Henry Ford

Cool story. I’m glad you didn’t take the actual point she actually made in her actual law review article and turn it into something ridiculous instead of just saying “I understand you were making a different point than I was addressing and I see how this would conflict with her previous positions.” That would have been just nutty.

Yeah, he did that despite there being any other mechanism to get nominees confirmed while McConnell et al refused to confirm anyone for anything. One of his ambassadors literally died waiting to be confirmed. At least be intellectually honest there, too. We can take it back as many steps as you want. But the actual mechanism that made it possible wasn’t any of them. It was 2017.

You're a pretty well-read guy and you obviously know that didn't make this possible.

No it isn't. McConnell and the Republicans are the ones who changed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees, in 2017, for Gorsuch.

I think you missed part of the awfulness of the quote. "30% of the people in the suburbs are low income people - 30% of the people in the suburbs are minorities." He even manages to equate "low income" with "minorities."

The Proud Boys were started out of Taki's Magazine by Gavin McInnes. Taki's Magazine is one of the the birthplaces of the term "alt-right," and its former editor is Richard Spencer. It became slightly famous when it was running articles in support of European neo-Nazis. The Proud Boys run Confederate rallies, "alt-right" rallies, espouse views with strong references to "white genocide" and have many members who advocate for a white ethnostate, and they join forces with skinheads, as well as co-opting the same clothing brands as skinheads for their rallies. One of their former members (Jason Kessler) was the organizer who put together Charlottesville. The founder left the organization as a result of its heavy turn toward racism, beyond the Islamophobia and sexism it was actually founded on. There have been a number of discussions about them on this board before.

I take issue with the entire suggestion that an appellate judge or Supreme Court Justice in this country makes a determination about an abstract concept unrelated to a particular case. There is no ivory tower in which the Supreme Court sits and decides on these issues as simple abstractions. They're applied to cases. Yes, in a purely academic context I agree that for some people one question is easier than the other. But not for everyone. And it's a completely irrelevant point because there is no purely academic context in which a judge or justice will sit. If a judge affirms the lower court decision of capital punishment, a person is killed by the state. That's the moral issue she has weighed in on. Affirmation at all is an affirmation of a sentence of death.

Yes, it actually is the issue. That's the whole point of the law review article I posted the abstract from that started the conversation. The issue is that deciding someone will be put to death is, she argues, against the Catholic religion and she argues that it is something a Catholic judge should recuse herself from. So, no, I don't believe they can be rather different in that regard. I'm not sure why you think you think they can.

The question is whether a Supreme Court Justice can be impartial. And I’m asking you when you can decide #1 without deciding whether a particular person can be put to death as a Supreme Court Justice. Because it is relevant to recusal if you’d be deciding whether or not someone can be put to death. That’s my point from the beginning of this conversation in bringing up the “case or controversy” requirement.

Fortunately, ex-members did some of this work for them by previously detailing in exposes the alleged subjugation of women within that group. Like this book detailing one member's description of what she considers to have been escaping from a cult. Or like this book from a Notre Dame philosophy professor who was part of the group. Which are discussed in this article. Which also details the life of some single women inside this religious institution: There's also some discussion in the article of the covenant that's expected to be signed swearing to act always in accordance with the teachings of the church leaders.

I'm curious as to what circumstance you would be deciding #1 without considering whether a particular defendant will be put to death.

What? A member of the grand jury took the extraordinary measure of filing a motion today to release the grand jury proceedings, suggesting the AG has not been truthful with the public. The SWAT force in that city expressed serious misgivings about the actions of the officers. The police department has not been truthful about the state of things that night. Five of the same people executed a similarly disastrous warrant a year and a half before. Many people care about that.

With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion. Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death. Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights. If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.

People have asked me why I expect someone to have spent time in the lower courts prior to being in the circuits and then the Supreme Court. This is my number one reason why. Because years of judicial work will hopefully evidence whether a judge is under undue influence or not. It is my number one concern with the judiciary, its independence. That's what ideally leads to fair application of the laws, if not "fair" outcomes.

I'm not sure where you get .02% from, but the Yale Law Journal review of corruption in the courts ten years ago or so suggests much higher than that. I would imagine only .02% get caught, if that's a statistic somewhere. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5179&context=ylj