[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6864

File: 1601354149283.jpg (76.36 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Donald-Trump-walking-with-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

President Trump's has nominated judge and law professor Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat recently made vacant. Have you followed the news at all? If so, what do you think of her chances of getting into the highest court of the land as well as her qualifications and philosophy? If not, is that because you think that she won't get in after all? Or for what other reason?

Story: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917554001/amy-coney-barrett-a-dream-for-the-right-nightmare-for-the-left

Personally, I'm wary about her views on Obamacare and abortion rights, both of which she's staunchly opposed to and likely will go out of her way to eliminate. However, she appears well qualified and ethically squeaky clean. I think that it's more likely than not she will be confirmed and wind up on the Supreme Court.

 No.6865

A sufficient number of people to appoint her agreed to her nomination before her name was ever put forward. Her qualifications are totally irrelevant to the fact that she'll get a lifetime appointment to the most powerful bench in the world.

 No.6866

File: 1601356066943.png (362.15 KB, 423x780, 141:260, snake-in-boot-5e2.png) ImgOps Google

>>6864
>If so, what do you think of her chances of getting into the highest court of the land
I'd give it 90%+.  It seems like there are enough votes to confirm her in the Senate.

>as well as her qualifications
Objectively, she is very highly qualified.
See also: https://reason.com/2020/09/27/what-sort-of-justice-should-you-want-on-the-other-side/

>and philosophy?
I generally like her philosophy.  I do worry that she might vote to allow states to ban abortion.  (My view is that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, but I also believe that an effective right to abortion (at least prior to quickening) can probably be grounded in the Second Amendment.  That might be a topic for another thread though.)

> I'm wary about her views on Obamacare
What in particular?  The Supreme Court is loathe to reverse a decision on statutory interpretation.  It's like a super stare decisis.  I don't think the Roberts interpretation of the penalty as a tax will be overturned.  There are some pending cases, but my recollection is that they are all pretty meritless.  I doubt anything will happen to Obamacare by the Supreme Court.

 No.6868

>>6864
Her odds seem good, I'd say. Last I heard, nobody hates her, and I don't really see why she couldn't get past the senate.

I haven't kept up with it that closely, but, it seems like a pretty done deal.

 No.6896

I mean, props for electing someone who isn't immediately going to be under fire for a number of sexual assaults.  I guess they knew they didn't have much time and couldn't afford any hold ups.

I'm sure I disagree with her on a whole lot of things, and heavily at that.  But it's not like I get to vote on who's appointed to the Supreme Court.  I effectively can't oppose her appointment at all, there is no grounds to do so.

What I can do is point out that the Supreme Court is kinda bullshit?  That's like representative representative democracy going on there, and I didn't really have any representation in the direct representators anyway?  It's absurd that nine people can make such major decisions for the country to begin with, much less nine people with lifetime appointments that weren't elected by the people.

 No.6898

File: 1601565099375.jpg (47.01 KB, 426x512, 213:256, futaba-akane-8cb1c8121e39e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6896
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to represent the people.  They are supposed to apply the law as written regardless of whether a large majority of the people oppose it.  Indeed, the Supreme Court is one of the checks against a tyranny of the majority.

 No.6899

>>6898

Which sounds great on paper, but what they end up doing is interpreting things that weren't clear enough before, which is much more subjective.  They're effectively writing laws, not just distributing laws, by deciding what laws mean when presented with a problem the law didn't cover.

 No.6900

File: 1601571150032.jpg (417.15 KB, 512x712, 64:89, Futaba.Akane.full.1248446.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6899
It is true that some cases involve laws whose interpretation is unclear.  But I think having popularly elected justices would be worse than the current situation (in which the people nominating and consenting to the justices are elected by the people, but the people don't have a direct vote on the justices), as it would lead to results-oriented populist judges instead of judges who try to find the most accurate interpretation.

>>6896
>It's absurd that nine people can make such major decisions for the country to begin with
Let's divide Supreme Court cases into two categories: (1) interpretations of federal statutes and (2) interpretations of the Constitution.  Decisions in the first category can be overturned by Congress passing a new law.  Controversial decisions in the second category happen only when the government arguably comes very close to violating the Constitution.  So, as long the government clearly stays within its lawful bounds, the Supreme Court wouldn't be making any major decisions at all.  

 No.6906

>>6900

You're probably right, but I'm still not gonna like it.

 No.6908

File: 1601651239934.jpg (104.15 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1561606542712.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6864
> I'm wary about her views on Obamacare
Here's a sneak peak of how she might vote in such a case:
https://reason.com/2020/10/02/how-judge-barrett-ruled-in-the-texas-aca-case/
Spoiler: Don't expect her to strike down any part of Obamacare except the individual mandate, which has already been neutered by Congress.

 No.6910

>>6866
>>6908
You're trusting that Barrett is going to rule based on an objective understanding of the law rather than right-wing ideology, though. Isn't that naïve given the circumstances, though? Trump and the Republicans want Obamacare murdered. All of it. She's a hired gun. Why should she betray those that are inherently going to give her the job that she's dreamed of?

Look at past Supreme Court rulings with Gorsch and Roberts particularly, and you already have conservative political activists saying that they're too independently minded and insufficiently hackish. They don't automatically accept whatever the conservatives want all of the time, and that's something that they're expecting to get with Barrett. A bobblehead for their side.

Granted, Barrett's record is rather squeaky clean as far as ethics goes. But we're talking about Donald Trump, the modern modern conservative movement, and the Republican Party, here. They could sell residents of the Sahara Desert sand, for crying out loud.

Wouldn't you at least feel tempted to obey Trump's whims if it meant your own dream job, personally?

 No.6913

>>6910
>Wouldn't you at least feel tempted to obey Trump's whims if it meant your own dream job, personally?
Once she is appointed, she is on the court for life.  She has no obligation to obey Trump's whims.

>Why should she betray those that are inherently going to give her the job that she's dreamed of?
There is no betrayal.  She isn't promising how she would rule on any case.  Indeed, such a promise would be black-letter judicial-ethics violation.

>They don't automatically accept whatever the conservatives want all of the time, and that's something that they're expecting to get with Barrett.
Not really.  They're expecting a vote against Roe v Wade and a justice with a conservative judicial philosophy.  Such a philosophy would entail ruling against the Texas v. California challenge to ACA, as explained in Prof. Adler's blogpost linked in >>6908.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]