The Barrett Hearings

[skepticalbip]

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

You misunderstand what judicial originalists are. The basis if their judgements is that legislation is limited to the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. Those powers can be expanded, or limited, by Constitutional amendment but not arbitrarily expanded by the legislature's whim.

Your idea that the Constitution denied women the vote is mistaken. It just was not specifically guaranteed until the 19th amendment. Before passage of that amendment, women did have the vote in several states and territories. Before the passage of the 19th, individual state legislatures had the option of either allowing or denying women suffrage. The 19th removed the state legislature's option (limited legislative power) on the matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

You misunderstand what judicial originalist's are. The basis if their judgements is that legislation is limited to the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. Those powers can be expanded, or limited, by Constitutional amendment but not arbitrarily expanded by the legislature's whim.

Of course, there isn't any technical justification for saying SCOTUS has the ability to oversee that.

 

[LoAmmo]

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

You misunderstand what judicial originalist's are. The basis if their judgements is that legislation is limited to the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. Those powers can be expanded, or limited, by Constitutional amendment but not arbitrarily expanded by the legislature's whim.

OR, it could have simply been a joke, which I took it as (and a pretty funny one, at that.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

You misunderstand what judicial originalists are. The basis if their judgements is that legislation is limited to the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. Those powers can be expanded, or limited, by Constitutional amendment but not arbitrarily expanded by the legislature's whim.

That is an extremely narrow aspect of originalism. Originalism applies to all sections of the constitution and laws, not merely one section in regard to powers of the Legislature. Here is conservapedia:

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.[1]

The most common form is so-called "original meaning" originalism. This form that focuses on how ordinary people at the time would have understood the language of the constitutional provision. A largely-discarded form of orginalism is so-called "original intent" originalism, which focuses on what the authors of the constitution might have meant.

The philosophical basis of originalism is that a constitution only has force because it was approved by the people when it was ratified. Thus, the understanding of the constitution by the people who ratified it is the only valid interpretation.

Originalists reject the "evolving standards of decency" approach to constitutional interpretation that allows judges to effectively amend the constitution based on their own views of what the constitution "should" say. Instead, originalism is anchored in one certain interpretation.

https://conservapedia.com/Originalism

This is why conservatives think the 2nd amendment only protects their right to muskets because they are not hypocrites.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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

You misunderstand what judicial originalists are. The basis if their judgements is that legislation is limited to the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. Those powers can be expanded, or limited, by Constitutional amendment but not arbitrarily expanded by the legislature's whim.

Your idea that the Constitution denied women the vote is mistaken. It just was not specifically guaranteed until the 19th amendment. Before passage of that amendment, women did have the vote in several states and territories. Before the passage of the 19th, individual state legislatures had the option of either allowing or denying women suffrage. The 19th removed the state legislature's option (limited legislative power) on the matter.

This is assuming one is gullible enough to buy into the premise of anyone on the court (or otherwise) being an originalist. It's a convenient BS label that some use to pretend they have principles. They are just as quick to shed any pretense of originalism as those they decry, which makes them even more hypocritical than the 'living document' types. It also, idiotically, often limits the reasoning to the constitution, and tries to ignore all the the decisions, and much of the basis of the laws (British Common Law) when those are often more important to a decision that's being made.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is assuming one is gullible enough to buy into the premise of anyone on the court (or otherwise) being an originalist. It's a convenient BS label that some use to pretend they have principles. They are just as quick to shed any pretense of originalism as those they decry, which makes them even more hypocritical than the 'living document' types. It also, idiotically, often limits the reasoning to the constitution, and tries to ignore all the the decisions, and much of the basis of the laws (British Common Law) when those are often more important to a decision that's being made.

It will be interesting in the upcoming case in which Trump wants to not count undocumented immigrants in the census when the Constitution clearly says "...counting the whole number of persons in each State..." If Barrett genuinely believes in the *text* of the Constitution she'll have to agree that they should be counted because the Constitution makes no exception for immigration status.

