How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion

◄ 1 2 3 ... 65 66 67 ... 81 82 83 ► Go

Go to page...

10/15/2020 00:46

Subject: How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can hold whatever opinions you wish, as can I. Just wanted to note that she has never presented herself as a “paragon of moral virtue.” She is simply living her life the way SHE sees fit. It’s amazing the amount of anger some of you have toward a woman who has different personal views than you. It’s becoming more and more obvious what you think of ANYONE who doesn’t agree with you.

Interesting that you are so eager to defend Judge Barrett, yet you are wholly unaware that she herself has written about the intersection of her Catholic morality and her approach o jurisprudence: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

I have no problem with people who disagree with me. I have problem with people who lack integrity. In the past, she's invoked her Catholicism as a reason that she might have to recuse herself from cases where her moral views prevent her from being impartial. When presented with a situation that is so clearly immoral, nevermind illegal, that it has been deemed an act of genocide...she calls it a "political debate". Is the first and foremost a secular judge? Or does she hold deep moral beliefs that sometimes mean she can't do her secular job?

If you’re referring to the separation of families at the border, that is an issue that could very well be debated in the SCOTUS at some point in the future - which is exactly what she said and precisely why she can’t opine on it. The Ginsburg Rule has been cited over and over on this thread. Why can’t you acknowledge that all nominees have invoked this “rule” during their hearings?

Why can't you acknowledge that this particular nominee has a different public record with respect to how she thinks about her moral beliefs and her role as a secular jurist?

Also, the Ginsburg rule isn't what you claim it is: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628711698/the-reality-of-the-ginsburg-rule

And, most importantly, can you please point me to active litigation on the issue of family separation that makes it likely to appear before the SCOTUS? I am not aware that the Administration (or anyone) is appealing the 2018 injunction. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

From your own link re: Ginsburg rule:

It is true that Ginsburg in her opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee said, as others had before her, that it would be improper for her to give any hints of how she might rule in future cases. Notwithstanding that, she did answer questions, as others have, about what she considered settled law and about her previous writings as a judge and legal scholar. That included her view that the Constitution includes a right of privacy or, as she put it, the right to determine one's own life decisions.

Judge Barrett used exactly this standard in deciding what she could and could not answer. She was very forthcoming in discussions of settled law and of her own writings, both as an academic and a judge. However, she appropriately refused to opine on hypotheticals or issues which could possibly come before her as a justice. As is perfectly correct and as every nominee before her has done.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ginsburg-standard-no-hints-no-forecasts-no-previews-and-no-special-obligations