Feinstein’s opening statement in Barrett hearings

[Jim in CT]

Feinstein said that ginsberg was a tireless advocate for women’s rights.

which, if you’re smart, means that ginsberg was a terrible, terrible judge. it’s not a judges job to champion the underdog, it’s a judges job to decide if something is constitutional.

this is why the statue of lady justice which is at every courthouse, is blindfolded

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

[Pete F.]

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

As a judge, when she has the robe on, she's not supposed to "push for" anything except the law.

As a legal advocate, that's fine. It's a horrible quality in a judge. They aren't supposed to side with who they are personally rooting for.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As a judge, when she has the robe on, she's not supposed to "push for" anything except the law.

As a legal advocate, that's fine. It's a horrible quality in a judge. They aren't supposed to side with who they are personally rooting for.

You are spot on. His "Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions" ignores that its designed to protect existing conditions from the federal government if they are constitutional. If the conditions exist within communities and states that have the responsibility to oversee and adjudicate their legality, and if the conditions are matters of individual rights vs some notion of fairness, the SCOTUS must protect the local government power and the individual rights over some personal idea of fairness.

What Pete did was to show his Progressive social justice view of the Constitution, and his ignorance that the Constitution is not a social policy document but is a delineation of government power. Of course, Progressives don't want a delineation of government power. They want undelineated, unlimited central government power. Judges deciding by personal morality outside of the scope of the Constitution are a means to unchain government from constitutional limits.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy has no limits

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy has no limits

Jim will probably answer this nonsense very well. For me, I want the Court to be faithful to the Constitution. If that is a rubber stamp of everything I want, I plead guilty to wanting it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim will probably answer this nonsense very well. For me, I want the Court to be faithful to the Constitution. If that is a rubber stamp of everything I want, I plead guilty to wanting it.

You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy my stupidity and appetite for embarassing myself, has no limits

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.

When has Detbuch rooted for Trump to do something unconstitutional?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

none. it’s a very selective list.

when the catholic nuns sued obama for forcing them
to pay for voluntary ( not medically necessary) abortions, the majority of scotus ruled that was blatantly unconstitutional. ginsberg dissented. she voted that catholic nuns can be forced by law to violate their beliefs. if you read the first amendment, it’s oretty obvious that’s an insane position for a judge to have. ginsberg was willing to ignore the constitution when it served her personal agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was also a case where white new haven firefighters scored the highest on a test for promotion to lieutenant. the city denied the promotions based on skin color. it ended up at the supreme court, where ginsberg votes against the firefighters, effectively saying that anti discrimination laws didn’t apply to them. that’s unconstitutional. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don't...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

There is nothing in Constitutional text that gives the federal government the power to force private employers to hire people they don't want to hire.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

They may have those rights, but constitutional text does not deny private employers the right to pay whatever level of recompense they wish to pay to different employees.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

Constitutional text would leave choice of caregiving to private caregivers so long as they don't break criminal law--which would leave the prosecution up to state and local courts.

5. Juries must include women.

Constitutional text says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

I doesn't say juries must include women. It has been assumed that a jury must be composed of the defendant's peers. But "peers" doesn't always require the jury to include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

There is nothing in constitutional text that requires any particular policy on abortion. But, I assume that since the US military is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, then the federal government can impose whatever policy on the military it wishes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a bunch of white firefighters study their azzes off for a lieutenant test, and they happen to get the highest scores fair and square...on a test that the city paid facial consultants to ensure it wasn’t biased
in favor of whites...and the honkeys are denied the promotion based solely on their whiteness...how can that possibly be constitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m
fine with scotus making a decision that goes against my personal values, as long as it’s constitutionally based

using “search and seizure” protection to mandate abortion at the federal label, is a stupid argument that no objective person could make with a straight face. i don’t say that just because i happen to hate abortion. i say it because it's an absurd position. search and seizure? anti
abortion laws don’t result in any searches or seizures.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

so the democrat argument against barrett comes down to this...shell repeal obamacare, and she shouldn’t do that...not because obamacare is constitutional ( the only question that matters to scotus), but because people will die.

that’s. it a scare tactic. even if it’s true, it’s up to congress to pass a health care plan that’s constitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

it's fun watching the democrats embarrass and humiliate themselves...

[Pete F.]

As I said a month ago
Congress needs to pass laws and make them non reviewable, preferably sunsetted.
Then SCOTUS would not be legislating from the bench like some think they did in New Haven and some don’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As I said a month ago
Congress needs to pass laws and make them non reviewable, preferably sunsetted.
Then SCOTUS would not be legislating from the bench like some think they did in New Haven and some don’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

youre saying the laws congress passed should
not be subject to judicial review? so how are we protected if they overreach in violation of the constitution?

i like the checks and balances, just wish it was a lot less political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if a bunch of white firefighters study their azzes off for a lieutenant test, and they happen to get the highest scores fair and square...on a test that the city paid facial consultants to ensure it wasn’t biased
in favor of whites...and the honkeys are denied the promotion based solely on their whiteness...how can that possibly be constitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in

i like the checks and balances, just wish it was a lot less political.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Maybe you should tell that to sue happy Republicans

[Pete F.]

Laws get passed and you have elections, but if you’re in favor of unelected lifetime appointments having the power of a king, that’s your choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS

i have no problem with scotus striking down anything that’s unconstitutional, regardless of whether that something happens to be popular with liberals or
conservatives.

if enough people want to do something that’s unconstitutional, we can change the constitution. i don’t want us ignoring the parts of the constitution we don’t happen
to like.

where is the hypocrisy there?

not giving garland a vote was entirely about the constitution. it was about preventing the court from having yet another activist who thinks his job as a judge is to implement policy they happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right, we have to interpret. but it’s quite a leap to assume that when the framers outlawed illegal
search and seizure, they meant abortion. it’s a real stretch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

But anti discrimination laws are in the constitution. And the equal protection clause, means that everyone is free from discrimination, even white firefighters. This is news to you?.

You're having a rough time on this thread, you can't shred what I'm saying this time, you really can't.