Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Fahran]

Imagine if ACB got scrutinised to the degree that Clinton was in 2016.

You have to actually be as bad as Clinton to receive that level of scrutiny. We also tend not to scrutinize SCOTUS appointments who don't have serious skeletons in their closet to the same degree as people who have served in multiple executive and legislative offices while they're campaigning for yet another one. The arguments against Barrett boil down to "we don't like originalism" and that's not really a valid reason to keep her from the SCOTUS when you don't have the votes in the Senate to do it.

[Echellia]

McCOonnel is a fuckinb liaer and piece of shiyt for this egreihius hypocrisy. I hope he lose election

[Kowani]

Imagine if ACB got scrutinised to the degree that Clinton was in 2016.

You have to actually be as bad as Clinton to receive that level of scrutiny. We also tend not to scrutinize SCOTUS appointments who don't have serious skeletons in their closet to the same degree as people who have served in multiple executive and legislative offices while they're campaigning for yet another one. The arguments against Barrett boil down to "we don't like originalism" and that's not really a valid reason to keep her from the SCOTUS when you don't have the votes in the Senate to do it.

Originalism is bad though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You have to actually be as bad as Clinton to receive that level of scrutiny. We also tend not to scrutinize SCOTUS appointments who don't have serious skeletons in their closet to the same degree as people who have served in multiple executive and legislative offices while they're campaigning for yet another one. The arguments against Barrett boil down to "we don't like originalism" and that's not really a valid reason to keep her from the SCOTUS when you don't have the votes in the Senate to do it.

Originalism is bad though.

It's actually quite good.

[Kowani]

Originalism is bad though.

It's actually quite good.

It would be good if its "adherents" were ever honest about it.
Instead, its a way to craft ideological policy and pretend it to be neutral.

[Fahran]

Democrats shouldn't pack SCOTUS bc voter backlash is very real. But if they make PR and DC states, backlash won't be as fierce and they will have potentially (Puerto Rico could be a swing state but DC is fiercely liberal) established a built in advantage to level the Senate, giving them a cushion to hold onto power.

Puerto Rico seems to want statehood but the turnout for the referendum in 2017 was astoundingly low given how big of a change that would be for our fellow citizens down there. They're holding another referendum this year so we'll see how that plays out. I'm not at all in favor of DC receiving statehood. I'd rather pull their voters into Virginia or Maryland. Or maybe associate them with the state where their parents were born or held residence prior to arriving in DC.

[Albrenia]

Imagine if ACB got scrutinised to the degree that Clinton was in 2016.

You have to actually be as bad as Clinton to receive that level of scrutiny. We also tend not to scrutinize SCOTUS appointments who don't have serious skeletons in their closet to the same degree as people who have served in multiple executive and legislative offices while they're campaigning for yet another one. The arguments against Barrett boil down to "we don't like originalism" and that's not really a valid reason to keep her from the SCOTUS when you don't have the votes in the Senate to do it.

To be fair, I don't really think it would have mattered if she was a saint or a literal cannibal. All the Dems would vote against her and the required amount of Republicans would vote for her, what with the political climate and all.

[Fahran]

It would be good if its "adherents" were ever honest about it.
Instead, its a way to craft ideological policy and pretend it to be neutral.

ACB's brand of originalism doesn't seem too horrible given her opinion on 4th Amendment issues in particular. I kinda wish they'd pulled out her rulings related to the 4th Amendment during the confirmation process. They would have done her a favor with most people.

[Fahran]

McCOonnel is a fuckinb liaer and piece of shiyt for this egreihius hypocrisy. I hope he lose election

I mean... everyone in this process has arguably been some level of hypocritical. I do think you might want to tone down the aggressive language a little bit. I get that you're angry, as many people are, but it isn't helpful and doesn't really contribute to any sort of positive discourse.

[The Two Jerseys]

Reminder that your new Supreme Court Justice literally does not know the First Amendment's protections.

