The Barrett Hearings

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 29838

 

[ZiprHead]

Your legal career is but a means to an end, and... that end is building the kingdom of God.

..

 

[Elixir]

Your legal career is but a means to an end, and... that end is building the kingdom of God.

..

I thought god was omnipotent. Why can't he build his own goddam kingdom?

 

[thebeave]

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

All those rules sound like something that mainstream Muslims might abide by. And we like them, don't we?

 

[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

All those rules sound like something that mainstream Muslims might abide by. And we like them, don't we?

We don't like muslims that want to insert their religion into US law, the same way we don't like christians that want to do so.

Do you have any other inane parallels you think apply?

You seem intent on supporting catholic cult Barbie. Instead of talking sideways bullshit, maybe you could just tell us why.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/d5tkJPuhUGM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The court does rule in individual cases. And it applies the constitution, laws, etc. The constitution cannot be constitutionally modified by a law of Congress. They would have to follow the procedure the constitution itself establishes. Hence, in case of conflict, and as the constitution is above laws of Congress, the constitution applies, and the law contradicting it does not. Marbury vs Madison may have been the first time the SCOTUS ruled in that manner. But the judicial power (which includes of course the power to decide what the law says, in the broad sense of 'law', including the constitution at the top) is given in the constitution.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

The court does rule in individual cases. And it applies the constitution, laws, etc. The constitution cannot be constitutionally modified by a law of Congress. They would have to follow the procedure the constitution itself establishes. Hence, in case of conflict, and as the constitution is above laws of Congress, the constitution applies, and the law contradicting it does not. Marbury vs Madison may have been the first time the SCOTUS ruled in that manner. But the judicial power (which includes of course the power to decide what the law says, in the broad sense of 'law', including the constitution at the top) is given in the constitution.

Citation please.

 

[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.

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.

As I explained, that is not what "Originalism" means. It means what I said (roughly, as they are different variants, but the most common one). But you can get a much more precise picture by reading what originalists actually say (and in this case, Barrett specifically). In general, if you want to criticize a view on constitutional interpretation, you should make sure you target what the view actually says.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

As I explained, that is not what "Originalism" means. It means what I said (roughly, as they are different variants, but the most common one). But you can get a much more precise picture by reading what originalists actually say (and in this case, Barrett specifically). In general, if you want to criticize a view on constitutional interpretation, you should make sure you target what the view actually says.

Exactly.

There are judicial activists on both the right and left. Judicial originalism is neither. However, both left wing activists and right wing activists seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with their politics has to be in the polar opposite political camp. The roll played by judicial originalists is to temper extremist legislation from both wingnuts of the political spectrum that assume powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

As I explained, that is not what "Originalism" means. It means what I said (roughly, as they are different variants, but the most common one). But you can get a much more precise picture by reading what originalists actually say (and in this case, Barrett specifically). In general, if you want to criticize a view on constitutional interpretation, you should make sure you target what the view actually says.

Exactly.

There are judicial activists on both the right and left. Judicial originalism is neither.

Of course it is if involves changing current judicial interpretations of actual law.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

As I explained, that is not what "Originalism" means. It means what I said (roughly, as they are different variants, but the most common one). But you can get a much more precise picture by reading what originalists actually say (and in this case, Barrett specifically). In general, if you want to criticize a view on constitutional interpretation, you should make sure you target what the view actually says.

Exactly.

There are judicial activists on both the right and left. Judicial originalism is neither. However, both left wing activists and right wing activists seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with their politics has to be in the polar opposite political camp. The roll played by judicial originalists is to temper extremist legislation from both wingnuts of the political spectrum that assume powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

And in principle this may work unless the “originalist” is actually a right wing conservative who uses originalism when it reaches the conclusion he wants and twists the logic when it doesnt.

 

[skepticalbip]

Exactly.

There are judicial activists on both the right and left. Judicial originalism is neither. However, both left wing activists and right wing activists seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with their politics has to be in the polar opposite political camp. The roll played by judicial originalists is to temper extremist legislation from both wingnuts of the political spectrum that assume powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

And in principle this may work unless the “originalist” is actually a right wing conservative who uses originalism when it reaches the conclusion he wants and twists the logic when it doesnt.

