Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 27, 2020

Like many other liberals, I'm devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I'm revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's willingness to confirm Trump's nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

It would be nave to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

Yep.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-27 10:40 PM | Reply

"It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments"

Scalia said that was -------- and decided bad faith arguments born of politics should carry the day.

We're better off with his kind off the bench.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-27 10:43 PM | Reply

"Compared To Merrick Garland, Amy Coney Barrett Does Not Deserve to Be on the Supreme Court"

Edited for historical context.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-27 10:46 PM | Reply

I've done everything I can to chum the waters, short of throw Leon Klinghoffer overboard.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-27 11:16 PM | Reply

"It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation."

Do you believe ACB points us in that direction, or the opposite direction?

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-27 11:25 PM | Reply

She's nutjob,wants a theocracy,was tuteluged by Scalia in the arts of bad faith rulings,and is not qualified to be a supreme judge. We can do better. She will always be seen as partisan and illegitimate by half the country and this will weaken the standing of the court.

In short,she should not be confirmed. If she is it will weaken the judicial branch.

#6 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-09-28 01:33 AM | Reply

In short,she should not be confirmed.

She pretty much already has been.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-09-28 08:48 AM | Reply

Praying dems take senate and WH and stack them courts... why not, republicans have proved they play politics as anything goes.

#8 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-09-28 09:40 AM | Reply

She doesn't "deserve" sqaut. That headline also reeks of hyperbole.

Garland deserved a fair chance. Because of what the Republicans did to him and to Obama Barrett doesn't "deserve" a damn thing.

This is all out war at this point, and I'm up for it.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-28 09:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Garland deserved a fair chance. Because of what the Republicans did to him and to Obama Barrett doesn't "deserve" a damn thing.

#9 | Posted by YAV

Agreed. And if the lady were ethical she'd say thanks but no thanks to Trump.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2020-09-28 10:26 AM | Reply

When you listen to her words from 2016 Merrick Garland appointment she doesn't deserve to be confirmed.

"First, discussing Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 " an election year, by the way " Barrett first insisted that one of the issues at hand is the idea that Scalia, an arch conservative, should be replaced by another conservative instead of a moderate liberal like Garland. "Kennedy is a moderate Republican and he replaced a moderate Republican. We're talking about Justice Scalia, one of the staunchest conservatives on the court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court. It's not a lateral move," Barrett said."

#11 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-09-28 11:07 AM | Reply

#11 "When you listen to her words from 2016 Merrick Garland appointment she doesn't deserve to be confirmed."

Judging by her own argument and standards, no, she does not. Here's the video of her making those comments:

Trump #SCOTUS front-runner Amy Coney Barrett, when asked whether Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year, said it's inappropriate when it would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

twitter.com

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-28 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see Mao's a passive-aggressive assflager.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-28 11:45 AM | Reply

"Amy Coney Barrett ... said it's inappropriate when it would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

I hope someone asks her the exact date and time when that changed.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-28 11:49 AM | Reply

I see Mao's a passive-aggressive assflager

Hell, I thought it was funny.

The Commander Cody Generation is ready to put that grey hair in a pony-tail and go to war!

#15 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-28 11:52 AM | Reply

I actually shave my head.

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-28 12:51 PM | Reply

I hope someone asks her the exact date and time when that changed.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-28 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

One minute after Ruth died.

#17 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-09-28 03:41 PM | Reply

"Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."

Does it mean she is entitled? No.

Many others are qualified, too.

It is obviously unheard of and anti democratic to nominate her while votes are being cast in a presidential election.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-09-28 06:08 PM | Reply

#18 - so TRUE. People are voting - NOW!

#19 | Posted by YAV at 2020-09-28 09:46 PM | Reply

Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court

I don't believe "Deserves" is the correct term for the headline. As the current POTUS nominee, Barrett deserves to go through the process by which Supreme Court Justices are selected. IF she clears that process, she deserves to be seated.

Make no mistake. I DO NOT agree with almost anything this woman stands for. But she is the qualified nominee.

IMO, the Justice who DOES NOT deserve to sit on the bench, the most illegitimate Justice of our time, is Neil Gorsuch. With almost a year until the election would take place in 2016, as a legitimate nominee, Merrick Garland at least deserved the chance at moving through the selection process.

Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy on full display now, the most egregious wrong was committed when Obama's nominee was held up in 2016.

