Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Gestopft]

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.

There is a (small) group of Catholics over here called "Integralists" who are even more openly theocratic than the Y'all-qaeda Evangelicals that you are referring to, but I don't think Amy Coney Barrett is one of them. But on the whole, if the religious right over here is excited about her, that worries me. Being a member of the Federalist Society makes me even more worried.

[Acidbaron]

There is a (small) group of Catholics over here called "Integralists" who are even more openly theocratic than the Y'all-qaeda Evangelicals that you are referring to, but I don't think Amy Coney Barrett is one of them. But on the whole, if the religious right over here is excited about her, that worries me. Being a member of the Federalist Society makes me even more worried.

Bolded part first, the article i list speaks of concerns from a conservative as they believe a Catholic who stands by Pope Francis is too progressive (Author could also simply be a misogynist plenty of those in the american republican camp). God forbid we ever climb out of the dark ages morally... So that has to be seen but have not been reading a whole lot on it and from what i gathered she isn't that radicalized in her religious thinking.

Will have to take a look what the Federalist society actually is, going to regret reading up on news again me thinks...

[cubby]

Look, I get that this sucks, but imagine this country in 100 years if packing the court becomes the norm. Will we have a supreme court with 500 justices? Win elections, impeach judges. Stop changing the rules if you keep losing the game.

The GOP are the ones who have either changed the rules or thrown them out the window. The Democrats need to start playing by those same "rules". If we don't, there won't be a United States in 100 years. No, that's not hyperbole. Increasing the court is one of the few options the Democrats have to save the country.

By the way. RBG was a fantastic woman, and one of my role models. The world needs a million more women just like her. But she wasn't alone in opening doors. And, she wasn't the first. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman in the supreme court. A republican opened that door first. Although, O'Connor is nothing like Barrett. I only wish it was someone like O'Connor being nominated, and not a nutjob. I'm tired of these freedoms for me but not for thee politicians.

I like that you don't know what Justice Ginsberg's firsts were. It wasn't the first woman on SCOTUS. I wish this whole process hadn't been nutti-fied by McTrump - but here we are.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

She won't. This is her only chance at a SCOTUS seat, and she'll do anything to get it. Lie, cheat, obfuscate - the litany of the GOP play book.

- - - Updated - - -

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 that some red state congressmen are calling that felony murder? You really need to read up on a topic before spouting your bullshit.

[Ivanstone]

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.

Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all Catholics. One’s a partisan hack, one’s a bigot and the last wants to make everyone’s life miserable because he had a hard time growing up. I wouldn’t rely on Barrett’s Catholicism making her a better judge.

[muto]

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

Actually most of them are religious. 5 Roman Catholics. 2 Judaism. 1 Episcopalian. I say most because I don’t know which ones practice their faith.

[Acidbaron]

Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all Catholics. One’s a partisan hack, one’s a bigot and the last wants to make everyone’s life miserable because he had a hard time growing up. I wouldn’t rely on Barrett’s Catholicism making her a better judge.

Well it was a long shot to begin with but hey who knows might not be such a depressing end of the year after all.

[Blur4stuff]

Republicans aren't exactly known for following the teachings of Jesus. Doesn't matter what sect they belong to. Barrett will likely make most of her decisions based on personal belief. Unfortunately, that personal belief won't involve anything Jesus had to say.

[Gestopft]

Will have to take a look what the Federalist society actually is

It's many things- on the surface it's just a society/network for the conservative and libertarian legal thought. They do debates, fora, seminars, scholarship, etc. Underneath, they are also funded by right-wing corporate interests and other dark money sources. They extensively vet and prepare people to be judges so that the corporate interests can continue having the country rigged in their favor. While the judges that they put on the bench are occasionally not hostile to civil rights (see gay marriage, the recent LGBT discrimination ruling), they are nearly always hostile to worker rights, voting rights, etc. Janus, Shelby v Holder, Citizens United, AmEx vs Ohio, the cases involving forced arbitration: the list goes on and on. These are people who want the courts to defend the rich and powerful against popular will. It is the true project of the right wing's donors in the US.

They are not allowed to be explicitly political, but their related organization, the Judicial Crisis Network, IS. And they get massive amounts of dark money from big moneyed interests.

[Bodakane]

I don't think judges tend to be partisan.

Yes, they can be on one side or the other ideology wise, but I don't think they are party hacks.

