Trump to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg, sources say

[Ricohoc]

26 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

I reject your outlook that states define American Citizen Rights. 

That's not my view.  States do not define rights.  The Constitution does.  The states DO determine privileges and services.

 

If the SCOTUS determines that abortion is not a right granted under the Constitution, it will revert to a service and/or privilege; and it will be thrown back to the states (where it was handled previously).

 

Review the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which deal with states' rights.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Ricohoc

[wwest5829]

21 minutes ago, riclag said:

Each state has their own constitution! Its a complex situation ,especially when they conflict with the federal one ,they in many ways design it to resemble the federal one! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)#:~:text=In the United States%2C each state has its own written constitution.&text=State constitutions are usually longer,between government and the people.

Yes, the states have their  institution and can, in fact, grant even greater rights to their residents ... the example of some states having better medical coverage than other states, better financing of their education systems ... or in the historical case of Wyoming, granting women the right to vote in state elections are all possible. But no state Constitution can restrict or void Americans Constitutional Rights. That is at the core of the concern for upholding Roe ... are states able to restrict to the point of making that Right impossible to enforce. 

[wwest5829]

12 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

That's not my view.  States do not define rights.  The Constitution does.  The states DO determine privileges and services.

 

If the SCOTUS determines that abortion is not a right granted under the Constitution, it will revert to a service and/or privilege; and it will be thrown back to the states (where it was handled previously).

 

Review the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which deal with states' rights.

We agree that it is the Constitution that defines American citizens Rights. Should SCOTUS decide that, in the Brown decision that Separate but Equal education facilities are inherently unequal then all states had to meet the Courts call. Yes, if Roe is vacated, then we go back to conditions previous to Roe declaring that a woman has a Right over her own body. No state may breach the stated and decided American Rights ... thus the challenges when states attempt to restrict or void those national Rights.

[johnnybangkok]

On 9/26/2020 at 3:48 PM, Isaan sailor said:

No doubt, Democrats will remain on their best behavior during the committee  hearing—just like they did for Judge Kavanaugh.

The general consensus is ACB is a long-term academic, intelligent and balanced BUT her devout Catholicism has brought into question whether her religious 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 community. 

Her affiliation to People of Praise certainly should raise a few eyebrows but it doesn't necessarily 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 interpretation 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.

The Dems have a responsibility 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 encounters problems then it will be her firmly held religious beliefs that will be her undoing NOT any spurious reasons you are inferring in your statement.  

[Rimmer]

A troll post and a reply has been removed.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[plentyofnuttin]

On 9/26/2020 at 12:26 PM, Thomas J said:

Notice that Ginsburg a flaming liberal was still voted in by 96 - 3 with one abstaining because the Senate found that she had the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice despite her liberal bias. 

What do you think the chances that Democrats will do the same for Barrett

Note that Merrick Garland's nomination wasn't voted on at all. You can also note that the while Obama was President, the Republicans repeatedly fillibustered many of his judicial nominations.

[plentyofnuttin]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

That's not my view.  States do not define rights.  The Constitution does.  The states DO determine privileges and services.

 

If the SCOTUS determines that abortion is not a right granted under the Constitution, it will revert to a service and/or privilege; and it will be thrown back to the states (where it was handled previously).

 

Review the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which deal with states' rights.

He should also review the 14th amendment which significantly curtailed states' rights.

[Lacessit]

14 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

I know some peeps that were also scared of "the Man".  Then they graduated high school. I suggest you also study strong in math and science.  Did me right. ????

LOL, you really are a comedian. As a retired research scientist with multiple publications and one world patent, I'd suggest you picked the wrong guy to try ridiculing.

Please tell me your qualifications and achievements, I love a good BS artist.

[plentyofnuttin]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

LOL, you really are a comedian. As a retired research scientist with multiple publications and one world patent, I'd suggest you picked the wrong guy to try ridiculing.

Please tell me your qualifications and achievements, I love a good BS artist.

