legality of the adoptions (with zero evidence that there might be any issue; simply that the children were adopted) and slurs about removing children for their natural parents (and that by pro abortionists who have absolutely no problem with a child being permanently removed from their parents), implications that she could rule out all abortions (not only has she, as well as Kavanaugh supported stare decisis, and there are currently no cases pending which likely would attack the root of Roe vs. Wade, and in addition, it would simply put the question back to the individual states).

And the ACA last round was sustained only by finding that it was a tax - a point vehemently denied by the Democrats and as she noted, stretched the case beyond credible limits. If the ACA is found wanting (and it is seriously wanting, from it’s inception - feel free to revisit the series of lies we were given about it) then it will be up to Congress to figure out what they did not figure out the first time.

So I think I will order some and a great deal of and see if it is even possible for the Democrats to not self destruct right in front of everybody

And once the circus drops its tent and moves on, we will get to see how many Republicans will be wannabes, and how many wish to slide.

 

[pnewton]

I looked up the current judges last night, and with her confirmation, the court will be solidly Republican appointees, 6-3, for the foreseeable future.

 

[PaulinVA]

It is astonishing to me, actually, that any Catholic could support Biden/Harris and abortion.

Why do you think support for Biden is support for abortion? One could vote for Biden and not support abortion.