Barrett Confirmation Hearings

[PsyOps]

I'm lucky enough to have the day off on a rainy day to sit and watch the first day. My take so far:

Democrats, as usual, got the memo - find (or make up - who knows how true they are) examples where the ACA has saved a life. In other words, jerk at the heartstrings of the American people. Call out past republicans' words on nominating a justice during a election year. Essentially, they are talking to the American people and doing so very effectively.

Republicans, as usual, are talking about past cases that have no relevance or meaning to the American people. They're ignoring past comments democrats have made about election-year nominations. Essentially, they are failing to make a strong case for why this nomination is not only constitutional, but necessary.

If this is going to be the tone of the confirmation process, republicans will look like, as usual, the weak-kneed legislative body they are.

 

[Kyle]

who has the more annoying voice? Maisie or Spartacus?

 

[PsyOps]

I turned them on, then turned them off to watch House of Cards instead which coincidently is at the part where Underwood is urging someone to accept his nomination/recommendation for the Supreme Court.

I've been thinking about this off and on for the last few days and have the dumbest question in the world. Judges judge - they're supposed to be impartial and findings based on facts. Prejudices, opinions aren't supposed to matter if you're being impartial right? So are justices different from judges?

The major difference between say a criminal judge vs. justice judge is, criminal judges make decisions based on the evidence against a defendant and how that evidence applies to existing law. A justice judge makes decisions on issues based on arguments brought before them measured against the constitution.

I honestly don't know how anyone makes decisions that don't include their personal opinions and experiences in life. Something like abortion doesn't have a specific mention in the constitution, so interpretation of what is meant by the 14th amendment as it applies to government telling a woman what she can and cannot do in regards to her own body, and whether you view the fetus as a life deserving of the same rights. Obviously the court decided the woman's decision takes precedence over the life of the human fetus.

Interpreting the constitution, where issues become ambiguous in how the constitution addresses these issues, is a very difficult thing where a justice's personal opinion/interpretation can't be omitted.

 

[Merlin99]

I honestly don't know how anyone makes decisions that don't include their personal opinions and experiences in life. Something like abortion doesn't have a specific mention in the constitution, so interpretation of what is meant by the 14th amendment as it applies to government telling a woman what she can and cannot do in regards to her own body, and whether you view the fetus as a life deserving of the same rights. Obviously the court decided the woman's decision takes precedence over the life of the human fetus.

Interpreting the constitution, where issues become ambiguous in how the constitution addresses these issues, is a very difficult thing where a justice's personal opinion/interpretation can't be omitted.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor

 

[PsyOps]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor

For a justice to make such a statement - not dismissing the core message - about race, is irresponsible. A white, black, name-your-race-or-culture... making judicial decisions should always be devoid of the race, gender, or creed of the subject.

That being said... whether it's a man or woman justice, they should never attempt to conclude what's best for that woman or man in making their personal decisions. Justices are required to be agnostic to the race or sex of the people a certain issue might affect.

 

[SamSpade]

I honestly don't know how anyone makes decisions that don't include their personal opinions and experiences in life.

I can. When I was in high school debate - I realize a VERY long time ago, but I've learned the lesson since - VERY OFTEN I was called upon to either defeat a motion I supported or promote a case that I was personally against. I had a case for the decriminalization of marijuana - at least at the time something I was much against - and I won EVERY SINGLE TIME. The point was not to passionately expound on your personal feelings or principles, which most of the time in debate - or a court - mean bupkis. You present your case based on facts and evidence. And I DID manage to eke out wins by some clever cross examination and word games. I won. That was the point.

Much is criticized of Lincoln in his Greeley letter - he did not set out in the Civil War to free the slaves - he set out to save the Union. He later freed the slaves largely as a political ploy. Hence his remarks that if he could save the Union by freeing them or not freeing them - he would have done so.

By this idiots who don't know history suggest he was supportive of slavery - a man who spent his LIFE arguing against it. Read the Lincoln Douglass debates - he hated slavery. But it was NOT HIS JOB TO FORCE THE ISSUE ON THE NATION. It was his intent that slavery would end when America wanted it to end. Yes, he was quite prejudicial against blacks - that wasn't terribly uncommon even among abolitionists. But he kept his PERSONAL hatred of slavery away from his job to save the country. He was President, not Emperor.

 

[PsyOps]

I can. When I was in high school debate - I realize a VERY long time ago, but I've learned the lesson since - VERY OFTEN I was called upon to either defeat a motion I supported or promote a case that I was personally against. I had a case for the decriminalization of marijuana - at least at the time something I was much against - and I won EVERY SINGLE TIME. The point was not to passionately expound on your personal feelings or principles, which most of the time in debate - or a court - mean bupkis. You present your case based on facts and evidence. And I DID manage to eke out wins by some clever cross examination and word games. I won. That was the point.

