Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Farnhamia]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/

NEWS
Amy Coney Barrett hailed as a ‘legal trailblazer’ and ‘brilliant’ Supreme Court choice
By Melissa Klein

September 26, 2020 | 6:36pm


People holding placards in support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice at President Trump’s Great American Comeback campaign rally at the Jacksonville JetPort at Cecil Airport.
People hold signs supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court in Jacksonville, Florida.
Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showered with praise from supporters who called her a “brilliant” choice for the Supreme Court and swatted down attacks on her faith and family.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, dubbed Barrett an “outstanding” nominee.

“Judge Barrett is highly qualified in all the areas that matter – character, integrity, intellect, and judicial disposition,” Graham tweeted shortly after President Trump announced Barrett as his pick.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Judiciary Committee member, called her “a legal trailblazer w/respect for the law & our nation’s founding principles

.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

[Auzkhia]

No, and the Republicans made it a precedent to not confirm judges on election years. The Senate should follow precedent and not confirm her. If they do, they must also add Judge Garland to the SCOTUS.

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

I'm expanding it a little. Its hard on a phone.

Well, I doubt the founding fathers had abortion on their mind when they wrote it.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Not how the process works. She's been nominated. Yet to be confirmed.

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

I'm expanding it a little. Its hard on a phone.

Well, I doubt the founding fathers had abortion on their mind when they wrote it.

They also didn't intend for abolition or desegregation or women's suffrage.

[Vassenor]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/

NEWS
Amy Coney Barrett hailed as a ‘legal trailblazer’ and ‘brilliant’ Supreme Court choice
By Melissa Klein

September 26, 2020 | 6:36pm


People holding placards in support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice at President Trump’s Great American Comeback campaign rally at the Jacksonville JetPort at Cecil Airport.
People hold signs supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court in Jacksonville, Florida.
Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showered with praise from supporters who called her a “brilliant” choice for the Supreme Court and swatted down attacks on her faith and family.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, dubbed Barrett an “outstanding” nominee.

“Judge Barrett is highly qualified in all the areas that matter – character, integrity, intellect, and judicial disposition,” Graham tweeted shortly after President Trump announced Barrett as his pick.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Judiciary Committee member, called her “a legal trailblazer w/respect for the law & our nation’s founding principles

.

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

I'm expanding it a little. Its hard on a phone.

Well, I doubt the founding fathers had abortion on their mind when they wrote it.

Abortion has literally nothing to do with the Constitution, dude.

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

Not how the process works. She's been nominated. Yet to be confirmed.

I'm expanding it a little. Its hard on a phone.

Well, I doubt the founding fathers had abortion on their mind when they wrote it.

They also didn't intend for abolition or desegregation or women's suffrage.

No they didn't. But those were direct constitutional amendments to change it the proper way not judicial historical revisionism.

[Whitemore]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/


.

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

Say what??

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

I'm expanding it a little. Its hard on a phone.

Well, I doubt the founding fathers had abortion on their mind when they wrote it.

Abortion has literally nothing to do with the Constitution, dude.

I agree
Yet in roe v wade they retroactively made it so.

[Vassenor]

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

Say what??

She's attempted to argue that splitting Virginia was unconstitutional, as was the decision in Brown v Board of Education.

[Whitemore]

Say what??

She's attempted to argue that splitting Virginia was unconstitutional, as was the decision in Brown v Board of Education.

Jesus Christ. "Montani semper liberi!"

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/


.

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

Yes. It was declared not part of Virginia by an unelected government appointed by Lincoln. The constitution calls for agreement of the state before such secession can take place.

The constitution doesn't deny rights it simply says what the government can and cannot do. When you become pregnant a second legal entity grows inside you. It is of you, but the child is not you.

[Vassenor]

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

Yes. It was declared not part of Virginia by an unelected government appointed by Lincoln. The constitution calls for agreement of the state before such secession can take place.

The constitution doesn't deny rights it simply says what the government can and cannot do. When you become pregnant a second legal entity grows inside you. It is of you, but the child is not you.

You mean like the unelected president appointed by the Electoral College?

[US-SSR]

Um no. US Presidents do not declare Supreme Court Justices, they nominate them. The Senate confirms them. So when President Biden names Merrick Garland and three others to the Supreme Court in 2021 the headline will not be "Four Liberals Declared Supreme Court Justices by Biden."

[Greed and Death]

Generally I believe the textualist have the better system of jurisprudence so I look forward to the rightward step of the court.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Not how the process works. She's been nominated. Yet to be confirmed.



They also didn't intend for abolition or desegregation or women's suffrage.

No they didn't. But those were direct constitutional amendments to change it the proper way not judicial historical revisionism.

The Founding Fathers also never intended for us to use computers. Ban computers until we amend the Constitution! /s

The Constitution simply enumerates certain rights. We have plenty of unenumerated rights, some of which come from broader interpretations of the spirit of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment is considered to create certain protections in the online sphere. The Founders didn't intend for that. The Second Amendment creates a right to bear semi-automatics, which the Founders didn't intend. Are those "historical revisionism"?

