RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Discussion
The appointment would be Constitutional. The political hypocrisy that would attend it is pretty much par for the course for the post-Nixon GOP. Barrett is a good lawyer in most respects. She has a fatal flaw, which she shares with Scalia. The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.
UPSIDE: If Biden wins, Trump will litigate. Kavanaugh and Alito will do as Trump wishes. Thomas, not so sure. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett will, I think, uphold the Constitution, and Trump's case will be dismissed. I might be wrong about that! Look what the Court did in 2000.
UPSIDE: If Biden wins, Trump will litigate. Kavanaugh and Alito will do as Trump wishes. Thomas, not so sure. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett will, I think, uphold the Constitution, and Trump's case will be dismissed. I might be wrong about that! Look what the Court did in 2000.
Breadvan72 said:
The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.
It is indeed, but that fight has been lost for now, too many people are s
t scared of going against the power of the religious groups.I don't see that changing for many generations, they are brainwashed from birth and those that don't agree have learned to keep their gob shut.
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
vetrof said:
Maybe the case. But I was under the impression that laws were made by the legislature, the elected representatives of the people.
And if tested, the court decided if the law was in accordance with the constitution or not. I could be wrong of course, but it seems odd that 9 unelected people should be able to make the laws.
edit: I am neither American nor involved in the legal profession (can you tell?), so perhaps I have too simplistic a view on this.
Two points -And if tested, the court decided if the law was in accordance with the constitution or not. I could be wrong of course, but it seems odd that 9 unelected people should be able to make the laws.
edit: I am neither American nor involved in the legal profession (can you tell?), so perhaps I have too simplistic a view on this.
(1) The US Constitution balances the powers of the executive and the legislature and has those powers supervised by the Supreme Court. The executive is not allowed to act, and the legislature is not allowed to legislate, in a way that breaches the Constitution, including its many Amendments. In legal theory, the Constitution is a "grundnorm". It is the Rule of Rules, by which all other rules are judged. The question of what does or does not breach the Constitution is often a difficult one, and into that question politics (and religion) can enter.
(2) The US adopted the common law system from the UK. The common law system recognises that no legal Code can cover all eventualities, and permits the law to be changed incrementally by Judges. Thus Judges in all common law countries do make law. They do this by interpreting previous common law decisions, and by interpreting Statutes. In common law countries that have Constitutions contained in a single document, the Judges also interpret that document. In the UK, by the way, the Constitution is scattered across several documents dating from the twelfth century to last year, but is also partly contained in case law and in non-binding conventions.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th October 12:12
Comparative Constitutionalism 101:
I add that the EU legal order is a mixture of the Civil Code that is standard in most European countries, and the common law. The European Court of Justice is pretty much a common law Court, because it generally stands by its previous decisions, but does develop the law of the EU incrementally. It is the final arbiter of what EU law is. It can strike down instruments of national legislatures and of the EU legislature if those instruments breach the Treaties that make up the Constitution of the EU. The ECJ is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU Court.
Like SCOTUS, the ECJ is a Court that suffers from politics, but it does so in a different way. It is weakened by the rule that it must decide every single case unanimously. Thus every decision tends to be heavily negotiated, compromised, and often small c conservative.
The ECtHR allows dissenting judgments. It is more common law than Civil Code, because the European Convention of Human Rights was mainly written by a British common lawyer (he was also a Tory politician - the Daily Mail does not want people to know that).
BACK on thread - Barrett ducked a lot of questions. She is not a full-on stooge in the same mould as the truly appalling Kavanaugh, but she is there for one reason only and that is to kill Roe v Wade. Not a great basis on which to appoint a Justice.
I add that the EU legal order is a mixture of the Civil Code that is standard in most European countries, and the common law. The European Court of Justice is pretty much a common law Court, because it generally stands by its previous decisions, but does develop the law of the EU incrementally. It is the final arbiter of what EU law is. It can strike down instruments of national legislatures and of the EU legislature if those instruments breach the Treaties that make up the Constitution of the EU. The ECJ is NOT the same as the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU Court.
Like SCOTUS, the ECJ is a Court that suffers from politics, but it does so in a different way. It is weakened by the rule that it must decide every single case unanimously. Thus every decision tends to be heavily negotiated, compromised, and often small c conservative.
The ECtHR allows dissenting judgments. It is more common law than Civil Code, because the European Convention of Human Rights was mainly written by a British common lawyer (he was also a Tory politician - the Daily Mail does not want people to know that).
BACK on thread - Barrett ducked a lot of questions. She is not a full-on stooge in the same mould as the truly appalling Kavanaugh, but she is there for one reason only and that is to kill Roe v Wade. Not a great basis on which to appoint a Justice.
