Senate The Supreme Court

... except the people who support the current administration don't believe in facts?

 

They're ~20% of the US. Hardly a majority.

 

This at the moment has nothing to do with the SC but i think it will end up there before long.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...ight-to-literacy/ar-AAzuJCW?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Amy COney Barrett

According to the report, Barrett believes that “judges should be bound by their religious faith, not the law.”

 

If this has gone public, it means we'll be discussing it at her confirmation hearings.

It'll be interesting to see how she wiggles out of it. I doubt it will be enough to sink her potential nomination, but if it does, we'll get a new word out of it:

"Barretted."

It almost sounds as catchy as "Borked", but not quite.

 

This would be really weird for me, since my future sister-in-law's last name (well, soon-to-be maiden name) is Barrett. And she's very much a liberal Berniecrat.

 

Thoughts on this legal analysis, on Roe v Wade staying because of "stare decisis" and the reasoning in Planned Parenthood v Casey?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ade-likely-not-grave-danger-no-matter-n888836

Why Roe v. Wade is most likely not in grave danger no matter whom Trump nominates
The Supreme Court will be reluctant to take away a constitutional privacy right, even if that right was granted with dubious reasoning.

Contrary to what many commentators and Democrats are saying, Roe v. Wade is probably not "doomed."

Abortion will likely not be illegal in 20 states within 18 months. A new justice will certainly create a new balance on the court. Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fulcrum, now Chief Justice John Roberts is the median vote. But Roe will not be overturned just because there may be a new conservative majority on the court after President Donald Trump, who is set to announce his nominee on Monday, replaces Kennedy.

There are arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade. It was decided in 1973 on a shaky justification: The privacy right to an abortion does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, but it essentially radiates from the glow (the "penumbra") of its text. Controversial when it was decided, the reasoning in Roe remains as controversial today.

But the court will not overturn a past decision unless there are strong grounds for doing so. This doctrine, "stare decisis," promotes the consistent, reliable and predictable development of the law, while assuring the public of the court's integrity.

It's a philosophy, however, that some might find difficult to accept, which is this: Sometimes it is more important to the court that the law be settled, than settled right.

The court is quick to point out that stare decisis is "not an inexorable command." Yet, the doctrine is so persuasive that a departure from precedent like Roe must be supported by some "special justification."

Stare decisis has added force when the public has acted in reliance on that precedent, and overruling the decision would dislodge settled rights and expectations, or require an extensive response by the legislature.

Even Roberts — now considered the "swing vote" on the court — has acknowledged the disruption to the legal system when precedent is overruled.

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough — and the court has emphasized this on several occasions — it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."

That was then-nominee Roberts assuring Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., during his confirmation hearings in 2005 that a judge may not depart from stare decisis simply because he thinks the prior decision was wrongly decided.

It's also significant that Roe has since been re-affirmed several times, including in 1991 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which applied the principles of stare decisis to Roe v. Wade, and, according to the chief justice, is itself a precedent of the court that is entitled to respect.

A judge with a mind to overrule Roe would have to confront not only Roe itself, but also its subsequent reaffirmation, including that in Casey. Of course, one criticism of Casey was that it paradoxically "overruled" Roe by substantially changing its framework, but then "affirmed" Roe ... after arguably overruling it.

Another consideration is this: The court will be reluctant to take away a constitutional privacy right, even if that right was granted with dubious reasoning. If Roe were being decided for the first time by the new court, a conservative majority could easily decline to recognize a new privacy right. However, taking away an already granted, substantially relied-upon right is much harder for the court to do.

The bottom line: Even if a case addressing Roe and Casey quickly wends its way up to the Supreme Court, it does not mean they will be overruled. The court's decision should not be a show of hands: those personally for abortion versus those personally against it.

The court is an institution with a history, and that history generally must be followed, with some exceptions. Roe is not likely to be an exception to that rule.

 

Looks like the decision is between Barrett, the "did Hillary murder Vince Foster" guy, and Kethledge.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...rt-short-list-top-3-contenders-emerge-n888981


(Btw, omg, I went to cnn.com for the first time in a while, and it's main page is both unbearable and all fluff)

 

This is one reason that I believe that Supreme Court justices should only be permitted to serve for ten or twelve years.

On an unrelated note, I look forward to seeing Felicity Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsberg in On the Basis of Sex.

 

Well, then why the hell is she a judge then? Judges ≠ handmaids.

This is just Christian pandering and shows the furthering of the politicization of the court.

 

I feel like you would really fit in with that group.

 

It's Kavanaugh.

 

It's not the worst possible pick.

 

He's pretty terrible. Downrated by the ABA, not qualified when he was appointed...

 

He might turn out to be a bit more moderate than some of the other choices.

 

... how so?

 

Of course it's Kavanaugh . . .

Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court finalist, explained

 

https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-jud...rontrunner-knows-anthony-kennedy-well-9607041

 

Trump is not even hiding his corruption. The law in America is garbage if anyone is above it.

 

No idea. Just trying to talk myself out of a fit of depression.

Anyone else notice that Trump was almost falling asleep while Kavanaugh was talking?

 

The only thing "better" about Kavanaugh is that he's not on record as saying that the Bible supersedes the Constitution...

 

A protégé of Ken Starr, Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[1] Kavanaugh led the investigation into the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster. After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, in which Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount, Kavanaugh joined Bush's staff, where he led the Administration's effort to identify and confirm judicial nominees.[2]

Kavanaugh was nominated to the D.C. Appeals Court by Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious and stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican senators.[3][4][5]

Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 9, 2018, to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, following the vacancy created by the pending retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.[6][7]​