The Barrett Hearings

[southernhybrid]

I'm watching the hearings on and off right now. It appears as if the Republicans are trying to goad the Democrats into attacking Barrett's religious beliefs. So far they haven't taken the bait. I don't think anyone gives a shit about what Barrett believes when it comes to religion. The issue is will she be objective or will she allow her religious beliefs to guide her as she interprets the law.

As a strong atheist, I value freedom of religion as long as religion is kept out of government. As the saying goes, freedom of religion, also means freedom from religion. There are a lot of religious people who oppose abortion, same sex marriage and other rights related to one's gender or sexual orientation. But, there are also a lot of religious folks who have no problem with any of those things. One has the right to believe what they want, but no-one has the right to insist that others belief like they do. Can Barrett value her own personal beliefs yet be objective enough to understand that what she believes shouldn't have any influence on her decisions?

There is a woman locally who I know and she is a Catholic. She is also a Democrat. She put it best. She told me one day that while she is personally against divorce and abortion, those are her personal religious beliefs and her personal religious beliefs have no place in government. Can Republicans see it that way? I'm skeptical of that.

I didn't watch the entire opening statements but what I did watch was insanely stupid. Most of the Republicans went on a rant about how the Dems want to harm religion. Most of the Democrats brought up the ACA.

Is anyone else trying to watch this absurd hearing? If so, what are your thoughts?

 

[Gospel]

Can Barrett value her own personal beliefs yet be objective enough to understand that what she believes shouldn't have any influence on her decisions?

If you can find it in the bible saying that she can she can.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

 

[Trausti]

Why does each senator give an opening statement? They are not the nominee. Waste of time. Bluster, bluster. Might be best to remove the cameras.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I like how Lindsey Graham said it’s his Constitutional *duty* as a Senator to have the hearings, unless of course the President is of a different party.

I have no problems with Barrett but the hypocrisy of Graham and his cohort is sickening. I also believe that she should recuse herself from any case involving the election because it would breach the judicial code against even the appearance of impropriety to decide on a case like that when the President himself has stated he wants her on the court to decide that very case, which he has already said he wants to bring to the court if he doesn’t win. I really hope someone asks her if she will because I’d like her response on the record. We will see how much integrity she has, regardless of her beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like how Lindsey Graham said it’s his Constitutional *duty* as a Senator to have the hearings, unless of course the President is of a different party.

I have no problems with Barrett but the hypocrisy of Graham and his cohort is sickening.

I have serious reservations about her. Her, the court can't solve all problems? What in the heck dog whistle is that to conservative orgs? "We've got your back, we won't even consider it anymore?" I found that extremely disturbing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I like how Lindsey Graham said it’s his Constitutional *duty* as a Senator to have the hearings, unless of course the President is of a different party.

I have no problems with Barrett but the hypocrisy of Graham and his cohort is sickening.

I have serious reservations about her. Her, the court can't solve all problems? What in the heck dog whistle is that to conservative orgs? "We've got your back, we won't even consider it anymore?" I found that extremely disturbing.

Sure, ideologically I don’t agree with her but she is qualified and elections have consequences as they say. Maybe she’ll purjure herself or exhibit vastly unprofessional behavior like Kavanaugh did but if she doesn’t it’ll be difficult to come up with a valid reason why she should be barred from holding the post.

 

[ZiprHead]

I like how Lindsey Graham said it’s his Constitutional *duty* as a Senator to have the hearings, unless of course the President is of a different party.

I have no problems with Barrett but the hypocrisy of Graham and his cohort is sickening.

I have serious reservations about her. Her, the court can't solve all problems? What in the heck dog whistle is that to conservative orgs? "We've got your back, we won't even consider it anymore?" I found that extremely disturbing.

I too have huge problems with her too. She is on record saying the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were enacted illegally because the confederate treason states weren't involved in the process of enacting them.

She's a troglodyte.

 

[ZiprHead]

I like how Lindsey Graham said it’s his Constitutional *duty* as a Senator to have the hearings, unless of course the President is of a different party.

I have no problems with Barrett but the hypocrisy of Graham and his cohort is sickening.

I have serious reservations about her. Her, the court can't solve all problems? What in the heck dog whistle is that to conservative orgs? "We've got your back, we won't even consider it anymore?" I found that extremely disturbing.

Sure, ideologically I don’t agree with her but she is qualified and elections have consequences as they say. Maybe she’ll purjure herself or exhibit vastly unprofessional behavior like Kavanaugh did but if she doesn’t it’ll be difficult to come up with a valid reason why she should be barred from holding the post.

