Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)  (Read 557964 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1550 on: September 20, 2020, 12:00:34 PM »
I notice Pelosi refuse say things like pack the court while AOC calls for radicalizing the party over this. [Over what?  A Justice died.]  Same ideology, different levels of strategery.

Democrat oversteps breathe life into Republican electoral chances.  Democrats lost more than a dozen Senate seats since Obamacare, for example. 

Things like abandoning the filibuster on judicial confirmations and perverse behavior in the Kavanaugh hearings have come back to bite them, big time.

Yes they could 'pack the court' but not without political consequence. 

Another point, if/when Dems win their 'permanent majority', they don't need to pack the Court to overturn unfriendly legislation.
------------------
Republican political perspective on Puerto Rico: millions with PR heritage live and vote in Florida.  Without R's winning FL, there is little chance of getting constitutional conservative justices appointed or confirmed.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 12:24:32 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Constitutional Law matters: Justice Breyer to the Appeals Court, 1980
« Reply #1551 on: September 20, 2020, 12:32:21 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer#U.S._Court_of_Appeals_(1980%E2%80%931994)
"In the last days of President Jimmy Carter's administration, on November 13, 1980, Carter nominated Breyer to the First Circuit, to a new seat established by 92 Stat. 1629, and the United States Senate confirmed him on December 9, 1980, by an 80–10 vote."
Source:  https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0DF153FF933A25754C0A962958260

Read that again carefully.  Breyer was nominated AFTER Carter lost the Presidential election to Reagan.  He was confirmed AFTER Democrats lost control of the Senate to Republicans.  To a "new seat" established by Democrat, one party rule gained by Democrats after the Nixon Ford fiasco.

What you see depends on where you sit.

"Let the voters decide"?  Yes and they did.  Voters knew RBG was aging and ailing with cancer in 2016 and in 2018. 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2020, 12:37:50 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
American Creed (Constitutional Law) Barbara Lagoa
« Reply #1552 on: September 20, 2020, 03:53:38 PM »
Barbara Lagoa:  The (other) name speculated - for announcement Tuesday.

https://www.afj.org/nominee/barbara-lagoa/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1554 on: September 21, 2020, 05:17:25 PM »
Diversity?  Every current member of the Supreme Court has a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard or Yale.

By my calculation, two out of every million the US population graduates from Harvard or Yale Law School every year.  999,998 do not.

This is year 2020 and we still think gender and skin color are what make up diversity of life experience?  These 8 people all got the same degree from one of the same two schools.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/what-backgrounds-do-u-s-supreme-court-justices-have/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1557 on: September 22, 2020, 10:33:38 AM »
Don’t Give In to Democrats’ Supreme Court Extortion
If Republicans don’t appoint a new justice, they’ll alienate their most loyal voters.
By Bobby Jindal
Sept. 21, 2020 7:11 pm ET

President Trump’s determination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy has enraged Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ominously warns that if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced and Democrats gain a Senate majority, “nothing is off the table.” It’s not clear what was off the table before: Democrats had already threatened to end the filibuster, ignore pay-as-you-go rules, make the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states and pack the court.

The media frantically replays 2016 clips of Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, now Judiciary Committee chairman, explaining their refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing. They are less likely to mention the many Democrats who flip-flopped in the opposite direction. But Republicans note that their objection to election-year nominations applied when the president’s party was a Senate minority. They reason that voters gave them the majority in 2014 as a brake on President Obama’s ambitions.


The media breathlessly cites Ginsburg’s dying wish that the next president appoint her successor, as if she had any claim to the seat after her death. It’s reminiscent of Democratic outrage a decade ago that Republican Scott Brown should occupy Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, as if it belonged to the family and not the state of Massachusetts. And never mind Ginsburg’s own 2016 comments in favor of approving an election-year nominee or her decision not to retire before 2015, when Mr. Obama and a Democratic Senate could have appointed her successor.