Your loyalty to the orange one is touching, and he might still win, but the odds are not looking great, despite all that straw-clutching spin that you just did. HMG has apparently started prepping to deal with Biden, who will hang tough on Northern Ireland, and on trade. Biden is no great shakes, but he is a billion times better than the alternative.
surveyor 1010, I am no fan of Biden. It reflects poorly on the Dems that he is the candidate they chose, but a second Trump term would be a disaster for the whole World. If you really cannot see what terrible harm Trump has done to the US and to the World, I really do not have time to educate you on that. In any event, you show by every post you make on a political subject that you are ill-informed, highly credulous of populist nonsense, and unable or unwilling to use the critical reasoning skills that are required to form informed opinions. Somebody else can maybe try to enlighten you, but for me life is too short. I can only suggest that you stop regarding what UK tabloids, US Fox News et al, and social media tell you as being in any way connected to reality. None of those media sources are your friends, and they lead you and many others up a very dodgy garden path.
pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
What evidence do you have of this? I can’t find any and none has been evidenced at her hearings. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean someone is required to deny their own religious conscience. Just that they must set it aside In deciding constitutional matters. She’s promised to do that. There is no evidence she has ever acted differently.
On Roe vs Wade she is on record as saying it is now settled law in the US. Outside of the religious right, the main objection to Roe was a question of States rights. Many mainstream constitutional lawyers believe it overstepped the powers of the court.
Anyway, you clearly had a very negative view of ACB before the hearings. Have you changed your mind?
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
Lord.Vader said:
Didn’t she sign, whilst a professor, something to do with overturning R vs W?
Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
There is nothing in the constitution that limits the number of justices, that is set by congress and if they vote for it, the SC could be expanded to any number they wish.Found it, her own opinion on Roe Vs Wade; https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
If the Dem’s win, what’s to stop them appointing four more Judges to the Supreme Court? I read somewhere FDR tried to do it in the past and the court started with six.
pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.
What evidence do you have of this? I can’t find any and none has been evidenced at her hearings. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean someone is required to deny their own religious conscience. Just that they must set it aside In deciding constitutional matters. She’s promised to do that. There is no evidence she has ever acted differently.
On Roe vs Wade she is on record as saying it is now settled law in the US. Outside of the religious right, the main objection to Roe was a question of States rights. Many mainstream constitutional lawyers believe it overstepped the powers of the court.
Anyway, you clearly had a very negative view of ACB before the hearings. Have you changed your mind?
Try the NY Times summary from last week maybe -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/amy...
Try CBS -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-vie...
How about the Christian Science Monitor -
“If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it would represent a culmination of decades long efforts by the conservative Christian legal movement to move from the periphery of the legal world into the mainstream.”
One more:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-amy-cone...
But you "couldn't find" any evidence. Oh yes, sure you couldn't.
This is a woman who has acted as a "handmaid", I kid you not, in one of her religious organisations. Her evasiveness when pressed on the key issues was striking. If you believe that she will not vote with her entrenched religious convictions, I have a bridge to sell you.
But who needs evidence? Faith is faith, and faith in Trump is one of the biggest cults going.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th October 04:58
surveyor_101 said:
I have seen no evidence that outside her personal life she allows Religion to cloud her application of the Constitution which is what SCJ is there to do and only do!
More interesting with Breadvan is he lambasts me for taking media articles and using them to form an opinion .
up above he makes that point that my incredulous views are from tabloid (I don't read the sun or mail) and social media and says not to believe the media and I quote!
"None of those media sources are your friends, and they lead you and many others up a very dodgy garden path."
Then to back up his argument.
I feel he has a hatred of Trump like many do much because he is not a political animal and also the left and media make fake new all the time.
What you mean is that you have chosen to ignore the (large) pile of evidence. As for media sources, you can shop around. They vary in quality. Your posts suggest that your opinions on every political subject are fed to you pre-packaged by tabloids, and that you fail to apply any critical reasoning to the nonsense that they tell you; and thus you trot out what is virtually a caricature of the PH NPE bloke in pub position. More interesting with Breadvan is he lambasts me for taking media articles and using them to form an opinion .
up above he makes that point that my incredulous views are from tabloid (I don't read the sun or mail) and social media and says not to believe the media and I quote!
"None of those media sources are your friends, and they lead you and many others up a very dodgy garden path."
Then to back up his argument.
I feel he has a hatred of Trump like many do much because he is not a political animal and also the left and media make fake new all the time.
The internet offers you a way out of this, but you have to look beyond what you wish to see. At present, you are the paradigm Trump supporter. Low education, low information, low trust, but also deeply credulous, and believing that a man with a long record of fraud, who has turned the White House into a fetid swamp of influence peddling, is some sort of paragon of virtue, maligned by a sinister media conspiracy.
You can choose not to be that way, but you have to (1) equip yourself with a built-in BS detector (that is what education should do for everybody, but sometimes it fails), and (2) do a fair chunk of reading from a wide variety of sources, and not just from sources that confirm what you already think.
jsf said:
pilotoscot said:
She’s getting confirmed.
That was never in doubt.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-547003...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff