Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court

[Stevicus]

Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court, cementing its conservative majority

A bitterly divided Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as the 115th justice to the Supreme Court on Monday, elevating just the fifth woman to the court in its 231-year history and one who further cements its conservative shift — a legacy that will last even if Republicans lose power in next week’s elections.

The vote was 52-48.

The 48-year-old jurist solidifies a judicial legacy for the White House and Senate Republicans that also includes dozens of younger and more ideologically conservative judges to the federal appeals courts. An acolyte of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett is certain to diverge dramatically from the woman she will succeed: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18 and was for decades an enduring icon for liberals.

The battle to confirm Barrett — whose installation occurred as more than 60 million people had already cast their ballots for president — also plunged a Senate already bruised by years of tit-for-tat skirmishes in the judicial wars into deeper partisan acrimony. Incensed Democrats charged Republicans with hypocrisy for blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for eight months in 2016 and repeatedly pointed out that no justice has been confirmed this close to a presidential election.

But Republicans asserted their raw power, muscling Barrett’s nomination through in just over four weeks and with no bipartisan support — the first time that has occurred for a Supreme Court nominee in generations and a reflection of the politicized atmosphere around judicial fights.

Here was a bit of historical trivia: The last Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without bi-partisan support was Edwin Stanton in 1869. Only Republicans supported Barrett.

With only Republicans supporting her confirmation, Barrett is the first Supreme Court justice since Edwin Stanton in 1869 to be confirmed without bipartisan support, according to a review of Senate voting data by National Journal. Even Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who backed now-Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018 and Barrett for her circuit court seat three years ago, did not support her.

This could lead to Democrats calling for expanding the size of the Court in the event that Biden wins.

The Barrett confirmation has also fueled an internal Democratic debate over the issue of expanding the court, with the party’s presidential nominee, Joe Biden, under significant pressure from the party base to embrace a plan to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court if he wins the White House.

Few elected Democratic officials have definitively supported the idea ahead of the closely contested elections for both the White House and the Senate. Biden has said he would appoint a bipartisan commission to propose changes to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary,

 

[Left Coast]

Unreal. A week away from a Presidential election.

2020 kicks us while we're down again.

 

[Stevicus]

Apparently, she was sworn in earlier at the White House by Clarence Thomas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am now even more glad I live where California.
Goodbye ACA. Goodbye LGBT equality. Goodbye women's rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unreal. A week away from a Presidential election.

2020 kicks us while we're down again.

I can believe it. They're all a bunch of selfish, hypocritical ******** who only care about getting their way and they proved they will lie and cheat to get their way and what they want and force their **** on us all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Goodbye chances at salvaging a reasonable Covid response.

 

[Watchmen]

You guys crack me up. You act like it’s the end of the world and predict doom and gloom. You’re all sorely mistaken. Relax. Women’s rights aren’t going anywhere. It will be ok. I promise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You guys crack me up. You act like it’s the end of the world and predict doom and gloom. You’re all sorely mistaken. Relax. Women’s rights aren’t going anywhere. It will be ok. I promise.

If abortion comes up, it's gone. Birth control, attacked. Pharmacists and others will be allowed to not do their job.
Gay adoption rights are coming up. There is now no chance of it passing.
The ACA will die.

 

[Left Coast]

You guys crack me up. You act like it’s the end of the world and predict doom and gloom.

You know, there's a thread on the forum right now comparing where we're at to 1984. Not by a lib, though. Hmmm...

 

[SomeRandom]

Help a filthy foreigner understand.
In the US, the Supreme Court can undo equality laws and reverse things like Roe Vs Wade?
I know there’s sneaky shenanigans undermining such laws. But like actually undoing things?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court, cementing its conservative majority



The vote was 52-48.





Here was a bit of historical trivia: The last Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without bi-partisan support was Edwin Stanton in 1869. Only Republicans supported Barrett.



This could lead to Democrats calling for expanding the size of the Court in the event that Biden wins.

Trump is right. Everyone knows the Dems will pack the court for which Biden is loathe to admit it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You guys crack me up. You act like it’s the end of the world and predict doom and gloom. You’re all sorely mistaken. Relax. Women’s rights aren’t going anywhere. It will be ok. I promise.

No kidding.
I happened to hear Schumer complain about Republicans' "completely
contradictory rationales". Do these people really not see their own
vulnerability to such criticism? Obama tried a last minute appointment,
but Democrats lacked the power. Republicans gave the absurd excuse
about waiting for the election to let the people decide.

It's politics. Each side does what it can get away with to benefit it's own.
I'm no fan of Barrett, but I recognize that parties in power will always try
to wield it, while thwarting the other. To complain about that is like
criticizing the weather for doing what it does.

 

[Lyndon]

We've had almost 4 yrs of Republicans stacking the courts with less qualified young far right judges, and the Republicans have to nerve to try to claim Democrats want to stack the court, Democrats have to balance the courts that have gone way to far to the right, that's not stacking that's balancing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Game on!

 

[Polymath257]

Help a filthy foreigner understand.
In the US, the Supreme Court can undo equality laws and reverse things like Roe Vs Wade?
I know there’s sneaky shenanigans undermining such laws. But like actually undoing things?

In a word, yes.

All they have to do is vote the wrong way on a case that reaches them. Roe v Wade is on the conservative target list. Expect a test case soon. Equality laws are a bit more difficult simply because they will want to avoid some of the administrative hassles of taking away gay marriage rights, for example. Expect a number of issues that are currently federal to go to the state level, so we would see different rights in each state.

 

[Stevicus]

Help a filthy foreigner understand.
In the US, the Supreme Court can undo equality laws and reverse things like Roe Vs Wade?
I know there’s sneaky shenanigans undermining such laws. But like actually undoing things?

They can reverse Roe v. Wade because that was a Supreme Court decision in the past. The Supreme Court can always reverse itself. They have the power to undo any laws which, in their opinion, are unconstitutional. That's where vaguely-written laws and amendments come into play.

Of course, one way around the Supreme Court is to amend the Constitution, but most people lack the backbone and the political will to actually do that. That's why there's so much "legislating from the bench."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Trump is right. Everyone knows the Dems will pack the court for which Biden is loathe to admit it.

Whilst some Dems are probably for packing the court, I don't believe Biden is.
But regardless, Trump complaining about court packing is as credible as believing Ivanka and Jarrod Kushner's appointments had no element of nepotism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No kidding.
I happened to hear Schumer complain about Republicans' "completely
contradictory rationales". Do these people really not see their own
vulnerability to such criticism? Obama tried a last minute appointment,
but Democrats lacked the power. Republicans gave the absurd excuse
about waiting for the election to let the people decide.

It's politics. Each side does what it can get away with to benefit it's own.
I'm no fan of Barrett, but I recognize that parties in power will always try
to wield it, while thwarting the other. To complain about that is like
criticizing the weather for doing what it does.

On the plus side, if we want to stop talking about the strong Republican presence on the bench, we can instead look at the strong Catholic presence.

But okay...if this is simply what power does, would you be in favour of putting some limits on that power and reforming the appointment process for the future?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You guys crack me up. You act like it’s the end of the world and predict doom and gloom. You’re all sorely mistaken. Relax. Women’s rights aren’t going anywhere. It will be ok. I promise.

I feel so much better.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the plus side, if we want to stop talking about the strong Republican presence on the bench, we can instead look at the strong Catholic presence.

Aye, Christians & particularly Catholics are over-represented.

But okay...if this is simply what power does, would you be in favour of putting some limits on that power and reforming the appointment process for the future?

I like the idea of ditching lifetime appointments.
10 years is plenty.