The Barrett Hearings

[Derec]

Kagan had no judicial or trial experience. But here we are.

I'll put Kagan's experience up against Barrett's any day of the week.

The point is that FFRF is saying that Barrett spent too short a time as a judge when Kagen never was a judge.

But Sotomayor is I think the least qualified of all liberal justices. She is a beneficiary of hispanic [preferences from getting into Princeton to getting onto SCOTUS.

 

[Derec]

It’s ok to like drinking beer. Just not ok to lie to Congress about your drinking.

Are you saying that he doesn't really like beer? Because he is telling Congress that he does right in that gif.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It’s ok to like drinking beer. Just not ok to lie to Congress about your drinking.

Are you saying that he doesn't really like beer? Because he is telling Congress that he does right in that gif.

I’m saying that he lied about underage drinking and he lied about not passing out drunk. Remember his offensive response to Klobuchar?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I couldn't stand it. The grandstanding is becoming insufferable. I caught the lunch time NPR coverage, and it sounds like Hawley wants to make this about her faith, that any questions will question her faith. And certainly this continues on the right-wing legalization of religiously held rights to discriminate against other people.

When Reagan ran for president, he often stated he wanted to "Get the Government Off Our Backs!". The whole US roared it's approval and voted him in.

Now Trump and the GOP want to put a theocratic government on our backs. and are trying to frame opposition to this as an attack on religion. But let us call it what it is, an attack on The Wall Of Separation Of Church And State. I don't want to live in a nation where the theocrats are on my back.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I couldn't stand it. The grandstanding is becoming insufferable. I caught the lunch time NPR coverage, and it sounds like Hawley wants to make this about her faith, that any questions will question her faith. And certainly this continues on the right-wing legalization of religiously held rights to discriminate against other people.

When Reagan ran for president, he often stated he wanted to "Get the Government Off Our Backs!". The whole US roared it's approval and voted him in.

Now Trump and the GOP want to put a theocratic government on our backs. and are trying to frame opposition to this as an attack on religion. But let us call it what it is, an attack on The Wall Of Separation Of Church And State. I don't want to live in a nation where the theocrats are on my back.

Agreed. But I think that it's more that they want us to follow their beliefs. That's the difference between them and us. I could care less if they follow the teaching of the Flying Spagetti Monster as I do. But they want me to follow and abide by their religious views. So yea, their crazy beliefs should be on the table.

 

[southernhybrid]

I watched a little bit today, but it seemed like an awful lot of Republican grandstanding. If what the FFRF says is all true, either Barrett has grown in the last 20 years or she's lying in today's hearings. She has said that she won't allow her personal beliefs to enter into her opinions on the court. So, which is it? Is she lying or delusional or has she changed as she's aged?

I'm not pleased with her nomination, but I also don't like it when someone points at what a person thought 20 years ago and automatically assume that they still hold those same views. Most of us change as we age. What might have seemed right at age 25, may be viewed very differently at age 45 or 50. So, while I'm disgusted about what the Republicans are doing, especially after what they did to Obama in 2016, I'm not sure yet how bad she will be when it comes to her decisions on the court. it's too early to really know. I seriously doubt there is any way to stop her from becoming the next SCOTUS justice.

I will add that I think it's a bit ironic that a religion that usually considers a woman's role to be subservient to a man's role, is thrilled about an obvious, strong, educated woman who is about to take a very powerful position. What's up with that?

Since she is sure to be confirmed, I will wait until I see her in action before I make too many assumptions about her. There have been quite a few justices over the years who have changed with time. Some who started out as very conservative became a lot more moderate over time. This could be the case for her.

Meanwhile, when the Democrats take power, it would be good to add two justices to the court for the two that were stolen from them by the Republicans. Well, one was stolen and assuming that the presidency and Senate go to the Democrats, that would make two stolen justices. The majority of Americans didn't want a new justice to be chosen prior to the election. So much for the will of the American people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is odd that Barrett says the courts aren't here to fix all the problems, when the GOP expect her to vote ACA out of existence, when the legislature couldn't repeal it.

Since she is sure to be confirmed, I will wait until I see her in action before I make too many assumptions about her. There have been quite a few justices over the years who have changed with time. Some who started out as very conservative became a lot more moderate over time. This could be the case for her.

Not her. I was a little hopeful until her 'Courts can't address every wrong' which sounds dangerously anti-judicial.

 

[repoman]

Referring to post #26 above, I think that this whole aspect is from the Republicans blocked Garland in an unprecedented way and the only fair answer is "an eye for an eye".

Block Barrett and then the slate is clean, then nominations can happen at ANY FUCKING TIME like they always have been.

