People are nuanced, complicated, and not entirely consistent in their thinking or actions, so I don't think you can really figure people out that accurately. — Hanover

Yes, the human heart is all unfathomable and what not. You cant deny that when she had a chance to bypass the electorate and act for political reasons, she chose not to.

I’d simply like a SC that doesn’t favor the rich and powerful. I’m a dreamer.

Er, yes. Quite literally fuck the law and all involved in upholding it if it leads to bad outcomes. — StreetlightX

As Trump (and others) might say, I suspect. But perhaps you're being ironic. If not, there's nothing like honesty.

No irony, darling.

Ah well. But you can't be accused of dissembling, that's for certain.

I haven't read any of her opinions, but I doubt she's written more than a few for a majority of the court in the three years she's been a judge. I'd guess she's written more dissents, though, or joined in them. People of Praise, forsooth.

Amy Coney Barrett is a so-called “originalist”, meaning she adheres to the original text of the constitution rather than some modern interpretation of it. We can assume she’ll be more like Clarence Thomas than her predecessor.

You cant deny that when she had a chance to bypass the electorate and act for political reasons, she chose not to. — frank

Except that she specifically said her dying wish was survive the Trump presidency so that her successor could be named by hopefully Biden.

Amy Coney Barrett is a so-called “originalist”, meaning she adheres to the original text of the constitution rather than some modern interpretation of it. We can assume she’ll be more like Clarence Thomas than her predecessor. — NOS4A2

There's reason to hope she will quickly evolve from the error of such ways. After all, the constitution itself has, and was designed to.

Quite literally fuck the law and all involved in upholding it if it leads to bad outcomes. — StreetlightX

Interesting philosophy. Not sure why we really need a legislature, since the Court under your system is permitted to make the law whatever it is it thinks will lead to the best outcome.

There's reason to hope she will quickly evolve from the error of such ways. After all, the constitution itself has, and was designed to.

Perhaps that’s true. We cannot know until we read her SC opinions, but she herself claims to be an originalist.

Except that she specifically said her dying wish was survive the Trump presidency so that her successor could be named by hopefully Biden. — Hanover

Actually all she said was "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'”

You added the "hopefully Biden". So all we can expect from you is a politically biased response. Good to know.

Actually all she said was "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'”

You added the "hopefully Biden". So all we can expect from you is a politically biased response. Good to know. — frank

I stand corrected. I should have said, "hopefully Biden or Jorgenson," since it is possible the "new" president may not be Biden, but there exists the possibility that Libertarian powerhouse might take the nation by storm in the next few weeks.

I believe there exists the possibility that it will be Trump. Did she have crystal ball or something?

I believe there exists the possibility that it will be Trump. Did she have crystal ball or something? — frank

She said "new," which I take to be distinct from "old," as in when I get a new car, I'm no longer driving the old one, like if the old president was Trump, the new one would be Biden, although I concede they're both old in terms of age.

But, sure, maybe she meant that she had a fervent wish for her appointment to be named by Trump in his second term because for some reason that was her oddball dream, to have a second term president name her successor and not a first term one because that makes a whole lot of sense.

I think you're ruling out the possibility that she didn't have the underhanded amoral slug mentality that's so fashionable these days. Maybe she just meant that the people should be allowed to influence events.

People are nuanced and complicated arent they?

I think you're ruling out the possibility that she didn't have the underhanded amoral slug mentality that's so fashionable these days. Maybe she just meant that the people should be allowed to influence events.

People are nuanced and complicated arent they? — frank

You're the only person with that strained interpretation, but it is worthy to note your belief that if she did mean what the rest of the world thinks she meant that she's an underhanded amoral slug.

You're the only person with that strained interpretation, — Hanover

It came to me while trying to fit the pieces together in a way that made sense. I don't really know why she didn't retire earlier.

but it is worthy to note your belief that if she did mean what the rest of the world thinks she meant that she's an underhanded amoral slug. — Hanover

Why is it worthy to note that judges aren't supposed to be politically biased? Is that a new idea for you?

Why is it worthy to note that judges aren't supposed to be politically biased? Is that a new idea for you? — frank

I noted that it was worthy to note that is what you believed, not what ought be believed. At any rate, you've left yourself with little room in between. Either RBG is scum of the earth or she speaks in hieroglyphics but is best understood once deciphered that she is entirely apolitical and above the fray.

I'm fine with it if she's a slug. I think most people are because they think they have to be in order to survive. Or maybe that's just an American thing, I don't know.

I think there's another way to interpret her words and actions, though. I don't see that you have any reasonable grounds to rule out that other way. It's just that you want her to be a slug?

