Should “Justice Barrett” recuse herself from any election case?

[exchemist]

Do you think, for a minute, that Trump and the Right care about appearances?

If anything, it's the opposite. It bugs the Dems, therefore it must be a good thing.

There I feel sure you are onto something. This, is in part, another Trump troll ploy.

He would love the Dems to scream and shout hysterically and thereby makes themselves look extreme. The trick, for Biden, Harris et al will be to stay calm, not to react - and to stick to their own game plan: mismanagement of Covid etc. .

 

[columbus]

Can't we find out, though, from the record of her judgements and how many of them have been overturned on appeal? Is there not some evidence base we can use?

Feel free to follow the links in post #17.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

Why would you say that? She is part of the Trump adoring Conservative Right.

Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia

Barrett's scholarship focuses on originalism.

Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Donald Trump on May 8, 2017, and confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017.

Originalism is not, as far as I understand it, the exclusive preserve of Trump supporters.

 

[exchemist]

Feel free to follow the links in post #17.
Tom

Yes, I read those. They don't strike me as obviously biased or unreasonable, but maybe that because I'm not au fait with the cases.

 

[columbus]

Yes, I read those. They don't strike me as obviously biased or unreasonable, but maybe that because I'm not au fait with the cases.

The dates alone are enough to give a reasonable person pause.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

The dates alone are enough to give a reasonable person pause.
Tom

Sorry I don't follow, which dates?

 

[columbus]

Sorry I don't follow, which dates?

Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Donald Trump on May 8, 2017, and confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017.

These dates.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

These dates.
Tom

Does that mean she has only been a judge for 3 years?

 

[tytlyf]

Every nominee should be asked a simple question.

"Will you put the Constitution before the Bible?"

If you say no, you should be removed from the nomination process.

 

[columbus]

Does that mean she has only been a judge for 3 years?

Not just that.

She's a Trump appointee. Trump has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he doesn't care about anything as much as his own wealth, fame, power, and sex.

Certainly not quality jurisprudence, he believes in loyalty. He's made that very clear over the last several decades.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

By all accounts, she is not a recluse, therefore there is no reason for her to recuse herself.



Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Well I am a recluse. And I recuse myself from judging the case of the recluse vs recuse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Originalism is not, as far as I understand it, the exclusive preserve of Trump supporters.

Yet, it is also not particularly bright. Originalism assumes (as most faiths do) that the founders were omniscient, and could foresee any and all changes that human society might undergo. I don't think even the Founders made such an assumption. They did, after all, provide for ways to amend the Constitution. Think about that.

In every area of human existence, we have learned how to adapt our assumptions when our understandings and our learnings change. The very fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times should be instructive -- we learn and grow.

In fact, the very idea of "originalism" would seem to me to suggest that amending the Constitution would be the greatest possible heresy!

 

[columbus]

In fact, the very idea of "originalism" would seem to me to suggest that amending the Constitution would be the greatest possible heresy!

What kinda adds irony to this is the fact that the Republicans blew off the Constitution on one of the big topics right now, Barrett's nomination. The Constitution lays out a process for replacement of SCOTUS judges. President nominates, Senate votes.
But back when Obama nominated Garland, the Senate(led by Mitch McConnell) flat out refused. For over a year, they didn't explain why they didn't want to follow the Constitution except to say that a new judge shouldn't be voted on until after the next election.

If, in fact, Barrett is an originalist she must have expressed an opinion on the Republicans ignoring the Constitution so blatantly. If she was angling for a judgeship under Trump, maybe she was clever enough to avoid expressing it publicly. But I sure hope someone asks her, and doesn't accept mealy mouthed dodging as a response.
Tom

 

[crossfire]

Every nominee should be asked a simple question.

"Will you put the Constitution before the Bible?"

If you say no, you should be removed from the nomination process.

From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

 

[ecco]

Originalism is not, as far as I understand it, the exclusive preserve of Trump supporters.

Duh.

Originalism is based on trying to figure out and understand what the writers' intent was. This is an absurd approach for two reasons:

1. It is next to impossible to figure out and understand what the writers' intent was.
2. It presumes that the writers could foresee every future circumstance.

Judicial originalism as myth


There are strong reasons why judges have never consistently used originalism to decide hard cases. For one thing, if the original meaning of the framers of either the original Constitution or the Reconstruction amendments were taken seriously by today’s judges, we would live in a much different and much worse society. Segregated schools under the law and official governmental discrimination against women, gays, and lesbians would be permissible.​

 

[ecco]

Every nominee should be asked a simple question.

"Will you put the Constitution before the Bible?"

If you say no, you should be removed from the nomination process.

The Constitution, as is the Bible, is so vague in so many ways that two people can read the same thing and come to two different conclusions.

That should be very obvious. If that were not the case, we would only need one Supreme Court Justice because his interpretation would be shared by everyone.

 

[tytlyf]

From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

We're not talking about a religious test. Dominionist's feel they are commanded by god to implement a theocracy in America. Governed by christian sharia law forced on the populace.
The Dominionist movement is well documented and should not be encouraged.
This nominee will rule the bench with biblically inspired positions. They're commanded to.

 

[tytlyf]

The Constitution, as is the Bible, is so vague in so many ways that two people can read the same thing and come to two different conclusions.

That should be very obvious. If that were not the case, we would only need one Supreme Court Justice because his interpretation would be shared by everyone.

An ideal Supreme Court would be 100% atheist/secularist.
There would be no question the Constitution will be placed above one's own religion.
I don't think the founding fathers would be happy to see how blatantly religious our government has become. It's not that they are religious, these elected officials wear their religion on their sleeve and intentionally push religious-inspired opinions/laws.

 

[crossfire]

We're not talking about a religious test. Dominionist's feel they are commanded by god to implement a theocracy in America. Governed by christian sharia law forced on the populace.
The Dominionist movement is well documented and should not be encouraged.
This nominee will rule the bench with biblically inspired positions. They're commanded to.

Well let's look at the proposed "not-a-religious-test" test:

Every nominee should be asked a simple question.

"Will you put the Constitution before the Bible?"

If you say no, you should be removed from the nomination process.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, imo.
This "not-a-religious-test" test looks, sounds, and quacks like a religious test, imo.
Let's look at the section from Article 6 of the constitution again:

From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

Yep. It's a duck, imo.
A better tactic would be to specifically ask about the Fourteen Amendment--the basis for equal rights and protections under the law--is it legitimate? If the candidate tries to dodge the question or does anything other than an enthusiastic affirmation to uphold the Fourteenth (as well as the 13th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th , and 26th) Amendments, then drop them quicker than a hot potato and demand someone who will uphold these amendments.

 

[tytlyf]

Well let's look at the proposed "not-a-religious-test" test:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, imo.
This "not-a-religious-test" test looks, sounds, and quacks like a religious test, imo.
Let's look at the section from Article 6 of the constitution again:

From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

Yep. It's a duck, imo.
A better tactic would be to specifically ask about the Fourteen Amendment--the basis for equal rights and protections under the law--is it legitimate? If the candidate tries to dodge the question or does anything other than an enthusiastic affirmation to uphold the Fourteenth (as well as the 13th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th , and 26th) Amendments, then drop them quicker than a hot potato and demand someone who will uphold these amendments.

Fine, remove my "Bible" and insert "Religion."
I think we all know what kind of non-religious tests we'd see with a Muslim being nominated. The right are hypocrites.