Amy Coney Barrett: Adding a Handmaid to SCOTUS

[GreyhoundFan]

40 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Stupid question: do votes have to be cast in person, or can they be made virtually?

I believe the senate requires in person.  From earlier this year.

[Marmion]

In answer to your question , @JMarie , here is an article I just found .     https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-to-vote-remotely-amid-coronavirus-dont-count-on-it/#app  

Edited October 7, 2020 by Marmion

[JMarie]

13 minutes ago, Marmion said:

In answer to your question , @JMarie , here is an article I just found .     https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-to-vote-remotely-amid-coronavirus-dont-count-on-it/#app  

Thanks!

[WiseGirl]

I don't know how to link a whole thread but here is the last one from Chris Murphy and what the Handmaid will do to the 2nd Ammendment. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I can't bring myself to watch Comey Barrett's hearings live, but I love Pete's reaction to her opening statement that was released ahead of time:

 

[Marmion]

Quote

When Donald Trump’s latest supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, arrives before the Senate judiciary committee for her confirmation hearings on Monday, Democrats will be out to raise an alarm that Barrett could help strike down the Affordable Care Act in the very first case she hears.

But in the weeks leading up to the hearings, Republicans have been out for something else entirely: a holy war.

The future of the supreme court hinges on the Barrett hearings. But the hearings will be backgrounded by a political fight over religion that is potentially as important as the question of whether Barrett replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late liberal justice, on the court.

If Republicans can make it look like Democrats are attacking Barrett, a conservative Catholic, for her religious views, they believe, that could stir enough political anger to rescue a couple of tight Senate races in the elections on 3 November – and potentially save the teetering Republican Senate majority.

Democrats hope to defeat the Barrett nomination on the merits.

But they also hope to take control of the Senate next month, claim the White House, and then pass a bulwark of laws on key issues – healthcare, reproductive rights, marriage equality, voting rights, the climate emergency – to withstand what could be decades of tendentious rulings by a supreme court with as many as three Trump-appointed justices on it.

The current Senate judiciary committee chair, Lindsey Graham, who happens to be among the most endangered Republican incumbents,explained the Republican strategy last month on Fox News, saying Democratic protests over credible sexual assault allegations against Trump’s supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh helped Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.

“Kavanaugh really did help Republicans pick up Senate seats because they went too far,” Graham said.

In a transparent attempt to whip up a comparable spectacle around the Barrett nomination, Senate Republicans have produced an ominous videofeaturing tense footage from the Kavanaugh hearings and accusing Democrats of a “radical power plot” to attack Barrett over her religious beliefs.

But prominent Democrats have urged a minimum of pageantry during the Barrett hearings and a focus on Barrett’s views on the healthcare law, abortion, same-sex marriage and other issues.

“It is going to be really important to not give Lindsey Graham and the rest of the Republicans a moment of righteous vindication over a circus-like atmosphere,” the former Democratic senator Claire McCaskill said on a popular politics podcast this week.

“So I just think this is one of those times when some of our most passionate supporters that are so angry on behalf of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that they’ve got to realize that there is a better way than flooding the halls with women in handmaid costumes.”

To protest against the Barrett nomination earlier this month, activists stood outside the supreme court wearing red robes and white bonnets, recognizable from the TV series based on the Margaret Atwood novel of female subjugation, The Handmaid’s Tale.

Democrats should focus on the threat posed to healthcare by Barrett, who in 2017 published a critique of Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act, said Ben Jealous, president of the progressive People for the American Way group. On 10 November, just one week after the election, the supreme court is scheduled to hear a separate case that could vacate the law.

“The confirmation hearings have to be all about what the nomination is about: destroying healthcare for millions of Americans,” Jealous said. “Anybody who wants to make this about a nominee’s personality, or even the life they’ve lived so far, is missing the point.”

Democrats on the committee acknowledge they do not currently have the votes to stop the nomination from moving forward, and Senator Cory Booker said last week that procedural stalling measures would not work – because the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, could merely change the rules to keep the nomination on track.

Progressives must not write off the Ginsburg seat as lost, however, said Neil Sroka of the progressive Democracy for America group.  "  

America elected Democrats to fight for a bolder progressive vision for the future of the country,” he said. “And sometimes fighting means taking on difficult battles even if you’re not sure if it’s possible that you can win.”