Then again, it always seemed like Scalia was able to structure a new argument that purported to bet an originalist/textualist one when he needed to come the conclusion he wanted.

 

[Elixir]

Scalia was able to structure a new argument that purported to bet an originalist/textualist one when he needed to come the conclusion he wanted.

The exercise is to formulate the statement one wishes to support, then re-construct it word by word using only words that appear somewhere in the Constitution. The order in which those words appears appear in the Constitution isn't important, nor is where those words appear; the important thing is that they can be used to make the statement the "originalist" wishes to support.

 

[repoman]

This is assuming one is gullible enough to buy into the premise of anyone on the court (or otherwise) being an originalist. It's a convenient BS label that some use to pretend they have principles. They are just as quick to shed any pretense of originalism as those they decry, which makes them even more hypocritical than the 'living document' types. It also, idiotically, often limits the reasoning to the constitution, and tries to ignore all the the decisions, and much of the basis of the laws (British Common Law) when those are often more important to a decision that's being made.

It will be interesting in the upcoming case in which Trump wants to not count undocumented immigrants in the census when the Constitution clearly says "...counting the whole number of persons in each State..." If Barrett genuinely believes in the *text* of the Constitution she'll have to agree that they should be counted because the Constitution makes no exception for immigration status.

Then again, it always seemed like Scalia was able to structure a new argument that purported to bet an originalist/textualist one when he needed to come the conclusion he wanted.

That seems like an oversight, but if you are an originalist then oversights don't matter.

Also, this is only an issue because of the Electoral College and this red vs blue state thing we have now.

What your side wants to avoid is a clear division of the actual number of citizens vs non citizens in the nation,

 

[Shadowy Man]

What your side wants to avoid is a clear division of the actual number of citizens vs non citizens in the nation,

The constitution doesn’t make that division in its statements about the census so how will the originalist justices argue that it does? That’s my question.

 

[Politesse]

What your side wants to avoid is a clear division of the actual number of citizens vs non citizens in the nation,

The constitution doesn’t make that division in its statements about the census so how will the originalist justices argue that it does? That’s my question.

Nor would it have made any sense to include such a provision in 1787. Very few people had "papers", nor would have consented to their being required out on the frontier. So "intent" is out.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What your side wants to avoid is a clear division of the actual number of citizens vs non citizens in the nation,

The constitution doesn’t make that division in its statements about the census so how will the originalist justices argue that it does? That’s my question.

Nor would it have made any sense to include such a provision in 1787. Very few people had "papers", nor would have consented to their being required out on the frontier. So "intent" is out.

And there’s been a long time since “citizen” became constitutionally defined. If people wanted the census to discriminate they could have amended the constitution in that time, right?

 

[Politesse]

Nor would it have made any sense to include such a provision in 1787. Very few people had "papers", nor would have consented to their being required out on the frontier. So "intent" is out.

And there’s been a long time since “citizen” became constitutionally defined. If people wanted the census to discriminate they could have amended the constitution in that time, right?

Well, the census has asked that question before, so perhaps they didn't think it was necessary. But then, there weren't any "originalists" in 1820. Think how funny that would sound if that were your grandparents' generation being valorized as the source of all jurispruidical wisdom for all time!

 

[Harry Bosch]

That is an extremely narrow aspect of originalism. Originalism applies to all sections of the constitution and laws, not merely one section in regard to powers of the Legislature. Here is conservapedia:

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.[1]

The most common form is so-called "original meaning" originalism. This form that focuses on how ordinary people at the time would have understood the language of the constitutional provision. A largely-discarded form of orginalism is so-called "original intent" originalism, which focuses on what the authors of the constitution might have meant.

The philosophical basis of originalism is that a constitution only has force because it was approved by the people when it was ratified. Thus, the understanding of the constitution by the people who ratified it is the only valid interpretation.