Well, it's easy to argue for or against a fictitious subject, where your principles aren't required. But, try that with a real-world issue that you know actually impacts real people, and you have to argument for or against that based on applied principles.

Much is criticized of Lincoln in his Greeley letter - he did not set out in the Civil War to free the slaves - he set out to save the Union. He later freed the slaves largely as a political ploy. Hence his remarks that if he could save the Union by freeing them or not freeing them - he would have done so.

By this idiots who don't know history suggest he was supportive of slavery - a man who spent his LIFE arguing against it. Read the Lincoln Douglass debates - he hated slavery. But it was NOT HIS JOB TO FORCE THE ISSUE ON THE NATION. It was his intent that slavery would end when America wanted it to end. Yes, he was quite prejudicial against blacks - that wasn't terribly uncommon even among abolitionists. But he kept his PERSONAL hatred of slavery away from his job to save the country. He was President, not Emperor.

I'm not sure I completely agree Lincolns freeing the slaves was a ploy. Anyone who has read the Lincoln-Greeley letter knows, though, that Lincolns primary goal was to save the union regardless of the status of slavery. But, I believe he would have - and did - ultimately freed the slaves. But, his stance was a principled one rooted in his own beliefs about the union.

The bottom line for me is, if you are going to be in a position of authority, where you can institute law that affects all of your constituents, it all begins with your own personal thoughts and principles rooted in certain moral standards you grew up learning. Religion is one of those things that instill those principles and moral standards. You get put into these positions by expressing who you are, your personal thoughts on issues, and what things got you there.

Biden is a good example of someone that acts more on where he believes people are - whichever way the wind blows - rather than having actual personal principles to guide him. Rand Paul is an example of a principled man, who - no matter how unpopular - sticks to his stance on an issue.

 

[SamSpade]

Well, it's easy to argue for or against a fictitious subject, where your principles aren't required. But, try that with a real-world issue that you know actually impacts real people, and you have to argument for or against that based on applied principles.

If they'd had a resolution regarding abortion - on which I have strong feelings - I could still have done it. Again, debate then was a competition - it was not impassioned speaking on the part of an issue. Admttedly if I had won every debate regarding abortion it would not have influenced anything in the world - but I GET how you can rule based on the law. I am sure many guilty men have gone free based on the law because the case against them wasn't based on good arguments, evidence or legal procedures (such as a forced confession or illegally obtained evidence).

I'm sure many judges hit the gavel and set them free, knowing that the law didn't get them this time.

We DO however have judges who are so damned corrupt, they insist on pursuing guilt even after cases are dismissed or charges dropped.

 

[PsyOps]

That's what I would want in a Supreme Court Justice is someone who makes their decision based on the arguments and not what side of the fence they vote on. It seems to me that both parties make it obvious that their agenda comes before the constitution. I don't know anything about Barrett or really anything about any of them but who's to say which way they're going to lean once they get on the bench. Every now and then I hear people gripe about Roberts (I think) they he doesn't do what the party wants him to do - that should have never been the reason for any of them to be put on the bench. At least in my opinion.

This gets back to my original point that, as impartial as we might want our justices to be, it's just impossible for anyone to cast aside their personal principles when making decisions like this. I mean, how does one justice fall on one side of an issue while another falls on the opposite side, both looking at the same arguments and constitution?

 

[Kyle]

I mean, how does one justice fall on one side of an issue while another falls on the opposite side, both looking at the same arguments and constitution?

Because they "interpret" the document instead of reading the clear "text" and "intent" of each clause and following the law.

The constitution wasn't written in secret code, as much as politicians and judges would like you to believe it was.

 

[GURPS]

The constitution wasn't written in secret code, as much as politicians and judges would like you to believe it was.

yeah they love to twist the 2nd Amendment ..... like

... shall not be infringed ...


is difficult to understand apparently

 

[PsyOps]

Because they "interpret" the document instead of reading the clear "text" and "intent" of each clause and following the law.

The constitution wasn't written in secret code, as much as politicians and judges would like you to believe it was.

Merriam-Webster defined "interpret" as: "to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance."

While I think it's a stretch, I can see how the 14th amendment can be interpreted to cover woman and their right to an abortion under the "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" clause, if you're desperate to find a way to make abortion legal. The deprivation of life, liberty, and property covers a broad spectrum of issues, that allows for interpreting it for very rare cases.

The 2nd amendment, to me, is cut and dry. It talks about a very specific thing - arms. It's very specific about what Americans are allowed to do regarding arms - keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying). There are no exceptions or limits placed on this. It has not been amended to limit what arms we can and cannot own and carry. Therefore, there is no ambiguity about it - banning ownership and carrying of any arm is unconstitutional. Yet, we have allowed and accepted certain, if not most, firearms to be banned through some foul interpretation of 2A.

In the end, while the law/constitution is firmly what it is, we are dealing with people that have strong opinions about things, which naturally causes the constitution to weaken in favor of these strong opinions.