O
on_the_hill
Guest
I’ll vote for Biden.
In 2016 I didn’t vote for the president because I felt neither would do a good job. Now I regret not voting for Clinton.
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
In 2016 I didn’t vote for the president because I felt neither would do a good job. Now I regret not voting for Clinton.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why? Be specific if you will. Don’t just recite Dem party talking points. Point to Trump’s actual policies that have had a detrimental effect on the nation.
It is astonishing to me, actually, that any Catholic could support Biden/Harris and abortion.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Absolutely true. No one is arguing that the Republicans CAN’T do it, they’re arguing they SHOULDN’T do it.
As for Adams, Jefferson, and midnight appointments, yes, Adams filled a Supreme Court seat, setup a lot more federal judgeships and packed them with his supporters, etc.
But then what? Jefferson and his party impeached Marshall; they repealed the 1801 Judiciary Act–thus nullifying all those “lifetime” appointments by eliminating the posts; and it all led to Marbury v Madison, which affirmed the Supreme Court’s ability to nullify unconstitutional laws. So who won?
V
Vanny
Guest
Can someone please explain to me why-if we are expected to wait until after the election to fill the seat-as we are told is only “fair” by the Democrats-why we then cannot have a list of the judges a Biden/Harris administration would appoint? Transparency?
Why can we not see them then, if we are expected to wait until after the election?
Why can we not see them then, if we are expected to wait until after the election?
W
whatistrue
Guest
My post was never about winning or losing, just about precedent for the current situation.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
And my point is that it’s not a good idea–also based on precedent.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I can understand that argument, but there is also this from an article in “SCOTUS Blog”: " So Gorsuch has embraced a simplistic theory of discrimination. In doing so, he redefined sex to entail distinct concepts because, he claims, ‘homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex.’" Symposium: The simplistic logic of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s account of sex discrimination - SCOTUSblog
Which sounds to me like the 2020 definition of sex, not simply a defense of women’s rights.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never wrote that “cruel and unusual punishment” was something decided by the Supreme or any other court. I was simply using it as an example of a term which meant one thing in 1789 and something completely different in 2020. Remember that the criterion the Originalists use is “what would a reasonable man at the time of the legislation think was the meaning” (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of their argument.) And a reasonable man in 1789 would have a different opinion than a reasonable man in 2020.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I wrote (post #53):Erikaspirit16:
That is precisely what you said.
“We already have two justices considered to be sexual predators on the Court. Now they’re going to add another that will be rammed down the throats of the Democrats–and a large majority of the population (read the polls!)”
I admit that this is too ambiguous. By “another” I meant “another justice” not “another sexual predator.” I’m sorry you misinterpreted it.
You are right. I made a mistake! The Republicans were in the minority, but were able to block Obama’s judicial appointments. So the Democrats made judicial confirmations a simple majority.
Sorry, I don’t think that’s “weak,” I think it’s a major argument. She wrote a paper in 2017 saying that when Roberts called the individual mandate a “tax” that he was wrong; it should have been a “penalty” in her opinion. And since she is on record as opposing the general principle of stare decisis, that could very well end the ACA.
Also, I spent a bit of time reading her views on a variety of topics. She has a scanty judicial record since she was made a federal judge only three years ago. And she appears to have been in the minority in a lot of important decisions–which seems to me to be a flashing warning light. But beyond that, she opposes–in her writings and speeches–the “liberal” opinion in a host of issues that will be coming before the Supreme Court soon. Anyone who is actually interested can read all about them by searching under “Amy Coney Barrett” “views on …” (corporations, privacy, immigration, guns, healthcare, and whatever else you’re curious about). In other words, there is plenty to question her about without abortion or her private life ever coming up.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If you were going to vote for him anyway, it sounds like a good argument.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Everyone who is in the position for the last several administrations has said the same thing, with the party in power saying the opposite. It is not a matter of fairness now any more now when McConnell is in favor of filling it than it was in 2016 when McConnell was against filling it.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Okay. You seem to be arguing with me against something I never said.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This kind of thing is one of the reasons the Senate should go ahead with the confirmation. It doesn’t matter who is nominated, the Democrats will have some terrible lie to say about them, no matter what. Might as well accomplish something if they’re going to pay the price anyway.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
You said there is precedent for a president to appoint a SC justice–even when he has lost the election. And I agreed–yes, there is a precedent…in 1801.
But in my opinion, it’s a little like the Japanese arguing that there is precedent for a surprise attack against the US. Sure there is. But is it a good idea?
V
Vanny
Guest
I would like to see a list of Joe Biden’s possible nominees. He won’t release one. Why not?
Trump released a list of possible nominees in May 2016.
Trump released a list of possible nominees in May 2016.
Last edited:
The irony is delicious.
The democrats changed the rules to get around the republican opposition.
And that rule change is going to usher in the next appointment to the supreme Court…in spite of democratic opposition.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
You are speculating. Let me speculate too! I’m sure that there are hundreds of qualified judges / professors / lawyers out there that are not considered either liberal or conservative. Trump could easily have appointed someone the Democrats could support. He didn’t–basically he stuck his finger in the Democrats’ eye. Can he? Sure. Is it a good idea? We’ll see how it plays out, but I see a short term win and a long term loss.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Have you ever asked to see anyone else’s?
Maybe he thinks it is unnecessary at this time. I really don’t know. But this seems like a very weak attempt to manufacture a gotcha. Much weaker than the tax return question.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Let’s see. Trump was investigated by the Democrats even before he was elected. The FBI and Justice Dept were in on it and illegally. Then they set up a special prosecutor to see if they could convict him of something. Took two years doing it, but failed. Then they impeached him on a totally partisan basis, right into the Covid crisis they pursued him.
And he should appoint some abortion-loving justice so those people would be pleased and his supporters disappointed? He would have to be crazy to do that.
And what’s the “long term loss”? They can impeach him again, I guess, and keep doing it as long as he’s in office. But they will probably do that anyway. There’s no loss to be had in this. The Dems and their media will do their best to destroy him no matter what.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Whatever. I was not arguing wisdom, merely existence, and that particular one was only the most blatant that I saw; many presidents have named SC justices in the late stages of their administrations with varying levels of success.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
We’ll see.
- Status