And I presume that you never got an exam question wrong in your entire life?

[Echellia]

McCOonnel is a fuckinb liaer and piece of shiyt for this egreihius hypocrisy. I hope he lose election

I mean... everyone in this process has arguably been some level of hypocritical. I do think you might want to tone down the aggressive language a little bit. I get that you're angry, as many people are, but it isn't helpful and doesn't really contribute to any sort of positive discourse.

pooistive discurne thus is negative thing. But mayyou right bcause i am dirnk rogh now. But she is facsist and eh si a fucking cheat. {I hope they all lose.

[Kowani]

It would be good if its "adherents" were ever honest about it.
Instead, its a way to craft ideological policy and pretend it to be neutral.

ACB's brand of originalism doesn't seem too horrible given her opinion on 4th Amendment issues in particular. I kinda wish they'd pulled out her rulings related to the 4th Amendment during the confirmation process. They would have done her a favor with most people.

Yeah, I'm sure the current crop of republicans would have loved her views on qualified immunity.

[Nogodia]

Reminder that your new Supreme Court Justice literally does not know the First Amendment's protections.

And I presume that you never got an exam question wrong in your entire life?

This woman is being tasked with interpreting the constitutionality of laws. The content of the First Amendment should be second nature.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Democrats shouldn't pack SCOTUS bc voter backlash is very real. But if they make PR and DC states, backlash won't be as fierce and they will have potentially (Puerto Rico could be a swing state but DC is fiercely liberal) established a built in advantage to level the Senate, giving them a cushion to hold onto power.

Puerto Rico seems to want statehood but the turnout for the referendum in 2017 was astoundingly low given how big of a change that would be for our fellow citizens down there. They're holding another referendum this year so we'll see how that plays out. I'm not at all in favor of DC receiving statehood. I'd rather pull their voters into Virginia or Maryland. Or maybe associate them with the state where their parents were born or held residence prior to arriving in DC.

One of the factions organized a boycott of the vote. Whichever one wasn't on the ballot. Kinda dumb move but it did depress turnout across the board because there was no doubt about the result.

There are basically 3 options, and you'll never see a more appropriate vote to use ranked choice for. But go on PR, get it wrong again.

[Tarsonis]

I mean... everyone in this process has arguably been some level of hypocritical. I do think you might want to tone down the aggressive language a little bit. I get that you're angry, as many people are, but it isn't helpful and doesn't really contribute to any sort of positive discourse.

pooistive discurne thus is negative thing. But mayyou right bcause i am dirnk rogh now. But she is facsist and eh si a fucking cheat. {I hope they all lose.

from one with the stripes to prove it, never drink and post, it doesn't end well.

[Fahran]

Yeah, I'm sure the current crop of republicans would have loved her views on qualified immunity.

Perhaps not, but she'll get them by allowing states a bit more leeway within the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and by approaching future rulings from a judicial paradigm that isn't quite so reckless as that of many of her predecessors. She's probably not an outright disaster for the Democrats to the extent that some seem to believe. With regard to the 4th Amendment and qualified immunity, this'll move the SCOTUS towards a position that BLM will have a deep appreciation for in a lot of ways.

[Plzen]

Perhaps not, but she'll get them by allowing states a bit more leeway within the precedent set by Roe v. Wade [...]

Considering the efforts that some states go to in regulating abortion out of existence to sidestep not being able to actually ban it, that doesn't sound like a particularly bright future with regards civil rights.

Now I know that abortion is a disputed issue, and honestly rightfully so (it's an ethics nightmare, in my opinion), but imagine if she ends up extending a similar "states' rights" view towards things like voter disenfranchisement, which I really consider to be a first-rate issue of absolute importance. That should be of serious concern to supporters of the government and opposition both.

[Vassenor]

Originalism is bad though.

It's actually quite good.

This isn't the eighteenth century though. So why does the country have to be run like it still is?

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's actually quite good.