The “Biden rule”—which the then-Judiciary chairman put forth in 1992, the vice president rejected in 2016, and the nominee has re-embraced in 2020—is that the president shouldn’t make a nomination to the Supreme Court in an election year so that voters have a chance to make their voices heard. That implies that presidential elections should be national referendums on the high court—a view that is of a piece with liberal judicial philosophy in that it is at odds with the Constitution.


If Republicans give in to Democratic extortion, it will never end, and they will forfeit the authority to govern—along with the support of the voters who make up their electoral base. If Republican senators fail to stand up and fight back, many of the party’s most committed supporters will decide it is time to quit the party and perhaps even politics. They won’t support Joe Biden or other Democrats, but they have little reason to go to the polls on Election Day.

Many voters were inspired by Mr. Trump’s promise to take on the establishment and drain the swamp. They wish he had kept all his promises, but they also credit him for having the courage to try. Some pundits claim beleaguered Republican senators from purple states—Arizona’s Martha McSally, Colorado’s Cory Gardner, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis—can demonstrate their independence from Mr. Trump, increase their election odds, and appeal to moderate voters by joining a Democratic effort to keep the seat open. The committed conservative voters those senators would lose would more than offset any such gains.

The best way to reduce the intensity of fights over judicial nominations is for the other branches of government to reclaim their constitutional powers. Liberal judges have assumed too much power; they want to write the laws, not just interpret them. Society’s most intense debates over the limits on individual autonomy and the proper role of government should not be decided by five unelected jurists, but rather by political leaders accountable to the voters.

Mr. Jindal was governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1559 on: September 22, 2020, 02:53:09 PM »
I need a citation for McConnell in 2016 making the distinction between President and Senate being same party or different party.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1560 on: September 22, 2020, 03:55:24 PM »
From the link:
"The election in Arizona, unlike the other Senate elections in the country this year, is a special election. … If [Democrat] Mark Kelly defeats [incumbent Republican] Martha McSally, he could be a senator on November 30, which means the 53-47 edge during a lame duck [session] very quickly becomes 52-48"
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 08:44:37 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1561 on: September 22, 2020, 08:41:13 PM »
What did Pelosi say, arrows in a quiver? If the House impeaches, the Senate is required (?) to set aside all other business and take up the impeachment?  The House could stop the Senate confirmation?  There would be a political price to pay for such a trick before the election but not after.

The RBG confirmation hearings took 4 days.  Let's go.
https://www-rev-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-confirmation-hearing-transcript-1993/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16008320846472&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rev.com%2Fblog%2Ftranscripts%2Fjustice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-confirmation-hearing-transcript-1993

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
One of greatest statesman in American history is fighting to preserve America
« Reply #1564 on: September 23, 2020, 02:53:02 PM »
fighting for Democracy, the Constitution, the very existence of our Republic

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-23/schiff-democracy-reform-trump

throw in a few other words

"monarch"
"wreckage"
"checks and balances"
"watergate"
"transparency"
"accountability"
"foreign interference"

and of course a quote from a historical figure of equal historic stature, Ben Franklin.

And viola = brilliant astounding courage and a work of linguistic art and philosophy for the Ages ;
  needs a marble inscription on the Mall with these great words engraved.

Thank God we have such men on the Earth. 

   
 :roll:

« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 03:29:30 PM by ccp »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
christopher Sprigman article above post
« Reply #1566 on: September 24, 2020, 04:57:13 PM »
interesting article - author sounds more leftist to me -  interesting he comes out with article just after ginsberg passes

in an "untimely fashion" - not sure what is untimely about 87 with history of 4 cancers being untimely but I 'll leave that alone.

perhaps Mark Levin could have him on with Dershowitz from the left, and maybe John Eastman from the right ,

and Ted Cruz from legislative branch

to discuss
their thoughts






ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
dual loyalty canard
« Reply #1567 on: September 25, 2020, 04:36:52 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-dual-loyalty-canard/

how about dual loyalty - not with religion  - but never breaking with one's preferred political party platform and simply interpreting the law as its stated.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
First woman first jew and *not mentioned* first scjotus
« Reply #1568 on: September 25, 2020, 04:10:16 PM »
to lie in state

other then William Taft who was there for being President

wonder if Clarence Thomas will lie in state in the House?