Mitch McConnell does not deserve to be a Senator. I hope the people of Kentucky will clear that up this fall.

Another note to the timing of all of this. RGB had already been sick early in Obama's Presidency. She probably should have retired about 2014 and let Obama pick her successor. Sad to say, but she certainly had some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in the present.

#20 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-09-29 12:12 PM | Reply

Trump #SCOTUS front-runner Amy Coney Barrett, when asked whether Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year, said it's inappropriate when it would "dramatically flip the balance of power." - #12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-28 11:43 AM

Nowhere in that quote did she say it was inappropriate. She very clearly was explaining what the arguments would be, you can tell that because if you'd bothered to watch the clip she begins with 'The arguments will be...' She was making a factual statement that there was going to be a replacement of a staunch conservative with a more liberal judge.

Your source lied with their 'said it's inappropriate' statement (or at least made the statement absent any evidence). It seems you are pushing that misinformation out to the rest of us because you didn't bother to check the source you're quoting.

#21 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 02:50 PM | Reply

Judging by her own argument and standards, no, she does not. - #12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-28 11:43 AM

Oh, it seems I judged you too quickly. You aren't pushing someone else's misinformation, it seems like you're actively lying about it. She did not make an argument against Obama making a nomination in the link you provided, she explained what the arguments were going to be. Do you have any evidence of her behaving in the way that you've claimed?

#22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 02:53 PM | Reply

"Amy Coney Barrett ... said it's inappropriate when it would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

I hope someone asks her the exact date and time when that changed.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-28 11:49 AM
I'd love to see evidence that it actually happened.

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 02:55 PM | Reply

She deserves to be on the gallows.

#24 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2020-09-29 02:58 PM | Reply

"I'd love to see evidence that it actually happened."

Why wouldn't accepting the nomination, instead of reiterating her position, count?

If someone says red should never be worn to a funeral, and then wears red to a funeral, it's stupid to pretend her view didn't change.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-29 03:04 PM | Reply

I look forward to finally having a mother of school-aged kids on the SC. It's about time that we've moved past when women had to choose either a career or a family. I appreciate that having such active evidence on the highest court of the land will provide an amazing example to all Americans going forward, especially our daughters.

#26 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:04 PM | Reply

If someone says red should never be worn to a funeral, and then wears red to a funeral, it's stupid to pretend her view didn't change. - #25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-29 03:04 PM
I haven't seen evidence that she said red should never be worn at a funeral (The bolded part of the statement you made). What I've seen is someone on twitter saying 'She said red should never be worn at a funeral and now she's considering wearing red' then provided a link of her NOT saying that red should never be worn at a funeral. What's stupid is to pretend that you know her view without actually experiencing he stating that view.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:07 PM | Reply

"She probably should have retired about 2014 and let Obama pick her successor."

The GOP would have just started blocking his nominees earlier.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-29 03:11 PM | Reply

"I look forward to finally having a mother of school-aged kids on the SC."

^
Identity politics writ in large crayon.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-29 03:12 PM | Reply

Here's the whole interview that the original tweeter and then Gal_Tuesday are misinforming you about. You're welcome to watch all 6 minutes of it and try to find that part where she said it's inappropriate.
www.youtube.com

"So I think in sum, the President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the right to act or not, and I don't think either one of them can claim that there's a rule governing one way or the other." (4:11) "It shouldn't be a surprise that the Senate is willing to push a President's nominees through, in an election year, when they share the same political affiliation."

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:14 PM | Reply

#27

Great...First, let's pretend we're all stupid...

Remember when she said it was still "inappropriate" while refusing the nomination? No one else does either.

Clearly, the fact she accepted the nomination means she now believes it's appropriate.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-29 03:14 PM | Reply

There's even been article written debunking the lie that Gal_Tuesday has made and you're propagating:

No, she didn't say it would be inappropriate to fill the kind of seat she might soon be nominated to.
www.washingtonpost.com

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:20 PM | Reply

Clearly, the fact she accepted the nomination means she now believes it's appropriate.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-29 03:14 PM
She never said it was inappropriate.

If someone says ' #25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-29 03:04 PM
They didn't.

I hope someone asks her the exact date and time when that changed. - #14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-28 11:49 AM |
Nothing changed. How can there be a date/time, then?

