Supreme court nomination

[wmw999 2,119]

She's inexperienced -- not as inexperienced as Harriet Miers, but still very light. She's likely to be approved, unless there is something we don't know about; McConnell will want to ram this through as fast as possible. From reading a little, I don't think she's as dogmatic as Thomas, but that's not saying much. 

And her statement about a judge in a presidential year was that the Senate has the right to block it if they see it as problematic (which they did in 2016, and won't this year unless something really huge is found).

There will be questioning on her religious group, with their submission to husband and church adviser tenets.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

There will be questioning on her religious group, with their submission to husband and church adviser tenets.

Indeed. It questions who will be the decision maker when she rules, her or her husband?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

25 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Indeed. It questions who will be the decision maker when she rules, her or her husband?

There will be questioning on her religious group, with their submission to husband and church adviser tenets.

Wendy P.

True, but that is a minefield and Democrats will have to tread carefully.  Otherwise they will open themselves up to counterattacks that they hate religion.  Trump is already spreading the totally false smear that Biden hates God, and an overly aggressive attack on Barrett's faith could add to that.  Although, I don't think there are all that many votes to sway one way or the other at this point.

Every nominee says they will separate their personal beliefs from their rulings on the law, but I don't see how that is possible.  If you strongly believe that a law is morally wrong, how could that not influence at some level your thinking that the law is valid or not?  If you disagree morally with a law, how hard will you work to find justification for the law?  How could you not be more open to arguments that the law needs to be struck down?

 

Don

Edited September 29, 2020 by GeorgiaDon

[wmw999 2,119]

31 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Every nominee says they will separate their personal beliefs from their rulings on the law, but I don't see how that is possible.  If you strongly believe that a law is morally wrong, how could that not influence at some level your thinking that the law is valid or not?  If you disagree morally with a law, how hard will you work to find justification for the law?  How could you not be more open to arguments that the law needs to be struck down?

I completely agree -- and those laws that are morally wrong or right are exactly the ones that I'm worried about. People who want to preserve what they feel they've earned (even if it's by being born into a wealthy family, or by having connections unavailable to most people), or who want society to look like they think it did in the 1950's when they felt safe at home in their small isolated towns, unaware of the mass of people who didn't, in fact, have anything remotely resembling equal rights.

As long as viagra is covered by insurance and birth control pills aren't, don't go telling me that it's gender-neutral...

I will add that there are people who feel just as strongly that abortion is morally wrong, just as discrimination (against white males too), etc. I think my real argument with strict originalists is that they rule in a vacuum, not the real world.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

34 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Every nominee says they will separate their personal beliefs from their rulings on the law, but I don't see how that is possible.  If you strongly believe that a law is morally wrong, how could that not influence at some level your thinking that the law is valid or not?  If you disagree morally with a law, how hard will you work to find justification for the law?  How could you not be more open to arguments that the law needs to be struck down?

That is a little different from this justice though. If she truly believes she is submissive to her husband, could he tell her how to do her job?

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

She's inexperienced -- not as inexperienced as Harriet Miers, but still very light.

After all their anti-academia rhetoric since forever I find it surprising the Republicans would nominate someone with practically no ‘real world’ experience who has been firmly ensconced in the much maligned ivory tower for almost her entire working life.

 

Ah wait, no. No I’m not surprised at all that they’re as hypocritical about this as they are everything else.

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That is a little different from this justice though. If she truly believes she is submissive to her husband, could he tell her how to do her job?

That is why there are nine Justices, she can’t do anything unless four others agree.  I remember the fight over Roberts.  We were told “the streets will run red with the blood of back alley abortions” if Roberts ascended to the court.  Come to think about it, we heard the same about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  All of the dire predictions failed to materialize, yet we did spend a tremendous amount of bandwidth trying to destroy good people and dividing the country.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Getting back to the topic of the OP, what do you guys think about the nominee?

She’s perfect. A#1. Let’s get her seated with minimum fuss and give conservative women one less reason to vote November 3.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

As long as viagra is covered by insurance and birth control pills aren't, don't go telling me that it's gender-neutral...

That's funny. In Canada, despite our "socialized medicine", drugs outside of the hospital are not covered by our basic health insurance. Most people with good jobs have some kind of drug coverage through their employment. And that generally covers regular birth control and other medications with a small deductible. But most plans will not cover Viagra. Too expensive and considered a frill.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is why there are nine Justices, she can’t do anything unless four others agree.  I remember the fight over Roberts.  We were told “the streets will run red with the blood of back alley abortions” if Roberts ascended to the court.  Come to think about it, we heard the same about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  All of the dire predictions failed to materialize, yet we did spend a tremendous amount of bandwidth trying to destroy good people and dividing the country.

No. There are not nine justices because one female justice might have her husband deciding for her. You will note, I am not making any dire predictions. I think it is valid that in a position where a Justice believes she is fundamentally submissive to her husband, who is actually making the ruling. Since her husband isn't being vetted to be a SC Justice.

[brenthutch 383]

Do you really think she has gotten this far in life by having hubby on speed dial so she could clear all of her rulings with him?  Can you cite an example in ANY of her rulings to support this ridiculous claim?