Holy fuck, the fig leafs that the Rethuglicans use for their power plays are a joke that should never have been taken seriously. The Demowimps need to step up and pressure some repubs to vote no.

Bill Maher had a good segment on this

"Power talks and Losers walk"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives: "Democrats are killing babies!!!!11! We need a pro-life SC Justice now!"

Also Conservatives: "What? She's going to be completely apolitical."

 

[southernhybrid]

It is odd that Barrett says the courts aren't here to fix all the problems, when the GOP expect her to vote ACA out of existence, when the legislature couldn't repeal it.

Since she is sure to be confirmed, I will wait until I see her in action before I make too many assumptions about her. There have been quite a few justices over the years who have changed with time. Some who started out as very conservative became a lot more moderate over time. This could be the case for her.

Not her. I was a little hopeful until her 'Courts can't address every wrong' which sounds dangerously anti-judicial.

Yeah. The more I listened to her, the more depressed I felt. I was especially disgusted when she wouldn't answer the question about a president having a peaceful transition of power. That answer was not just a deflection, it was a bit scary to hear it coming from her mouth, considering how Trump has been bragging that the court would settle the election in his favor. Maybe she will change, but it's not going to be in the near future.

 

[repoman]

sexual "preference" is offensive now.

Biden said it in May and RGB in 2017.

 

[Trausti]

sexual "preference" is offensive now.

Wokeness makes the world a dumber place.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Welp, JFK's assassin's son asked her something about piano lessons.

That was a good use of taxpayer money.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, employers can age discriminate in hiring because the law only said “employees” not “applicants”?

 

[laughing dog]

I watched a little bit today, but it seemed like an awful lot of Republican grandstanding. If what the FFRF says is all true, either Barrett has grown in the last 20 years or she's lying in today's hearings. She has said that she won't allow her personal beliefs to enter into her opinions on the court. So, which is it? Is she lying or delusional or has she changed as she's aged?

Since it is her personal belief that strict constructionism is the correct method to interpret laws and the Constitution, she is being sloppy.

It is hard to believe that one's personal beliefs do not influence how one goes about making decisions. Now, if she means that to the best of her ability she will address the law with regard to the law and not religious doctrine, then ok.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I watched a little bit today, but it seemed like an awful lot of Republican grandstanding. If what the FFRF says is all true, either Barrett has grown in the last 20 years or she's lying in today's hearings. She has said that she won't allow her personal beliefs to enter into her opinions on the court. So, which is it? Is she lying or delusional or has she changed as she's aged?

Since it is her personal belief that strict constructionism is the correct method to interpret laws and the Constitution, she is being sloppy.

It is hard to believe that one's personal beliefs do not influence how one goes about making decisions. Now, if she means that to the best of her ability she will address the law with regard to the law and not religious doctrine, then ok.

If decisions could be made without personal beliefs then they could be decided by machines. Should we replace the justice system with computers running algorithms with the legal code as input?

 

[laughing dog]

I watched a little bit today, but it seemed like an awful lot of Republican grandstanding. If what the FFRF says is all true, either Barrett has grown in the last 20 years or she's lying in today's hearings. She has said that she won't allow her personal beliefs to enter into her opinions on the court. So, which is it? Is she lying or delusional or has she changed as she's aged?

Since it is her personal belief that strict constructionism is the correct method to interpret laws and the Constitution, she is being sloppy.

It is hard to believe that one's personal beliefs do not influence how one goes about making decisions. Now, if she means that to the best of her ability she will address the law with regard to the law and not religious doctrine, then ok.

If decisions could be made without personal beliefs then they could be decided by machines. Should we replace the justice system with computers running algorithms with the legal code as input?

Excellent point.. Of course, the construction of the machine algorithms would be influenced by personal beliefs! At some level, it is not possible to avoid the influence of personal beliefs.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If decisions could be made without personal beliefs then they could be decided by machines. Should we replace the justice system with computers running algorithms with the legal code as input?

Excellent point.. Of course, the construction of the machine algorithms would be influenced by personal beliefs! At some level, it is not possible to avoid the influence of personal beliefs.

Indeed. Which is why I have come to the conclusion that having judges claim to give neutral examinations of the law to be a bit silly. If the laws are open to interpretation then the interpreting has to be done based on the personal beliefs of the interpreter. There may no such thing as an impartial judge. It's just a matter of degree as to how one's biases impacts one's reasoning.

 

[ZiprHead]

sexual "preference" is offensive now.

Wokeness makes the world a dumber place.

Preference implies a choice, like whether you prefer a Big Mac or a Whopper.

 

[ZiprHead]

If Handmaiden Amy Phoney Barrett is such an originalist, why does she think she has a right to vote, let alone be a judge?