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, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:06PM (17 children)
That's where the confidence aspect comes in. What it tells me is that McConnell and other Republicans are fully expecting that they are going to lose control of the White House, the Senate, or both, come November, and if/when that happens it's going to make it a *LOT* easier for the Democrats to use McConnell's earlier words against him, and quite likely with a lot of support for their argument from those seeking to curry favour from the new leadership. So, ultimately, it's also all about the power - we have it, we're not confident we're going to keep it, but timing is on our side, and we're absolutely going to use that to our self-serving advantage.
Of course, the upshot is going to be a strong shift to the right in the SCOTUS, and the Democrats are definitely not above playing the same kind of political BS as the Republicans. Assuming they do gain control of Senate, White House, and potentially retain control of Congress as well come January, then we can probably expect some equally self-serving BS to "level the playing field" in fairly short order - like, say, upping the size of the SCOTUS. After all, it's normally *twelve* people on a jury, right, so why not have that on SCOTUS as well?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:19PM
Whatever is possible is fair game when the Dems get control. That has been established. Fuck your high principles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (3 children)
Most assuredly. And, if you look around the internet, you will find that virtually all the players from 2016 have flip-flopped on their stances. They're ALL hypocrits. Obama, Clinton, and Biden each has their soundbytes, if you look for them.
As for timing - mehhh - I'm just not sure of the benefits of waiting. You could be right.
As for RBG's "final wishes", that is meaningless noise. RBG would have been very much aware that no person's dying wish can be binding on anyone other than the beneficiaries of her will. As in, "Stephanie can have all my jewelry, but only if she apologizes for being a bitch all her life". In such a case, Steph apologizes, or she forfeits the jewelry, as crazy as that may sound.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:34PM
Make sure you also clarify the legal definition of "apology" and "apologizes". Knowing Stephanie, I bet that bitch [youtube.com] will try to half-ass it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:52PM (1 child)
Of course RBG's wish isn't legally binding. That's ignores the significance of her words, though.
RBG knew she was dying. She had nothing personally to gain from anything she said, no political benefits or anything like that. Yet she felt the need to make the request, meaning that she felt strongly about it and that she genuinely believed it was important to wait until after the election to fill the vacancy she leaves on the court.
RBG was very fair and didn't seem to be blinded by politics. For example, she spoke highly of Brett Kavanaugh. She said he respected the court's decorum. She also spoke highly of him intellectually, saying he was more than qualified to serve on the court and that he took his position very seriously. Her words weren't filtered or influenced by what would be politically beneficial. RBG called it like she saw it.
That's why her words should matter. We should expect that she thought over the matter carefully and her views weren't based on what was politically beneficial to one side or the other.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:11PM
Not worth a belly laugh, but your post merits a chuckle. I think that whatever else she was, or was not, RGB was a lady. She wouldn't have stooped to badmouthing a colleague. Quite the opposite. The more she despised a person, the more flowery her language would be.
And, yes, her supposed last words were partisan. I suppose that in a more polite age, like maybe Camelot, we would grant her last wish. But, this is 'Murica, in the year 2020.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:29PM (6 children)
Who cares what her request was? She should have retired in 2014, back when the Democrats controlled the Senate. She stuck around instead and now the Democrats have been handed a huge L.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:34PM (3 children)
Losing the popular vote twice (three times soon), taking gerrymandering to ridiculous levels, packing courts is not a recipe for happy country. Crystal ball is cloudy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:50PM (2 children)
The future is always cloudy. But I predict we will look back on 2020 with fond memories of the pandemic and mild political chaos.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @12:23AM
Interesting way of putting it
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 02 2020, @01:00PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:09PM (1 child)
Those who respect her and her legacy?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 28 2020, @07:37PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Reason Not to Retire Makes No Sense [nymag.com]
By clinging to her seat in her 80s, RBG will be known for her role in helping America to be unraveled by an ultraconservative SCOTUS. Her wishes are dier's remorse.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:40PM (2 children)
I don't think there's much to that theory. They're moving on it now because they have a window of opportunity to affect the political direction of the court for a generation. So of course they're going to blow right past "Ruth's last wish" and what they said at the end of Obama's term; the Constitution gives them a clear path to do it, so they're going to do it. People on the Left are sad because they had come to view the Supreme Court as theirs, and only theirs, to backstop their policies from the bench.
There is also a double shot of comeuppance that the Republicans are relishing here: First, Democrat Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option" to blow past Republican opposition before, because the Democrats had the votes to do it and because the Republicans couldn't stop them; the Republicans predicted that someday the Democrats would regret what Harry Reid did then, and today is that day. Second, the Democrats savaged Cavanaugh with a last minute circus of flimsy character assassination, so the Republicans are going to make sure the Democrats regret that, too, by blowing right past them with ACB.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:59PM (1 child)
But no. Apparently it *has* to be done before the election, and since the only applicable thing that potentially changes between now and November is who will have control over Senate and/or White House come January that means they're most definitely not confident that the status quo is going to be maintained. That's the window of opportunity they're working with; the difference between being hypocrites in some people's opinion (it's not *quite* the same scenario as Garland as the same party currently controls both Houses), and potentially finding themselves in a similar - or worse - position to that Obama was in when he nominated Garland, and confirming they are hypocrites. Basically, do they want to let the Democrats have one or two barrels to fire at them when they inevitably remind the electorate of all this during the next election cycle?
Sure, they're taking the chance to rub the Democrat's noses in it, but they could do that anyway, and if anything it would sting even more if they did that after losing the Senate and/or White House (which they could), but this is absolutely about trying to justify their actions, and that's definitely a lot easier to do when they're not officially a lame duck.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @12:27AM
The "hypocrite" thing doesn't work. They don't have to care about that. With a more sympathetic Supreme Court, election challenges will flow much easier.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:47PM
Shhhh!!! If Trump gets the idea that Dems are going to do that he might pre-empt them and nominate 3 more SCJ's before the end of his term.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:12PM
Who gives a flying rat's ass what that Jewess wanted? The only reason she stayed in there so long was to hold the seat for the Democrats.