What's bizarre is that he doesn't seem to understand how a 6 conservatives to 3 liberals status favors conservatives more than does a 5-4 split. All the math that this requires someone to master is how to subtract one single digit integer from another.

Edited September 27, 2020 by plentyofnuttin

[plentyofnuttin]

Among other things, Judge Barrett is Trump's gift to the Biden campaign. She sharply criticized John Roberts crucial fifth vote that upheld Obamacare:

"Regarding a 2012 ruling upholding the law’s individual mandate by a 5-to-4 margin, Barrett also criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-scotus-pick-amy-coney-barrett-s-past-critiques-obamacare-n1241191

And it's not only Trump who will suffer for it. GOP senators up for reelection have been running away from their support for repealing Obamacare. When questioned by journalists, they consistently refuse to comment. Most have removed their support for repeal from their campaign literature. But now they can't run away from it.

 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Among other things, Judge Barrett is Trump's gift to the Biden campaign. She sharply criticized John Roberts crucial fifth vote that upheld Obamacare:

"Regarding a 2012 ruling upholding the law’s individual mandate by a 5-to-4 margin, Barrett also criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-scotus-pick-amy-coney-barrett-s-past-critiques-obamacare-n1241191

And it's not only Trump who will suffer for it. GOP senators up for reelection have been running away from their support for repealing Obamacare. When questioned by journalists, they consistently refuse to comment. Most have removed their support for repeal from their campaign literature. But now they can't run away from it.

 

Great post. 
Not wanting to be one sided but this is the kind of argument the insult throwing, jingoistic Trump fans would struggle to ever understand. 

[Ricohoc]

10 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Among other things, Judge Barrett is Trump's gift to the Biden campaign. She sharply criticized John Roberts crucial fifth vote that upheld Obamacare:

"Regarding a 2012 ruling upholding the law’s individual mandate by a 5-to-4 margin, Barrett also criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-scotus-pick-amy-coney-barrett-s-past-critiques-obamacare-n1241191

 

Judge Barrett is correct.  Roberts was out of line.  In the judicial review of matters before the court, their role is not to change the wording in the law -- which Roberts did.  

 

In cases where the law has been poorly written, or in violation, the court customarily returns the law to the Legislative Branch to bring something before the court that will fit within the context of the Constitution.  The legislation as written did not comply with the Constitution.  Had it done so, Roberts would not have had to rewrite the mandate as a tax -- which the Obama Administration repeatedly described as NOT a tax.

 

As for any "gift," the Democrats have already provided it with their stunts during the Kavanaugh hearings, and they are already on pace to surpass that theater.  Those past events are now clearly flashing before the eyes of voters once again.  Their stunt allowed the GOP Senate to increase its majority in the Senate in 2018 and created the majority that has confirmed so many judges on the federal bench at a record pace.  If Democrats come close to a repeat of that with Barrett, or exceed their Kavanaugh performance, they will be doing it just days before the election.

 

Add the rioting, mayhem and destruction that is being allowed to take place by governors and mayors in Democrat-led cities, and I would say that Democrats have quite a lot of ground to make up.

[Ricohoc]

11 hours ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Republicans repeatedly fillibustered many of his judicial nominations.

The filibuster in the Senate was a rule in place since the early 1800s until Democrat Harry Reid got rid of it In 2013.  It was eliminated for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments.  He did this after saying that he wouldn't take such action.  In 2013, Obama was still in office and Democrats controlled the Senate. The filibuster was gone from that point through this year.  There was NO filibuster and NO Republican majority to stop Democrats through 2015, and they left over 100 judicial appointments unfilled when Obama left office.

 

Harry Reid's elimination of the filibuster did not include the Supreme Court, but he opened that door for Mitch McConnell to walk through and extend the elimination of it to include SCOTUS.

 

I often say that Democrats are the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences, and this proves it yet again.

[plentyofnuttin]

20 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Judge Barrett is correct.  Roberts was out of line.  In the judicial review of matters before the court, their role is not to change the wording in the law -- which Roberts did.  

