SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amy Coney Barrett: Who is Trump's Supreme Court pick?:
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the US Supreme Court comes as little surprise.
[...] Donald Trump - who as sitting president gets to select nominees - reportedly once said he was "saving her" for this moment: when elderly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and a vacancy on the nine-member court arose.
It took the president just over a week to fast-track the 48-year-old conservative intellectual into the wings. This is his chance to tip the court make-up even further to the right ahead of the presidential election, when he could lose power.
Barrett's record on gun rights and immigration cases imply she would be as reliable a vote on the right of the court, as Ginsburg was on the left, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.
"Ginsburg maintained one of the most consistent liberal voting records in the history of the court. Barrett has the same consistency and commitment," he adds. "She is not a work-in-progress like some nominees. She is the ultimate 'deliverable' for conservative votes."
And her vote, alongside a conservative majority, could make the difference for decades ahead, especially on divisive issues such as abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act (the Obama-era health insurance provider).
Barrett's legal opinions and remarks on abortion and gay marriage have made her popular with the religious right, but earned vehement opposition from liberals.
But as a devout Catholic, she has repeatedly insisted her faith does not compromise her work.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is facing considerable controversy about his plans to move the nomination forward quickly:
"President Trump could not have made a better decision," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said in a statement. "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States."
He added: "First, Judge Barrett built a reputation as a brilliant scholar at the forefront of the legal academy. Then she answered the call to public service. For three years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has demonstrated exactly the independence, impartiality, and fidelity to our laws and Constitution that Americans need and deserve on their highest Court... As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead, following the work of the Judiciary Committee supervised by Chairman Graham."
This is in sharp contrast to McConnell's actions following US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing away on February 13, 2016. McConnell waited less than 2 hours to make the first of 5 statements to urging delay in nominating a new Supreme Court justice:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president
That statement was made with 342 days (over 11 months) remaining in Obama's term as President. There are 124 days (just over 4 months) remaining before the end of Trump's term.
President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) followed McConnell's lead and never allowed the confirmation process to begin. Thus, no nomination was ever brought to the Senate floor and thereby leaving the vacancy open.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:08PM (29 children)
The circumstances were different, and the old tweets and soundbites can be easily weaponized against the Democrats.
If you're against this nomination, prepare for disappointment. This is the result of losing two elections (counting 2018 Senate results). Although if 4 Republican Senators can be flipped and the other 47 don't break ranks, then the nomination could be defeated.
I'm not sure we'll see court packing [thehill.com] after this, but there definitely needs to be term limits, even if it's something like 20-30 years. Otherwise you will see 40 to 50 year olds being nominated and fed anti-aging drugs so they can remain on SCOTUS even at age 150.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:10PM (8 children)
If anyone thinks SC justices are doing their best work into their 80s and die on the job, well let me offer you my grandparent's computer trouble-shooting advice for cheap.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:43PM (1 child)
Look at the public reports of what medications are getting filled by the federal government for the 3 branches of government. A number of our top leaders are getting drugs for dementia and Alzheimer's, anti-psychotics, a surprising amount opiates, and other psychotropics. Now, I'm not saying that those should necessarily disqualify anyone from office because people can function just fine when managing their condition. However, people can also be in really bad shape and drugged up enough to appear functional. But thanks to almost zero transparency, we will never actually know which we have.
Another thing about the geriatric deaths you mentioned, about a year to six months before that happens, there is usually a large and quite noticeable decline in patients. This includes their mental function and it can be quite obvious to everyone but said patient. The problem with politicians and judges is how insulated and protected they are, which means the normal ability to detect this decline is hidden from the public.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 28 2020, @12:43AM
Well I don't know, Hitler was pumped full of drugs [theguardian.com] in the same manner as he got older, and I'm pretty sure things worked out just fine for him, he died peacefully in his sleep while awaiting Russian guests.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:44PM (5 children)
well let me offer you my grandparent's computer trouble-shooting advice for cheap.
Hell, on that metric, we have to nominate six year olds. They'll do it for free, and your computer will run better than new
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:47PM (4 children)
The dog ate my "quote" tag
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:37PM (1 child)
Should have had a six year old look it over before submitting.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:45PM
Dog years, on the internet nobody knows.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:34PM (1 child)
> The dog ate my "quote" tag
And now you look like the kind of dipshit that needs my grandad's help.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:57PM
Thanks for the offer, but I can still shake it myself
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:12PM (11 children)
I have little problem with term limits. But, I would want to see those term limits apply to ALL BRANCHES AND ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. Start with the House and Senate - 12 years in office is long enough. If we get that, I'll go along with the proposal of limiting justices to 18 years as the Dems are talking about.
Literally NOBODY should be in politics for 30 years. That starts with and includes city councils, right on up to the president. Thirty years, and you're out, you can never hold another office. No matter how long you have held other offices, you cannot sit in the House or Senate for more than 12 years.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:54PM (8 children)
Nope, we already have term limits for all elected offices.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:02PM (7 children)
Oh, really? What, exactly, is the term limit for congress critters?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:28PM (2 children)
Whatever the voters want it to be. What could be more obvious?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:36PM (1 child)
Unlike the President, who is limited to two 4-year terms. A VP who completed a president's term might get two additional 4-year terms, but that is it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:49PM
In congress you do term limits with your vote. Term limits does nothing about the incumbent party that just rotates in another clown, as the presidency clearly illustrates.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:31PM (3 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:38PM (2 children)
So, no limit, as long as you can still raise the money to buy your seat.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:53PM
Oh that's bullshit! You have to buy votes! If you have a complaint, take it up with the people that sell their votes to their favorite sugar daddy. The system is a mirror, the people are the lamp
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @12:15AM
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:13PM (1 child)
If only there were term limits for right-wing nut-job redneck hillbilly trolls on SoylentNews!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:37PM
1000 post limits. Then you have to create a new sock. Yeah validate that email again bitches.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jon3k on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (3 children)
Already in the works [nationalreview.com].
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:56PM (2 children)
I don't think that bill is going anywhere. But if it does, "current Supreme Court justices" is a major loophole. The ~3 Trump has gotten can last for a lot longer than 18 years. Life extension could be on the table, especially for a 48-year-old Justice.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday September 28 2020, @01:15AM (1 child)
Chances are, she will live forever. Singularity, remember?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:41AM
> Chances are, she will live forever.
SingularityRevelation, remember?FTFY
(Score: 2) by knarf on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:21PM
Those age limits are there for a reason, so that retired judges can not be rewarded for their 'services' by giving them cushy positions in whatever next 'job' they may aspire. Were those anti-ageing drugs ever come to pass those 'donors' will simply find ways to 'convince' sitting judges to switch sides by carrot or stick.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:19AM (2 children)
Not true. The Republicans didn't even give Garland any hearings. There was no guarantee that the nominee would get through, but it was without precedence for the Senate to refuse to even go through the process of having the necessary meetings prior to declining to confirm the nominee. What's more, the Republicans were lying about precedence, the last time that a Supreme Court vacancy occurred during an election year was in the late 19th century. And it certainly was not allowed to go unfilled for nearly a year without even having hearings on nominees. That's something that the GOP made up because they didn't want to do their jobs.
The fact of the matter is that if they had any integrity at all they would hold the same position they had when it was a Democrat in the White House.
That being said, regardless of which party did the nominating, you can be sure they'd be terrible on elections, business and anything that the donors have an opinion on. The main difference is a few social issues that have been chosen to make it look like we have more than one party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:43AM
This came on the back of literally 100 bills to repeal Obamacare. Craven abdication of duty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @11:06AM
Hell would have to freeze over first.