Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Celritannia]

So stripping rights away from LGBTQ people is good? Restrict access to abortion is good?

Anyone that wish to remove rights for any group of people should really question why they want to do this.

One could make the counter argument about gun rights. Is stripping away gun rights away from the poor and less connected good? Why want to do this?

Abortion is complicated because it involves a conflict of rights. Arguably guns do to.

The problem with rights is sometimes they conflict.

That is a potential issue with some LGBT rights as well. See the whole cake fight.

So it is not so simple as one side being for rights and another side being against rights.

Rather each side wants a different side to be given precedence when rights conflict.

I don't think the overwhelming majority of Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendment rights. To do so would be political suicide. It's not even in the interest of the party.

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Eh, that's not really a reason to deny rights to LGBTQ+ people though.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Courts should not be partisan based in any capacity.
She is a danger to progressive policies.

Based on your political views, progressive policies are good. Based on my political views, conservative policies are good. So you think this is a bad outcome, while I think this is a good outcome, because we have different political opinions

You seem to have been studying at the knee of Greater Miami Shores. Meaningless homilies to "neutralize" points you can't honestly reply to.

Well OK. Your choice. You should understand though, that swinging that damp squid will get you Ignored by everyone.

[The Emerald Legion]

One could make the counter argument about gun rights. Is stripping away gun rights away from the poor and less connected good? Why want to do this?

Abortion is complicated because it involves a conflict of rights. Arguably guns do to.

The problem with rights is sometimes they conflict.

That is a potential issue with some LGBT rights as well. See the whole cake fight.

So it is not so simple as one side being for rights and another side being against rights.

Rather each side wants a different side to be given precedence when rights conflict.

I don't think many Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendments right. to do so would be political suicide, and not in the interests of the party.

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Eh, that's not really a reason to deny rights to LGBTQ+ people though.

Yes they really do. Beto O'rourke got thunderous applause for his ridiculous speech. The Democrats constantly push bills to sideline and punish gun owners.

[Punished UMN]

One justice on the Supreme Court being a conservative Catholic does not mean that LGBT rights are going to be stripped away. Even assuming ACB wants to do that, she's not the deciding vote. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both written opinions in favor of LGBT rights.

[Novus America]

To hopefully lay to rest this issue: there is no immediate procedure for appealing an impeachment decision by the Senate. However, even though the Senate has broad powers to convict, the clause is still not entirely without demands. No-one knows for sure what 'high crimes and misdemeanors' means, but because it is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on that issue.

More importantly, even if the Senate had unbridled power to convict, they still cannot use that power to supplant the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections. Impeachment is not a 'get into jail free card' for the Senate to wield however they want. Like any body, they are still bound by the constitution. It would be detournement de pouvoir for them to circumvent all constitutional protections.

Impeachment is constitutional, but the use of impeachment is not constitutional in all affairs.

It's not really clear if SCOTUS has that power to review. It's a political question of the sort the Court has never considered justiciable. The impeachment and conviction issue is almost entirely outside the purview of SCOTUS based on case law to this point. Stare decisis suggests the Court won't do anything.

Although true the courts have not yet done anything, the lack of convictions allowed them to. I doubt the courts would stand by and do nothing if somehow it got to the point judges were being removed en masse on completely spurious charges, as that would be effectively ending the powers and independence of the judicial branch.
I doubt the judicial branch would just stand by if it got to the extreme of the silly hypothetical, although it is silly because it is very unlikely it would ever come to that.

It seems likely there is a point where courts would step in, just that we never reached that point.

[Celritannia]

I don't think many Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendments right. to do so would be political suicide, and not in the interests of the party.

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Eh, that's not really a reason to deny rights to LGBTQ+ people though.

Yes they really do. Beto O'rourke got thunderous applause for his ridiculous speech. The Democrats constantly push bills to sideline and punish gun owners.

Firearm regulations are not removing firearm rights.
Even then, it's quite a minority of Democrats.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I don't think many Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendments right. to do so would be political suicide, and not in the interests of the party.

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Eh, that's not really a reason to deny rights to LGBTQ+ people though.

Yes they really do. Beto O'rourke got thunderous applause for his ridiculous speech. The Democrats constantly push bills to sideline and punish gun owners.

This sadly.

It's honestly still mind blowing how people can still sit here with a straight face and even attempt to make the claim that the Dem's are NOT anti gun.

[Celritannia]

Yes they really do. Beto O'rourke got thunderous applause for his ridiculous speech. The Democrats constantly push bills to sideline and punish gun owners.

This sadly.

It's honestly still mind blowing how people can still sit here with a straight face and even attempt to make the claim that the Dem's are NOT anti gun.

And do they want to removed the second amendment?

[Kernen]

It's not really clear if SCOTUS has that power to review. It's a political question of the sort the Court has never considered justiciable. The impeachment and conviction issue is almost entirely outside the purview of SCOTUS based on case law to this point. Stare decisis suggests the Court won't do anything.