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Lie-In-State/Lie-In-State-Honor/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18372
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1575 on: September 29, 2020, 02:36:56 PM »
just guessing they are hoping that they think waiting longer will give more time and opportunity for Dems to make fool of themselves

or maybe another strategic reason
or most cynically they are just D..bf..ks.  :wink:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18372
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1576 on: September 29, 2020, 02:59:36 PM »
just guessing they are hoping that they think waiting longer will give more time and opportunity for Dems to make fool of themselves

or maybe another strategic reason
or most cynically they are just D..bf..ks.  :wink:


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1577 on: September 29, 2020, 03:24:30 PM »
Trying to remember numbers, but something like...   RBG died with 45 to go until the election.  RBG went through her process in 40 or 42 days with no hurry, therefore getting this done is possible and not unprecedented. The hearing date allows full 14 day FBI review.  [They just did one so it should take 10 minutes.]  Senators also have schedules and campaigns.  This allows them to hear from constituents.  The debate should be limited to things that came up since her recent confirmation.  The timeline looks good to me - if they keep it.  If they can't get it done before the election, Democrats will be emboldened with their delay and block strategies and Republican base voters will lose trust.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile
John Yoo: Sec State comes after VP in line of succession
« Reply #1578 on: October 03, 2020, 12:25:28 AM »


A Winding Constitutional Path From Trump to Pence to Pompeo
The president is sick, so here’s a review of the laws governing succession.
By John Yoo
Oct. 2, 2020 6:31 pm ET

What if President Trump becomes seriously ill and unable to do his job? Under the 25th Amendment, the president can report to Congress that “he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Vice President Mike Pence would become acting president until Mr. Trump sends a second written declaration that he can perform his duties again.

But suppose he’s unable or unwilling to issue the declaration. The 25th Amendment provides for that too. If the vice president and a majority of “the principal officers of the executive branch”—defined by statute to include the heads of the 15 major executive departments—declare in writing that the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” Mr. Pence becomes acting president “immediately.”

Mr. Trump’s opponents have often mused about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office for behavior they regard as erratic. The idea reflects a misunderstanding of how the amendment works. Even in the unlikely event that Mr. Pence and the cabinet backed such a move, the president could challenge it. The disagreement would be resolved in the president’s favor unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress overrode him—and even then, his removal would be temporary. The 25th Amendment deals with cases of genuine debility, such as might arise if the president became seriously ill.

Mr. Pence has tested negative for the coronavirus. But suppose that changes and both he and Mr. Trump are too sick to perform the presidency’s duties. Article II of the Constitution states that in “the case of removal, death, resignation or inability” of both the president and vice president, Congress has the authority to declare “what officer shall then act as president” until the disability ends or a new president is elected. The term “officer” poses a problem for the current law.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 puts two congressional leaders in the line of presidential succession. The House speaker (Nancy Pelosi) is immediately behind the vice president followed by the Senate president pro tem (Chuck Grassley). From there, the order continues to the secretary of state (Mike Pompeo) and the other cabinet members in the order in which their departments were created.

But Yale law professor Akhil Amar persuasively argued in 1995 (at the prospect of Speaker Newt Gingrich becoming president should Congress impeach Bill Clinton) that this provision is unconstitutional. The Constitution generally—but not always—uses “officers” to mean members of the executive branch. Further, the Incompatibility Clause of Article I provides that “no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.” That implies that neither Mrs. Pelosi nor Mr. Grassley could become acting president without resigning from Congress, which would remove them from the statutory line of succession. The cleanest reading of the law, then, is that if Messrs. Trump and Pence were both unable to serve as president, Mr. Pompeo would become acting president.