Then the jurist would be an activist rather than an originalist. I know nothing about ACB's judicial decisions but the fact that she has received praise for her judicial temperament from both right leaning and left leaning jurists indicates to me that she is an originalist. She is, however, receiving flack from left wing politicians but then anyone would who is not a left wing activist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Ok, so a witch has different compressibility than a person.

Why does it need to be a duck to reveal this??

 

[Ford]

Lost in all of this is that, had Hillary Clinton won the Presidency in 2016, I believe that there would now be three Supreme Court nominations collecting dust on Mitch McConnell's desk.

He made it very clear that he was never going to allow a Democratic President to seat another judge on the court. So right now we'd be down to just six Justices, with no hope of anyone else being confirmed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Ok, so a witch has different compressibility than a person.

Why does it need to be a duck to reveal this??

No, no, no, you miss the point. Read it again.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The court does rule in individual cases. And it applies the constitution, laws, etc. The constitution cannot be constitutionally modified by a law of Congress. They would have to follow the procedure the constitution itself establishes. Hence, in case of conflict, and as the constitution is above laws of Congress, the constitution applies, and the law contradicting it does not. Marbury vs Madison may have been the first time the SCOTUS ruled in that manner. But the judicial power (which includes of course the power to decide what the law says, in the broad sense of 'law', including the constitution at the top) is given in the constitution.

Citation please.

I already explained this in detail, and you can read the Constitution yourself. But in case you want a citation, B20 already posted one here

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

That is from Article VI of the US Constitution. Note that the Constitution clearly says that the laws that shall be made "in Pursuance thereof". This of course does not include laws that are in conflict with the Constitution, even if passed by Congress. Moreover, Article VI goes on to say that

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

Note that they shall be bound to support the Constitution. It would be against their oath to deliberately break the Constitution by applying a rule that is in conflict with it.

And there is more:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Those are the only procedures for constitutionally valid amendments. A bill passed by simple majority that is in conflict with the constitution does not validly amend it. Instead, the Constitution wins, and the law in question is not the law of the land that Article VI refers to.


And more:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

So, the judicial power is vested on the SCOTUS and inferior courts, and it's the power to rule on all cases arising under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States (and bills passed by the formal requirements of a law that are in conflict with the Constitution are not the "Laws of the United States" the Constitution talks about; see Article VI).

At any rate, what (most) Originalists are saying is that the meaning of the words in the Constitution is that which they had at the time when it was sanctioned.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, the judicial power is vested on the SCOTUS and inferior courts, and it's the power to rule on all cases arising under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States (and bills passed by the formal requirements of a law that are in conflict with the Constitution are not the "Laws of the United States" the Constitution talks about; see Article VI).

At any rate, what (most) Originalists are saying is that the meaning of the words in the Constitution is that which they had at the time when it was sanctioned.

Ah, but there the rub. The court has permission to rule on cases. It doesn't say it can rule on the laws themselves.

Jefferson himself was quite flabbergasted by M vs M. To his mind, it wasn't what was intended.

Here a very good critical review of the case.

I wish the PDF allowed for C&P and I'm not a good enough typist to repeat the salient points.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

The irony of this is utterly lost on you isn't it?

Switch the hypothetical right now. Which party would be going nuts if ACB was a muslim? Really? You want to go down that road? The criticism ACB is getting is based on her actual judicial record (what little of there is) and legal opinions. It's not unreasonable to assume, based on how she claims that religion and the cult she is in is such an important part of her life, to ask how that would affect decisions.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

As I explained, that is not what "Originalism" means. It means what I said (roughly, as they are different variants, but the most common one). But you can get a much more precise picture by reading what originalists actually say (and in this case, Barrett specifically). In general, if you want to criticize a view on constitutional interpretation, you should make sure you target what the view actually says.

Exactly.

There are judicial activists on both the right and left. Judicial originalism is neither. However, both left wing activists and right wing activists seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with their politics has to be in the polar opposite political camp. The roll played by judicial originalists is to temper extremist legislation from both wingnuts of the political spectrum that assume powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

Objection. Citing facts not in evidence.