RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

On that we agree.

In the UK, we force very bright and able Judges to retire too young. In the US, SC appointments are for life. Neither system is good.

Was Butler-Sloss forced to retire too young? As a Peer she still influences legislation.

[surveyor_101]

Mrr T said:

Do you think her religious beliefs mean she should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? Would you have the same view if she was a committed Muslim?

The fact is R v W is likely to be overturned. It was always a case which stretched the power of the court bejond it legal boundaries.

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.

[kowalski655]

Regardless of obvious idealogical "qualifications", Barrett seems short of *actual* experience, compared to past Justices
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/amy-c...

[carinaman]

Biden and number of the Catholics on the Supreme Court discussed on Radio 4 from about 7.15am. Seemed to be about how Biden's religion may influence the US election results.

[anonymous-user]

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.

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.

[Bozwell]

Breadvan72 said:

The internet offers you a way out of this,

Pam Bondi argues Biden corruption concerns are legitimate | Trump impeachment trial video. 27 Jan 2020

Ratcliffe says there 'should be' more Durham probe indictments (Fox news)

INTELLIGENCE REPORT. October 02, 2020. V3 – Revised Investigating threats & evaluating risk political, security and reputational (Bidens)

Hunter Biden business partner calls email 'genuine,' says Hunter sought dad's advice on deals (Fox News)

Senate Judiciary Committee Authorizes Subpoenas for Twitter and Facebook CEOs (Wall ST journal)

James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII Oct 21 BREAKING: @Google Head of Global Competitive Analysis (twitter)

SPECIAL REPORT: Inside Joe Biden's corruption scandal and the social media cover-up (Sky News Australia youtube video)

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election Volume I of II Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III (.gov report)



the internet offers you a way to get in much deeper.


and

Senate caps debate on Barrett Supreme Court nomination, paving way for Monday confirmation vote



"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."


for a smart man an 'ad hominem' attack should be well below you. but hey ho.

instead of insulting why not 'educate' us with your interpretation of Trump and the criminal activities. (i know i can google but i want to see where you take us)

Trump is far from perfect but doing a better job than any politician has ever done. and Americans love him

just need to look at Biden/Harris rallies compared to Trump/Pence rallies.Tens compared to Tens of thousands in attendance. it's laughably sad.


Nancy Pelosi's 25th amendment threat is much more likely aimed at Biden. VP required to intervene and there is no way Pence would do that, but Harris, definitely.

Edited by Bozwell on Sunday 25th October 22:58

Edited by Bozwell on Sunday 25th October 23:02

[kowalski655]

Biden holds small/virtual rallies because he knows the danger of large groups, and is following CDC guidelines for safety, to stop infection.
Trump is the opposite, it's all about adulation for him him him, screw the little people. His rallies have been linked to a big rise in cases in the areas where he held them, and the attendees. Not forgetting the ACB event on the WH lawn!
One shows humanity, one is barely human!

[pilotoscot]

Breadvan72 said:

The evidence that Barrett is influenced by her religion is abundant, and if you say that you haven't found any such evidence, you have perhaps been searching using an early 1820s version of the internet

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 Breadvan72 on Sunday 18th October 04:58

NYT and CBS. Well those are two impeccable unbiased sources. What can I say? Orange man bad.

Except, we’re not talking about Trump.

So, the cases you cite.;

One is to uphold a law preventing doctors from preforming abortions on minors without the knowledge of the parents.

The other not to allow abortions on the basis of sex/race etc.

These are mainstream opinions in the States. Arguably majority opinions.

Despite the pejorative statement that she argued in favour of those laws, what she actually did was argue that the States involved had the ability to enact those laws.

States rights. As I said earlier.

You don’t like her. I get that. You want an activist court. Why don’t you stop pretending?

