[Discussion] Ruth Bader Ginsburg: What Now? or How to stand on the shoulders of a diminutive GIANT.

Discuss her achievements, the consequences of the lack of RBG, and what we are going to do about it.

gewy wrote:

Seeing how Trump is actually doing better among Latino voters now than he was in 2016 despite four years of Stephen Miller-led, blatantly white supremacist immigration policies is not instilling me with much hope in this regard any more.

A recent poll had Trump getting 26% of registered Latino voters. He got 28% of the Latino vote in 2016.

Trump's doing better among Latinos in Florida, which is mainly due to older Cuba-Americans who are susceptible to claim that Biden and Democrats are "socialists" and are likely to vote and younger Latinos who haven't been won over by Biden and are less likely to vote.

Biden's responded by expanding his Florida campaign team, targeting Puerto Ricans, and stepping up visits. Bloomberg's also pledged $100 million to bolster Biden in Florida. We'll see if that effort helps shore up Biden's support among Latinos.

It is important to note that even though Biden's historically underperforming other Democratic candidates among Latinos in Florida, the state is still a toss-up (Biden's up 2 points), which it was with Hillary. If he can move the needle even a little bit among Puerto Ricans it should pay off.

BlackSheep wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

abbreviated for length.

Unfortunately, the US Capitol police, which he oversees don’t have anywhere that they will bring in lawfully subpoenaed individuals to testify in front of Congress; their (and his duty) primarily falls on safeguard and protection of the sitting members of Congress. In fact, I mention the US Marshals because it would be jurisdictionally more appropriate for them to handle serving and arresting those that flaunt the summons whereas, I’m not sure the US Capitol Police have any jurisdictional control outside of DC without having to work with interagency groups.

the Sergeant at Arms is seperate from the capital police. It is an independent law enforcment officer, one for each wing of the legislature, who enforces their will on things like subpoenas. It really is exactly what you described, it always has been, they've just elected not to use it.

Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper Senate page

Your Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives wikipedia

Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate wikipedia

They have jurisdiction anywhere within the US. In fact the one time they've been used to enforce a subpoena, they dragged the guy in from several states away (Cincinnati Ohio to be precise).

thrawn82 wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

abbreviated for length.

Unfortunately, the US Capitol police, which he oversees don’t have anywhere that they will bring in lawfully subpoenaed individuals to testify in front of Congress; their (and his duty) primarily falls on safeguard and protection of the sitting members of Congress. In fact, I mention the US Marshals because it would be jurisdictionally more appropriate for them to handle serving and arresting those that flaunt the summons whereas, I’m not sure the US Capitol Police have any jurisdictional control outside of DC without having to work with interagency groups.

the Sergeant at Arms is seperate from the capital police. It is an independent law enforcment officer, one for each wing of the legislature, who enforces their will on things like subpoenas. It really is exactly what you described, it always has been, they've just elected not to use it.

Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper Senate page

Your Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives wikipedia

Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate wikipedia

They have jurisdiction anywhere within the US. In fact the one time they've been used to enforce a subpoena, they dragged the guy in from several states away (Cincinnati Ohio to be precise).

TIL — thanks

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

As for precedent? Who actually gives a sh*t about stuff like 'precedent'. Most people in this world only care about whether their kids have a better chance at a happy life than they did, and don't give much of a crap about how you get there. Certainly not about abstract thought experiments like 'precedent'.
.

You're quite familiar with abstract thought experiments, so I'm assuming you're also able to recognize that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" isn't one of them. "who actually gives a sh*t" should be all of us, all the time? I'm not sure why that's a point of contention here.

OG_slinger wrote:

A recent poll had Trump getting 26% of registered Latino voters. He got 28% of the Latino vote in 2016.

OK, that's good to know. I suppose it's comforting that Trump's not really doing better among Latinos at large. But no, not really. He should be doing a lot worse than he was in 2016.

Of course this statement applies to all other ethnic groups as well. He should be doing a lot worse.

Amoebic wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

As for precedent? Who actually gives a sh*t about stuff like 'precedent'. Most people in this world only care about whether their kids have a better chance at a happy life than they did, and don't give much of a crap about how you get there. Certainly not about abstract thought experiments like 'precedent'..