First, let's pretend we're all stupid...
You seem to have stopped pretending on this subject.

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:23 PM | Reply

"It shouldn't be a surprise that the Senate is willing to push a President's nominees through, in an election year, when they share the same political affiliation."

Well at least she's smart enough to know it shouldn't be a surprise that Mitch Mitch McConnell lied...

Which means she thinks it's okay for her to get the job even after HR rejected other candidates because of their political views. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if she's ruled as much as a judge...

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-29 03:23 PM | Reply

It seems you are pushing that misinformation out to the rest of us because you didn't bother to check the source you're quoting.

#21 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

It seems you're playing semantics games because you can't rationalize the gross, multi-layered hypocrisy being exhibited by the GOP.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-29 03:32 PM | Reply

Do you have any evidence of her behaving in the way that you've claimed?

#22 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Her acceptance of the nomination is evidence of her behaving the way that was claimed.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-29 03:33 PM | Reply

So, Amy chose her words more carefully than the other liars and hypocrites like Mitch and Lindsay et al. Her nomination may be forever tainted by Trump's corruption and malfeasance, but she won't care as long as she gets her lifetime appointment.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-29 03:33 PM | Reply

How about you do a better job of choosing your words more carefully than the other liars?

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:39 PM | Reply

I didn't lie. I reposted something I thought was accurate.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-09-29 03:46 PM | Reply

@ Gal_Tuesday
You falsely claimed that the link you provided was her argument in order to make a politically motivated statement. In the days of Trump's thousands of lies...that's a lie.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-29 03:50 PM | Reply

"Another piece (with late Notre Dame colleague John Copeland Nagle) on how members of Congress should incorporate the original meaning of the Constitution into their votes has raised the eyebrows of some commentators, because it begins by noting that there are originalist arguments (which the paper itself does not accept, except for the sake of argument) to think that West Virginia was invalidly admitted as a state; that the 14th Amendment wasn't properly ratified; and that paper money is unconstitutional, among other surprising conclusions."

www.vox.com

She is a radical consrvative who is a threat to the freedom and citizenship of millions of Americans. Totally unqualified for the SC and truly a terrible choice for the court. African Americans and Hispanics should be in the streets dramatically objecting to this bigot being placed on the court.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-30 06:02 AM | Reply

It shold also be alarming that Donald Trump actually said he wanted her on the court so she could rule on any challenge of his own to a defeat in the election.

"Trump argues his nominee needed on Supreme Court in time to vote on election legal challenges"

abcnews.go.com

She is basically a political appointee there to rule in his favor during any challenge no matter how specious. You could call her an Ace in the hole. Crooked beyond belief and that she welcome the appointment it cast huge doubt on her character.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-30 07:42 AM | Reply

"Why Trump's expected Supreme Court nominee believes all Civil Rights legislation is illegitimate'"

"Amy Coney Barrett regards herself as an "originalist," that is, someone who believes that all legal decisions must be based on the "original understanding" of the Constitution. This is often put forward as a straightforward, consistent lens through which law can be viewed, rather than trying to put into context little things like shifting views on race and gender equality. However, originalism is further complicated by a split between groups focused on "intent" and those focused on "meaning." And if you think those are the same things ... well, you're just wrong. Intentionalists believe the law is determined by what the original authors of the Constitution intended when they took quill to parchment. Those focused on meaning insist that they support the "public meaning" of the words at the time they were written. People who, like Barrett, belong to the later group, insist that their interpretation is more consistent.

In fact, both approaches require jurists to peer into the minds of 18th-century Americans, interpreting words, attitudes, and relationships that have shifted enormously over two and a half centuries. In short, any claim that the nation can be properly governed by divining the inner monologue of wig-wearing slaveholders not only makes about as much sense as using the plans for a Conestoga wagon as the repair manual on the Space Shuttle, it's also just plain --------."

dailysoundandfury.com

These "originalists" want to negate Amendments as if they weren't allowed under the original doucment. They are simply wrong and the woman will do grave damage to our nation if confirmed.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2020-09-30 08:03 AM | Reply

dailysoundandfury.com

These "originalists" want to negate Amendments as if they weren't allowed under the original doucment. They are simply wrong and the woman will do grave damage to our nation if confirmed.
#43 | Posted by danni

You bought Summer's conclusion hook, line and sinker. Too bad he, and ostensibly you, fails to comprehend the law review, titled CONGRESSIONAL ORIGINALISM, which he cites in his article. Barret expressly rejects Summer's conclusion.