The imminence of the election introduces more wrinkles. Suppose Mr. Trump remains disabled or dies. The Republican Party could seek to substitute his name on the ballot. But it’s probably too late for states to alter the ballots, many of which have already been mailed out and returned.

In that case, the much-maligned Electoral College could stabilize the system. When voters cast a ballot for Mr. Trump or Joe Biden, they are actually choosing slates of electors pledged to support one of the candidates. Even though the Supreme Court held this summer that states can punish electors who don’t keep those promises, the Founders intended for them to exercise discretion. In any case, if the candidate is unavailable to serve, an elector commits no breach of faith in voting for someone else.

In 1872, after Democratic nominee Horace Greeley died in late November, his 66 electors split among four other candidates. (Three votes cast for Greeley weren’t counted.) If that happens to the ballot victor, the Electoral College could lack a majority.

If that happens, under the 12th and 20th amendments the election would go to Congress. The House would choose the president, with each state delegation getting one vote; the Senate, the vice president.

In the current Congress, Republicans hold majorities in 26 state House delegations, Democrats hold 23, and one state is evenly split. But it would be the new Congress that would vote, and it could fail to reach a majority either through a 25-25 split or several evenly balanced delegations. Candidates could reach a deal through their House supporters, as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay did in 1824 to deny Andrew Jackson the presidency. But if the House proves unable to reach a majority, the vice president-elect would accede. But that assumes there is one. The Senate could also divide 50-50 with no vice president available to cast the deciding vote.

If there’s no majority of electors, House delegations or senators, the federal succession law would kick in again. Mrs. Pelosi might think her time has come, but the argument would be stronger for inaugurating President Pompeo.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of “Defender in Chief: Donald Trump’s Fight for Presidential Power.”


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
dems found what they have been looking for
« Reply #1580 on: October 08, 2020, 07:10:31 AM »
we will hear this ad nauseam once confirmation hearings begin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-slam-amy-coney-barrett-003821653.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
if not about Trump, then this is clearing the way to make Harris president
« Reply #1581 on: October 09, 2020, 08:59:24 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dems-introduce-bill-forming-panel-130900432.html

if so concerned about fitness
how about full cognitive test for senile Joe now ?

when they stop or cannot continue to cover for Joe's early dementia

they will use this to get Harris in charge
she is worse than Hillary if that is possible

If Joe pisses off wrong people in the elites he will be toast .......

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
3 people who took public positions on abortion before becoming S.C. Justices:
« Reply #1582 on: October 12, 2020, 06:48:46 AM »
3 people who took public positions on abortion before becoming S.C. Justices:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/11/barrett_is_hardly_the_first_nominee_to_take_abortion_stance.html
...
Justice Ginsburg established the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union in 1971 and also served on its board of directors and as general counsel. The organization boasts that it was “the first national organization to argue for abortion rights before the Supreme Court . . .” There’s no question where the organization today stands on abortion.   

Time magazine highlighted Ginsburg’s confirmation process as noteworthy for her decision to take “the unprecedented step of strongly endorsing abortion rights” in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Any questions about Ginsburg’s stance on abortion were settled during her hearing. “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling . . .  If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex,” Ginsburg said.

While clarifying a talk she gave that year, Ginsburg explained: “Abortion prohibition by the state, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express in the lecture to which you referred.”

Any “criticizing” came down to how Ginsburg would have preferred Roe v. Wade be about equal protection rather than privacy. She “first thought long and hard” about abortion, she explained, during her involvement with Struck v. Secretary of Defense.

A Planned Parenthood press release praising Sotomayor’s nomination mentions the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. From 1980 to 1992, Sotomayor was a “top policy maker” on its board when the fund filed briefs in at least six court cases strongly supporting abortion. With the 1980 Akron v. Ohio case, the fund wrote that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.” Then, a 2009 U.S. News & World Report post proclaimed “Source: Amicus Brief Proves Sotomayor is Pro-Choice,” with regards to a brief for 1989’s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

During Justice Kagan’s 2010 confirmation, Americans United for Life provided extensive information on her views. Throughout her legal career, Kagan was associated with various leaders and organizations in support of Roe v. Wade.

In a 1995 law review article from the University of Chicago, Kagan wrote that “a [Supreme Court] nominee . . . usually can comment on judicial methodology, on prior caselaw, on hypothetical cases, on general issues like affirmative action or abortion.” William Saunders, then with Americans United for Life, explained how “Kagan’s financial contributions, work history and writings offer clear insights into her views on whether unfettered abortion rights are constitutionally required.”

Then there’s Kagan and the “Partial-Birth Abortion” memo, a leaked 1997 letter on legislation banning the procedure. The ban was passed by Congress and sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it in 1996. It ultimately did not become law until 2003, under President George W. Bush. At the time of the memo, Kagan worked for the Clinton administration. Although she urged President Clinton to pass a form of the partial-birth abortion ban, it was one which contained “health” exceptions; the bill sent to Clinton, now law, contains only a life exception.

As Slate explains, “The basic story is pretty clear: Kagan, with ACOG’s [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] consent, edited the statement. . .” The edit, in Kagan’s handwriting, read, “An intact D&X [dilation of the uterus and extraction of the fetus], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances, can make this decision.”
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 06:58:14 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
ACA severability and consensual government
« Reply #1584 on: October 13, 2020, 05:51:40 AM »
We keep hearing that Amy Coney Barrett will single-handedly strike down Healthcare leaving specific, named individuals would lose Healthcare and die if this evil woman were on the Court.

If there is something in the ACA that is unconstitutional it should be stricken down, but doesn't the rest of it stay in place?

They already removed the individual mandate. What is the Constitutional issue?

Even if all of it were struck down, Healthcare law would be governed by the will of the people, through their representative government. One side doesn't trust that.

The ACA was not passed by consensual government. The representatives voting did not represent the will of their people, witnessed by the Democrats losing the house immediately after that, almost losing the Senate, almost losing it again, then losing it, then losing the White House. In other words, the voters took down the people who did this, but the law was harder to remove, because Senators like McCain lied to their voters. In his case, knowing he would never face the voters again.

But in confirmation hearings, we can't have a discussion on the merits of the case with the nominee because of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Rule started in 1993. Nothing can be said about a case that might come before the court, therefore all this noise from the Democratic senators is about the election, not the confirmation.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/09/04/2018/the-ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previewsand-no-special-obligations
RBG:  A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)

Justice Kagan:
it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)

Justice Sotomayor:
the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 07:33:18 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1585 on: October 13, 2020, 06:12:44 AM »
Tucker says there is NO litigation on the subject in the court system at present.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
baby faced constitutional titan tells us why court packing is needed
« Reply #1586 on: October 13, 2020, 06:14:12 AM »
to maintain the legitimacy of the Supreme Court

published in liberal Atlanta paper:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/skeptic-case-court-packing/616607/
author looks all of 16

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
American Creed, Constitutional Law, Advice and Consent, Merrick Garland
« Reply #1587 on: October 13, 2020, 07:19:02 AM »
In 2016, Pres Obama nominated a Justice not favored by the majority of the Senate and he was not confirmed.

In 2020, Pres Trump nominated a Justice favored by the majority of the Senate, and she likely will be confirmed.

There is no inconsistency or unconstitutionality in this. 

Had Pres. Obama nominated Amy Coney Barrett in 2016, she would have either been confirmed by the Republican majority of the Senate or blocked by the Democrat minority in the Senate. In either case, elected officials doing what they think is right.

It is the Constitution that calls for a political body (who must face the voters) to give advice and consent.  That is what happened in all these situations.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52373
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1589 on: October 15, 2020, 12:05:02 AM »
I've been watching extended clips of her inquisition.  Gotta say, I'm impressed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1590 on: October 15, 2020, 08:58:09 AM »
I've been watching extended clips of her inquisition.  Gotta say, I'm impressed.

Show us your notes Judge:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
American Creed, Constitutional Law, Amy Barrett hit a home run
« Reply #1592 on: October 18, 2020, 07:21:42 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/amy-coney-barrett-hit-a-home-run

Amy Coney Barrett hit a home run
by Washington Examiner, October 17, 2020

In three days before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett did more than just prove that she belongs on the Supreme Court. She delivered one of the most effective performances ever for a nominee seeking the job.

As judicial nominations have become more contentious, all recent nominees to the Supreme Court have demonstrated a depth of knowledge about constitutional law and a lawyer’s ability to field questions from senators. Barrett certainly did all of that. In days of testimony, she effortlessly recounted the issues at stake in various legal disputes, juggled questions from senators, and explained the reasoning in her own decisions and academic writings, all without notes.

Importantly, Barrett did so without pretense. Because of her serious-mindedness and years as a teacher, she was able to explain her views with crystal clarity, simplicity, and a conversational tone that was both engaging and impregnable. She managed to distill complex legal concepts into extremely lucid language rather than hiding behind legal jargon or Latin phrases. She was friendly and civil even when forcefully pushing back against questions that attempted to portray her as a tool of President Trump, a racist, or a denier of science.

Barrett described the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, as her mentor and said she shared his judicial philosophy. But she also made it plain that this didn’t mean she would always reach the same conclusions as he did.

She succinctly summarized his philosophy as: “A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were.”

Asked to give a plain-English description of the originalist approach that she shares with Scalia, she explained, “[It] means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time. And it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”

Two originalists using the same approach could end up reaching different outcomes if their interpretation of what the document meant at the time was different.

Democrats became frustrated by Barrett’s refusal to describe her legal views on issues that may come before the court. But she followed the practice of modern nominees, invoking the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s line that she would give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts.”

For much of the time, however, Democrats tried to pin Barrett down on policy issues, giving long speeches about Obamacare, which they said she was put on the court to overturn. They cited her writings as an academic, in which she critiqued past decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts upholding Obamacare. She patiently explained why prior Obamacare cases were different than the one now before the court.

Sen. Kamala Harris played a game of gotcha by asking Barrett a series of uncontroversial questions, such as whether the coronavirus is infectious or whether smoking causes lung cancer, and then asking whether she believed climate change was a threat to the environment.

But Barrett exposed Harris’s superficiality. “You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial,” Barrett explained, “trying to analogize that to elicit an opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate, and I will not do that. I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”

As Democrats kept trying to press her on these and other policy positions, Barrett rightly deflected them by saying that it is up to Congress, not judges, to debate policy and write laws.

“I can’t impose the law of Amy,” she stated plainly.

Barrett’s impressive performance should leave no room for doubt about her readiness for the job.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11205
    • View Profile
*above all partisanship* Justice Roberts sides with Sotomayor Kagan Breyer
« Reply #1593 on: October 19, 2020, 05:05:56 PM »
we will now see all the city of love democrat operatives rounding up for days any and all votes they need to push Biden over the top

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-turns-away-pa-gop-effort-to-block-extended-period


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13187
    • View Profile
Issues American Creed, Constitutional Law: Pack the Court?
« Reply #1594 on: October 20, 2020, 06:07:54 PM »
Missed in all the analysis I think, Democrats will pack all the federal courts, not just the Supreme Court.  What did Nancy Pelosi say, 'all the arrows in the quiver'?

Trump brags of making 300 confirmed appointments.  This is to District Courts, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Courts. 

Dumb to think Nancy and the gang will pack just the top Court.  If they're going to take the political heat for the change, they're going to go for the whole thing.

Elections have consequences.