This isn't the eighteenth century though. So why does the country have to be run like it still is?

Because words have meaning. If you want to change the law then change it, the writers were smart people and gave us ways to do it.

[New haven america]

It's actually quite good.

This isn't the eighteenth century though. So why does the country have to be run like it still is?

Because some people are scared of change and would rather we still live in log cabins, take horse and carriages to work, and not have indoor plumbing for the rest of our existence.

[Federative States of America]

Imagine being against a regular democratic process employed by a multitude of presidents since 1789. Trump is still President of the United States /shrug

[Vassenor]

Imagine being against a regular democratic process employed by a multitude of presidents since 1789. Trump is still President of the United States /shrug

So was Obama when the GOP blocked his attempts to seat Garland because you apparently can't seat a SCOTUS justice in an election year... unless you're a Republican.

[Plzen]

Because words have meaning. If you want to change the law then change it, the writers were smart people and gave us ways to do it.

Just like in the US, in the country I spent my childhood in (whose news I still keep up on) electoral reform has long been a cause of the left, who wanted a fairer, proportional system, and the Big Centre-Left Party (think Democrats) were consistently in favour of electoral reform because, well, that's what their supporters wanted.

Then their unexpected electoral victories in the 2016 parliamentary elections and 2017 presidential election actually gave said Big Left Party the power to implement electoral reform and all those centre-left politicians that wanted a proportional system a year earlier were all suddenly "mustn't be too hasty" and "we need to consider the risks" - I guess holding on to the disproportionate advantage first-past-the-post gives them was more important than doing what their supporters wanted.

This has naturally outraged a big proportion of leftist voters, who feel betrayed by the party they voted for, but what are they going to do - vote Right (who always has and still does oppose reform)? Or vote third party and hope for a miracle? Yeah, that's never going to happen and the Big Left Party knows it.

The problem with doing political reform of any kind "legitimately" is that the people who have the power to change how power is distributed are by definition beneficiaries of how power is currently distributed, and these people naturally tend to be hostile to any suggestions that the current distribution of power is unfair. That's true everywhere, including in the United States.

Sometimes it takes a bit of non-legal prodding to get dictators and pocket-dictators to step aside.

[Vassenor]

This isn't the eighteenth century though. So why does the country have to be run like it still is?

Because words have meaning. If you want to change the law then change it, the writers were smart people and gave us ways to do it.

So yes we need to run the country like it's the eighteenth century because the idea of joining the modern world upsets you.

[New haven america]

Because words have meaning. If you want to change the law then change it, the writers were smart people and gave us ways to do it.

Just like in the US, in the country I spent my childhood in (whose news I still keep up on) electoral reform has long been a cause of the left, who wanted a fairer, proportional system, and the Big Centre-Left Party (think Democrats) were consistently in favour of electoral reform because, well, that's what their supporters wanted. Then their electoral victories in the 2016 parliamentary elections and 2017 presidential elections gave said Big Left Party the actual power to implement electoral reform, and all those centre-left politicians that wanted a proportional system a year earlier were all suddenly "mustn't be too hasty" and "we need to consider the risks" - I guess holding on to their seats was more important than actually listening to what their supporters want.

This has naturally outraged a big proportion of leftist voters, who feel betrayed by the party they voted for, but what are they going to do - vote Right (who always has and still does oppose reform)? Or vote third party and hope for a miracle? Yeah, that's never going to happen and the Big Left Party knows it.

The problem with political reform of any kind is that the people who have the power to change things are by definition beneficiaries of how power is currently distributed, and these people naturally tend to be hostile to any suggestions that the current distribution of power is unfair. That's true everywhere, including in the United States.

Sometimes it takes a bit of non-legal prodding to get dictators and pocket-dictators to step aside.

2 times in the past 20 years the PV for presidency has been ignored and those 2 elections have produced some of the worst presidents in US history.

So yeah, fuck the EC. Burn it down and never look back.