Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[jeannetherese]

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

Should one’s vote gain him the presidency, given his commitment to abortion, one will be complicit in the expansion of abortion provision.
As Planned Parenthood notes in their online endorsement:
"Biden has pledged to fight to not just protect but also expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, and he left the Senate in 2009 with a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "

 

[Ridgerunner]

literally

Yes. I think it became a desperation sort of thing.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

pnewton:

If I was Trump, I think I would wait, as appointing a replacement in the next term would be an incentive to vote for him.

Yes. I wonder how many people would just not vote at all if they get this Supreme; that is, just planning to vote for Trump to replace RBG.

The same people who wanted to replace RBG with a conservative and/or constitutional textualist and originalist (and I would be among both of these) also have in mind, or should have in mind, that there are eight other Justices, any of whom could leave the Court at any time. Clarence Thomas wants to retire. John Roberts has had some kind of transient seizure problem that might be a sign of some unknown, potentially fatal illness. Stephen Breyer is in his 80s. As for the others, well, people die suddenly and unexpectedly. Look at what happened to Antonin Scalia.

So unless there is ever some sort of 8-1 “conservative/liberal” split and all the Justices are young and in the prime of health, we can’t ever rest on our laurels and relax. Government, politics, and the composition of the three branches, are always a “going concern”.

 

[o_mlly]

… we can’t ever rest on our laurels and relax.

Yes. Populating the court with Republican appointees and calling it a day did not work out well in 1973.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee that voted against Roe v. Wade was Byron White.

 

[Rau]

Populating the court with Republican appointees and calling it a day did not work out well in 1973.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee that voted against Roe v. Wade was Byron White.

But it isn’t the case that every Republican opposes abortion is it? Or that every Republican appointed judge would do so? Or that every Republican appointed judge disagrees with the R v W legal reasoning?

Wouldn’t a more honest approach be to pursue Constitutional change to make the abortion situation black and white clear? Meaning there are 3 options: assert the parents’ right to kill, assert the unborn’s right to be cared for, or ensure the Constitution cannot be construed as taking a position on the subject.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

o_mlly:

Populating the court with Republican appointees and calling it a day did not work out well in 1973.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee that voted against Roe v. Wade was Byron White.

But it isn’t the case that every Republican opposes abortion is it? Or that every Republican appointed judge would do so? Or that every Republican appointed judge disagrees with the R v W legal reasoning?

Wouldn’t a more honest approach be to pursue Constitutional change to make the abortion situation black and white clear? Meaning there are 3 options: assert the parents’ right to kill, assert the unborn’s right to be cared for, or ensure the Constitution cannot be construed as taking a position on the subject.

Truth be told, the Constitution doesn’t take a position on the subject. Depending upon the case, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I might have to disappoint a lot of pro-lifers by not making a decision that would make their dreams come true. Nobody would be more pained about that than I, however, I am a textualist and an originalist, and I wouldn’t “mine” the Constitution for something that’s just not there. The liberal judicial activists might do that, but I wouldn’t.

And the Republican party is not the same party that it was in 1973 (and neither is the Democratic party). Opposition to abortion, or favoring of abortion rights, was not “baked into” the platforms of either party the way it is in 2020. “Country club Republicans” did not take strong moral stands on much of anything. The Republican party was more the party of big business and moneyed interests.

 

[JSRG]

Clarence Thomas wants to retire.

On what do you base the claim? Sure, there’s rumors, but those rumors have been going on for a while and if he hasn’t retired yet we might as well disregard them. I remember people speculating about him retiring last year (and the year before that), and he shot it down:

Clarence Thomas addresses Supreme Court retirement rumors

So other than unsubstantiated rumors, what evidence is there that he wants to retire?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Clarence Thomas wants to retire.

On what do you base the claim? Sure, there’s rumors, but those rumors have been going on for a while and if he hasn’t retired yet we might as well disregard them. I remember people speculating about him retiring last year (and the year before that), and he shot it down:

USA TODAY

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas jokes ‘I cause stress,’ addresses…​

“I have no idea where this stuff comes from,” said Thomas, addressing rumors that he might be retiring from the Supreme Court.

So other than unsubstantiated rumors, what evidence is there that he wants to retire?

I thought I recalled reading it in the news, and that it was common knowledge.

I read a massive amount of everything, and I cannot possibly remember exactly where I read each and every single thing that I read.

 

[Rau]

Truth be told, the Constitution doesn’t take a position on the subject.

There are of course some current and recent supreme court justices who disagree on that point, hence my proposal that it needs to be made clear.

 

[Victoria33]

Yes. Populating the court with Republican appointees and calling it a day did not work out well in 1973.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee that voted against Roe v. Wade was Byron White.

The Senate advises and confirms. The Senate was run by Democrats, had been for the vast amount of time between the 1950s and 1990s, so the Democrats have a major part of this.

I’m also unaware of how much abortion was an issue from 1960-1973.

Remember, nothing goes anywhere without Senate approval.

Remember how the Democrats blocked Judge Bork and there have been others as well, along with the Brett Kavanaugh public spectacle last time.

 

[o_mlly]

Remember, nothing goes anywhere without Senate approval.

If only that were true. Liberals abandoned the difficult and problematic legislative strategy to effect their progressive agenda to a judicial strategy.

 

[Theo520]

This is a disturbing view by the candidate team

Views of Orthodox Catholics, Jews, Muslims Should Disqualify Them from Supreme Court​

Biden Staffer Suggests Orthodox Catholics, Jews, Muslims Should Be Disqualified from Supreme Court | National Review

 

[pnewton]

That should be no surprise that a lot of Democrats feel that way, since they think any dissent of abortion at any point should disqualify them as a Democrat.

 

[Theo520]

this made me chuckle

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[1cthlctrth]

Live Updates: Judge Amy Coney Barrett faces Senate confirmation hearing | Fox News

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating | Blaze Media

The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating.

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is “well qualified” for a position on the Supreme Court.

“As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” the letter continues. “A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is ‘Qualified’ to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Because Amy Coney Barrett already went through the confirmation process just 3 years ago with most of the same Senators, it would seem that this confirmation process should conclude quickly.

 

[PaulinVA]

Don’t waste our time or the Senators’ time.

Just bring it to a floor vote, approve her, and then get back to covid stimulus.

We know that’s the outcome.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I agree!..get er done!

 

[PaulinVA]

I agree!..get er done!

No, the process is a sham so don’t waste our time. Just do it and let history judge McConnell.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It is perfunctory action ,but required nonetheless.

 

[christofirst]

I’ve only been watching the hearing for a half hour, but so far I haven’t heard the judge utter a single word, just senators from either side grandstanding and talking nonstop.