Sroka said it was “appalling” and “laughable” that after having stood behind Trump’s Muslim bans, Republicans would accuse Democrats of elevating religious prejudice.

“Religious tests have no place in public life, and Democrats are the one party in the country right now that have been consistent on that,” Sroka said.

Throughout the Trump presidency, McConnell has prioritized the confirmation of conservative judges. But the measures he has taken to confirm Barrett in what could be the waning days of the Trump administration, which to movement conservatives would represent the culmination of a decades-long design on the supreme court, were seen as extraordinary even for him.

All other business in the Senate has adjourned for two weeks over health concerns following an outbreak on Capitol Hill of Covid-19 – but the Barrett hearing will proceed “full steam ahead”, McConnell announced.

Two of the Republican senators on the committee, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah, announced last week that they had tested positive for Covid-19 after attending a White House event to celebrate the Barrett nomination. Many others who attended the event also later tested positive, including the president and first lady, leading to whispers in Washington of a new nickname for the nominee: Amy “Covid” Barrett.

Graham, who has refused to be tested for coronavirus himself, has said that recuperating senators could attend committee hearings virtually, in an unusual arrangement that Booker said was inappropriate for the consideration of a lifetime supreme court appointment.

“We now have members of our committee who have fallen ill, and I pray for their wellbeing, but this just further highlights that this process is just wrong,” Booker told the Pod Save America podcast.

Jealous said it was ironic that the Republicans were taking health risks to secure the confirmation of a nominee who could, within weeks, begin dismantling a crucial healthcare law.

“Literally you have senators who are exposed to Covid because of a super-spreader event, refusing to get tested, so that they don’t have to quarantine, so that they can make a vote to appoint a judge who will take away healthcare from their neighbors in the midst of a pandemic,” said Jealous.

The Republican rush to confirm Barrett, Sroka said, betrayed their awareness that neither the nominee nor the confirmation process has the support of the American people.

“If they knew that the American people were on their side, and they knew that they had the support of the public on the issues that they’re trying to force through this court, they wouldn’t need to do what they’re doing right now,” Sroka said.

“But they know that they can’t win a fair fight, so they’re going to use every bit of power they have to force this agenda on us for a generation, while they still have it.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/11/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-hearings-religion-republicans-democrats?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com  

Edited October 12, 2020 by Marmion

[GreyhoundFan]

From the Washington Post: "5 takeaways from the first day of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing"

Spoiler

Monday marked the first of several days of Senate hearings on President Trump’s nominee to the vacant Supreme Court seat, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Senators gave opening statements, previewing the political fights to come when they ask Barrett questions over the next two days.

Here are five takeaways.

1. Republicans are on the defensive about holding this hearing

They’re holding it under difficult political circumstances: In the middle of a pandemic that has sickened at least two Republicans on the committee, and three weeks before a presidential election as many Americans are already voting. Oh, and Republicans four years ago opposed an election-year Supreme Court nomination when it would have helped Democrats rather than them.

Republicans knew they needed to be proactive about talking about why this hearing should happen now. Their argument came down to two points:

1. The same party is in the White House and Senate now, so it’s different from 2016 under President Barack Obama. (The reality is that there isn’t much data to draw on, because election-year vacancies are rare. Justices don’t leave then if they can help it.)
2. Democrats are using the process to attack this nomination because they can’t attack Barrett’s qualifications.

“There’s nothing unconstitutional about this process,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who four years ago told people to “use my words against me” about not taking up election-year nominations. “This is a vacancy that’s occurred, the tragic loss of a great woman. And we’re going to fill that vacancy with another great woman. The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.” Now, he’s in a surprisingly challenging reelection campaign against a Democrat who has raised jaw-dropping amounts of money to unseat him.

Republicans aren’t breaking any laws by pushing this nomination through before the election, but it’s politically unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that a slim majority of Americans oppose moving forward now.

2. Barrett pushed back against the subservient-woman narrative

Barrett’s membership in a conservative faith group that encourages women to be submissive to their husbands generated headlines in the lead-up to the confirmation hearings. She hasn’t talked about this publicly, and the group has scrubbed mention of her from its website. But her opening statement sure hinted she was aware of the damage it could do.

