Compared with Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, do the Dems have leverage and power to effectively oppose Trump's pick for Supreme Court Justice? Will there be the confirmation battle again? — Number2018

The Democrats had leverage against Kavanaugh because there was a credible sexual assault charge against him, but they had no power to actually stop his nomination by a majority Republican senate. Assuming Amy Coney Barrett hasn't murdered someone she will quickly be confirmed by the senate (although they'd probably confirm her regardless).

Will there be the confirmation battle again? — Number2018

As Maw rightly suggests the "confirmation" is a fait accompli.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/453745

It's interesting. Trump's male picks all seem to be spineless, vicious, or both. The females, more a mixed bag. Consider his choices of women to be his press secretaries from Sean to Kayleigh inclusive. Gutless, spineless, gonadless liars all. His wives and Karen and Stormy, not so much. I'm thinking he's thinking Amy Coney is just another decorative attractive woman. But in my opinion, the Supreme Court will make her into a good justice, and pretty quickly. In any case, she's a lot better than almost all of his other appointments and nominations.

A conservative Republican should have been satisfied with Merritt Garland; Obama chose him not least to be acceptable to as many as possible. Trump has chosen Amy for really no good reason other than her looks and a cockamamie idea she's his kind of nutcase. My bet is she is not. And Trump cannot hope to live long enough to experience the full irony of his choice, but his constituents will.

Whether she'll be a Brandeis or a Holmes or Warren or Frankfurter or Hamburger or whatever his name was, is open to question. But it's very likely she will be far from the worst. And if her religion is odd, I think she will successfully keep it out of court. My two cents' worth.

The Democrats had leverage against Kavanaugh because there was a credible sexual assault charge against him — Maw

Assuming Amy Coney Barrett hasn't murdered someone she will quickly be confirmed by the senate (although they'd probably confirm her regardless). — Maw

Ford had made her case publicly to a friendly press. From a prosecutor's perspective, that was a doubtful way to handle allegations. The allegations were made without first going through extensive investigation to determine the accuser's credibility, whether there was corroborating evidence, and whether there was contrary evidence. Since the media played a crucial role, we cannot exclude a similar pattern.

Another Christian Taliban to help run the US into the ground. Good luck...

My post from 9 days ago.

Deus fuckin' vult, right? :shade:

She's apparently had remarkably little judicial experience (all of it in appeals court), and practiced law for a scant three years. She's an academic who spent sometime clerking before being appointed to the 7th Circuit in 2017. I prefer that Supreme Court Justices have more experience of how the law actually works, and it's impact on actual people.

She's apparently had remarkably little judicial experience (all of it in appeals court), and practiced law for a scant three years. She's an academic who spent sometime clerking before being appointed to the 7th Circuit in 2017. I prefer that Supreme Court Justices have more experience of how the law actually works, and it's impact on actual people. — Ciceronianus the White

None of that matters when the only reason she's on there is because she's a religious nut who's gonna 100% vote against abortion. Everything else is irrelevant. They're gonna rush the filling of one of the most important positions in the country in record time and the American people may have to live with that for decades to come.

She's apparently had remarkably little judicial experience (all of it in appeals court), and practiced law for a scant three years. She's an academic who spent sometime clerking before being appointed to the 7th Circuit in 2017. I prefer that Supreme Court Justices have more experience of how the law actually works, and it's impact on actual people. — Ciceronianus the White

You're just annoyed that she's 10 times smarter than you. :razz:

Let's not kid ourselves that Republicans care about much other than ideological loyalty.

Edit: Or what @Mr Bee said.

Well, there are some other things that impact actual people as well, you see, and she'll be on there for them as well.

I never kid myself, particularly not about the sad politics of our Glorious Union.

It's interesting. Trump's male picks all seem to be spineless, vicious, or both. The females, more a mixed bag. — tim wood

I thought that the appointment of Neil Gorsuch went easily by US standards. I may be wrong...

I argued a case before the 7th Circuit a few years ago. Them Judges ain't so smart.

Let's not kid ourselves that Republicans care about much other than ideological loyalty. — Baden

There you have it, the antithesis of justice. For anyone who seriously wants to look into this topic in depth (law as ideology) there are some superb Marxist resources on it. Marxism is a comprehensive analysis of society and its ideals, one doesn't have to be a Marxist to benefit from its analysis. PM if you want a link. :smile:

Trump's male picks all seem to be spineless, vicious, or both — tim wood

I'm curious about Neil Gorsuch in this regard. Is he really that bad?

For anyone who seriously wants to look into this topic in depth (law as ideology) there are some superb Marxist resources on it. — JerseyFlight

Could you expand your apprehention of law as ideology?

