1. The fact that she wasn't able to say whether or not a president has the power to suspend the election was truly frightening. A little less frightening is that she seems to think that Miranda v. Arizona should be reversed. One wonders if she thinks the "third degree" should be brought back.
2. When you take her previous writings on both Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act, and contrast them with her answers before the judiciary committee, I think that if she then votes to overturn Roe and to scrap the ACA, that it is arguable that she committed perjury during her hearings and that she should be impeached forthwith.
3. If she's an "originalist", then I'd like to know if she thinks that the First Amendment applies to electronic media. Those didn't exist in 1791. Neither, for that matter, did newspapers printed on continuous offset presses printing in CMYK.
These GOP judicial nominees all say something on the lines of "we're not there to enforce an ideology, we just call balls and strikes." That is primo-grade horseshit. If the judges indeed just called "balls and strikes", then Moscow Mitch wouldn't have sat on 200 nominations to the lower courts and either stolen a Supreme Court seat from President Obama or stolen one from the next president.
I think that should Biden win, he should watch how the Supremes rule and, if they are clearly showing an ideological bent, then it'll be time to respond to the GOP's stacking the courts with packing the courts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse exposed the bent court very nicely yesterday.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sheldon-whitehouses-funhouse-math/
I suspect that Roberts has already digested the bent of the country and will be ready for herculean efforts to prevent SCOTUS rulings from pushing court packing or term limits to the forefront, much as happened in the mid-30’s. While Justices are isolated, in general, I believe they are also quite aware of the tenuous status of the Supreme Court in today’s America, and while they may have views they believe are correct, they are likely to recognize that some bridges may be too far in the long run.
The whole point of putting the Opus Dei - Catholic Illuminatti - Handmaiden on the court is to over-ride Roberts should he get squeamish. Or strategic. He make all kinds of swing votes on all kinds of this, say see, I disagreed but the majority overruled me.
So would she support healthcare, but only what was available in 1789?
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Doug, so we'd have cupping, leeches, surgery without anesthesia, and no antibiotics.
B You read that wrong.
The Second, B, applies to minorities imposing a tyranny on the majority.
B, that comment gets you a Red Card.
She is the wish of those starting back at the Moral Majority to
bring Judeo Christian morals back to the country via all possible
ways including the courts. NOTE: Time proved they were anything
but moral.
Fast forward nearly 50 years, still in my lifetime we have
Barrett and that part of the same lineage that is trying to
make the US Government more theocratic. That's a bunk idea as
the whole of the constitution was clear as to the Governments
position, it is to be secular lest is have bias against any
one group based on beliefs or religion. She is one that would
proceed to try and change that. Short run she may cause upset
and discord, long run, she is destined to be known as the
greatest failure as a justice.
Then again she might respect law more. Serving in that court
you have a lot of eyes and sometimes fact and precedent is a
great weightly structure to try and topple. One can hope that
will be obvious and some belief structures are generally moot
can cannot persist.
That and once your there you are not any longer beholden to the
promises made to criminals and schemers. Though this bunch might
make getting a set of plates and wearing them a very good idea.
Especially the back.
We shall see. There is impeachment for those that would violate
law.
Eck!
That's Justice Madame DeFarge
The interstate to the Hell that would-be conservatism (where is the conservation?) has paved has been built under the banner of original intent. Toweringly self-righteous jurists like St. Scalia apply the Humpty-Dumpty dictum:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.''
It's fascinating too, that, under original intent, Barrett would not have a vote, an education or a place outside home, hearth & kitchen.
Stewart, yes, but Amendments count. When they talk about "the intent of the Framers of the Constitution", those who wrote the various Amendments are counted as such.
Before we resort to packing the court — and assuming we end up with a Democratic majority in the Senate — perhaps we ought to be thinking and loudly publicizing the possibility of judicial impeachment. Could it be pulled off? I dunno. Did any of the current Republican judges give misleading or frankly false answers about how they would decide cases during their Senate hearings?
But here's the thing: unlike court packing, judicial impeachment brings along the likelihood of personal shaming, which might slow the 18th Century reflex actions of our ultra right wing court.
Yours crankily,
The New York Crank
That's a blog post Stew (thank you), Bare foot and pregnant, with a link back to the Cap'n's basement and a little something for those paying attention.
If we interpret the amendments by their original intent what are we to make of the 16th?
TB, that the Feds can tax incomes?
If we're going with originalism, original intent, I'd say that it's ambiguous. I don't think so, but I'm just a Mad Scientist with a year of law school and a couple years as a systems administrator at a law firm. And an old outlaw. It doesn't appear to me to be The Founders' original intent.
'Course, it's moot, in the generally accepted vernacular, it's there and it isn't going away.
If you want to go with "original intent", most of the thirteen colonies considered Catholics to be heathens who had sworn allegiance to a foreign potentate.
As recently as John F Kennedy most of the country thought Catholics heathens sworn to the foreign potentate.
Some of us still do.
TNYC: Doesn't judicial impeachment require the same two thirds majority in the senate as presidential impeachment does?
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Post a Comment