Let's see what the left comes up with to try and destroy her. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Let's see what the left comes up with to try and destroy her. 

One would hope both the dems and repubs dig deep to investigate her. The lifetime position should demand that of them.

35 minutes ago, Sujo said:

One would hope both the dems and repubs dig deep to investigate her. The lifetime position should demand that of them.

 

Yes, hopefully the left can find someone from thirty years ago that will claim she we providing date-rape drugs and arraigning gang-bangs for Kavanaugh. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Let's see what the left comes up with to try and destroy her. 

The general consensus is ACB is a long-term academic, inteligent and balanced BUT her devout catholism has brought into question whether her religous beliefs will shape her legal standpoints. She has been quoted as saying 'birth starts at conception' (against most scientific reasoning) and her membership of People of Praise, a catholic organisation that advocates sexual relationships can only be between a man and a women worries the LGBT comminity. 

The Dems have a responsibilty to question these matters as religion should never be a part of US law as enshrined in the first clause in the Bill of Rights which clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”   

If she is 'destroyed' then it will be her firmly held religous beliefs that will be her undoing NOT any spurious reasons you are infering in your statement.   

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Let's see what the left comes up with to try and destroy her. 

Why would anyone want to destroy her? She is no doubt a good woman.This attitude seems to be the trait of many Americans now, encouraged by their President. What should be questioned is the ethics of the President in pushing his nomination through and not waiting for the results of the election. Ignoring past moral and ethical precedents. But then ethics and morals are on the back burner. Sad.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

One would hope both the dems and repubs dig deep to investigate her. The lifetime position should demand that of them.

Check out Barrett and 'People of Praise'.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

One would hope both the dems and repubs dig deep to investigate her. The lifetime position should demand that of them.

Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't got a skeleton in their cupboard? I've no doubt even the Pope has a few. Maybe more than most. We are human beings after all. I'm not into religion but 'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.' comes to mind.

44 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't got a skeleton in their cupboard? I've no doubt even the Pope has a few. Maybe more than most. We are human beings after all. I'm not into religion but 'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.' comes to mind.

Being religious is one thing. Being in a cult is quite another.

26 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Being religious is one thing. Being in a cult is quite another.

Splain?

2 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

Splain?

Post 278

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Post 278

I understand now and it's quite scary. If it's true it's almost like indoctrination. If so, how can a person who has been been indoctrinated be impartial? But that's a problem for the USA. But the rest of the world is affected by any outcome.

1 hour ago, Gandtee said:

I understand now and it's quite scary. If it's true it's almost like indoctrination. If so, how can a person who has been been indoctrinated be impartial? But that's a problem for the USA. But the rest of the world is affected by any outcome.

Her affiliation to People of Praise certainly should raise a few eyebrows but it doesn't neccessarily mean anything nefarious IF she is able to show impartiality when it comes to legal matters. However she certainly is VERY religious and if that comes through on major issues such as Roe V Wade then there certainly will be problems. And even though I don't think America will go backwards in abortion rights (or any more than it already has) we know Trump is trying to pander to christian fundamentalists so chances are she is at least seen to be a more sympathetic ear to their outdated thinking if not actually being it. Time will tell on that one.

I think of more importance though is she is an originalist who believes the words of the constitution should be interpreted as the authors originally intended. This does not allow for a more modern interpretion and is very much from the Scalia school of thought or put another way, literally the opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This train of thought sees a much more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments. 

  

9 hours ago, Gandtee said:

Why would anyone want to destroy her? She is no doubt a good woman.This attitude seems to be the trait of many Americans now, encouraged by their President. What should be questioned is the ethics of the President in pushing his nomination through and not waiting for the results of the election. Ignoring past moral and ethical precedents. But then ethics and morals are on the back burner. Sad.

 

You're kidding right? The left will do all they can to destroy any non-leftist that gets nominated. Nothing new about it, and nothing to do with Trump. It's been going on for decades. 

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Her affiliation to People of Praise certainly should raise a few eyebrows but it doesn't neccessarily mean anything nefarious IF she is able to show impartiality when it comes to legal matters. However she certainly is VERY religious and if that comes through on major issues such as Roe V Wade then there certainly will be problems. And even though I don't think America will go backwards in abortion rights (or any more than it already has) we know Trump is trying to pander to christian fundamentalists so chances are she is at least seen to be a more sympathetic ear to their outdated thinking if not actually being it. Time will tell on that one.

I think of more importance though is she is an originalist who believes the words of the constitution should be interpreted as the authors originally intended. This does not allow for a more modern interpretion and is very much from the Scalia school of thought or put another way, literally the opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This train of thought sees a much more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments. 

  

 

It's your position that it is the duty of the court do change the Constitution? It is my understanding that members of the court must swear to uphold the Constitution. 

 

There is a process in place for changing the Constitution, and I don't think it involves leftist judges. Circumventing the Constitution requires leftist judges.

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You're kidding right? The left will do all they can to destroy any non-leftist that gets nominated. Nothing new about it, and nothing to do with Trump. It's been going on for decades. 

Good thing that the Donald Trump and the Republicans didn't question the fact of Obama's birth in the USA in order to claim that he was an illegitimage President. That would have been disgraceful.

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Her affiliation to People of Praise certainly should raise a few eyebrows but it doesn't neccessarily mean anything nefarious IF she is able to show impartiality when it comes to legal matters. However she certainly is VERY religious and if that comes through on major issues such as Roe V Wade then there certainly will be problems. And even though I don't think America will go backwards in abortion rights (or any more than it already has) we know Trump is trying to pander to christian fundamentalists so chances are she is at least seen to be a more sympathetic ear to their outdated thinking if not actually being it. Time will tell on that one.