In the same manner, the right to an abortion is descended from the right to privacy implicitly created by the due process clause.

[Whitemore]

So what part of the constitution says women can't be given control of their own bodies?

Also I take it you agree with her when she says the state of West Virginia shouldn't exist?

Yes. It was declared not part of Virginia by an unelected government appointed by Lincoln. The constitution calls for agreement of the state before such secession can take place.

The constitution doesn't deny rights it simply says what the government can and cannot do. When you become pregnant a second legal entity grows inside you. It is of you, but the child is not you.

Yeah, no. The Restored Government of Virginia wasn't appointed by President Lincoln. He merely recognized it as the Government of Virginia.

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

Yes. It was declared not part of Virginia by an unelected government appointed by Lincoln. The constitution calls for agreement of the state before such secession can take place.

The constitution doesn't deny rights it simply says what the government can and cannot do. When you become pregnant a second legal entity grows inside you. It is of you, but the child is not you.

Yeah, no. The Restored Government of Virginia wasn't appointed by President Lincoln. He merely recognized it as the Government of Virginia.

The result is the same.

[Whitemore]

Yeah, no. The Restored Government of Virginia wasn't appointed by President Lincoln. He merely recognized it as the Government of Virginia.

The result is the same.

Really isn't, unlike the Pro-South Government who illegally voted to leave anyway (I.E. the Virginian Legislature wasn't summoned by Popular Petition to vote to leave, but rather was summoned by itself, thereby ignoring the will of the People to express themselves). The Restored Government was West Virginian Leadership and exiled Pro-Union Virginians who became a Temporary Government to fill the void and support the Union, as was supported by the people at the time. Before the voting ended on secession there were multiple state-wide petitions to stop any thought of secession but the Virginian Legislature ignored them and went on with their Treason.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

For the record and my protection just in case. I don't know if you are accepting posts and quote posts from me, all I know is I can see your posts and I can quote them.

The biased, partisan, non political saint Democrats tried to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh s career as a highly qualified, right wing conservative Republican Justice to the US Supreme court.

Democrat Adam Schiff was clearly very biased and partisan during President Trump s impeachment trial by the Democrats for political reasons, not for justice in America, the USA.

The Democrats violate the spirit of the US Constitution too. The Democrats are not Political saints. The Republicans are not Political saints either.

President Trump has a right to nominate and try to confirm, a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice any time during his term of office, the Democrats would do the same.

[US-SSR]

Since when do Republicans care about defending the Constitution? They're the ones always violating it.

Also you need to expand your OP and give your opinion or the mods will lock the thread.

For the record and my protection just in case. I don't know if you are accepting posts and quote posts from me, all I know is I can see your posts and I can quote them.

The biased, partisan, non political saint Democrats tried to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh s career as a highly qualified, right wing conservative Republican Justice to the US Supreme court.

Democrat Adam Schiff was clearly very biased and partisan during President Trump s impeachment trial by the Democrats for political reasons, not for justice in America, the USA.

The Democrats violate the spirit of the US Constitution too. The Democrats are not Political saints. The Republicans are not Political saints either.

President Trump has a right to nominate and try to confirm, a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice any time during his term of office, the Democrats would do the same.

They can and will. They also can and will expand the Court to at least 13 Justices. Take it to the bank: what goes around, comes around.

[The Archregimancy]

Say what??

She's attempted to argue that splitting Virginia was unconstitutional

Well, on that one at least she likely has half a point.

The formation of West Virginia was deeply murky.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

Note the two underlined sections.

The key question is whether Virginia can be said to have consented to the formation of West Virginia. A lot depends on whether the Wheeling Conventions can be held to have legitimately represented the entirety of Virginia by virtue of representing those counties that were against secession (or more accurately, by convening themselves as bodies opposed to secession regardless of the views of the counties they claimed to represent - several of which had indeed voted in favour of secession), and whether the 'reorganised government' claiming to represent the state of Virginia was legitimate. This was not necessarily clear-cut; at least not in the 1860s.

Now, there is an existing 1871 Supreme Court precedent that implicitly ruled that the requisite consent had been given by both states and Congress, so it's unlikely that West Virginia is going to be abolished tomorrow. But given that this was a majority 6-3 decision, and not a unanimous decision, clearly there were serious constitutional scholars who disagreed with that decision.

So arguing that the formation of West Virginia was unconstitutional is not ridiculous; pointless, but not ridiculous.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Say what??

She's attempted to argue that splitting Virginia was unconstitutional, as was the decision in Brown v Board of Education.

Both are actually fairly solid arguments. Even from a liberal jurisprudence perspective you can say Brown v Board was reached incorrectly and afaik it’s not actually a hot take to question West Virginia’s status. Pretty much everybody knows the history behind it and that yeah it probably wasn’t done constitutionally but it was overlooked cuz of the whole rebellion thing.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

... the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg...

Downfall just isn't the right word.