Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 10
I listened to every single minute of Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings...

I didn't bother, just read/watched the highlights the next day. Disappointed in both parties in the line a questioning/lecturing they took.

Running up to the hearings, all I heard (about her ruling style) was that she was an originalist and took the words to mean what they meant when written. I didn't run across a single line of questioning as to how she interpreted writings that are 240 years old. Meanings of words change. Does she rely on other articles written by the Founding Fathers, for example Thomas Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Church?

IMHO, that would have been way more insightful.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
My fear is that this will become a Pyrrhic victory at the court’s expense. Norms, like eggs shells, are very difficult to put back together once broken. And they’re both quite fragile.

We also have precedent with court packing. During the Civil War era the SCOTUS expanded and shrunk and expanded again, all for political expediency.

And during the 1930s, just the threat of court packing convinced 2 justices to “evolve” and favor the New Deal. This was called ‘the switch in time saves nine’.

Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. Nothing is off the table.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. Nothing is off the table.

======================================================================

Women will get their revenge on all who promoted and validated this outrage against their wishes.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Seen on Facebook: “Black man swears in woman appointed by racist misogynist.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Seen on Facebook: “Black man swears in woman appointed by racist misogynist.”

A perfect example of reductio ad absurdum.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Seen on Facebook: “Black man swears in woman appointed by racist misogynist.”

misogynist:
Misogyny (/m?'s?d??ni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

So a racist misogynist appointed a woman to the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Does not compute. Trump could have appointed a white man, but he did not.

Seems like a good reason for me to continue to eschew Facebook.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Does not compute. Trump could have appointed a white man, but he did not.
Sure it does... it's pandering to a select group in an attempt to win votes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
... could have appointed a white man,

I could say something about beer lovers, but don't want to provoke the iron fist.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Seen on Facebook: “Black man swears in woman appointed by racist misogynist.”
A perfect example of reductio ad absurdum.


I listened to every single minute of Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings and picked up on several of her responses, including her low key "signals" and careful choice of language when questioned about the following two issues, which allowed me to breathe a sigh of relief, despite my previous grave reservations about protecting the following rights upon which millions of Americans rely.

Having thus listened intently to her signals, I will make predictions about the two most important issues upon which the new Justice is likely to be asked to rule, as follows:

1. In regard to the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), upon which I depend for my pre-existing condition coverage, I predict that Justice Barrett will vote with the majority to UPHOLD the ACA by means of the "severability" principle as a means of removing the clause(s) at issue, while giving full effect to the rest of the law as it was clearly intended by Congress to protect those with pre-existing conditions.

2. In regard to Roe vs. Wade and its all-important "right to privacy" holding, upon which women depend for their right to obtain a safe abortion (among other things), I predict that Justice Barrett will vote with the majority to PRESERVE the right to privacy, along with the right to obtain a safe abortion at any time during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. As to the right to obtain an abortion during the third trimester of a pregnancy, I expect that Justice Barrett will join the majority and UPHOLD Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, which explicitly authorize the states to restrict late term abortions, when a fetus has reached viability, to instances where an abortion is “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/later-aborti...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/....

I apologize in advance if my predictions do not come true when relevant cases are considered by the new Justice.

However, there is a third issue about which I am NOT willing to make a prediction. That third issue has to do with how Justice Barrett will opine (or whether she will choose not to participate) in the event that the US Supreme Court is once again called upon to decide which of two candidates has achieved sufficient votes, to be represented in the Electoral College, to secure the presidency during the imminent national election.

'Hound [who has argued many cases before biased judges, prevailing in all such instances except occasionally before bankruptcy judges sitting as "omnipotent emperors" in the world of insolvency]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Having thus listened intently to her signals, I will make predictions about the two most important issues upon which the new Justice is likely to be asked to rule, as follows:

Those are the hot button issues. Did anyone ask her if she thinks the Federal wage and hour laws are soundly grounded in the Constitution? I have read that those laws are grounded in the Commerce Clause, yet there is no specific wording in that clause that specifically delegates authority to the government to intervene in the management/employee relationship. As has been demonstrated, repeatedly, over recent years, there is no such thing as "settled law" in the US. Everything is open to being re-litigated to the end of time. A strict constructionist reading of the Constitution would overturn the entire body of US labor law, and that would be worth far more to the "job creator class" than the ACA.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Seen on Facebook: “Black man swears in woman appointed by racist misogynist.”
A perfect example of reductio ad absurdum.

I listened to every single minute of Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings...


Hound, the "reductio ad absurdum" was aimed exclusively at the Facebook entry itself. Maybe at its author as well.


However, there is a third issue about which I am NOT willing to make a prediction. That third issue has to do with how Justice Barrett will opine (or whether she will choose not to participate) in the event that the US Supreme Court is once again called upon to decide which of two candidates has achieved sufficient votes, to be represented in the Electoral College, to secure the presidency during the imminent national election.

I hope the case never arises but I too have pondered whether she would or not recuse herself and her argument to support her decision, either way.

I have no legal training but I have been on many sailboat racing protest committees where one must evaluate the parties' arguments and adjudicate based on the racing regulations. One must refer to the infringed articles to uphold a protest. Some weird cases come up. Once a competitor helped a late arrival by instructing them the proper way to cross the finish line. It was a handicap race and when the numbers were in the late arrival beat the sailor who had helped him finish properly. Then the "helper" lodged a protest based on external assistance which he had given his competitor. Interesting, don't you think?

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I listened to every single minute of Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings...

I didn't bother, just read/watched the highlights the next day. Disappointed in both parties in the line a questioning/lecturing they took.

Running up to the hearings, all I heard (about her ruling style) was that she was an originalist and took the words to mean what they meant when written. I didn't run across a single line of questioning as to how she interpreted writings that are 240 years old. Meanings of words change. Does she rely on other articles written by the Founding Fathers, for example Thomas Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Church?

IMHO, that would have been way more insightful.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
IMHO, that would have been way more insightful.

You can't expect much when one side knows it will win and the other knows it will lose. It's pantomime.

What I liked best was the question about the paper she had in front of her. That reply said a lot about her.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
and here is one Senator who speaks about the money behind the nomination, Ie dark money. Perhaps this is a macro economic trend and risk. At least he helps you "follow the money" in this event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns&feature=yout...

Sen. Whitehouse Speaks at the 2nd Day of Hearings for Judge Barrett in the Judiciary Committee

62,353 views
•Oct 13, 2020
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
was that she was an originalist and took the words to mean what they meant when written.

Textualism is silly. And none of these so-called "textualists" will apply it to the Clayton Act, for example, because that would lead to an activist anti-trust policy.
Textualism is a club they use to achieve whatever ends they want to achieve.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Running up to the hearings, all I heard (about her ruling style) was that she was an originalist and took the words to mean what they meant when written.

Yeah, I’d have been happy to hear what the “originalist” meaning of “Militia” was.

I know Scalia just made that disappear by declaring it “preforatory”, although it seems odd that the writers of the Constitution took the trouble to CAPITALIZE the word “Militia”, so they must have thought it somewhat important. Nobody asked that. Along with a bunch of other stuff.

Least helpful hearings ever.
Print the post Back To Top