Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[PACOX]

There have been some ideas floating around of expanding the court in order to depoliticize it. Buttigieg for example proposed to split the court into three parts: two partisan and one bipartisan. So by adding four bipartisan justices, you'd have 12. Ideas like these will become more attractive soon when the court is forced to rear its political head. Up until now it's mostly functioned on good faith and covert politics, but there is no escaping the apocalypse with Barrett on the court and the election ahead.

Of course Trump and McConnell have now given Democrats free reign to expand their own power in response to the GOP's greed, instead of trying to depoliticize it, so for now the best thing that will come out of an expansion is liberal rulings, which are in most people's interests anyway. At least abortion rights will be secured, LGBT rights will be secured if not expanded, and likely some racial issues that make it up there will see liberal resolutions. It will also make it much easier for democrats to install some serious guardrails that prevent another populist fiasco like the one we are living in now.

I might have to read that proposal.

It seems like, I'm not killing the messenger, it makes the two parties more of an official part of the federal government than they already ought to be with two partisan benches. McConnell should be scaring people away from giving the parties more official duty that can't be easily taken away. It would be like turning SCOTUS into Congress but the with more powerful appointed officials. Also wouldn't it bust be added another level before the Supreme Court instead of 'fixing' it?

Honestly I think the only way to really 'fix' the court is term limits. There's advantages to a judge sitting on a bench for a long time. They gain lot of expertise and wisdom. But with life long appointments it's easy to get wrapped up in one's own agenda, especially when there's no one above you. It's a 100% honor based system the leans on being appointed by with not much of it (honor). Also after 20 years or so the country has changed a lot meanwhile that judge might be stuck two generations back. You also avoid such situations like the current one where one president is able to shape the courts to their own will, leaving a mark significant like a monarch well after they've left office. Trump's judges are going to be on the bench for a LONG time. God forbid he wins reelection because he is looking at two more picks easily.

I don't know. I'll read up more on the subject when I get time but I feel like it's reactionary and would only hand the court over to the parties (more, so than the last decade).

[Levelfive]

To many people seem to hear something and never find out the truth, that's my main issue. Picture of a kid in a cage, blame Trump even though it was from years ago under a different president. Splitting families, blame Trump even though it was a policy that Obama was forced to implement because of a court ruling.

Obama NEVER had a policy of separating families--that was the Trump administration, with malice aforethought to use it as a deterrent as a matter of policy, and of course Trump knew. The Obama administration ran up against the Flores settlement for trying to keep detained families together, so rather than separate families they released them, and Trump knew that, too, because he derided it as "catch and release." The pictures you're referring to were cases of unaccompanied minors, kids they had reason to believe were unsafe or not with family, to be held for 72 hours before releasing them for placement. The irony of the bolded is next level.

[Draco-Onis]

Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

You are not being realistic all of the cases being bought to the courts involve personhood meaning that it would effectively make it illegal in all states and there's no exception for rape or incest. Let's say you are right and they split the difference and leave it to the states, that magical device you call a car isn't available to everyone especially the poor. If you don't understand how this is a problem look at red states where republicans have effectively made it so that there is only 1 or 2 abortion providers and it's effect on the poor.

Roe V. Wade is just one big one but there's also the ACA, DACA, immigration rights, voting rights all these cases will be brought after the election and she is extreme right on all of them. This court will send the country back 100 years whether Trump wins or not there will be a reckoning for this even the right cannot escape Newton's law.

[Levelfive]

Barrett is going to get confirmed. And she will be unremovable (fed judges must be impeached - i.e. 2/3's vote of Senate).
She will wind back the law in almost every category of social justice, in some cases all the to the 1930's.

Barrett is walking through almost every door Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opened, and when Barrett arrives at her final destination, she will close them all.

If was are lucky enough to have a Biden administration with a Blue Senate, we must pack the court - significantly. 19-27 at least.

I agree with this--she'll be confirmed and seated before the election. If Democrats can keep it together for the next 37 days, though, we have a strong shot at both the WH and the Senate, at which point we'll have options, assuming elected Democrats come to terms with the fact that they are dealing with a rogue minority unconstrained by any rule, norm, tradition, or law.

Both parts being huge question marks, of course.

[postman1782]

She even said that herself during the Garland fiasco.

If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.

[Levelfive]

If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.

https://twitter.com/DHStokyo/status/...526083585?s=20

They don't care about hypocrisy, or character, or people--they only care about power and locking it in for their tyrannical minority.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

This is, hands down, the most intellectually devoid and dishonest post in this thread. One of the hallmarks of ideologues -- and I mean actual ideologues, not the bullshit your side of the aisle simpers about on social media -- is the forced participation in their fuckery. This is what finally lit the spark of the Civil War. It was the forced participation of the abolitionist North through the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision that made slavery so intolerable that Lincoln began looking like a good idea.

Likewise, this is already on the verge of happening. On November 4th SCOTUS hears Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which will almost certainly allow Christian adoption agencies to freeze out LGBTQ foster parents and adoptees while still forwarding LGBTQ tax dollars towards those agencies. This is forced participation in a denial of civil liberties, and if you don't think we'll hate you for it you're a fool.

Abortion will be even worse. Like infinitely worse. The stuff that will hit the news first will be shit like some eleven year old white girl from Mississippi having to carry to term a child her piece of shit daddy put in her, and the country will roil with outrage. Then, as time goes on, and an activist court continues to litigate and anti-abortion states continue to pass more radical legislation there will be fights over extradition where, say, a Missouri woman has an abortion in Illinois and Missouri wants her back so they can stick a needle in her arm for murder. The end game would be forcing some eleven year old white girl from Seattle to have to carry her daddy's rape baby to term as well.

This is all forced participation, and it will utterly destroy the fabric of trust that still remains.

Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position

Get out of here with this bullshit. This motherfucker wrote the dissent in Lawrence.

[Adam Jensen]

Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

It's been proven time and time again in red states that many women seeking abortions have financial hardships that make crossing state lines difficult (not having a car, not having time take off to travel such a distance, etc.)

[Grapemask]

This is, hands down, the most intellectually devoid and dishonest post in this thread.

To be fair, it's announced. If you think that's the most dishonest post, just give him time to write his reply.

[DingDongKing]

It's been proven time and time again in red states that many women seeking abortions have financial hardships that make crossing state lines difficult (not having a car, not having time take off to travel such a distance, etc.)

It’s a novel idea. Same principle should be applied to affordable healthcare. You want access? Just take a train or plane or ferry to Canada! If you need major surgery, just book a long term hotel!

[Thenadrys]

I've heard she's a hardcore catholic, and that she believes the constitution is not a living document to be interpreted, but set in stone (fundamentalist?).

I saw a guy on the news here (Norway) who's supposedly an expert on US politics and law say that the Republicans had essentially been grooming future SCOTUSES that would more or less set party loyalty above country loyalty, because they were unhappy with picks by people like Eisenhower and Nixon, who turned out to be far more liberal than they had let on.

What are her actual positions on concrete matters?

[Gelannerai]

If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.

This is operating under the assumption that you are dealing with actual human beings that have scruples/a moral compass and the desire to better the country for everyone. If the past 12 years have taught us anything, it’s that the GOP is not any of this anymore.

[Themius]

It’s a novel idea. Same principle should be applied to affordable healthcare. You want access? Just take a train or plane or ferry to Canada! If you need major surgery, just book a long term hotel!

Well that sometimes seems to be the plan!

IN UTAH, AN INSURANCE company is paying patients to travel to Mexico where their prescription drugs are cheaper.

PEHP Health and Benefits, which provides health insurance to the state's public employees, will fly patients who need certain prescriptions to San Diego and then transport them to Tijuana, Mexico, via private car. The company will then give the patient cash back so he or she can enjoy some of the money saved by their efforts, PEHP Managing Director Chet Loftis wrote in an email to U.S. News.

Loftis says the concept of incentivizing people to travel to another country for less expensive health care isn't new to the U.S. But it's just starting in Utah thanks to a bill passed this year (HB 19) requiring PEHP to provide a "cash back" incentive to those who travel for less-expensive prescriptions.

RELATED CONTENT


FDA Approves New Antiviral Flu Treatment

And according to Loftis, employers are also benefiting from this medical tourism. The prescriptions included in PEHP's offer cost about $13,500 for a 90-day supply, he says. Even with the travel expenses and $500 cash back, Loftis claims the employer still saves between 40 percent and 60 percent.

"Why wouldn't we pay $300 to go to San Diego, drive across to Mexico and save the system tens of thousands of dollars?" said Republican state Rep. Norman Thurston, who sponsored HB 19. "If it can be done safely, we should be all over that," Thurston said, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune.

[DingDongKing]

If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.

You're assuming these people are good and honest. They are not. The religious affiliation used as a bullet point on their 'about me' is plot armour.

[eschatological]

Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position

Scalia was a creature of opportunity. Whenever his twisted idea of faith came up, he inserted it into his rulings. That he disagreed with the Church on capital punishment is a tenet of his uniquely Americanized version of extremely radical Catholicism, where sinners are punished for their crimes, and they can judge as God judges (IE, put those to death).

Also, your first paragraph is nonsense. The 14th Amendment states that all States must afford equal protection under the law. IE, if it's legal in a plurality of states, the other states have to respect and honor that. It's the basis of saying all states must recognize gay marriage, interracial marriages, and civil rights - because we all know if the 14th didn't exist, there's states which would deny all 3.

[Sunseeker]

This is operating under the assumption that you are dealing with actual human beings that have scruples/a moral compass and the desire to better the country for everyone. If the past 12 years have taught us anything, it’s that the GOP is not any of this anymore.