I think there's another way to interpret her words and actions, though. I don't see that you have any reasonable grounds to rule out that other way. It's just that you want her to be a slug? — frank

I just don't believe that's what she meant. She has made prior comments that were negative about Trump:

From https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-says-she-regrets-comments-on-trump:

"Ginsburg had given an interview to The New York Times saying she didn’t “even want to contemplate” the country and court under a President Trump.

She later called him a “faker” in a separate interview with CNN.

"He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that," she said."

Her more recent comments are consistent with that. What she said was ""My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'” New means different in this context and no amount of generosity of interpretation changes that.

She understood that her brand of liberalism would not be replaced by the current president and so she wanted a new one to be there prior to her death.

Her more recent comments are consistent with that. What she said was ""My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'” New means different in this context and no amount of generosity of interpretation changes that. — Hanover

True. The source I saw said "next." Nina Totenberg says "new," so I was mistaken there, and I can see how you would interpret that as: "I don't want Trump to nominate the next justice."

So I take it back that you can't be unbiased. I guess I'm just sick to death of people not even trying to be truthful. I thought that's what you were doing.

Still, if she was particularly condemning Trump with that statement, that doesn't necessarily mean she was playing politics. John Bolton has said similar things about him, so you can be anti-Trump without being a liberal slug. You might just be one of those crazy America-lovers.

you seem results oriented, less concerned about the legal analysis than in whether your political ideology is advanced. Is that how nominees are to be judged, as to whether their rulings help those you wish to help, instead of whether they are legally accurate? — Hanover

Please correct me if I am wrong: probably, for the majority of people, judge Barrett’s professional or personal qualities almost do not matter. Maybe, some reject her due to pure ideological reasons: she is a conservative, and the Constitution is a “conservative” document. To defend the Constitution, to judge according to the Constitution would mean to preserve the existing system rather than swiftly and dramatically change it. Yet, likely, the current political conjuncture matters more than ideological reasoning: it is about the upcoming elections calculus. Both sides will try to benefit from the confirmation process. The Dems will try to discredit Barrett, the whole confirmation process, and Trump’s authority as a legitimate POTUS. For Trump and GOP, it could be a chance to represent their platforms better, and attract additional voters: women, Catholics, etc. Therefore, even if ACB is a brilliant and virtuous judge, she will be seen primarily through partisan glasses.

It's a concept that a power-class can make use of in order to control society. Law gives a class the ability to use violence. — JerseyFlight

Just a few marginal groups or individuals embrace such a radical perspective on Law. The waste majority of people do not take The Supreme Court, the Rule of Law, the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice, etc. as merely disguising violence and control of society. On the contrary, they consider them as necessary and useful parts of the whole system. If so, you have to explain how the subordinated groups (classes) are induced to mistake their own interests for the mirage of the ‘general’ interest. How are they duped into affectively investing in power mechanisms that oppress them without ever noticing the contradiction?

Originalism for dummies (like me):

So far, the Dems grill Barrett on how she would rule on California v. Texas, a constitutional challenge to the ACA that is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 10.
Senator Feinstein: "This well could mean that if Judge Barrett is confirmed, Americans stand to lose the benefits that the ACA provides… More than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance." At the same time, the GOP's position is the independence of the field of justice of the current political issues.

I remain convinced that Supreme Court Justices should spend more time practicing law or on the bench than Judge Barrett, who experience is, shall we say, de minimis. But I'll confess, also, that I'm somewhat concerned by her reputed membership in "People of Praise," apparently a charismatic bunch influenced by pentecostals. I once attended a meeting at which people "spoke it tongues." One would translate the "speaking" of the other. I wasn't in a position to contest the translations which, unsurprisingly, sounded like passages from the Bible. It was one of the oddest experiences I've ever had.

sounds like something only moderately entertaining with enough shrooms.

Just pack the court.

Just pack the court. — Baden

Since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, you must be suggesting that if Barrett isn't confirmed in time, then the Republicans should await the next opportunity they're in power to pack the court.

I was actually about to vote for Biden (true story) until he took the stance that he didn't have to take a stance on the court packing issue, which he took after declaring the Barrett nomination was unconstitutional. Nothing like a good dodge and lie to distinguish himself from Trump.

So far, the Dems grill Barrett on how she would rule on California v. Texas, a constitutional challenge to the ACA that is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 10.
Senator Feinstein: "This well could mean that if Judge Barrett is confirmed, Americans stand to lose the benefits that the ACA provides… More than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance." At the same time, the GOP's position is the independence of the field of justice of the current political issues. — Number2018

So what's the principle you advocate here, that the 9 Justices act as philosopher kings and either re-write or strike down every law that, in their opinion, results in a bad consequence? Perhaps the ACA is unconstitutional, but perhaps it is not, but what difference does it make for the analysis to look at how many Americans will be lose coverage when making that determination?