How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Like Kagan? Few years at W&C after Mikva and Marshall and before becoming a judge?

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It is certainly helpful, especially given the context that she was not a judge for a very long time. I do want my judges having litigation experience and practical experience before trying the highest cases of the land.

LOL She will vote how she is told to vote. Just stop with all this “oh she is so qualified”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are these guys going to vote if they’re sick as hell?

Johnson said he would eesrvs moon suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these guys going to vote if they’re sick as hell?

Can't they vote remotely?

No
They must vote in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It’s not necessary, but I think it’s very desireable. If you haven’t been personally invested in the meaning of judicial review, procedural rules, statutory interpretation... then you don’t really fully understand. It’s like coaching a game you’ve never actually played. Experience as a regulator or legislator would be equally good. Even a non-lawyer regulator — say a former CDC head — would bring a valuable perspective to the stakes.

Lewis Powell was unqualified. OK.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Upthread I posted delaying tactics, the two hour time and quorum calls

[Anonymous]

Joni Ernst must have arrived straight from the mortician. Makeup measured in pounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It’s not necessary, but I think it’s very desireable. If you haven’t been personally invested in the meaning of judicial review, procedural rules, statutory interpretation... then you don’t really fully understand. It’s like coaching a game you’ve never actually played. Experience as a regulator or legislator would be equally good. Even a non-lawyer regulator — say a former CDC head — would bring a valuable perspective to the stakes.

Lewis Powell was unqualified. OK.

I said it’s desireable, not always necessary. But yeah, having personally dealt with a full spectrum of legal practice, I get antsy when I think of too many law professors on the bench. We need people who understand law is a tool — and fewer people who believe that they are so smart they know the One True Theory to interpret the law.

[Anonymous]

Cory Booker is VICIOUS! Go CORY!

ACB rolled her eyes at the Roe v. Wade comment. THERE'S THE MEME!

[Anonymous]

Handy guide to issues the Supreme Court faces in California v. Texas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It’s not necessary, but I think it’s very desireable. If you haven’t been personally invested in the meaning of judicial review, procedural rules, statutory interpretation... then you don’t really fully understand. It’s like coaching a game you’ve never actually played. Experience as a regulator or legislator would be equally good. Even a non-lawyer regulator — say a former CDC head — would bring a valuable perspective to the stakes.

Lewis Powell was unqualified. OK.

I said it’s desireable, not always necessary. But yeah, having personally dealt with a full spectrum of legal practice, I get antsy when I think of too many law professors on the bench. We need people who understand law is a tool — and fewer people who believe that they are so smart they know the One True Theory to interpret the law.

Desireable. Really?

Thurgood Marshal was a very well-regarded litigator. Considered by some to be a brilliant appellate litigator. Unquestionably qualified to sit as a Justice. He was also regularly assigned tax and securities cases. They were almost universally horrible decisions. Incomprehensible. Should we therefore say that the court needs to have balance across the various practices as well? People well practiced in tax, securities, procedure, civil rights, election law, environmental law and so forth?

From a legal perspective (I have practiced now for 29 years), she is clearly qualified to sit on the court. However, I have grave reservations when it comes to whether she would, in fact, consider the Constitution and laws of the United States to be the supreme law of the land in light of her statements that all things secular are merely means to her enlightened end.

[Anonymous]

Some of the most boring bs ever just vote and get it over with

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Harris is so damn boring

[Anonymous]

Harris so predictable and political irrelevant dribble.