Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, eoMMan said:

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

Fair point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

The whataboutism dogma lives loudly within you.

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

It wasn't.  Much like you totally misunderstood what was being said originally, you also are now totally misunderstanding what was being said.

Edit: I guess the only answer I could give to that question is because Republicans were lying about what was in the bill to their constituents.  Things like "Death Panels" for instance.  What Pelosi was saying was "this huge bill has a lot of great things, and you're being lied to about what's in it by partisan hacks protecting the insurance industry.  We have to get it passed and let the Republicans stop lying so that you can understand what's in it when the story on the news isn't about whatever idiocy they're making up out of thin air this week."  Transparency isn't just about releasing the bill (and they did) it's also about how much chaff gets shot out between the viewer and the thing being viewed.  The Republican Party is masterful at firing gigantic cannons of chaff between what is being proposed and the voters.  Like they did with the ACA and a thousand other things since the Equal Rights Amendment.

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

This is spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

If it would, it dies anyway unless some existing Supreme Court justices change their minds.  A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court ruling, and the appeal is of a ruling against the ACA.

And no, there's no hope here.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

There is very little hope.

 

I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare.  That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.

The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

The case is scheduled to be conveniently heard right after the election and then I'd assume a decision announced near the end of the term.  So ObamaCare should be good until the spring from this non legal guesstimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the extent there is hope - its this:

The Dems can hope to control the House, Senate and White House - for at least two years, if not longer.

Within that, it is within their power to enact legislation that complies with SC rulings, but also moves toward democratic supported solutions to issues like healthcare, or gun control, or abortion (though I think this last one could be difficult to do on the federal level).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

If Democrats sweep everything in November, they can pass legislation early next year that restores access to health care a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

I agree that the People of Praise membership should be carefully explored further to ensure there wouldn't be anything that would prevent Barrett from separating church and state.

IMO the reference to other nominees was not relevant since it seemed to imply that since the others weren't unfairly attacked, then neither would she. When it is obvious this is not the case. No worries and apologies if this was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise.  If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse.  Plus, the Pope doesn't often give commentary on specific cases before the court, but I don't know about the leader of the People of Praise.

As I said before, my friend's family was a member of this organization in the late 70s / early 80s in South Bend.  The family left when it became obvious that the leaders were abusing the followers (his words, I don't have details).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

The critical questions you are asking are subjective and almost rhetorical in nature.

Any Democratic Senator could easily justify (rationalize?) their No vote simply by saying Barrett didn't answer those questions "to their own personal satisfaction blah blah blah"...thus giving them an easy out...when to anyone with half a brain it would clearly be partisan politics.

Is this where we are headed? A confirmation vote along party lines...even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*

 

*Assuming nothing blatant turns up in the confirmation process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

The critical questions you are asking are subjective and almost rhetorical in nature.

Any Democratic Senator could easily justify (rationalize?) their No vote simply by saying Barrett didn't answer those questions "to their own personal satisfaction blah blah blah"...thus giving them an easy out...when to anyone with half a brain it would clearly be partisan politics.

Is this where we are headed? A confirmation vote along party lines...even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*

 

*Assuming nothing blatant turns up in the confirmation process.

 

The vote to confirm is going to be 51 Rs in favor versus 47 D/I and 2 R against. Already a done deal. Don’t know why we need the theatrics. 
 

Edit: If I was a D Senator I wouldn’t vote at all. It’s the process and the politics at issue here. I’d let it be a 51-0 vote if I was Dem leadership. 

Edited by Trey
Edit for my thoughts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

Not that it matters to me personally, but there's been a lot of discussion about how she's being "attacked" for being Catholic. Attacks which I haven't seen, but I have seen the accusations of attacks. 

From the website linked above:

"Jesus desires unity for all people. We live out this unity the best we can, in spite of the divisions within Christianity. We are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians."

So, how does it follow that she's Catholic? None of the Catholic churches I've attended state that they are also "Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians".

Seems straightforward enough, until it isn't at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

Watched an interview with Amy yesterday and she seems like a quality person.  When she said something like a Supreme Court judge is not there to make to laws of the land but there to uphold the laws of the land I guess that is all we can ask for.

Nah, we can ask for more than that.  A lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise.  If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

I don't know anything about the group - other than that they appear to be a lot more devout than I am.

