Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Best of all, she's a devout Catholic, which the anti-Catholic bigots Diane Feinstein and Al Franken tried to use to disqualify her at her confirmation hearings, saying "the dogma is loud within you". To these liberal bigots, it's OK if your conscience is informed by marxist Ivy League professors or by watching MSNBC, but it's not OK if your conscience is informed by Catholicism.

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.

Nominating her, would be a marvelous middle finger to these people.

Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?

Barrett is also the poster child for a judge who the left would fear would overturn Roe V Wade - a Catholic with seven kids. Whether or not she would actually vote that way is unknown (probably not), but she looks exactly like someone who would, and that will be enough to open the floodgates of liberal hysteria.

It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.


Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

"Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings"

Into her personal writings, or judicial opinions? Huge difference. Here is one thing she wrote...

"judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She wrote that as a law student, it's exactly correct. She is saying judges should rely on the law. The horror!!!

"Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence"

Oh. So if a conservative judge makes a mistake, you are in favor of living with that mistake forever. Because of precedence.

"working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here..."

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.

"I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution?"

Correct. I said that, and I stand by it.

"Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law."

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.

.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.

Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned"

I don't think it will be overturned. I said I think Amy Barrett should bee the nominee for other reasons.

"40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned."

Ahh, precedent. Slavery was legal. So was segregation. According to you and Spence, once SCOTUS settled these issues, we should have stopped debating. Right? We should have just dropped it? Try making that wrong. Go ahead, and try to respond to that.

Earth to you and Spence...the SCOTUS is capable of royally screwing up. They are human. There is nothing that says their rulings are carved in stone forever.

"The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in"

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

"I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim"

Who is asking you to trust me? There are lots and lots of women opposed to it. Are they all self-loathing masochists? Or go watch a hi-def ultrasound of a 4 month old baby, and tell me that it's no more alive than a mole or a tattoo to be removed.

"He thinks he can't have more kids"

Well my urologist went to Harvard, and he gave me the old snip-snip, so it's not some crazy theory of mine that I can't have any more kids. Not sure where the hell you got that idea.

"Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have"

You must be some theology scholar! Please tell me, what church tells its members how many kids to have? I am unaware of one that does so, sure as hell not my church. Please enlighten me!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


t.

Not at all. But it would be a marvelous bonus.