My bad. Gorsuch not so bad. And maybe in few years Kavanaugh may be not-so-bad. I think the gravitas of the court weighs on almost all in a good way and improves all of them. My own in-a-nutshell view is that the conservative of these last 50 years and counting wants to do it, wants it done, his way. The liberal, on the other hand, wants to do it the right way. That gives conservatives an advantage at the start, but justices are around long enough and imo are moved in the direction of trying to figure out the right way. Justices like Scalia and Thomas just got lost on the way.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/supreme-court-pick-trump-amy-coney-barrett-gig-economy-workers

"Just weeks before President Donald Trump reportedly selected her to fill the new Supreme Court vacancy, Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered a ruling that could help corporations evade long-standing laws requiring them to provide overtime pay to their workers.

That ruling was one of a number of cases in which Barrett helped corporate interests prevail over workers. Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies’ power to punish companies that mislead consumers, and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice."

A corporate rat.

Could you expand your apprehention of law as ideology? — Number2018

It's a concept that a power-class can make use of in order to control society. Law gives a class the ability to use violence.

argued a case before the 7th Circuit a few years ago. Them Judges ain't so smart. — Ciceronianus the White

Question: if RBG knew she could affect the make up of the court by retiring earlier, why didn't she? Was it because she didn't want to play politics? The notion that it was because of arrogance makes no sense.

I really don't know, I'm afraid. Many of us (lawyers) have a tendency to practice too long, I think. I saw someone who was an outstanding trial lawyer in his prime make a fool of himself in court when in his 80s, to the dismay of his admirers. Many larger firms put great pressure on older lawyers to retire, fearing malpractice claims. I may die with my boots on, but don't intend to practice after the next few years, just to avoid humiliation (I regularly commit the sin of pride--pridefully, I might add--and so prefer to be remembered as competent).

She may have thought she had more to contribute, and wanted to do so while she could.

"Just weeks before President Donald Trump reportedly selected her to fill the new Supreme Court vacancy, Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered a ruling that could help corporations evade long-standing laws requiring them to provide overtime pay to their workers.

That ruling was one of a number of cases in which Barrett helped corporate interests prevail over workers. Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies’ power to punish companies that mislead consumers, and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice."

A corporate rat. — StreetlightX

And herein lies the problem. You've not presented any argument that her ruling was legally wrong. Assuming the assessment of the Alliance for Justice (an openly liberal organization) is completely accurate, it might well be the case that the law in question was written by Congress to allow corporate interests to prevail over workers, which would mean your ire ought be directed at Congress instead of the judge who accurately interpreted the law.

And now let's assume you take me up on my challenge, and actually go back to her written opinion and cite from points of her legal analysis you find so flawed that no reasonable judge could so rule, how could I ever take that seriously without thinking you're now just trying to justify your previously stated knee jerk disdain for corporations? That is to say, you seem results oriented, less concerned about the legal analysis than in whether your political ideology is advanced. Is that how nominees are to be judged, as to whether their rulings help those you wish to help, instead of whether they are legally accurate?

Question: if RBG knew she could affect the make up of the court by retiring earlier, why didn't she? Was it because she didn't want to play politics? The notion that it was because of arrogance makes no sense. — frank

The reason she provided suggests that she didn't believe a Republican Senate would have approved someone as liberal as she was, so she felt she was protecting a liberal seat. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-why-she-didnt-retire-during-obamas-term-2019-09-19

I think she hoped to make it to a Democratic President and Senate, or, maybe, she just loved going to work every day.

Weirdest of all, the vast majority of Trump supporters are working class and cheer at her nomination.

Weirdest of all, the vast majority of Trump supporters are working class and cheer at her nomination. — praxis

Do you believe that those whose economic position would improve under a Marxist system are logically compelled to believe in the virtue of Marxism? It seems people on both sides are more ideological than that and not entirely concerned about how a particular policy might or might not work to their immediate financial advantage. If that weren't the case, every rich person would be logically compelled to believe in the virtue of laissez-faire capitalism, yet they don't.

I'm just saying that if manipulating the system for political reasons was a high priority for her, she would have retired when Obama had a chance to replace her with a liberal. She was intelligent. She knew her course of action would allow the American electorate have a say regarding her replacement. That's the way it's supposed to work (ideally).

I'm just saying that if manipulating the system for political reasons was a high priority for her, she would have retired when Obama had a chance to replace her with a liberal. She was intelligent. She knew her course of action would allow the American electorate have a say regarding her replacement. That's the way it's supposed to work (ideally). — frank

People are nuanced, complicated, and not entirely consistent in their thinking or actions, so I don't think you can really figure people out that accurately. Why she held on until the undertaker carried her out is going to require some speculation, and it's doubtful she fully knew exactly what drove her.

That is to say, you seem results oriented, less concerned about the legal analysis than in whether your political ideology is advanced. Is that how nominees are to be judged, as to whether their rulings help those you wish to help, instead of whether they are legally accurate? — Hanover

Er, yes. Quite literally fuck the law and all involved in upholding it if it leads to bad outcomes.