 

But, I thought this was a male-dominated sect.  I did not know there was a female leader.

 

I also think many of these same questions were asked of JFK - would he owe allegiance or fealty to the Pope?

 

Again, we can't separate a person's faith from who they are as a person.  My chief concerns would be - is she going to impose those beliefs on others?  Can she separate her beliefs from the legal issues.

 

For example - her faith makes her opposed to all abortions.  Does that dictate her legal arguments on the issue?  Conversely, I would expect her beliefs to be equally as opposed to the death penalty - does she follow her beliefs here?  If there is a difference - its worth a little exploration.

 

The second, perhaps more important issue, is there enough time to properly vet her?  Rushing decisions like this are fraught with peril.  

 

I also wonder how people would feel about her faith is she were Muslim, or a Scientologist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse.

These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

There is very little hope.

 

I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare.  That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.

The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.

 

I have it on good authority that Trump is going to release the details of an amazing health care plan in 2 weeks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.

What's your basis for this answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

What's your basis for this answer?

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

I think you are almost certainly right on this point. However her husband is an attorney. Will he have say in her rulings?

 

Also just because someone is in no way qualified to give an opinion rarely stops them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 

Not just because of that, but yes, I'm saying that I'm pretty confident that a religious group isn't going to be dictating either the legal reasoning or the results of ACB's judicial decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Not just because of that, but yes, I'm saying that I'm pretty confident that a religious group isn't going to be dictating either the legal reasoning or the results of ACB's judicial opinions.

Right, I'm asking the basis of your confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Right, I'm asking the basis of your confidence.

It's roughly the same basis as for my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's roughly the same basis as my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.

I appreciate that this seems like a foolish question to you - why would she defer to a religious body for her rulings? - but it isn't.  Judges and justices are subject to advise and consent clause because of qualification issues, but also to root out undue influences.  Some judges will potentially defer to the wishes of those with financial power over them, or who offer financial opportunity, and some will defer to those with emotional power over them.  If someone believes that another person or entity has power over the disposition of her or her families' immortal souls, I would consider that a fairly strong potential influence if it isn't separated from her work.  

I would say that the builders of youth detention facilities have very little understanding of the work of a court other than outcome-derived understanding.  And yet they certainly influenced two judges in Pennsylvania.  Because those two valued the money they would get from the interaction over their judicial independence.

I'm not sure what part of your understanding about how the world works is in play here, but it appears different from my understanding about how the world works.  Do I think it likely that she would be influenced on every case?  Of course not. But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as for Biden being a sock puppet for AOC, I can give better reasons for not believing that than “I know how the world works.”  I’ve met Joe Biden, but beyond that I can see that his actions and statements sharply divide from those of AOC regularly, he’s had a long and followable public life where his positions and statements make sense based on his journey as a human being, and he’s made some great moves and terrible ones in decades of public service. For good or ill, he has a record that makes it pretty clear he isn’t AOC’s sock puppet. 

If you can point to some similar explanation about Barrett and the religious leaders (and to my knowledge we don’t even know who they are) of this 3,000 person sect, I would agree. Otherwise, that’s what years of district court judicial record are for, in part. To find out if a judge is above influence.  She didn’t get those.  Barring that, it’s legitimate to question her regarding the influence any organization she happens to belong to - be it the PTA, the Communist Party of America, the Trial Lawyer’s Association, MENSA, or yes, even her religious organization - has over her.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

... But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.

And this has really nothing to do with Catholicism or the Papacy, but rather the small religious sect that she and her family belong to.  Can she separate the demands / needs / beliefs / desires of her small community to which she has made a covenant from the legal rulings to which she is asked to do from now until her death or departure from the court?

I feel those are valid questions to ask ACB.

I would also like to know about her acceptance of scientific principles, and the conclusions reached by the collaborative and competitive nature of the modern scientific process.  Or does she believe that the world is 6000 years old and the oil was put here by God for us to use as we please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

Quote

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying to not ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

I haven't referred to this as a cult.  Would you like to frame the discussion as though it definitely is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.

If she believes in that...yes, she should recuse from Capital Punishment and Abortion cases...as the Catholic Church is quite clear on those.  If she feels she cannot be unbiased in such a case from a person/belief standpoint...most certainly.  My guess...if questioned, nope, doesn't believe that anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...