Members of Congress are differently situated. While the stylized process of adjudication narrows the questions presented to the Court, in Congress the question of a measure's constitutionality is always on the table. And because framing constraints do not narrow the relevant and permissible grounds of decision as they do in litigation, evaluating a bill's constitutionality arguably requires analysis of every possible constitutional flaw. That could put the originalist legislator in a bind. After all, if the legislator owes allegiance to the original public meaning, it is not obvious why the legislator need not ensure that a bill complies with that meaning in every respect. Because the kinds of procedural outs that permit originalism and deep-seated error to coexist in courts are not as readily apparent in the legislative context, the originalist legislator might have to face questions that an originalist justice can escape"such as the constitutionality of the administrative state or the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, broad-brush arguments about the obligation imposed by the legislator's oath of office, combined with the originalist emphasis on the preeminence of the text's original meaning, strongly suggest that a member of Congress must do just that.

We think that is wrong. Part III contends that it misinterprets the duty of fidelity to the text to maintain that Congress (or any individual member) must strip every constitutional question down to the studs. [Emphasis added.]


Barret makes no argument that the Fourteenth Amendment is "illegitimate" although she cites others who do then she meticulously and persuasively explains how deciding that question is both impractical and unnecessary.

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-30 07:20 PM | Reply

I dispute that she is "highly qualified" to be on the Supreme Court.

She has spent the following lengths of time in various positions throughout her legal career:
-2 years as a law clerk
-3 years in private practice
-15 years as a law professor
-3 years as an appellate judge

An admirable career, to be sure, but really not comparable to most other SC Justices. She has spent 65% of her career in an academic setting. Helpful, but I'd rather see someone with more judicial and/or high-level litigation experience.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-30 07:25 PM | Reply

Originalism is nothing more than thinking the Air Force is unconstitutional because it's not enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.

A better example would be NASA, and how Ron Paul snubbed their offer to take a tour and see where his highly paid constituents are sucking the government teat, since NASA shouldn't even exist, per Article 1 Section 8.

Within the definition of Conservatism as "resistance to change" it serves to justify any and all resistance.

You'll never, ever, ever get an Origivalist to acknowledge that abortion was legal in every State of the Union, and the Founders did nothing to change that, so therefore the right to abortion is the original intent of the Founders.

But who knows, maybe Et_Al will surprise us!

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-30 07:32 PM | Reply

"Helpful, but I'd rather see someone with more judicial and/or high-level litigation experience."

Kavanaugh is the same way; a paper tiger.
He literally never tried a case, as I recall.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-30 07:34 PM | Reply

She is a radical consrvative [sic] who is a threat to the freedom and citizenship of millions of Americans. Totally unqualified for the SC and truly a terrible choice for the court.

Why, because she does not accept, except for theoretical argument purposes, that "West Virginia was invalidly admitted as a state; that the 14th Amendment wasn't properly ratified; and that paper money is unconstitutional, among other surprising conclusions."

She is basically a political appointee there to rule in his favor during any challenge no matter how specious.

A president's subjective expectations about a nominee are not always fulfilled by that nominee. See H. W. Bush's expectations about Justice Souter.

#48 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-30 07:40 PM | Reply

"except for theoretical argument purposes"

You're trying to dismiss them as merely theoretical?

Theoretical arguments such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater define the boundaries of our rights, Et_Al.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-30 07:49 PM | Reply

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about governance. They say nothing directly about abortion (or any other social issue) and virtually nothing indirectly. See Powell's ramblings about the Constitution in Roe. As such, the existence of abortion at common law was committed to the states via the Tenth Amendment some of whom legislated against it.

I'm not dismissing anything. I paraphrased an author of an article that's in part about a law review Barrett co-authored where she did not accept the quoted arguments of others.

Oh, it's "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater." Seems like a reasonable boundary to me.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2020-09-30 08:12 PM | Reply

"abortion at common law was committed to the states via the Tenth Amendment some of whom legislated against it."

Not even a comma, or the word "later," between the adoption of the Constitution, and the first State level ban on abortion a century later...

Does an Originalist (or any other) reading of the Constitution find a Federal basis to deny the right to abortion?

If so, where?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-30 08:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort