Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Greed and Death]

A strong, independent woman who believes women exist to serve and obey men

The problem isn't that she opposes abortion and is socially conservative, the problem is that she's might gut the ACA and use the court to strike needed social programs down.

I have explained elsewhere in this thread on why that is unlikely.

[Plzen]

You guys can whine all you want, but nothing changes the fact that there’s now a conservative majority on the supreme court, possibly for decades, even if Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the Senate

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

[Greed and Death]

You guys can whine all you want, but nothing changes the fact that there’s now a conservative majority on the supreme court, possibly for decades, even if Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the Senate

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

But uninteresting Centrist seem adverse to packing the court.

[Vassenor]

You guys can whine all you want, but nothing changes the fact that there’s now a conservative majority on the supreme court, possibly for decades, even if Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the Senate

Thank god

So what makes this an objective positive thing for everyone?

[The Reformed American Republic]

You guys can whine all you want, but nothing changes the fact that there’s now a conservative majority on the supreme court, possibly for decades, even if Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the Senate

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

The democrats in office lack the balls to pack the court.

[Novus America]

A strong, independent woman who believes women exist to serve and obey men

And that women who exercise control over their own bodies should be put to death.

Except as usual this is taking a much more nuanced position and making it to a hyperbolic Tweet.

This is not Twitter, we expect a little better here. First of all you do not understand how it works.
The Supreme Court cannot force the states to criminalize abortion and set the penalty for it.
And she never called for that. She simply said she could not comment on such a vague hypothetical.

Which is fine, because it does not have enough information for her to make a decision. There already are circumstances where abortion (which involves two bodies BTW) is considered murder, and many cases where it is not. And then this involves the death penalty as well. Another complicated issue. This is basically “summarize you entire legal position on abortion AND the death penalty with a single yes or no”.

This is a far more nuanced issue than that. That was a vague gotcha question, if she said no then people would say “so there never should be a death penalty for murder”, or “no abortion is ever murder” and so on.
But if she did not answer you then make these sort of accusations.
It is bad faith debate and you know it.

The fact is abortion is a complicated issue, especially in a federal structure, and Roe v. Wade is a complicated case.
Trying to reduce it to sound bites and categorical yes or no one sentence questions is good politics maybe but bad law.

You can absolutely criticize her on many things, but actually use a nuanced good faith argument, not this crap.
You can do better.

[Greed and Death]

Thank god

So what makes this an objective positive thing for everyone?

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If you willingly work with those who actively and openly want to take their rights then why should they have any interest in working with you?

You are being warned again stop attempting to interfere my rights or you will lose more of your rights.

I’m sure you’ll let me know when I’ve ever attempted to “interfere” with your rights.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So what makes this an objective positive thing for everyone?

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

Should rights be conditional upon compliance with your views?

[Greed and Death]

You are being warned again stop attempting to interfere my rights or you will lose more of your rights.

I’m sure you’ll let me know when I’ve ever attempted to “interfere” with your rights.

Think on this on the Tree of Woe.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The problem isn't that she opposes abortion and is socially conservative, the problem is that she's might gut the ACA and use the court to strike needed social programs down.

I have explained elsewhere in this thread on why that is unlikely.

If you're serious about advancing in Law, you should know by now that lying too much reveals a lot about what you really believe.

You just love Barrett. Saying "oh she won't do that" is a lie.

[Plzen]

The democrats in office lack the balls to pack the court.

Hence, "the DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever". Unless the Democrats want their support to fall apart like the British Liberals did a hundred years ago, they have to put up someone interesting eventually.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The problem isn't that she opposes abortion and is socially conservative, the problem is that she's might gut the ACA and use the court to strike needed social programs down.

I have explained elsewhere in this thread on why that is unlikely.

I think they will just come up with a bullshit legal standard and do it anyway.

[Vu Den Voc]

See the reason i am against Amy Barret being Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice is not that she's not qualified (she is qualified) its the timing and double standard. How come the republicans can rush this nomination in lighting speed, yet they are slow to negioate on a COVID relief package. If you can rush a nomination, you sure as heck can rush the relief package!