FFRF’s Full Report on Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court initiates the final stage of a Christian Nationalist takeover of the high court. If Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have a supermajority committed to undoing so many of our hard-won rights. At 48 years old, Barrett could plague the high court for more than four decades. Our secular republic might not withstand such sustained zealotry.

It is essential that Americans stand up and oppose the confirmation of this illegitimate, Christian Nationalist nominee.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly urges its supporters to repeatedly call both of their senators’ offices to demand that they oppose Barrett’s confirmation. We have to fight. And if Barrett is confirmed in spite of our efforts, the fight isn’t over, it simply changes to fighting for substantial reforms to the federal judiciary, which will be necessary to protect the constitutional separation between state and church and so many of our other cherished rights.

Much more in the link above.

And I don't believe she's qualified.

Barrett has little or no trial experience, has never argued an appellate case, and has only been a judge since Nov. 10, 2017, or less than three years at the point President Trump announced her high court nomination. By any measure, she is too inexperienced and green for the Supreme Court, which should consist of America’s top judges, not ideologues with no courtroom and little judicial experience.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I will read this and let it inform my opinion. But I doubt there will be enough to actually stop her confirmation. Changing the rules to simple majority vote makes it much easier to put in judges with more extreme viewpoints.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is funny, the idea we can't discuss her religion, when she'll be asked whether other people can allow their 'noble religious beliefs' to be used to discriminate in their business actions against other people.

I will read this and let it inform my opinion. But I doubt there will be enough to actually stop her confirmation.

NOTHING will stop her confirmation.

She was politically groomed for this.

 

[Trausti]

Sure, ideologically I don’t agree with her but she is qualified and elections have consequences as they say. Maybe she’ll purjure herself or exhibit vastly unprofessional behavior like Kavanaugh did but if she doesn’t it’ll be difficult to come up with a valid reason why she should be barred from holding the post.

FFRF’s Full Report on Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court initiates the final stage of a Christian Nationalist takeover of the high court. If Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have a supermajority committed to undoing so many of our hard-won rights. At 48 years old, Barrett could plague the high court for more than four decades. Our secular republic might not withstand such sustained zealotry.

It is essential that Americans stand up and oppose the confirmation of this illegitimate, Christian Nationalist nominee.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly urges its supporters to repeatedly call both of their senators’ offices to demand that they oppose Barrett’s confirmation. We have to fight. And if Barrett is confirmed in spite of our efforts, the fight isn’t over, it simply changes to fighting for substantial reforms to the federal judiciary, which will be necessary to protect the constitutional separation between state and church and so many of our other cherished rights.

Much more in the link above.

And I don't believe she's qualified.

Barrett has little or no trial experience, has never argued an appellate case, and has only been a judge since Nov. 10, 2017, or less than three years at the point President Trump announced her high court nomination. By any measure, she is too inexperienced and green for the Supreme Court, which should consist of America’s top judges, not ideologues with no courtroom and little judicial experience.

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Trausti]

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.

What does that even mean?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

What does that even mean?

 

[Trausti]

What does that even mean?

If Kagan’s lack of experience didn’t bother you, then your supposed concern about ACB’s experience is obviously insincere.

 

[ZiprHead]

 Amy Coney Barrett

Barrett's Experience

Clerkships and private practice
After law school Coney spent two years as a judicial law clerk, first for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998, then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999.[18]

From 1999 to 2002, going by the surname Coney-Barrett,[19] she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a boutique law firm for litigation in Washington, D.C., that merged with the Houston, Texas-based law firm Baker Botts in 2001.[17][20] While at Baker Botts, she worked on Bush v. Gore, the lawsuit that grew out of the 2000 United States presidential election, providing research and briefing assistance for Baker Botts's representation of George W. Bush.[21][22]

Teaching and scholarship
Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, in 2002.[23] At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. In 2007, she was a visiting professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.[24] Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[25] Her scholarship focused on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.[16] Her academic work has been published in the Columbia, Cornell, Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas law reviews.[23]

At Notre Dame, Barrett received the "Distinguished Professor of the Year" award three times.[23] From 2011 to 2016, she spoke on constitutional law at Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer training program for Christian law school students that the Alliance Defending Freedom established for the stated purpose of inspiring "distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law."[26] While serving on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett commuted between Chicago and South Bend, continuing to teach a course on statutory interpretation and one on constitutional theory.[27][28]

From 2010 to 2016, Barrett served by appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.[23]

 Elena Kagan

Kagan's Experience

Early career
In 1987, Kagan was a law clerk for Judge Abner J. Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She became one of Mikva's favorite clerks; he called her "the pick of the litter".[33] In 1988, Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall said he hired Kagan to help him put the "spark" back into his opinions as the court had been undergoing a conservative shift since William Rehnquist became Chief Justice in 1986.[34] Marshall nicknamed the 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) Kagan "Shorty".[11]