I think of more importance though is she is an originalist who believes the words of the constitution should be interpreted as the authors originally intended. This does not allow for a more modern interpretion and is very much from the Scalia school of thought or put another way, literally the opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This train of thought sees a much more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments. 

  

Originalism is actually pretty much a bogus doctrine. Here is a link to an article that shows its essential falsity

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/27/14747562/originalism-gorsuch-scalia-brown-supreme-court

 

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

It's your position that it is the duty of the court do change the Constitution? It is my understanding that members of the court must swear to uphold the Constitution. 

 

There is a process in place for changing the Constitution, and I don't think it involves leftist judges. Circumventing the Constitution requires leftist judges.

No one is talking about changing anything. It’s all about interpretation and adapting the words of hundreds of years ago to a modern environment. For example, the idea of militias was a valid concept in its time, not so much now. But how do you enact laws that stops masses of left/right crowds to go at each other with the benefit of military style weapons?
We can all understand the feelings and thoughts behind the Constitution; it’s about interpreting it to a modern society. 
 

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You're kidding right? The left will do all they can to destroy any non-leftist that gets nominated. Nothing new about it, and nothing to do with Trump. It's been going on for decades. 

 

1990, David Souter, nominated by Bush the Elder, confirmed by a vote of 90-9.

2005, John Roberts, nominated by Bush Junior, confirmed by a vote of 78-22.

 

13 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Originalism is actually pretty much a bogus doctrine. Here is a link to an article that shows its essential falsity

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/27/14747562/originalism-gorsuch-scalia-brown-supreme-court

 

Thanks for that. Long read but enlightening. 

16 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Good thing that the Donald Trump and the Republicans didn't question the fact of Obama's birth in the USA in order to claim that he was an illegitimage President. That would have been disgraceful.

 

but-but-but-but Trump. Typical

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

1990, David Souter, nominated by Bush the Elder, confirmed by a vote of 90-9.

2005, John Roberts, nominated by Bush Junior, confirmed by a vote of 78-22.

 

I did say non-leftists yes? You forgot a couple. 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I did say non-leftists yes? You forgot a couple. 

 

Both were nominated by Republican presidents, and I don't think they was considered a 'leftists' at the time.

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You're kidding right? The left will do all they can to destroy any non-leftist that gets nominated. Nothing new about it, and nothing to do with Trump. It's been going on for decades. 

I do think that a supreme court should be political neutral, since it will see many cases that are political motivated.

 

Take for example that in the next couple of years it will get a truckload of cases concerning a man that is or has been a republican president.

 

How would it be possible if to be impartial for the court if the majority of judges are appointed by the defendant, and/or have the same political stretching?

 

That is also the main reason why our man in the White House is so eager to get the appointment through, as he feels the wetness raising to his knees already

Many of the people championing the nominee will be dismayed when she votes on cases that support the erosion of personal liberties. Her position on the concept of undue burden applies to far more than  the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. Easier  search and seizure, easier search and arrest etc.  

 

She is no idiot and is qualified to serve. The issue though will be whether or not she is able to keep her personal religious bias out of her decision making. I don't she she will, and that would mean a further erosion of the separation of the church and state boundary.

14 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

No one is talking about changing anything. It’s all about interpretation and adapting the words of hundreds of years ago to a modern environment. For example, the idea of militias was a valid concept in its time, not so much now. But how do you enact laws that stops masses of left/right crowds to go at each other with the benefit of military style weapons?
We can all understand the feelings and thoughts behind the Constitution; it’s about interpreting it to a modern society. 
 

 

I'm sorry, but when you said " ...more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments." it sounded like you thought the court should be changing the constitution. 

 

What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented.

 

How would you define military style weapons, scary looking rifles? 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I'm sorry, but when you said " ...more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments." it sounded like you thought the court should be changing the constitution. 

 

What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented.

 

How would you define military style weapons, scary looking rifles? 

 

 

In fact, this notion that restricting gun ownership is a recent liberal violation of the 2nd amendment is nonsense. In the 19th century the prevailing judicial opinion was that states had the right to restrict gun ownership as they saw fit.

"In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.  For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated."

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In 2010 the Conservative extremists on the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment was subject to the 14th.

2 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

In fact, this notion that restricting gun ownership is a recent liberal violation of the 2nd amendment is nonsense. In the 19th century the prevailing judicial opinion was that states had the right to restrict gun ownership as they saw fit.

"In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.  For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated."

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In 2010 the Conservative extremists on the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment was subject to the 14th.

I didn't say anything about liberals violating the second amendment, recent or otherwise, I think you may be confused.

 

In any event, you haven't answered my question. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Many of the people championing the nominee will be dismayed when she votes on cases that support the erosion of personal liberties. Her position on the concept of undue burden applies to far more than  the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. Easier  search and seizure, easier search and arrest etc.  

 

She is no idiot and is qualified to serve. The issue though will be whether or not she is able to keep her personal religious bias out of her decision making. I don't she she will, and that would mean a further erosion of the separation of the church and state boundary.

 

I assume you would use the same argument against allowing any Christion on the court, yes? 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I didn't say anything about liberals violating the second amendment, recent or otherwise, I think you may be confused.

 

In any event, you haven't answered my question. 

 

 

So you didn't write "What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented."

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I'm sorry, but when you said " ...more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments." it sounded like you thought the court should be changing the constitution. 

 

What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented.

 

How would you define military style weapons, scary looking rifles? 

 

 

There’s a reason they are called amendments. You don’t need wholesale change to constitute an amendment or, more importantly, the presidents that accompany all legal matters. 
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret. Once interpreted they then set president. The president then guides all other thoughts on the subject. However I would argue that there does need to be changes to the constitution and someone like ACB does not believe there should. It’s a big thing when you see the GOP harp back to fundamentals. It makes all the difference.