[kallend 1,622]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you really think she has gotten this far in life by having hubby on speed dial so she could clear all of her rulings with him?  Can you cite an example in ANY of her rulings to support this ridiculous claim?

"Speed dial"?  Do you have ANY idea how long it takes for SCOTUS to reach a decision?

Edited September 29, 2020 by kallend

[brenthutch 383]

47 minutes ago, kallend said:

"Speed dial"?  Do you have ANY idea how long it takes for SCOTUS to reach a decision?

Do you really think she has gotten this far in life by having hubby on speed dial.....

With the addition of another Constitutional Originalist to the bench, I suspect it may take less time to reach a decision.  Roberts will no longer be burdened with the task of rewriting bad legislation to shoehorn it into Constitutional muster.

Edited September 29, 2020 by brenthutch

[airdvr 197]

On 9/29/2020 at 2:03 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

The worst of the worst.  And people were concerned about Kennedy being a Catholic.

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry...it's not 1960 any more.  While I don't like religious types there is 0 chance Roe v. Wade is overturned.  They'll defer to the states and you might have to travel a bit further to get an abortion.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Jerry...it's not 1960 any more.  While I don't like religious types there is 0 chance Roe v. Wade is overturned.  They'll defer to the states and you might have to travel a bit further to get an abortion.

That would be overturning Roe V Wade. That was the situation before 1973. Individual State laws.

[airdvr 197]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That would be overturning Roe V Wade. That was the situation before 1973. Individual State laws.

Roe v Wade guarantees access to abortions.  That didn't exist prior to 1973.  That means states can't refuse abortions.  We're not going back to pre-1973 laws.

[billvon 2,391]

17 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Jerry...it's not 1960 any more.  While I don't like religious types there is 0 chance Roe v. Wade is overturned.  They'll defer to the states and you might have to travel a bit further to get an abortion.

And abortions (and especially late term abortions) will go up.  And coathangers will have a secondary purpose again.  

I guess that's "winning."

[jakee 1,254]

9 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Roe v Wade guarantees access to abortions.  That didn't exist prior to 1973.  That means states can't refuse abortions.  We're not going back to pre-1973 laws.

Then how do you mean they’ll ‘defer to the states’?

 

Think it through...

[billvon 2,391]

32 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Roe v Wade guarantees access to abortions.  That didn't exist prior to 1973.  That means states can't refuse abortions.  We're not going back to pre-1973 laws.

Think about what you just said.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then how do you mean they’ll ‘defer to the states’?

 

Think it through...

Hi jakee,

See my post, #19.

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,121]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you really think she has gotten this far in life by having hubby on speed dial so she could clear all of her rulings with him?  Can you cite an example in ANY of her rulings to support this ridiculous claim?

At this point I would suggest all of her rulings if she truly believes she is fundamentally submissively to her husband. her fundamental belief, and she is welcome to it, appears to be a state where women, wives, are submissive to their husbands. You don't think it warrants to ask what that means for her professionally?

[airdvr 197]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Think about what you just said.

It's pretty clear.  It's the same thing as zoning laws.  You can tell me where to put my abortion clinic but you can't say I can't have one.  States can't refuse to allow someone access to abortions.  I don't think that's how it was prior to 1973.

[jakee 1,254]

5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

It's pretty clear.  It's the same thing as zoning laws.  You can tell me where to put my abortion clinic but you can't say I can't have one. 

It's not clear. What do you mean they can tell you where to put your abortion clinic? Do you mean they can tell you to put it in another state?

 

If so, congratulations. You've just agreed they'll strike down Roe vs Wade.

[airdvr 197]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

It's not clear. What do you mean they can tell you where to put your abortion clinic? Do you mean they can tell you to put it in another state?

 

If so, congratulations. You've just agreed they'll strike down Roe vs Wade.

I know...bad example.  I'm thinking in terms of zoning laws in cities.  I deal with it alot so it's easy for me to understand.  Cities have zoning regs.  The city can't tell me I can't have my titty bar, they can only tell me where I have to put it. 

The law doesn't allow a state to deny abortions.  Every state that has tried to restrict abortions has been found unconstitutional.  

[wmw999 2,119]

13 minutes ago, airdvr said:

It's pretty clear.  It's the same thing as zoning laws.  You can tell me where to put my abortion clinic but you can't say I can't have one.  States can't refuse to allow someone access to abortions.  I don't think that's how it was prior to 1973.

I was in college in Texas prior to 1973, I do remember it. Part of my freshman orientation (the womens-only version) was information about birth control, and how to get a legal abortion. They were available in several states, all of them far away. There was no information about how to get an illegal abortion.

Abortion was illegal in many states. Making it illegal, or simply impossible, makes it unavailable, and lets the anti-abortion activists smugly say "it's still legal, you just haven't tried enough" when someone can't afford to spend several hundred dollars on airfare and hotel, along with the abortion, or they can't afford to take off work for long enough to drive 6 states away.

It'll be limited to the rich (who already have access to everything), or the people who live in those states. As will birth control, because, after all, poor people should just control themselves.

As I've said before, it's legal where I live. I'll be anyone's aunt who needs an abortion.

Wendy P.