“When I went to college,” she said, “it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.”

Barrett also said all the right things about how she would apply political independence to her review of the law. “When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every opinion from the perspective of the losing party,” she said. “I ask myself how I would feel if one of my children was the party I was ruling against.”

That will likely do little to assuage Democrats as they question her in the coming days, but she didn’t open herself up to further criticism on either front.

3. Democrats want to talk only about the health-care implications of this nomination

Democrats can’t stop a Republican majority on this committee and in the Senate from pushing through Barrett’s nomination. Democrats also can’t stop a conservative court’s consideration in November of whether the Affordable Care Act should stand, with or without Barrett on it.

So Democrats’ strategy is more focused on the election than the task at hand. The want to remind voters what is at stake with a conservative-majority court, by talking a lot about health care.

Democratic senator after Democratic senator shared stories of constituents who rely on Obamacare — a woman needing expensive kidney treatment, or a child with a heart defect who both require expensive health care and protections for coverage with preexisting conditions. And then they pinned Senate Republicans, especially the ones up for reelection on this committee, to the potential downfall of the law. The court with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on it had upheld Obamacare; Barrett wrote critically about decisions that did so. And more than one Democrat brought up how Trump has hinted he wants his Supreme Court justices to knock down Obamacare.

“Republicans finally realized that the Affordable Care Act is too popular to repeal in Congress,” said Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. “So now they are trying to bypass the will of the voters and have the Supreme Court do their dirty work.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said, “For Republicans, there is no washing your hands of responsibility for the results that your president has told us will ensue.”

At least one Republican tried to fire back: “Every single member of the Senate agrees that preexisting conditions can and should be protected, period. The end,” Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) said. (Fact-checkers have pointed to Republicans’ actions to repeal Obamacare without a plan to fully cover preexisting conditions.)

4. Democrats are staying away from her faith — but Republicans are trying to drag them into that fight

The last time Democrats talked about Barrett’s Catholic faith in a judicial hearing — for her seat on a federal court in 2017 — it didn’t go well. The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) questioned Barrett’s faith and how it influenced her legal thinking (“the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern”) in a way that opened Democrats up to attacks they were applying an unconstitutional religious test.

So they’re actively trying to avoid that now. It could be a tricky line to walk as Democrats bring up the possibility the court with Barrett on it could severely restrict or overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide.

But Republicans see an opening to make it sound as if Democrats are the ones who are extreme. So they gave lots of quotes like this one from Sen John Cornyn (R-Tex.), summarizing what he said were attacks on Barrett: “America’s secular cultural elites aren’t sure that a faithful Christian can be entrusted with the law."

It’s a battle line that Democrats don’t want to be drawn across.

5. The coronavirus looms over this hearing

Barrett’s nomination announcement at the White House turned out to be a coronavirus superspreader event. It led to the president’s hospitalization and the cancellation of regular business by Senate Republicans. But they’re under a tight timetable to get this nomination done before the election, so this hearing is on. That’s despite the fact that two Republican senators are recovering from the virus, and two more are self-quarantined. One of those who tested positive, Sen Mike Lee (R-Utah), showed up to the hearing without a mask.

All these GOP senators need to get better to vote in person on Barrett’s nomination, or their carefully timed confirmation process could be in peril. Meanwhile, Democrats are bashing Republicans every step of the way for even holding it.

“We should not be holding this hearing when it’s plainly unsafe to do,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said.

Graham talked about the steps taken to ensure safety in the hearing despite the risks: “I made a decision to try to make the room as safe as possible but to come to work. Millions of Americans are going to work today," he said.

 

[dramallama]

Well, if there's one good thing ACB's nomination has accomplished - it made me get off my inert ass and schedule an appointment with a childfree-friendly OB/GYN for next month to request that my Fallopian tubes be unceremoniously yeeted while I can still get it done for free under the ACA.  

[GreyhoundFan]

I wonder if the red dress she wore to the hearing today is trolling the rest of us. It certainly looks like a handmaid dress.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Of course she wouldn't say it, she has to wait for her headship to tell her what to say.

 

[SassyPants]

Hate to admit it folks, she comes off as smart, poised and unflappable. She checks a lot of the boxes and will appease many, many people. Beliefs aside, she reminds me of my niece, also a ND graduate who is a physician and mom to 3 kids under the age 6. Some people are really good at juggling, and I think she might be one of those people. It pains me to type all of this. I hate that she will have the for-life power to potentially tread on others’ rights. I hate that she will have the for-life power to set our country back 100 years. I think if this confirmation is ultimately rammed through, and in order to provide more stability and balance to the court, the next Democratic President should increase the courts numbers. What Trump and the Senate Republican are doing is very dangerous. The people deserve better.

[ignorantobserver]

On 9/28/2020 at 9:49 AM, fraurosena said:

In a real, working democracy, as the US purports to be, there is a separation of church and state.

Allow me politely disagree with that. While it is kind of uncommon, though not unheard of (case in point : Germany) for republics to not have a strict separation of church and state, several monarchies - that are however usually regarded as well-working democracies - do have a head of state who is also head of the church (GB, Sweden, Denmark...). Separation of church and state is not a requirement for a political system to work well in the modern sense, assuming, obviously, that the respective constitution doesn't require it. However, the official denominations in the aforementioned countries are fairly liberal and concentrate their efforts on public welfare, financing hospitals, schools and so forth. They also tend to intervene little and carefully in political matters. They don't try to establish a theocracy.

What some of the people discussed on this board seem to want is closer to the Iranian system, an actual theocracy where religious law is translated into secular law. I am not sure if they would have a chance of succeeding, as the family patriarchs we talk about on here are so intensely congregationalist (read : squabblers who like to play the dictator at home because nobody else will listen to them) and presumably chose a fringe lifestyle because they were unable to function in the real world.

It's indeed people like this nominee, who have the intelligence, skillset and self control to succeed in normal society and hide their extremist convictions, who might pose the greatest threat to a democracy.

[SassyPants]

4 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Allow me politely disagree with that. While it is kind of uncommon, though not unheard of (case in point : Germany) for republics to not have a strict separation of church and state, several monarchies - that are however usually regarded as well-working democracies - do have a head of state who is also head of the church (GB, Sweden, Denmark...). Separation of church and state is not a requirement for a political system to work well in the modern sense, assuming, obviously, that the respective constitution doesn't require it. However, the official denominations in the aforementioned countries are fairly liberal and concentrate their efforts on public welfare, financing hospitals, schools and so forth. They also tend to intervene little and carefully in political matters. They don't try to establish a theocracy.

What some of the people discussed on this board seem to want is closer to the Iranian system, an actual theocracy where religious law is translated into secular law. I am not sure if they would have a chance of succeeding, as the family patriarchs we talk about on here are so intensely congregationalist (read : squabblers who like to play the dictator at home because nobody else will listen to them) and presumably chose a fringe lifestyle because they were unable to function in the real world.

It's indeed people like this nominee, who have the intelligence, skillset and self control to succeed in normal society and hide their extremist convictions, who might pose the greatest threat to a democracy.

I could not agree more. She is not Trump; does not come off as a far side lunatic, but that doesn’t negate her very dangerous beliefs. Wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will.

Why am I watching these proceedings? Between the for life appointments and the ability to hear a case OR NOT, gives these 9 folks way too much power. Take away rights, sure let’s hear that one vs protection of rights, no, we’ll pass on that one. 

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Allow me politely disagree with that. While it is kind of uncommon, though not unheard of (case in point : Germany) for republics to not have a strict separation of church and state, several monarchies - that are however usually regarded as well-working democracies - do have a head of state who is also head of the church (GB, Sweden, Denmark...). Separation of church and state is not a requirement for a political system to work well in the modern sense, assuming, obviously, that the respective constitution doesn't require it. However, the official denominations in the aforementioned countries are fairly liberal and concentrate their efforts on public welfare, financing hospitals, schools and so forth. They also tend to intervene little and carefully in political matters. They don't try to establish a theocracy.

Ah, yes. I see your point. Except in practice, these Kings and Queens are only symbolic heads of state. None of them wield any real political power. Oh, they may officially appoint their governments, or officially swear in a new cabinet; they may even be required to sign new bills to officially ratify them into law. But they have no real say in the matter. It's all tradition and show, no more. They don't make the laws, they aren't even allowed a political affiliation of any sort. So, even though they may also be the head of the church (also symbolically, I might add), they cannot influence politics with religious doctrine -- and certainly not legally. When you get down to the nitty gritty, there very much is a separation of state and church in these counties. 

By contrast, the current American system allows for the religious and the rich, for multinational companies and other entities with political interests, to legally influence policies.

32 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

It's indeed people like this nominee, who have the intelligence, skillset and self control to succeed in normal society and hide their extremist convictions, who might pose the greatest threat to a democracy.

I agree. Although at the moment it's not this nominee (she's just a puppet). It is the position of Senate Majority Leader, currently filled by Mitch McConnell, where so much power resides that McConnell can do whatever he feels fit without any checks and balances to hold him to account. It's beyond belief that it is possible that he can literally keep hundreds of Bills passed by the House from ever reaching the floor of the Senate. He is the one that has been posing the greatest threat to American democracy (such as it ever was) ever since he came into this almost absolute power. He is the one who thwarted much of Obama's policies. He is the one that blocked Merrick Garland's nomination for the SC (with arguments he is completely ignoring now that this religious puppet has been nominated). He is the one that enabled Trump to become the presidential candidate in 2016. He is the one that kept Trump in power, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt during his impeachment. 

Get McConnell out of that position, and then America has a chance at democracy again. And if they want to ensure that no one like McConnell can abuse their political power ever again, the power of the Senate Majority Leader should be heavily curtailed and subject to absolute accountability. 

 

[ignorantobserver]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

 So, even though they may also be the head of the church (also symbolically, I might add), they cannot influence politics with religious doctrine -- and certainly not legally. When you get down to the nitty gritty, there very much is a separation of state and church in these counties. 

To be frank, I am not that well informed about the political system and practices in the Scandinavian monarchies. I am however somewhat familiar with the German political culture and can assure you that yes, the not-quite separation of church and state does have a real impact on everyday life and on the way the country is run. Church officials often have some kind of advisory function in various political debates, as well as in "ethics committees" in hospitals and such. Catechism is taught in public schools. Theological faculties are funded in public universities  (this at least is also the case in GB). A lot of hospitals / nursing homes / boarding homes for college students etc. have a religious affiliation. A recent German president (the official head of state, though a lot less powerful than the chancellor) was a Lutheran bishop. There is a special tax for financing religious organisations (de facto only the Lutheran and Catholic church) and from which both ministers' salaries and the upkeep of religious buildings are paid. All of this is in stark contrast to the way things are done say in France or Spain, where all the historical churches and cathedrals have been transferred into the possession of the state and where teachers in public schools regularly get in trouble for things like talking about episodes of the Old Testament while teaching literature.

While some aspects of this are regularly criticized, I don't think Germany is in any kind of danger of becoming a theocracy. It's just a different way of running things. Arguably, by paying teachers and professors in schools and universities for teaching "religion", the state is able to exercise a lot of control over the dominating narrative. As these teachers have to be accepted both by their church and by the secular administration, only pretty consensual, "harmless" people and teachings make it into the classrooms (I remember that several Muslim parents let their children participate because the class was mostly about debating / ethics / cultural history, not at all about evangelizing). It's a way of reducing parallel societies and of preventing the "persecuted victim" narrative that some groups so readily adopt, while still keeping a lot of control over the things that are taught to children. I am not arguing that this system is better - it is what it is mostly for historical reasons - but is has upsides, and it is proof that a modern democracy can function and be stable without a strict separation of church and state.

The situation in the US is obviously different, as you have to deal with real, powerful political movements that push an extremist and intolerant kind of Christianity. This is the Christianity we are talking about when people identify their lawncare enterprise, their clothes or their dating practices as "Christian". These extremely loud, extremely violent voices are those calling for the abolition of the separation of church and state in the US - and I completely agree that they are extremely dangerous.

Edited October 13, 2020 by ignorantobserver
style

[GreyhoundFan]

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"5 takeaways from Day 2 of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing"

Spoiler

Senators on the Judiciary Committee are asking questions Tuesday of Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Here are our takeaways so far.

1. Barrett leaned heavily on precedent to kind of reassure her critics

The Supreme Court over the years has upheld the Affordable Care Act, same-sex marriage and abortion rights, all issues that could come before the court again in some form. The next iterations would be before a much more conservative court with Barrett on it.

Barrett wouldn’t comment on how she might decide on any of those issues, except to offer reassurance that she adheres to stare decisis. It’s a principle the former law professor explained is Latin for “Stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm.”

Essentially, it means a conservative Supreme Court couldn’t just upend these previous rulings without good reason, including considering what lower courts say and how many people rely on the current law. She used it to offer a skeptical view that the court would, say, overturn legalized same-sex marriage.

“For the Supreme Court to take it up,” Barrett said, of the 2015 same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges, “you’d have to have lower courts going along and saying we’re going to flout Obergefell.” She said such a scenario is unlikely, because those lower courts are bound by that Supreme Court ruling. (The Trump era has seen those lower courts stuffed with conservative judges.)

But on other major questions about settled law, Barrett dodged. She wouldn’t say how she would rule on whether a president can delay an election. She wouldn’t commit to recusing herself from a case in which she might have a conflict of interest. (Democrats want her to recuse herself from any case about the presidential election results.) Nor on how she would rule on a huge case coming up before the court in November on whether to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett personally opposes abortion, but she has previously acknowledged that the legal right to abortion is settled law. When asked Tuesday whether she thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided — as one of her mentors, the late Justice Antonin Scalia has said — she would not commit.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?

Barrett: Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question. But again, I can’t comment or say, yes, I’m going in with some agenda, because I’m not.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tried several times and got only a promise from Barrett to rely heavily on Supreme Court precedent: “I promise to do that, for anything that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”

Later, she said she didn’t think Roe v. Wade is super precedent, meaning it’s so settled that no one is challenging it anymore. (Like cases on segregation.)

Legal experts on both sides think Barrett would support severely restricting or even overturning abortion rights.

2. She framed herself as more open-minded than her critics paint her

Barrett’s refusal to say Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and isn’t super precedent will surely give fuel to her critics.

But in one of the first chances Barrett had to talk about why she agreed to be nominated, she had a lot to say to push back on a narrative out there about her. Like:

I’m aware of a lot of the caricatures that are floating around. So I think what I would like to say in response to that question is that, look, I’ve made distinct choices. I’ve decided to pursue a career and have a large family. I have a multiracial family. Our faith is important to us. All of those things are true. But they are my choices. And in my personal interactions with people, I have a life brimming with people who’ve made different choices and I’ve never tried to impose my choices on them. And the same is true professionally in how I apply the law.

Under questioning from Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) about whether she could set aside her Catholic faith in deciding cases, she said, “I can."

3. Barrett insists she’s ‘not hostile to the ACA’

Democrats got no solid answers about how Barrett would rule if she gets on the court in time to hear a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to strike down entirely in the next few months. She said that no one at the White House asked how she would decide and that “the courts should not be politicized.”

But she did distance herself from her own critical views of the court’s previous decisions upholding Obamacare.

She stuck by her reading of the law then, but she said those challenges are different from the one before the court in November. Republican attorneys general are asking the court to strike down the entire law now that Republicans in Congress zeroed out the tax mandate for having health insurance.

Barrett said the job of the justices is to decide whether the law legally can still stand without a tax mandate — by “severing” the tax mandate from the rest of the law — or whether that’s legally impossible.

“I’m not hostile to the ACA,” she said.

Acutely aware of the political debate around how getting rid of the law would make it more difficult for people to get affordable health-care coverage, especially those with preexisting conditions, she also said of the upcoming challenge: “It’s not a challenge to preexisting conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum relief from a cap.”

But preexisting-conditions coverage is a huge part of this case, given that what the justices decide will determine whether the ACA stands, and that is what guarantees consumers these protections.

4. Trump looms large

The president hasn’t made things easy for Barrett and Senate Republicans as they try to argue that she would be an independent justice fully capable of setting aside her personal beliefs. Democrats ask: What about the beliefs of the person who nominated her to the court? Trump has said he wants Obamacare overturned, tweeted that it “Would be a big WIN for the USA!” if the Supreme Court strikes it down, and said the court needs nine justices so it can decide any election-related cases.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Barrett whether the president should be taken at his word in all this. Barrett adeptly dodged by trying to underscore that she’s a different person than the president.

“I can’t really speak to what the president has said on Twitter,” she responded. “He hasn’t said any of that to me. What I can tell you … is that no one has elicited any commitment in any case or even brought up a commitment in a case. I am 100 percent committed to judicial independence from political pressure.”

Barrett regularly tried to also separate herself from her personal conservative views. But as Klobuchar pointed out, Barrett has made consistently conservative decisions as a federal judge. The reality is that she is almost certainly going to be a reliably conservative vote on the court.

“I believe,” Klobuchar said, “and I think the American people have to understand, that you would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg.”

5. This is going well for Republicans

Barrett is not prone to being flustered or flubbing her arguments. And her teaching background was evident when she described her judicial philosophy in plain English that may resonate with Americans, even those who worry she will take the court in a more conservative direction. Like this explanation of when the court actually can chime in on an issue:

“A judge can't walk in one day and say, I feel like visiting the question health care and telling people what I think,” she said. “We can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real live case with real live parties and a real life dispute before us.”

That’s not reassuring to Democrats who see challenges to abortion barreling down the legal pike — or of course, the challenge to Obamacare before the court next month. “They’re scared that your confirmation would wrest from them the very health care protections that millions of Americans ought to maintain,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said Monday to Barrett of his constituents.

But Barrett’s point, over and over again, was that she’s not going to single-handedly reshape life in America. “I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

That consistent message helps Republicans, who are pushing this nomination through in politically difficult circumstances, just weeks before an election and before the court takes up a case where a popular health-care law is at stake.

Democrats did make a potentially effective, though esoteric, political point that corporate interests, particularly on the right, help shape American courts. Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tried to argue that Republicans’ rush to fill this vacancy before the election is driven by those interests.

“You can’t ignore the broader context,” Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) said, tying that argument back to Barrett. “ … As you are expressing opinions in an academic journal [about the ACA], there is literally an army of donors and lawyers and activists and lobbyists who are funneling new judges into our courts.”

That may resonate with some Americans, but it’s not going to change anything regarding the task at hand. Barrett still has hours of questions ahead of her, but she’s doing exactly what she needs to do to keep Republicans united around putting her on the court before the election.

 

[Marmion]

4 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Between the for life appointments and the ability to hear a case OR NOT, gives these 9 folks way too much power. Take away rights, sure let’s hear that one vs protection of rights, no, we’ll pass on that one. 

Stare Decisis , and not granting certiorari merely means that the lower court's ruling stands .  Usually it is very hard to appeal a case all the way to the Supreme Court .  The Justices are authorized to discern whether or not there is substantive grounds for review .   This tutorial should lay out what I am referring to .   

Spoiler

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Marmion

[SassyPants]

24 minutes ago, Marmion said:

Stare Decisis , and not granting certiorari merely means that the lower court's ruling stands .  Usually it is very hard to appeal a case all the way to the Supreme Court .  The Justices are authorized to discern whether or not there is substantive grounds for review .   This tutorial should lay out what I am referring to .   

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Yes, of course they are, but let’s face it, if these justices were ruling and making decisions based merely on constitutional law, there would never be a dissenting opinion, in fact, if they weren’t entering their own personal convictions and biases into the decisions made, we may not even need to worry about conservative and liberal justices. When you add into the equation the “for life” appointment, it’s all a bit skewed, isn’t it? I am sure there were many conservatives dancing the jig when the octogenarian, RBG passed away. 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Amy Klobuchar:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I agree with Molly:

Go Kamala!

Spoiler

 

 

[hoipolloi]

Barrett has been lying nonstop but this will doubtless be portrayed as a series of Rahab’s lies by her fundie fuckwad supporters & fellow travellers.

[GreyhoundFan]

In contrast to the honest and intelligent questioning by Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris, Bluto Kennedy is an embarrassment.

 

[thoughtful]

For a minute there, I thought he was describing Kavanaugh . . .