The Barrett Hearings

[Angra Mainyu]

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

More appropriately, If Barrett was an originalist, where does it say in the Constitution that SCOTUS can over-rule Congressional legislation?

I was a little hopeful, but with all of the stuff she has and hasn't said, it is becoming apparent that Barrett is much more 'conservative' than Justice Thomas. I would dare to say she is ultra-conservative.

When she won't even touch Griswold v Connecticut, that is a very bad sign as to the legislation from the bench she is planning. It is crucial she is never allowed to be the Chief Justice. Granted, Roberts has a good deal left in him. Damn, the GOP has fucked up SCOTUS so much, Roberts appears moderate compared to Alito and Barrett!

Think about it... Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were solid conservatives, except when it came to civil rights, where they always saw to the expansion of rights to people who weren't like them. Now with Alito and Barrett, they are very very conservative and don't give a fuck about civil rights of people that aren't like them.

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I like vanilla ice cream much better than lemon ice cream. I have that preference, but I never chose to have it. And it's not clear that I would be able to change it with current tech. But if I were, so what? In any case, I can of course choose whether to eat in accordance to that preference, or not. But the same goes for sex, regardless of whether one calls it an orientation or a preference.

And also, assuming humans/post-humans do not get extinct in the next century or so, maybe in the future there will be tech that would allow the change of sexual orientation, preference, or however one calls it. So what?

 

[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?

More appropriately, If Barrett was an originalist, where does it say in the Constitution that SCOTUS can over-rule Congressional legislation?

I was a little hopeful, but with all of the stuff she has and hasn't said, it is becoming apparent that Barrett is much more 'conservative' than Justice Thomas. I would dare to say she is ultra-conservative.

When she won't even touch Griswold v Connecticut, that is a very bad sign as to the legislation from the bench she is planning. It is crucial she is never allowed to be the Chief Justice. Granted, Roberts has a good deal left in him. Damn, the GOP has fucked up SCOTUS so much, Roberts appears moderate compared to Alito and Barrett!

Think about it... Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were solid conservatives, except when it came to civil rights, where they always saw to the expansion of rights to people who weren't like them. Now with Alito and Barrett, they are very very conservative and don't give a fuck about civil rights of people that aren't like them.

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

Please cite the power to over rule Congress.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

Please cite the power to over rule Congress.

That is like saying 'please cite the power to overrule private contracts', even when the contract is against the law (e.g., contraband, or assassinations, or whatever). It's not about 'overruling' Congress, or private contracts. It's about applying the law as it is, that is the law broadly speaking, including the Constitution, laws passed by Congress (and not vetoed), executive orders, and so on. If there is conflict between an executive order and a law passed by Congress (and not vetoed), and an executive order, in a matter that is within the competences of Congress, sure the law is applied, not the EO, which is illegal. And the same if the law by Congress contradicts the Constitution.

There is of course nothing whatsoever in that - very, very obvious - interpretation that contradicts the view that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the text of the US Constitution is to interpret the words in that text according to the meaning they had at the time it was sanctioned.

 

[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?

More appropriately, If Barrett was an originalist, where does it say in the Constitution that SCOTUS can over-rule Congressional legislation?

I was a little hopeful, but with all of the stuff she has and hasn't said, it is becoming apparent that Barrett is much more 'conservative' than Justice Thomas. I would dare to say she is ultra-conservative.

When she won't even touch Griswold v Connecticut, that is a very bad sign as to the legislation from the bench she is planning. It is crucial she is never allowed to be the Chief Justice. Granted, Roberts has a good deal left in him. Damn, the GOP has fucked up SCOTUS so much, Roberts appears moderate compared to Alito and Barrett!

Think about it... Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were solid conservatives, except when it came to civil rights, where they always saw to the expansion of rights to people who weren't like them. Now with Alito and Barrett, they are very very conservative and don't give a fuck about civil rights of people that aren't like them.

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

no, the constitution does not give them that power. The supreme court took that power in Marbury vs Madison. Prior to that, the court only ruled on individual cases, not the laws themselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

no, the constitution does not give them that power. The supreme court took that power in Marbury vs Madison. Prior to that, the court only ruled on individual cases, not the laws themselves.

And this is a significant distinction. We aren’t saying it is wrong, only that to label oneself as a originalist that wants to get rid of lawfully passed legislation is like a person extolling the moral value of them being a vegetarian... while eating a hamburger.