 

In cases where the law has been poorly written, or in violation, the court customarily returns the law to the Legislative Branch to bring something before the court that will fit within the context of the Constitution.  The legislation as written did not comply with the Constitution.  Had it done so, Roberts would not have had to rewrite the mandate as a tax -- which the Obama Administration repeatedly described as NOT a tax.

 

As for any "gift," the Democrats have already provided it with their stunts during the Kavanaugh hearings, and they are already on pace to surpass that theater.  Those past events are now clearly flashing before the eyes of voters once again.  Their stunt allowed the GOP Senate to increase its majority in the Senate in 2018 and created the majority that has confirmed so many judges on the federal bench at a record pace.  If Democrats come close to a repeat of that with Barrett, or exceed their Kavanaugh performance, they will be doing it just days before the election.

 

Add the rioting, mayhem and destruction that is being allowed to take place by governors and mayors in Democrat-led cities, and I would say that Democrats have quite a lot of ground to make up.

Whatever the merits of Roberts' decision, the fact it that Barrett's stance on Obamacare is a very unpopular one. Now more than ever given that the Medicaid portion of the law has protected millions of Americans who have recently lost their jobs. And with an upcoming November review of a lawsuit to invalidate Obamacare brought by 18 Republican states and joined by the U.S. government at Trump's insistence, I'd say Republican election prospects are looking significantly worse.

[Ricohoc]

5 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Whatever the merits of Roberts' decision, the fact it that Barrett's stance on Obamacare is a very unpopular one. Now more than ever given that the Medicaid portion of the law has protected millions of Americans who have recently lost their jobs. And with an upcoming November review of a lawsuit to invalidate Obamacare brought by 18 Republican states and joined by the U.S. government at Trump's insistence, I'd say Republican election prospects are looking significantly worse.

Maybe it's unpopular with you and some people in your circle, but the mandate/tax was extremely unpopular among Americans in the legislation.  Furthermore, it was that part of the legislation that was at the crux of Roberts' decision.  The mandate/tax was removed early in Trump's administration.

 

In summary, Barrett's position on this isn't going to matter because it didn't matter when she was confirmed for her current judicial position as a judge in the US 7th Circuit.  She went through a grueling process just three years ago.  Her record in the 7th Circuit speaks for itself.

 

Medicaid was always available to people of limited financial means for at least half a century now.  In fact, many Americans who lost their great health care wondered why Medicaid wasn't expanded instead of ruining everyone's health insurance.  However, that's a topic that is moot now.

 

Democrats have spent all their time playing "get Trump because Trump." The Democrat members of the House who won seats in 2018 in swing districts promised to do many things for their constituents -- including fix health care.  That was their big political talking point.  Hasn't happened.  It's very possible that Democrats will lose the House again, and Pelosi has probably put a stake through the party's heart in that legislative body.

 

 

[plentyofnuttin]

1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:

Maybe it's unpopular with you and some people in your circle, but the mandate/tax was extremely unpopular among Americans in the legislation.  Furthermore, it was that part of the legislation that was at the crux of Roberts' decision.  The mandate/tax was removed early in Trump's administration.

 

In summary, Barrett's position on this isn't going to matter because it didn't matter when she was confirmed for her current judicial position as a judge in the US 7th Circuit.  She went through a grueling process just three years ago.  Her record in the 7th Circuit speaks for itself.

 

Medicaid was always available to people of limited financial means for at least half a century now.  In fact, many Americans who lost their great health care wondered why Medicaid wasn't expanded instead of ruining everyone's health insurance.  However, that's a topic that is moot now.

 

Democrats have spent all their time playing "get Trump because Trump." The Democrat members of the House who won seats in 2018 in swing districts promised to do many things for their constituents -- including fix health care.  That was their big political talking point.  Hasn't happened.  It's very possible that Democrats will lose the House again, and Pelosi has probably put a stake through the party's heart in that legislative body.

 

 

Well, the mandate is gone now. So not an issue. 