Kagan next entered private practice as a junior associate at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams & Connolly.[35] As a junior associate, she drafted briefs and conducted discovery.[36] During her short time at the firm, she handled five lawsuits that involved First Amendment or media law issues and libel issues.[37]

In 1991, Kagan became an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.[38] While there she first met Barack Obama, a guest lecturer at the school.[39][40] While on the UC faculty, Kagan published a law review article on the regulation of First Amendment hate speech in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul;[41] an article discussing the significance of governmental motive in regulating speech;[42] and a review of a book by Stephen L. Carter discussing the judicial confirmation process.[43] In the first article, which became highly influential, Kagan argued that the Supreme Court should examine governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases and analyzed historic draft-card burning and flag burning cases in light of free speech arguments.[44]

In 1993, Senator Joe Biden appointed Kagan as a special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. During this time, she worked on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.[45]

Kagan became a tenured professor of law in 1995.[38] According to her colleagues, Kagan's students complimented and admired her from the beginning, and she was granted tenure "despite the reservations of some colleagues who thought she had not published enough".[21]

White House and judicial nomination

Kagan in the Oval Office with President Bill Clinton in 1997 during her tenure as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Kagan served as Associate White House Counsel for Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1996, when Mikva served as White House Counsel. She worked on such issues affecting the Clinton administration as the Whitewater controversy, the White House travel office controversy, and Clinton v. Jones.[46] From 1997 to 1999, she worked as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. Kagan worked on topics like budget appropriations, campaign finance reform, and social welfare issues. Her work is catalogued in the Clinton Library.[47]

Return to academia
After her service in the White House and her lapsed judicial nomination, Kagan returned to academia in 1999. She initially sought to return to the University of Chicago, but she had given up her tenured position during her extended stint in the Clinton Administration, and the school chose not to rehire her, reportedly due to doubts about her commitment to academia.[51] Kagan quickly found a position as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. While there, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, focusing on the president's role in formulating and influencing federal administrative law. The article was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.[52]

In 2001, Kagan was named a full professor at Harvard Law School and in 2003 she was named dean of the Law School by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.[53] She succeeded Robert C. Clark, who had served as dean for over a decade. The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. She has been credited for a consensus-building leadership style that defused the school's previous ideological discord.[54][55][56]

Solicitor General
On January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[66][67] At the time of her nomination, Kagan had never argued a case before any court.[68] At least two previous solicitors general, Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr, had no previous Supreme Court appearances.[69]

The two main questions senators had for Kagan during her confirmation hearings were whether she would defend statutes that she personally opposed and whether she was qualified to be solicitor general given her lack of courtroom experience.[70] Kagan testified that she would defend laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, pursuant to which states were not required to recognize same-sex marriages originating in other states, "if there is any reasonable basis to do so".[71] The Senate confirmed her on March 19, 2009, by a vote of 61 to 31.[72] She was the first woman to hold the position.[73] Upon taking office, Kagan pledged to defend any statute as long as there was a colorable argument to be made, regardless of her personal opinions.[70] As Solicitor General, Kagan's job was to act as the lawyer for the United States and defend legislation and executive actions in appeals before the Supreme Court.[73][45] Thus the arguments she made as Solicitor General were not necessarily indicative of her personal beliefs.[73]

Kagan's first appearance before the Supreme Court was on September 9, 2009, one month before the typical start of a new term in October, in the re-argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).[74] During argument, she asked the court to uphold a 1990 precedent that allowed the government to restrict corporations' use of their treasuries to campaign for or against political candidates. As an alternative argument, Kagan further contended that if the court would not uphold precedent, it should keep its ruling narrowly focused on corporations that resembled the petitioning organization, Citizens United, rather than reconsidering the constitutionality of broader restrictions on corporate campaign finance.[74][75][76] In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned precedent and allowed corporations to spend freely in elections, a major defeat for the Obama administration.[77]

During her 15 months as Solicitor General, Kagan argued six cases before the Supreme Court.[78] The Washington Post described her style during argument as "confident" and "conversational".[73] She helped win four cases: Salazar v. Buono, 59 U.S. 700 (2010) United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), and Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010).[79][c]

Tell me again, Trausti, that my concern is invalid.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why does each senator give an opening statement?

Because that is what politicians do. Any time they are on camera anywhere, they will give their political spiel whether it applies to the subject at hand or not. It amounts to a free political ad to appeal to their constituents for their next election.

 

[Derec]

Can't they find somebody to say Barrett diddled them at an unknown party when they were both 17?
Or at the very least say get her to admit that she likes beer. Because that is considered very bad somehow.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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