Originalists reject the "evolving standards of decency" approach to constitutional interpretation that allows judges to effectively amend the constitution based on their own views of what the constitution "should" say. Instead, originalism is anchored in one certain interpretation.

https://conservapedia.com/Originalism

This is why conservatives think the 2nd amendment only protects their right to muskets because they are not hypocrites.

Common buddy! You need to get with the program. You seem to be implying that republicans are hypocrites on this issue. Slander! Originalism means that only laws passed that agree with the original framers are valid. The only exception to this is if Rush Limbaugh disagrees. And even in this rare circumstance, allowed Limbaugh exceptions should only be what Limbaugh directly writes, talks about, or dreams about. No exceptions after this. IOW: only what Limbaugh deems acceptable shall pass muster with the SC. And this will be how the SC operates for the next 30 years.

 

[ZiprHead]

If catholic cult Barbie is truly an originalist, she would be fine with abortion. It was common practice in the late 1700s-early 1800s, the time the founders were still alive. It was even advertised in newspapers at the time. Since the founders said nothing about it, they must have been fine with it too.

 

[ZiprHead]

Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of “unconscionable cruelty” in teen rape case

Barrett decided to overturn a $6.7M jury award to a teen allegedly raped in a jail run by ex-Sheriff David Clarke

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard.

"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties. Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court," Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. "The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett's extremist record. It is hardly surprising that she has dodged question after question during her testimony."

Barrett was one of the three judges on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel which reversed a $6.7 million verdict against Milwaukee County in 2018 after a corrections officer was charged with repeatedly raping a pregnant 19-year-old inmate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of “unconscionable cruelty” in teen rape case

Barrett decided to overturn a $6.7M jury award to a teen allegedly raped in a jail run by ex-Sheriff David Clarke

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard.

"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties. Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court," Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. "The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett's extremist record. It is hardly surprising that she has dodged question after question during her testimony."

Barrett was one of the three judges on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel which reversed a $6.7 million verdict against Milwaukee County in 2018 after a corrections officer was charged with repeatedly raping a pregnant 19-year-old inmate.

That's even more nuts that two other judges agreed with her.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So the logic is that the county is not liable for the actions of its employees performed while on duty if the actions aren’t technically part of the employee’s duties.

Right?

 

[Jayjay]

So the logic is that the county is not liable for the actions of its employees performed while on duty if the actions aren’t technically part of the employee’s duties.

Right?

According to the article, in a similar case last year the verdict was different because the county had refused to use federal "training materials" that instructed guards not to rape the inmates. Apparently Wisconsin county had used those training materials, so the only person liable was the guard himself. I can kind of see the logic, even though justice was obviously not served here.

In the criminal trial the guard pleaded guilty to giving the raped woman candy and calling her grandmother, and was sentenced to 3 days in jail and $200 in fines.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So the logic is that the county is not liable for the actions of its employees performed while on duty if the actions aren’t technically part of the employee’s duties.

Right?

According to the article, in a similar case last year the verdict was different because the county had refused to use federal "training materials" that instructed guards not to rape the inmates. Apparently Wisconsin county had used those training materials, so the only person liable was the guard himself. I can kind of see the logic, even though justice was obviously not served here.

In the criminal trial the guard pleaded guilty to giving the raped woman candy and calling her grandmother, and was sentenced to 3 days in jail and $200 in fines.

Well then, since they officially told him not to rape they are off the hook.

 

[Trausti]

Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of “unconscionable cruelty” in teen rape case

That's even more nuts that two other judges agreed with her.

The victim did not allege that the county did anything wrong. The case concerned application of Wisconsin's indemnity statute for public officers. The victim wanted the county to indemnify her attacker, i.e., pay his judgment. The reason the court's opinion was unanimous was that Wisconsin law, as interpreted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, was settled that rape by a public officer could not be indemnified. It's nuts that the Salon article completely missed that.