 

As for the vote to confirm her to district court, it did matter to 44 democratic senators who voted against it. And, of course, the stakes weren't nearly so high. She now has it in her power to overturn Obamacare. That's a huge, huge difference.

 

Medicaid was available to some people of limited means. Obamacare greatly expanded it.

 

As for blaming Democrats for not fixing health care, that's ridiculous and untrue. They campaigned on stopping Trump from gutting health care. And they've succeeded. It's Trump who has repeatedly promised a new healthcare plan that would be coming out in a few weeks. He's done this over and over.

[plentyofnuttin]

15 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Maybe it's unpopular with you and some people in your circle, but the mandate/tax was extremely unpopular among Americans in the legislation.  Furthermore, it was that part of the legislation that was at the crux of Roberts' decision.  The mandate/tax was removed early in Trump's administration.

Not juist my circle unless you mean by that the majority of American voters. And we know that's the case because Republican Senators and Reps up for reelection who voted repeatedly to repeal it are now running away from those votes.

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Well, the mandate is gone now. So not an issue. 

 

As for the vote to confirm her to district court, it did matter to 44 democratic senators who voted against it. And, of course, the stakes weren't nearly so high. She now has it in her power to overturn Obamacare. That's a huge, huge difference.

 

Medicaid was available to some people of limited means. Obamacare greatly expanded it.

 

As for blaming Democrats for not fixing health care, that's ridiculous and untrue. They campaigned on stopping Trump from gutting health care. And they've succeeded. It's Trump who has repeatedly promised a new healthcare plan that would be coming out in a few weeks. He's done this over and over.

Oh, I'm not blaming Democrats for not fixing health care.  I'm repeating what they ran on in the midterms.  That's what they told voters.

 

Obama's health care failure no longer exists.  What was left of it after the mandate was removed is still available.  I'll be surprised if Democrats spend any time asking questions about that failure.  It only shines a light on Joe.  After all, he was part of that administration.  But if Democrats want to rehash old issues, they're welcome to do so.  They've got to find something besides Barrett's adopted children from Haiti to hammer.

 

Trump released his health care plan at the end of last week.

 

We disagree on what is important in this election and in Barrett's confirmation.  We'll see how it plays out.

[Surelynot]

Imagine a prospective judge stating they worshipped Satan and it was their sole intent to see his kingdom brought to dominate the Earth......BUT.....then saying "however, this won't impact or influence any decisions I make as a judge".....how would all the ardent supporters of this judge (with only 3 years experience) feel?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

Oh, I'm not blaming Democrats for not fixing health care.  I'm repeating what they ran on in the midterms.  That's what they told voters.

 

Obama's health care failure no longer exists.  What was left of it after the mandate was removed is still available.  I'll be surprised if Democrats spend any time asking questions about that failure.  It only shines a light on Joe.  After all, he was part of that administration.  But if Democrats want to rehash old issues, they're welcome to do so.  They've got to find something besides Barrett's adopted children from Haiti to hammer.

 

Trump released his health care plan at the end of last week.

 

We disagree on what is important in this election and in Barrett's confirmation.  We'll see how it plays out.

 

"Trump released his health care plan at the end of last week."

 

Not even close to what a health care plan looks like or does. Try harder.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Imagine a prospective judge stating they worshipped Satan and it was their sole intent to see his kingdom brought to dominate the Earth......BUT.....then saying "however, this won't impact or influence any decisions I make as a judge".....how would all the ardent supporters of this judge (with only 3 years experience) feel?

 

"Imagine a prospective judge stating they worshipped Satan and it was their sole intent to see his kingdom brought to dominate the Earth"

 

That's an easy one - the Republican dominated Senate will never confirm such an obvious lefty. 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Morch said:

 

"Imagine a prospective judge stating they worshipped Satan and it was their sole intent to see his kingdom brought to dominate the Earth"

 

That's an easy one - the Republican dominated Senate will never confirm such an obvious lefty. 

Fair point.