They cannot weigh in on the political side, but they have in the past ruled that they can interfere in political matters if the constitution is involved. There are two ways that the political actions of Senators are bound by the constitution, so there is plenty of reason for the Court to get involved. Similarly to how it got involved in the tax returns matter, for instance. They cannot pick the best option for the Senators, but they can decide that the Senate made a decision it could not have legally made.

But legislative procedure is essentially off limits per Nixon v. US. They won't do it where the issue is the exclusive constitutional domain of the legislature.

[Kernen]

This sadly.

It's honestly still mind blowing how people can still sit here with a straight face and even attempt to make the claim that the Dem's are NOT anti gun.

And do they want to removed the second amendment?

That is not the test for anti gun, since the 2nd Amendment can be sidestepped without being "violated" under certain interpretations.

I say this as a fairly progressive voter who already cast a vote for Biden. The democrats are the least worst option, sure, but let's not pretend they or their SCOTUS nominations are anything but anti gun.

[Vassenor]

One justice on the Supreme Court being a conservative Catholic does not mean that LGBT rights are going to be stripped away. Even assuming ACB wants to do that, she's not the deciding vote. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both written opinions in favor of LGBT rights.

And that thing Alito and Thomas wrote? Or does that not count because it's bad for your narrative?

[Picairn]

Obviously senate convictions are not automatically bills of attainder.
But that does not make them immune to all other provisions. The Constitution dies say you have a right to a fair trial, (that is why bills of attainder are banned), a right to due process that applies to not only regular court proceedings but also most other government processes, even most those in which you are not charged with a crime. And a protection against ex post facto laws.

And what relevance does all this make in regard to Congress's final say on impeachment and conviction?

Courts have ruled you generally cannot fire a federal employee without due process, EVEN IF congress passes a lay saying you can!

Punishment for Senate convictions are granted by the Constitution. Constitutional Articles can not be unconstitutional themselves.

Courts have never said Congress has absolutely unrestricted powers. Thus your claims somehow impeachment is unrestricted by any other provisions is without good basis.

Congress can decide what high crimes and misdemeanors mean. That alone is quite broad powers.

You are making claims without good support. Certainly it is not an established law the impeach trials can be done without any due process.

And since when due process and Congressional votes can not go together? As I said, Congress reserves the final say, even with due process and all that. Impeachment and conviction is a political process, not judicial.

Had they had the votes, the could have convicted yes, but then the convicted could challenge their conviction.

How?

The fact it never got that far is good evidence it is not an easy thing to actually get a conviction with no real crime.
The fact it never got that far does not prove that convicting without any evidence of a crime is constitutional and that the senate trials cannot be questioned

Senate convictions are decided by a two-thirds majority votes, as it is the only requirement mandated by the Constitution. With enough votes, the Senate can make convictions.

But anyways what are we even arguing? Yes you could impeach, vote to convict in theory with no crime.
Just as you can pass a completely unconstitutional law or have an unfair trial or hearing. But if you do so you will be probably be challenged. Being able to do something is quite different than being able to do something without challenges or consequences. The Supreme Court still would claim it has the final say.

No, the Court would likely not intervene due to the political question doctrine. Congressional impeachment and conviction are political, not judicial.

Almost certainly there would be legal challenges if you convicted. And you cannot prove the court would not hear or support those legal challenges. So you absolutely would be setting up a constitutional crisis. You really think the courts would just surrender without any fight?

Any legal challenges would fall apart if Congress followed the exact same rules mandated by the Constitution. Courts can not declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Is this another attempt at "yes, but no" on the constitutionality of impeachment?

Besides you admit this is grossly impractical because the votes are not, and almost certainly never will be there.
You admit is a silly hypothetical, not a practical plan.

If both Houses turn blue then the Democrats can.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, they are bound by the text. However, some conservatives get mad when the text says you can't deny equal protection of the laws, and that is taken to mean exactly what is says. They get mad when courts are not bound by 19th century misconceptions.

No. They aren't, or else the NFA wouldn't exist. Not everything is about your sides weird obsession with race.

I fail to see what the National Futures Association has to do with this.

[Paddy O Fernature]

This sadly.

It's honestly still mind blowing how people can still sit here with a straight face and even attempt to make the claim that the Dem's are NOT anti gun.

And do they want to removed the second amendment?

If they could they absolutely would.

"'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In!"

[Celritannia]

And do they want to removed the second amendment?

If they could they absolutely would.

"'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In!"

Yeah...this is a scaremongering hypothetical than something based in fact.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

They cannot weigh in on the political side, but they have in the past ruled that they can interfere in political matters if the constitution is involved. There are two ways that the political actions of Senators are bound by the constitution, so there is plenty of reason for the Court to get involved. Similarly to how it got involved in the tax returns matter, for instance. They cannot pick the best option for the Senators, but they can decide that the Senate made a decision it could not have legally made.