You're quite familiar with abstract thought experiments, so I'm assuming you're also able to recognize that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" isn't one of them.

sure--now let's see if we agree on what that past was, and what lessons to draw from it.

"who actually gives a sh*t" should be all of us, all the time? I'm not sure why that's a point of contention here.

It's a point of contention because what I see when I remember the past is that a person will not care about something like 'breaking precedent' if you also give them the power to defend themselves from the people trying to hurt them. They'll find a way to justify a whole lot you do to protect them, and no one will spend any time worrying about the 'norms' you broke if the 'norm' you're talking about is something like the correct reading of some centuries old charter brokered to keep slaveholders happy, around which a political tradition wrestling with white supremacy has taken root.

Are there lengths people won't want you to go to in order to protect them? Sure, sometimes the ends won't justify the means, but if your means are 'packing a court that only looks like it does because their oppressors keep stealing elections so they can fill up that court themselves' people will accept that very, very quickly.

When it comes remembering the past of 'breaking precedent' as far as the practical issue of causing the other side to escalate? When you look at the past, you see times where that is true. You also see times where the other side just laughs, calls you losers and suckers, and uses your unilateral disarmament to trample all over you.

Like I said in my original post: I feel like anyone operating in good faith would be willing to reinstall any 'precedents' once this is all over. Anyone acting in good faith would look at these times and say "yeah, norms are for normal times, and those were not normal times."

Any future Republican Party that won't look back on these times and say "hey, you Democrats went too far, but those were crazy ass times, so let's just start over" is NOT a Republican Party that has learned its lesson, and cannot be trusted with power anyway.

When I look at the past, I see that whether people agree or not has little to do with the accuracy of what I say. It only has to do with how strongly I come down on their side of an issue or not.

One thing I read a few months ago is that Justice Alito and his family may not be too happy in DC and he’d like to retire. I do wonder if he might feel more comfortable retiring in a year or two, even with Biden as President, knowing the Court would still maintain its conservative majority regardless.

That wouldn’t make up for Merrick Garland, but it would at least put things a little more in balance.

gewy wrote:

One thing I read a few months ago is that Justice Alito and his family may not be too happy in DC and he’d like to retire. I do wonder if he might feel more comfortable retiring in a year or two, even with Biden as President, knowing the Court would still maintain its conservative majority regardless.

That wouldn’t make up for Merrick Garland, but it would at least put things a little more in balance.

On the chance that Biden wins and/or the Senate changes hands, he's out during the lame duck session. Maybe even Clarence Thomas, too.

Rat Boy wrote:
gewy wrote:

One thing I read a few months ago is that Justice Alito and his family may not be too happy in DC and he’d like to retire. I do wonder if he might feel more comfortable retiring in a year or two, even with Biden as President, knowing the Court would still maintain its conservative majority regardless.

That wouldn’t make up for Merrick Garland, but it would at least put things a little more in balance.

On the chance that Biden wins and/or the Senate changes hands, he's out during the lame duck session. Maybe even Clarence Thomas, too.

I think this is the more likely scenario.

It'd be pretty brazen if they both left, but I could totally see it.

Or Trump just wins again. Then we'd probably wind up with a 7-2 conservative majority.

Submitted without comment: https://thenib.com/bad-precedent/

OG_slinger wrote:
gewy wrote:

Seeing how Trump is actually doing better among Latino voters now than he was in 2016 despite four years of Stephen Miller-led, blatantly white supremacist immigration policies is not instilling me with much hope in this regard any more.

A recent poll had Trump getting 26% of registered Latino voters. He got 28% of the Latino vote in 2016.

Trump's doing better among Latinos in Florida, which is mainly due to older Cuba-Americans who are susceptible to claim that Biden and Democrats are "socialists" and are likely to vote and younger Latinos who haven't been won over by Biden and are less likely to vote.

Biden's responded by expanding his Florida campaign team, targeting Puerto Ricans, and stepping up visits. Bloomberg's also pledged $100 million to bolster Biden in Florida. We'll see if that effort helps shore up Biden's support among Latinos.

It is important to note that even though Biden's historically underperforming other Democratic candidates among Latinos in Florida, the state is still a toss-up (Biden's up 2 points), which it was with Hillary. If he can move the needle even a little bit among Puerto Ricans it should pay off.

If it turns out during the investigation that Trump stole his term can congress remove or disbar the judges he appoints? I mean if he never held office legitimately he cant appoint judges right?

Drazzil wrote:

If it turns out during the investigation that Trump stole his term can congress remove or disbar the judges he appoints? I mean if he never held office legitimately he cant appoint judges right?

Judges can be impeached.

"Stealing his term" isn't a thing. He was sworn in as President, ergo he's President, with all the powers of the office. And again, the solution you're looking for here would be impeachment, but retroactive impeachment isn't a thing either.

For your enjoyment/illumination/pontification: Radiolab's More Perfect: Sex Appeal (a rebroadcast).

Vrikk wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Romney supports filling the seat.

Of course he does. If you think any of these asshats are not party above country, you haven't been paying attention. They will bitch and complain about feeling "conflicted" a little for the cameras, then they will vote to make sure it still goes on as it should.

I like to call this a "McCain".

Oh gosh and golly gee. I just forgot to write those things down!

I promise it has nothing to do with how I would act as a Supreme Court Judge....

(CNN)Judge Amy Coney Barrett failed to disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing to become the next Supreme Court justice.
Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gave the talks -- a lecture and a seminar -- in 2013 in her capacity as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. The seminar was co-sponsored by the school's Right to Life club and constitutional studies minor, and the lecture was held by the law school's Jus Vitae club. CNN's KFile found advertisements for two lectures on social media and in a weekly Notre Dame faculty newsletter.
It is not known what was said in the two events, though both centered on abortion court cases. In a separate instance, CNN's KFile found a publicized talk that Barrett gave to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- a seminar Barrett disclosed in her Senate paperwork -- was removed by the university from YouTube in 2014. A school spokesman told CNN the video is now lost.

She also forgot to mention she signed her name to a newspaper ad that called Roe v. Wade 'barbaric', said discarding IVF embryos should be criminalized, and the authors "oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...

She wrote a law review article when she was younger that Catholics judges should recuse themselves from cases where their religion conflicts with the law and has refused to do so herself.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/v...

What a hack.

Mixolyde wrote:

She also forgot to mention she signed her name to a newspaper ad that called Roe v. Wade 'barbaric', said discarding IVF embryos should be criminalized, and the authors "oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...

She wrote a law review article when she was younger that Catholics judges should recuse themselves from cases where their religion conflicts with the law and has refused to do so herself.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/v...

What a hack.

We all know this already, but that's a feature not a bug.

So essentially- Barrett is going to attend these hearings, plead the fifth, and be given a position for life where she can then rule on all of the things that she refused to discuss during the hearings.

IMAGE(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Great-Fire-of-Rome-Featured.jpg)

I'm sitting here peacefully watching the Today show. They cut in to Lindsey Graham's opening statement, where he's bashing ACA, nothing to do with an actual question. He opens with how democratic states take more of the money... except that's because republican led states have rejected the money. Same old sh*t. GOP breaks things then points to them and claims the democrats broke them. What an asshole. Can't wait to see him voted out next month.

I saw a couple mins of that also. Graham says "We on our side don't believe Obamacare is good" - yet they have done zip in the last 10 years to make it better or put their own plan up for consideration.

Stele wrote:

I'm sitting here peacefully watching the Today show. They cut in to Lindsey Graham's opening statement, where he's bashing ACA, nothing to do with an actual question. He opens with how democratic states take more of the money... except that's because republican led states have rejected the money. Same old sh*t. GOP breaks things then points to them and claims the democrats broke them. What an asshole. Can't wait to see him voted out next month.

Don't watch them. We know how this will go. It's like clockwork.

GOP will complain about Deep State or other Trump talking points, and Barrett will get confirmed no matter what.

It's a done deal. They are going down with the ship, and I hope they suffer for it personally forever.

Graham is a pathetic excuse of a human.

Yeah. Don’t watch them. They can and will take a lot form us. You don’t have to voluntarily give them your attention unless necessary.

Here's the part that I just don't understand with the so called "constitutional originalists"

On the constitution:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote:

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.

That thought process, to me, is so incredibly backwards and ignorant. There are so many things that didn't exist when the constitution was written. So if she truly follows that approach, she supports slavery or at the very least thinking that some people are more valuable than others.

JC wrote:

Here's the part that I just don't understand with the so called "constitutional originalists"

On the constitution:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote:

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.

That thought process, to me, is so incredibly backwards and ignorant. There are so many things that didn't exist when the constitution was written. So if she truly follows that approach, she supports slavery or at the very least thinking that some people are more valuable than others.

It doesn't make sense because its not supposed to make sense. It isn't an internally consistent philosophy and was never intended to be. It is a pretext to back-justify reaching a predetermined ideological outcome. Analyzing it as anything else inevitably leads to nonsensical results because the analysis it is based on faulty assumptions

JC wrote:

So if she truly follows that approach, she supports slavery or at the very least thinking that some people are more valuable than others.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/WFg3gPf.png)

If she's truly an Originalist then she should immediately walk away from her nomination because the Founding Fathers were also pretty explicit in that only white, land-owning men should have any say in government.

OG_slinger wrote:
JC wrote:

So if she truly follows that approach, she supports slavery or at the very least thinking that some people are more valuable than others.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/WFg3gPf.png)

Holy hell. We're well and truly F'd with her.

OG_slinger wrote:

If she's truly an Originalist then she should immediately walk away from her nomination because the Founding Fathers were also pretty explicit in that only white, land-owning men should have any say in government.

Why doesn't anyone ask this question?!!!!

Another pertinent Radiolab Episode (rebroadcast): "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer"

thrawn82 wrote:
JC wrote:

Here's the part that I just don't understand with the so called "constitutional originalists"

On the constitution:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote:

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.

That thought process, to me, is so incredibly backwards and ignorant. There are so many things that didn't exist when the constitution was written. So if she truly follows that approach, she supports slavery or at the very least thinking that some people are more valuable than others.

It doesn't make sense because its not supposed to make sense. It isn't an internally consistent philosophy and was never intended to be. It is a pretext to back-justify reaching a predetermined ideological outcome. Analyzing it as anything else inevitably leads to nonsensical results because the analysis it is based on faulty assumptions

Exactly. See: The incoherence of Scalia, where she did her internship.

dejanzie wrote:

Exactly. See: The incoherence of Scalia, where she did her internship.

Great article, thanks for sharing. Definitely reinforces the fact that Scalia was a not so great person. Also raises the concern level about Barrett being one of his minions.

It is true, as Scalia and Garner say, that statutory text is not inherently liberal or inherently conservative; it can be either, depending on who wrote it. Their premise is correct, but their conclusion does not follow: text as such may be politically neutral, but textualism is conservative.

And this is concerning...

According to William Blackstone, whom Scalia and Garner treat as an authority on American law at the time of the Constitution, freedom of speech forbids censorship in the sense of prohibiting speech in advance, but does not prohibit punishment after the fact of speech determined by a jury to be blasphemous, obscene, or seditious. And so an understanding of free speech that embraces flag burning is exceedingly unoriginalist. It is the product of freewheeling Supreme Court decisions within the last century.
OMITTING CONTRARY evidence turns out to be Scalia and Garner’s favorite rhetorical device. Repeatedly they cite cases (both state and federal) as exemplars either of textual originalism or of a disreputable rejection of it, while ignoring critical passages that show the judges neither ignoring text nor tethered to textual originalism.
A problem that undermines their entire approach is the authors’ lack of a consistent commitment to textual originalism. They endorse fifty-seven “canons of construction,” or interpretive principles, and in their variety and frequent ambiguity these “canons” provide them with all the room needed to generate the outcome that favors Justice Scalia’s strongly felt views on such matters as abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, states’ rights, the death penalty, and guns.

By far my favorite line

Judges are not competent historians.