I don't really believe there's enough straight hacks in the SCOTUS to side with Trump on his crazy facist level bullshit. Vote one way or the other on a specific case based on ideology sure, but I don't think any of them, would shit on the Constitution to keep Trump in power....they aren't Senators after all.

[Ivanstone]

I don't really believe there's enough straight hacks in the SCOTUS to side with Trump on his crazy facist level bullshit. Vote one way or the other on a specific case based on ideology sure, but I don't think any of them, would shit on the Constitution to keep Trump in power....they aren't Senators after all.

You're mostly right but I wouldn't rely on it. Scalia almost never cited the 14th Amendment but the one time he did it was to install Dubya into the White House.

PS Alito is a party hack. I don't know which way Kavanaugh or Barrett would swing. Gorsuch and Thomas are anti-government wingnuts so I can see them not wanting election fuckery of that magnitude.

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

Judges shouldn't be partisan, but they are.

[Hobb]

I really don't see after everything the GOP and Trump has done to manipulate the SCOTUS seats it remaining at 9 members.

I'm pretty certain certain the law limited it to 9 members will be modified to increase it. After all at one point in history the SCOTUS was made up of 10 members, nothing in the Constitution dictates its size. After all it's original size started out at 6.

[silveth]

I don't think judges tend to be partisan.

Yes, they can be on one side or the other ideology wise, but I don't think they are party hacks.

I don't really believe there's enough straight hacks in the SCOTUS to side with Trump on his crazy facist level bullshit. Vote one way or the other on a specific case based on ideology sure, but I don't think any of them, would shit on the Constitution to keep Trump in power....they aren't Senators after all.

Funny that people ignore that already one of his appointments voted against him for a decision already. Could it be that most Judges actually look at the case and then apply what the constitution says to make their decision? I mean the so called switch vote all these years is a conservative republican appointment and he seem to vote depending on what he believe is correct based on the constitution also. Just find it funny that people ignore that those things happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Man it's almost as if a system of government invented by white slaveowners more than two centuries ago might need revision.

That's the point. If the judicial system as it stands cannot function equitably without ridiculous amounts of packing then that's a surefire sign said system is not a good one.

Are you really comparing the government now to 200 years ago and saying it hasn't going through a ton of changes, a lot for the better and a few for the worse over that time?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure about the randomly picked judges to hear a case...but I like the 15 judge number. After reading the article offering proposals that reflect the growing population, a larger increase has been part of my ideal situation.

Term limits would be interesting - it would certainly change the aptly named apocalyptic ideological fight that happens each time.

Interestingly - increasing the size of SCOTUS just takes House/Senate majority vote and the President to sign. Changing judges to term limits takes a Constitutional Amendment.

If the Democrats get the opportunity to increase SCOTUS, they could make it 15+, making the balance 11-6 slanting liberal. And choose those judges in the same age and ideology as Barrett/Kavanaugh, it would force the GOP to the table in negotiating that Amendment.

And then what? The republicans take it again and raise it to 25? Then the democrats on the next swing go to 41? Then we are 99. Packing courts to try to grab power because you don't like the fact that sometimes you lose is not a smart .... no wait, not a good .... wait better, not a "just" idea. You are just making the system a joke. Had to get the pun in.

[Zan15]

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

You know that republicans tried to make interstate abortions illegal right?

So are you going to help fund the expense of having to go to another state to get an abortion? Based on the map some people would have to travel several states just to get to one where it would be "blue"

its a magical thing, this "money" huh?

Also nothing stops them from then moving forward with federal legislation in the future.

could you imagine the outrage on the right if we used this same logic of states rights on guns. Hell if you want guns you can just move to a red state......

- - - Updated - - -

And then what? The republicans take it again and raise it to 25? Then the democrats on the next swing go to 41? Then we are 99. Packing courts to try to grab power because you don't like the fact that sometimes you lose is not a smart .... no wait, not a good .... wait better, not a "just" idea. You are just making the system a joke. Had to get the pun in.

well they could do the opposite and reduce it back down to 9 as is their right.

you are basically also describing how we got here. Packing of the courts to grab power by the republicans.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

And then what? The republicans take it again and raise it to 25? Then the democrats on the next swing go to 41? Then we are 99. Packing courts to try to grab power because you don't like the fact that sometimes you lose is not a smart .... no wait, not a good .... wait better, not a "just" idea. You are just making the system a joke. Had to get the pun in.