But legislative procedure is essentially off limits per Nixon v. US. They won't do it where the issue is the exclusive constitutional domain of the legislature.

But it's not a legislative procedure. It's apart from the legislative powers of the Senate. And, like with laws, the outcome can be declared unconstitutional.

[Punished UMN]

One justice on the Supreme Court being a conservative Catholic does not mean that LGBT rights are going to be stripped away. Even assuming ACB wants to do that, she's not the deciding vote. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both written opinions in favor of LGBT rights.

And that thing Alito and Thomas wrote? Or does that not count because it's bad for your narrative?

Oh yes, I forgot that 3 justices is a majority of a 9-person court. Also, what narrative? I don't think she should have been confirmed.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes they really do. Beto O'rourke got thunderous applause for his ridiculous speech. The Democrats constantly push bills to sideline and punish gun owners.

Firearms regulations are not removed firearm rights.
Even then, it's quite a minority of Democrats.

No it's not. The lowest support the Dems have for a gun control cause is 79% support for banning high capacity magazines.

That includes nonsense like stalking every gun owner like the gestapo with a registry, forcing you to get a background check to inherit your grandfather's gun, and banning 'assault weapons' AKA semi automatic rifles that look scary.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Women’s rights to do what?

[Novus America]

One could make the counter argument about gun rights. Is stripping away gun rights away from the poor and less connected good? Why want to do this?

Abortion is complicated because it involves a conflict of rights. Arguably guns do to.

The problem with rights is sometimes they conflict.

That is a potential issue with some LGBT rights as well. See the whole cake fight.

So it is not so simple as one side being for rights and another side being against rights.

Rather each side wants a different side to be given precedence when rights conflict.

I don't think the overwhelming majority of Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendment rights. To do so would be political suicide. It's not even in the interest of the party.

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Eh, that's not really a reason to deny rights to LGBTQ+ people though.

Given some states already have laws were you can only carry a gun if you are rich and connected, this is a real issue, “may issue” laws are already facing court challenges. “May issue” laws and other restrictive gun laws are not a mere fringe, as many still exist and are enforced.

Abortion is, because the rights of the unborn child considered by opponents of abortion to be an issue. That is a real dispute.

Nobody except a small lunatic fringe is saying go straight Iran on gay rights. It is not an all or nothing thing.
The cases that are issues are things like the cake fight. Where there is a legitimate controversy.

Basically nobody is saying gays should have no rights.

It really again comes down to when rights conflict or ones rights are arguably being violated. Which is the only way it goes to court really, courts only rule when their is an actual cases or controversy.
If there is no conflict, there is no case.

[Paddy O Fernature]

If they could they absolutely would.

"'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In!"

Yeah...this is a scaremongering hypothetical than something based in fact.

You know I'm quoting D. Feinstein, right?

[Vassenor]

Abortion really isn't a conflict of rights, since it's mostly men restricting the rights or women.

Women’s rights to do what?

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

[Picairn]

We are not even debating. You simply claim, without evidence the Senate can convict anyone for any reason without being challenged. That Senate impeachment trials are above and immune to any legal challenges.

Remind me again which body can decide what high crimes and misdemeanors mean. And what sole requirement is needed to convict.

Had there been a conviction in those cases there would probably be legal challenges, and likely a constitutional crisis.

The fact that no conviction happened does not prove you claim that a conviction would not result in legal challenges.

Any legal challenges would fall apart if Congress followed the rules mandated by the Constitution. Who can argue with the actual text of the Constitution itself?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

We are not even debating. You simply claim, without evidence the Senate can convict anyone for any reason without being challenged. That Senate impeachment trials are above and immune to any legal challenges.

Remind me again which body can decide what high crimes and misdemeanors mean. And what sole requirement is needed to convict.

Had there been a conviction in those cases there would probably be legal challenges, and likely a constitutional crisis.

The fact that no conviction happened does not prove you claim that a conviction would not result in legal challenges.

Any legal challenges would fall apart if Congress followed the rules mandated by the Constitution. Who can argue with the actual text of the Constitution itself?

What if the Senate decided to impeach a Supreme Court justice for being black? Would that be constitutional?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

One justice on the Supreme Court being a conservative Catholic does not mean that LGBT rights are going to be stripped away. Even assuming ACB wants to do that, she's not the deciding vote. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both written opinions in favor of LGBT rights.

And that thing Alito and Thomas wrote? Or does that not count because it's bad for your narrative?

Dissenting opinions are interesting. Like hints to Government about what a minority of the court would prefer ...

Don't get me wrong, dissenting opinions are vital to future courts and to Congress, informing them of what is legal and what is not. But they are also an intervention in the political process. Dissenting opinions are taking a side and that is inherently political.