Anyways when Obama tried to do the nomination (for a moderate judge i tell you) the republicans say no. Because apparently its more about the survival of a party than the actual people in this country. How sad...

[Picairn]

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

Or impeach and convict the conservative judges. If both Houses turn blue then it's also a possibility.

[Greed and Death]

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

Should rights be conditional upon compliance with your views?

If you will not protect the rights of others do not be surprised when they will not protect the rights of you.

Just noting the gay rights movement had a string of victories with the Chik fila boycott being the only loss then the pulse night club shooting and the adoption of anti gun positions by leaders of the gay right movement occurred. Then it seems the gay rights movement has had a string of defeats with only a minor victory about interpreting sex as including LGBT status.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

Or impeach and convict the conservative judges. If both Houses turn blue then it's also a possibility.

That also takes balls.

[Greed and Death]

I have explained elsewhere in this thread on why that is unlikely.

If you're serious about advancing in Law, you should know by now that lying too much reveals a lot about what you really believe.

You just love Barrett. Saying "oh she won't do that" is a lie.

It quite honestly is too much of a logic leap even for Alito.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So what makes this an objective positive thing for everyone?

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

There is no box you can tick to opt out of healthcare. We simply do not trust you to keep to your principles when you've been shot and only an operation will save your life. "I'm out of money but I'll pay the half million later, promise" is not good enough.

This is why universal healthcare is the best. You don't have to opt in (at expense to yourself). You can opt out (to private, at expense to yourself). You are never put in that position between dying, or living but paying for it later.

But whatever. When the medic looks in your eyes and says "your bronze negative plan doesn't cover the operation, you can only have it if you take on a debt" then you can make the heroic choice. Your money or your life!

[Picairn]

That also takes balls.

Yes but fewer, since it's explicitly backed by the Constitution and does not undermine the structure of the Court.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Should rights be conditional upon compliance with your views?

If you will not protect the rights of others do not be surprised when they will not protect the rights of you.

Just noting the gay rights movement had a string of victories with the Chik fila boycott being the only loss then the pulse night club shooting and the adoption of anti gun positions by leaders of the gay right movement occurred. Then it seems the gay rights movement has had a string of defeats with only a minor victory about interpreting sex as including LGBT status.

Is/ought dichotomy. Whether you think something is to be expected is something different from thinking it just.

Do you think it's just to act that way?

[Novus America]

A strong, independent woman who believes women exist to serve and obey men

The problem isn't that she opposes abortion and is socially conservative, the problem is that she's might gut the ACA and use the court to strike needed social programs down.

The issue with that is that although the ACA has some good provisions, it was so badly written as to make it constitutionally a mess.
I actually support greater healthcare access, but you have to do it right, or you run into problems.

Although most of the provisions can probably be severed from the more problematic ones. It is a mess but it is highly unlikely the whole thing would be struck down, even if the (unenforced) individual mandate is.

The issue here was that the law was basically a tax while pretending not to be. Which made good sense from a political point of claiming it did not raise taxes, but badly written law.

It was the wrong way of going about it from a legal standpoint. Hopefully in the future the laws are better written vs relying on the Supreme Court to rubber stamp them.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I’m sure you’ll let me know when I’ve ever attempted to “interfere” with your rights.

Think on this on the Tree of Woe.

Is this supposed to mean something to me?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If you're serious about advancing in Law, you should know by now that lying too much reveals a lot about what you really believe.

You just love Barrett. Saying "oh she won't do that" is a lie.

It quite honestly is too much of a logic leap even for Alito.

Alito and Thomas are both kind of dumb. But that's not our problem. The Supreme Court could if it wanted to, make a new rule and expel by a majority vote, and Justices that aren't cutting it.

[Vassenor]

Think on this on the Tree of Woe.

Is this supposed to mean something to me?

They think people who disagree with them should be put to death.