I just want to know how the GOP inspires this level of "party loyalty" over everything else. Over the country they profess to love. Over the people they profess to serve. Over the God they claim to worship. Sure, most of these people are rich, but not like, Bezos or Soros rich. Sure, they're powerful, but not like Putin or even some governors powerful. These people weren't pulled up out of poverty, often coming from already wealthy and privileged families. They're clearly well educated.

So, I really want to know. Is it in the water? A special microchip? Hostages? Asking for an up-and-coming dictator.

[Monster Hunter]

Depends... the UN has been sounding the alarm for some time now and more so lately and immigration and refugee lawyers see no reason why black or Latino Americans can't claim asylum. One example is that Roma people in Hungary are often awarded asylum in Europe and Canada with the reason being... in their country, the police target them, abuse them, give them dispropriate jail sentences. When they are killed there often is little to no followup, and wrongful deaths aren't investigated and when there is an investigation it is usually scant and the outcome is.... nothing.

Some one a year or so ago tried to claim asylum in Britain from america under those same grounds, I remember reading about it.

In the end the courts ruled against the u.s asylum seeker as though the rate of police shooting was concerning, america ultimately still has a functioning democracy to make changes and the Bill of rights, as such there judgment was america is shitty for alot of people but not shitty enough to claim asylum from.

[Sunseeker]

Some one a year or so ago tried to claim asylum in Britain from america under those same grounds, I remember reading about it.

In the end the courts ruled against the u.s asylum seeker as though the rate of police shooting was concerning, america ultimately still has a functioning democracy to make changes and the Bill of rights, as such there judgment was america is shitty for alot of people but not shitty enough to claim asylum from.

It's also worth noting that the USA has a number of treaties in place that prevent Americans from claiming asylum in certain allied states.

[Acidbaron]

I would welcome a brain drain from the US back to Europe as how it was before the world wars started to destroy everything. The liberty companies have over there has given them a lot of growth but also a whole host of issues that i am not sure i would trade them in for that.

Not that i advocate for a war on US soil, i am no vulture that wants to reap benefits at the expense of someone else their corpse. What do you think i am a republican?


As for the judge nominee in question, she has far too few years on the bench. She is being chosen of her relative young age in hopes of gaming the system. She is however a Catholic and not from a cult branch of Christianity like Evangelicals, mormons, or whatever other crazy perverse version you religious americans like to call yourself while wiping your ass with the new testament, so that might be a plus than again i don't know how modern or sensible Catholics are over there, guessing not a whole lot.

If religion is an okay factor to vote people in and as some are calling it now an assault on religion, what is inaccurate and childish but riles that base up easily, although that's very easy to do. I would as democrats vote in a Muslim as supreme judge next time, i mean that's what american politics is about right? Screw policy for the sake of tribalism.

Found a year old article about the previous nominee, where conservatives should worry about Barrett.

https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/a...supreme-court/

If she stands with the current pope republicans might end up shooting themselves in the foot.

[Themius]

Some one a year or so ago tried to claim asylum in Britain from america under those same grounds, I remember reading about it.

In the end the courts ruled against the u.s asylum seeker as though the rate of police shooting was concerning, america ultimately still has a functioning democracy to make changes and the Bill of rights, as such there judgment was america is shitty for alot of people but not shitty enough to claim asylum from.

Which is poor reasoning as the same argument can be made of Hungary. The same can be said about many countries where people leave while seeking asylum. They may have democracy and laws, but are they applied evenly? Ability to make changes and changes being made are two different things also. And the whole point of asylum deals often with credible issues affecting me right this moment not "can this be changed in the next 20 years?"

Part of the issue when it comes to Americans seeking asylum simply deals with America's place in the world wielding so much power that barely anyone wants to admit that this place is batshit crazy with how it deals with race especially. It is, for instance, bogus that the work of slaves worth about... 22 trillion conservatively never got reparations. Or that there were no reparations for the last generation of slaves and their ancestors, or no reparations for the next 100 years of oppression and jim crow laws, or reparations for tulsa attacks.

But America did find the ability to give reparations to Japanese people (43k in today's dollars) for the 4 years spent in internment camps... it says a lot about how little America has and still thinks of their black population when 4 years of internment is worth 43k but... slavery, nothing, terror attacks, nothing, fire bombings, nothing, jim crow laws, nothing, 100 years of oppression that is affecting America today, nothing.

And we know this "nothinginess" is hard coded here.

White officers kills a woman in her apartment after falsifying warrants based on falsified information proven false by the postmaster general? Nothing. White neighbour in danger of bullet shot through wall in the same murder of the black woman? Oh charges there. Black neighbour with bullets shot into their homes? Nothing. Only endangering white life mattered.


- - - Updated - - -

It's also worth noting that the USA has a number of treaties in place that prevent Americans from claiming asylum in certain allied states.

“Hey when we turn to shit help us oppress our people further”