 

[Politesse]

The Constitution gives the SCOTUS and inferior courst the Judicial Power, so in particular it is up to them to ascertain matters of law as they arise in cases. The Constitution may not be (constitutionally) modified by a law passed by Congress, so in case of conflict, Constitution wins according to the US constitutional system, and the courts should apply the Constitution rather than the law. That is not in conflict with originalism. There are different versions of originalism, but roughly it holds that the constitutionally correct way of interpreting the constitution is in accordance to the meaning of the terms at the time it was sanctioned, at least whenever possible.

no, the constitution does not give them that power. The supreme court took that power in Marbury vs Madison. Prior to that, the court only ruled on individual cases, not the laws themselves.

I do not agree with this read of history, it seems clear to me that the Court always saw itself in the role of determining the Constitutionality of law and procedure. Their first ruling in any case was West v. Barnes, which did not challenge any Congressional law directly, but did result in a Justice heavily pressing Congress to pass a new one. Marbury v. Madison, a unanimous decision, enshrined the power to review law as official policy, but I do not think the idea originated then, and obviously the Justices did not not feel they were awarding themselves new powers, only exercising powers already implied by Constitution itself. Whether this conclusion expanded or lessened the powers of the Court depends on how you look at it; in the immediate sense, they were ruling against their own power to review the case, and were also binding their future decisions to the letter of the Constitution itself rather than their personal opinion, Scriptural comparison, etc. But within those confines, they were exercising a new kind of authority that would have substantial implications for relations between the states. The decision was not greatly controversial at the time, despite having been occasioned by a political controversy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono is slammed for asking Judge Barrett if she has ever sexually assaulted someone

Amy Coney Barrett has been asked in her Supreme Court nomination hearing whether she has ever sexually assaulted anyone.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its second day of hearings for the 48-year-old federal judge on Tuesday.

Mazie Hirono, a senator for Hawaii, asked Barrett a question she said she asks all Supreme Court nominees.

Hirono quoted Chief Justice John Roberts, who in 2017 acknowledged that the judiciary 'is not immune' from the problem of sexual misconduct.

She then asked: 'Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?'

Barrett replied: 'No, Senator Hirono.'

Interesting. But stupid.

 

[Trausti]

 

[ZiprHead]

I wouldn't say she's a witch.

I would say she's a partisan, religion indoctrinated hack who will use her legal training to destroy rights in this country.

 

[Derec]

Did she turn Chuck Schumer into a newt? Or (for him) even worse - into a Newt?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I hate how the state can simply handwave away liability for situations where a company would be liable. Play by the same rules!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does having a duck pressed against you change your weight if you're a witch?

 

[thebeave]

Did she turn Chuck Schumer into a newt? Or (for him) even worse - into a Newt?

Rumor has it she turned Mitch McConnell into a turtle.

 

[Bomb#20]

Please cite the power to over rule Congress.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

 

[Bomb#20]

Does having a duck pressed against you change your weight if you're a witch?

Yes. Pressing the duck against you compresses your flesh, doing work against your body's elasticity, thereby adding to your potential energy, which increases your mass in accordance with E=mc².

 

[thebeave]

I just get very sad when I think about how much hatred and contempt our first Muslim candidate for SCOTUS will get from Democrats for being devoted to his/her religion.

 

[WAB]

Does having a duck pressed against you change your weight if you're a witch?

Yes. Pressing the duck against you compresses your flesh, doing work against your body's elasticity, thereby adding to your potential energy, which increases your mass in accordance with E=mc².

That's a fair cop.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just get very sad when I think about how much hatred and contempt our first Muslim candidate for SCOTUS will get from Democrats for being devoted to his/her religion.

I get very sad when people fail to see partisan religious hacks being placed in the courts to enact partisan religious views and take away the rights of citizens.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ex member of Amy Coney Barrett's ultra-conservative Christian group spills its secrets: Perfume and thongs are banned and single women can only wear white cotton undies - and no 'sinful' large belt buckles that draw attention to the crotch

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was raised as a member of People of Praise, a mainly Roman Catholic faith group

She concealed her membership of what has been described as a 'Big Brother' group from senators when she was before the Justice Committee in 2017

The 48-year-old's hearing to see if she should sit on the nation's highest court gets underway on Monday

A former member told DailMail.com exclusively about the group and its rules

He said large belt buckles are considered a sin because they draw attention to the crotch region

Perfume and cologne are banned for similar reasons. 'That would indicate you are trying to tempt someone with pheromones,' the ex-member explained

Single women can only wear plain white cotton underwear - no thongs

People of Praise is strongly anti-abortion and also rejects homosexuality

Even dating is a no-no until a member has 'prayed through their state in life' and decided they are ready to 'marry for the Lord'

Until recently the female leader was known as a 'handmaid', but that title was dropped after the success of the dystopian TV show The Handmaid's Tale
Author Margaret Atwood, who wrote the original novel, said it was based on a group that has similar views to People of Praise