This is cute. And when would they do that? The Democrats adding SCOTUS seats is almost certainly to come alongside adding Senate seats by adding new states on top of removing the filibuster. If we're feeling particularly frisky just recapturing the presidency and Senate by a small margin would be enough to shut you guys -- the minority -- out for a generation from the presidency and Senate. The only reason you have any authority at all at this point is because the Senate has become radically imbalanced in representation of the general populace. Hell, we could even expand the House and undo all of the gerrymandering and advantages you have there, too.

This shit with Trump and McConnell? The ideological court picks? The shitdick trolling your side has conducted for years? It's all incentive for us to do exactly this sort of thing. Whole lotta people over it, chief.

[cubby]

And then what? The republicans take it again and raise it to 25? Then the democrats on the next swing go to 41? Then we are 99. Packing courts to try to grab power because you don't like the fact that sometimes you lose is not a smart .... no wait, not a good .... wait better, not a "just" idea. You are just making the system a joke. Had to get the pun in.

The GOP already made it a joke. Their Dear Leader is a complete and utter farce. Unqualified in every capacity - proven so by his actions. McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat. And the Senators who voted against removal from office sealed the deal. Our current system has been made a farce by the minority rule GOP.

That needs to change.

So if the Democrats wrestle rightful control of the United States for 2021, a lot will need to change. First and foremost, how we select judges for the Supreme Court will need to be altered. To do that takes a constitutional amendment. The GOP won't consider that because the current system works in their favor (remember they haven't won a Presidential popular election since 1992 - Bush2 in 2004 doesn't count). So the Democrats need to create an environment wherein the GOP is open to change.

While following the rules of the land.

Increasing the court is Step 1 - probably shouldn't screw around and go for 27 justices. I believe there is a Brookings document on that analysis.
Step 2 - statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.
Lots of steps after that.

The GOP has played by the rules and thoroughly trashed the United States. It's time for the Democrats to use those same rules to fix the ruin and hopefully drag ourselves out of the mess that McTrump has put all of us in.

Increasing the court is an entirely "just" idea, because it's within the rules of the United States, and the GOP has opened the floodgates on following the "rules".

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't see after everything the GOP and Trump has done to manipulate the SCOTUS seats it remaining at 9 members.

I'm pretty certain certain the law limited it to 9 members will be modified to increase it. After all at one point in history the SCOTUS was made up of 10 members, nothing in the Constitution dictates its size. After all it's original size started out at 6.

At one point it was 12. And increasing the size of the court takes only a normally passed law. I hope they bump it to 27.

[Blur4stuff]

I know some want the court extended enough to give dems the advantage, but honestly I wouldn't feel good about that. Assuming Barrett gets the seat, to me that makes one of the last three appointments bogus.

While Kennedy retiring and the circumstances of his son etc... is sketchy, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves something fucked up happened.

If you remove republican hypocrisy, that means either Gorsuch or Barrett is an invalid appointment. Either it's okay to appoint a judge in an election year or it isn't. Either way, republicans should lose a seat.

I'd support expanding the court to 11 seats and conservatives keeping a one seat advantage, which is what they should have. Not only would I like to see term limits, but each new president (from an election) should also get to replace the longest sitting judge.

[Grapemask]

I know some want the court extended enough to give dems the advantage, but honestly I wouldn't feel good about that.

Yeah, on one hand, the minority party having a stranglehold on government is ridiculous and I would love to fix this in any way possible - but what we really need to do is fix the actual problem. Court packing has no end and will only get worse.

We need term limits, and we need to install some mechanism to fix an elected official being able to install an unelected official with such dramatic control over American life. We need to fix the Supreme Court Problem that has existed really since Marbury v. Madison, such that even Jefferson spent the rest of his life lamenting that Marbury was a win he regretted. It's wholly redefined the meaning of our constitution. We don't even bother to fix the flaws in our constitution anymore, because we realized we can just abuse the Supreme Court to redefine it as needed.

[TotallyGenericName]

There are repercussions to losing elections.

Man, Democrats haven't been this upset since we freed their slaves.

If they focused on actually solving issues that the American people want solved, and not the Twitter weirdo brigade, they'd be taken more seriously.

[Toppy]

There are repercussions to losing elections.

Man, Democrats haven't been this upset since we freed their slaves.

If they focused on actually solving issues that the American people want solved, and not the Twitter weirdo brigade, they'd be taken more seriously.

I know its a troll, but, they have been trying to solve problems. The problem is Mitch McConnel wont allow bills with a dems name on it to even be seen. Hundreds of bills he has.