[kowalski655]

On the first case, she even argued against a minor having the right to an abortion when she could show a judge she was able to make a decision. (We have the Gillick laws (I think thats the one) that says the same. Lets not forget he risk to a minor:"Hey Dad, your kid wants an abortion.Is that OK with you?""No, its MY baby,I refuse!". See where that is wrong?
On the second case, OK , I agree that abortion based on sex is wrong, we have that here too, but she said no to abortions for reasons related to disability, including life-threatening conditions.
As of 2019, more than two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, SHE will be an "activist judge" but for the Christian right wing minority, put there so Trump can dog whistle to his Y'all Qaeda supporters in this election

[pilotoscot]

kowalski655 said:

On the first case, she even argued against a minor having the right to an abortion when she could show a judge she was able to make a decision. (We have the Gillick laws (I think thats the one) that says the same. Lets not forget he risk to a minor:"Hey Dad, your kid wants an abortion.Is that OK with you?""No, its MY baby,I refuse!". See where that is wrong?
On the second case, OK , I agree that abortion based on sex is wrong, we have that here too, but she said no to abortions for reasons related to disability, including life-threatening conditions.
As of 2019, more than two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, SHE will be an "activist judge" but for the Christian right wing minority, put there so Trump can dog whistle to his Y'all Qaeda supporters in this election

I’m sorry. But know. She didn’t argue any of these points. The state legislatures argued and enacted those laws.

They were struck down due Roe vs Wade. She disagreed. Not because she agreed with laws but because she believes Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional.

She’s not alone.

[kowalski655]

OK,perhaps "ajudged" (in her minority opinions) would be a better word!
She is in a 10-30% minority in the US-see the last paragraph of the cbs link you posted

Edited by kowalski655 on Monday 26th October 20:12

[Bozwell]

kowalski655 said:

Biden holds small/virtual rallies because he knows the danger of large groups, and is following CDC guidelines for safety, to stop infection.

of course it is, silly me.

had a look at the CDC guidelines and it confirms that they should call a lid on campaigning early in the day, avoid difficult questions about Hunter's laptop and hide away in a basement till election day.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

pilotoscot said:

She’s getting confirmed.

That was never in doubt.

Confirmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-547003...

[kowalski655]

I see it was Collins' turn to pretend to have a spine!

[surveyor_101]

jsf said:

Confirmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-547003...

Democrats are losing their touch, no riots, no character assignation!

Pelosi said they had quills in their quiver.......!!! LOL

[HughiusMaximus]

jsf said:

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.

Correct - but its a slippery slope.

Whats to stop the Republicans from adding more judges they take back power in x years?.. and around and around we go until the credibility of the court is gone.

It was the decocrats choosing to change the rules so that Obama could appoint more judges (changed the confirmation requirement to appoint from a supermajority to a simple majority) that came back to bite them in the ass with Trump using the same rule change to appoint his supreme court judges.

The same could happen with packing the court - which even RBG wasn't in favour of...


https://www.heritage.org/political-process/comment...

https://thehill.com/regulation/454463-ginsburg-dis...

[pilotoscot]

Exactly right. Ultimately any good lawyer will tell you they can only do so much. There has to be goodwill if there is an ongoing relationship. There are unwritten rules. There have to be.

I disagreed with breadvan that it was an unwritten rule you don’t confirm a SCOTUS appointee in your last year of office. It’s simply not true and has been done on numerous occasions.

Also that she is a substandard appointment. Scalia didn’t think so. He’d know.

[hidetheelephants]

pilotoscot said:

Exactly right. Ultimately any good lawyer will tell you they can only do so much. There has to be goodwill if there is an ongoing relationship. There are unwritten rules. There have to be.

I disagreed with breadvan that it was an unwritten rule you don’t confirm a SCOTUS appointee in your last year of office. It’s simply not true and has been done on numerous occasions.

Also that she is a substandard appointment. Scalia didn’t think so. He’d know.

Any reasonable claim by the GoP to that evaporated when Moscow Mitch refused to hold a hearing for Garland; the hearing is the legitimate forum and the Senate Judiciary Committee the legitimate arbiter to judge whether a nomination is valid and the candidate suitable, not the caprice of the Senate Majority Leader.

[kowalski655]

Adding to the court to make 13 judges,1 per appeal circuit as originally envisaged, would be reasonable. Just make them ALL young & progressive to fk with Mitch.
Maybe add Obama, he was a lawyer after all

[hidetheelephants]

kowalski655 said:

Adding to the court to make 13 judges,1 per appeal circuit as originally envisaged, would be reasonable. Just make them ALL young & progressive to fk with Mitch.
Maybe add Obama, he was a lawyer after all

Make it a jobshare, Barack can do turnabout with Michelle.