Trump picks Barrett for SCOTUS

Post Reply New Topic

Donald Trump said he will nominate conservative federal appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett,age 48, to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsgurg on the Supreme court of the United States.

In a flag-bedecked rose garden designed to mimic Ginsgurg's own nomination in 1993,Trump recounted Barrett's educational background ,noted her 7 children and how she clerked for former deceased justice Antonin Scalia.

CNN

6 republicans Vs 4 democrats in the supreme court - that should help when Trump disputes the election result

Barrett's voice sounds irritating (hurts my ears)

And yet there are only 9 Supreme Court justices...

In theory, it should not matter which party was responsible for their elevation to the Supreme Court...The different approaches taken are (generally) a case of "literal" Vs "contextual" interpretations, with the court now more likely to interpret issues using a literal interpretation of the constitution and ammendments, as opposed to the contextual approach which was recently the dominant interpretation of the court decisions.

Sorry....6 Vs 3...that's even worse

Barrett you will be real conservative on abortion but I don't see her as a originalist like Thomas.

Worse? In what way?

Basing judgements around what was written and the words selected, rather than what someone thinks was meant by the words used isn't objectively "better" or "worse".

Different, maybe, compared to how it has been in recent history, but that's about the extent of it.

Two outcomes after Nov

1. Trump wins
2. Stalemate and it goes to Jan because Trump complains about postal votes - Trump uses the supreme court to win

How is that good

Your not giving the supreme court enough credit.

The court justices have gone against there appointmenter many times.
Everyone said abortion was done in 1991 when Bush appointed David Souter But Souter turned out to be pro Roe v Wade

Bush 43 appointment Chief justice Roberts and everyone thought the court was gone to the right but Roberts has been centrist if not left.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have been more liberal than anticipated.

There is no reason to believe Barrett will be a Trump sock puppet or pervert justice to keep Trump in office.

Three is absolutely no historical basis for any justice being a sock puppet of there nominater.

What evidence (not just opinion) do you have to support your assumption?

In case 2 (besides electoral college meeting in December, and so issues relating to votes needing to be finalised before then) it is not a given that the justices will vote a given way, and would be dependant on the issue(s) related to the votes cast: Things like eligibility of postal votes (in general) the court would probably permit, whereas issues such as votes where the signature on the envelope doesn't match that on record could go either way depending on arguments raised\precedent\etc., as could the issue of postal votes received with late or no postmark on the envelope.

Of course, after that there would be the possibility of issues related to the electoral college, but as I understand it, there is minimal space for problems there (states selecting electors who do not correspond with the state's legislated method (such as having legislation stating they will send electors based on the state's result but instead selecting them based on the "national popular vote"), "faithless electors, etc.).

The fact that you assume that a person would automatically make decisions to please a given side, rather than based on evidence\precedent\law says a lot more about yourself than about them, sadly.

There is absolutely no precedence with Russia interfering in the outcome of a US election either but that looks like it happened as well.

I would not be surprised if Trump Jnr and Barrett have set aside a time for a private meeting.

I will opt out and say I am not familiar with US law and how it works. But there is a pattern in the way Trump has manipulated the appointment of supreme court judges such as his nominee Brett Kavanaugh (despite serious questions about the suitability of his appointment) that suggests he will be looking to take advantage of Ginsburg's death to benefit himself.

Have you considered that it takes a minimal amount of searching online to find the appropriate information, rather than making continual false assumptions\assertions? Forgoing basic research in order to make unfounded\unsupported claims which are easily disproven does not reflect well upon the person making those claims...

Not everyone does things for their own benefit (I have often wondered if those stating a belief in the reason for a person doing something, without evidence, is a form of projection, indicating their how they would have acted in a given situation)...The justices chosen appear to have been selected because they are more likely to take a "literal" reading of the constitution (favoured by conservatives), rather than the "contextual" reading which was recently the dominant reading taken by the court.

Or in simple terms for you:
Literal - takes the constitution exactly as wriiten.
Contextual - re-interprets the constitution using modern definitions of words rather than those that applied when written.

I note the interesting choice of words, too: "manipulated the appointment of supreme court judges". Could you elaborate on what "manipulation" occurred, as the process is that the President nominates a person for the position, then the Senate decides whether to approve them for the role or not, with a simple majority being all that is required. The fact that YOU (or any other person) may not like their decision is not evidence of manipulation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-06/ ... t/10345232
Trump pressured Senators to back his nominee Mr Kavanaugh by 51 to 49 in a procedural vote that moved the Republican-controlled Senate toward a definitive decision on making Kavanaugh a lifetime member of the supreme court.

At the time it was historic because it gave a 5 to 4 balance in the supreme court in favour of the republicans.

With the death of Ginsburg and the Trump appointment of Barrett the balance is now 6 to 3

BTW Bric, I notice your tone toward me is very condescending and I recommend you stick to facts and stop trying to project your views on my capacity to hold a discussion. Is that simple enough for you?

So a vote where the members of the same party as the president voted for a person nominated by the president is "manipulation"...Just because the balance was changed does not mean it required manipulation, it is more likely that this was the first opportunity where it was possible to occur due to the requirements of President and Senate aligning with appropriate vacancies becoming available.

Manipulation would have required something like a Justice who wished to retire arranging to stand down following the next election, as they expected a certain person to win, and so could "guarantee" their replacement, then holding out in the hope of the following election producing the winning side that they wanted when their preferred candidate lost.

Did you read what I posted? Trump pressure the republican senate to support Kavanaugh's appointment despite his alleged history of sexual assault. I call that manipulation

Manipulation, you claim. To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Persuading people (and do you have evidence this was even required?) is not manipulation.

Manipulation would be something like making a claim, where all other witness/people named as being present deny the event occurred, and trying to use this to affect public opinion of the target of the unsubstantiated claim, manipulating their opinion through emotion rather than providing verifiable evidence.

Besides, were the allegations to be proven, then he could still be removed from his position, and that's setting aside the "innocent until proven guilty" basis of the judicial system.