“You have declared, ‘It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade,’ so this is obviously a matter of deep principle for you. My question is this: ‘Would you cast a vote to uphold a law you considered barbaric and was against your personal principles if that law appeared to be valid and constitutional?'”
That is the same question I would ask of every court nominee (absent the word “barbaric,” which is specific to her), and it is the only question I care about, so I would use all of my time until they committed to an answer. If they answered “yes” convincingly, if I believed they could vote against a deeply-held belief if to do so was the proper application of the law, I would vote to confirm. If they answered “no” or, more likely, tried to weasel out of giving an answer, I would vote to reject.
Which means I would probably vote to reject every nominee, whether “liberal” or “conservative.” I don’t care whether they are liberal or conservative. In fact, I want them to be neither, ala David Souter. I just want them to make up their minds AFTER studying the case, not before.
Adam,
Which party is responsible for those who are tearing down statues and changing history? Trying to lessen the accomplishments of people who did things that were considered appropriate at the time they were alive but rightfully not today? Which party controls the vast marjority of the media, which is a cornerstone of fascism.? Which party’s candidate for president has big tech been protecting all day by censoring the NY Post story about Hunter Biden and going so far as suspending the accounts of those who share the story? Where is Scoopy with this story? Which party’s followers are out there trying to defund the police and rioting and destroying public property in Democrat cities all over the country? Who’s party boycotts businesses and harasses those that don’t agree with their political ideologies? Don’t sit there and tell me that The Republican Party is the party of fascism. Because the answers to all of those questions is the Democrat party. And each of those questions is exactly what fascism truly is.
Wow, David. You believe the past can be changed by tearing down statues? Also, no matter how much you and people like you don’t like it, times change. There is such a thing as progress, and we have made it since those statues were built. In particular, we are no longer proud of people who fought to preserve slavery and those who later worked hard to keep black people from exercising their Constitutional rights. Want to explain why you have a problem with that?
BTW, Hunter Biden did nothing wrong. Want to talk Trump and the crimes he is being investigated for, and the members of his administration who have been CONVICTED?
Jeebus, no wonder Trump thinks of you as a herd animal. Unless Putin thinks of you as an agent, of course.
Which party is responsible for those who are tearing down statues and changing history?
*Racist conservatives have been re-writing history since the end of the Civil War. The GOP is continuing this horrible tradition. Hagiography is not history.
Trying to lessen the accomplishments of people who did things that were considered appropriate at the time they were alive but rightfully not today?
*Slavery is an abomination and has been considered as such for centuries long before the US existed.
Which party controls the vast marjority of the media, which is a cornerstone of fascism.?
*The GOP controls the media.
Which party’s candidate for president has big tech been protecting all day by censoring the NY Post story about Hunter Biden and going so far as suspending the accounts of those who share the story?
*Trump and his minions have been spreading a lie. The NY Post is another newspaper that is part of the conservative media conglomerate.
Which party’s followers are out there trying to defund the police and rioting and destroying public property in Democrat cities all over the country?
*If the police wish to keep their funding they should actually try to train their officers. Riots are a side effect of protests. Fix the cause of protests and the riots go away.
Who’s party boycotts businesses and harasses those that don’t agree with their political ideologies?
*The GOP.
Don’t sit there and tell me that The Republican Party is the party of fascism.
*As a matter of fact, I will do just that. The GOP is the party of fascism.
PS My favourite riot is when Penn State students rioted after Joe Paterno, a Republican, was fired for enabling a pedophile. Not all protests have equal merit I guess.
PPS How come Americans never talk about Giovanni Caboto? An Italian who actually discovered America.
This is a brain-dead rant.
David is brain dead…don’t encourage a corpse…
There’s not riots, its a bunch of shit. Just because you watch FOX News and they zoom in on a garbage fire with a 10 foot radius everyone is ignoring, doesn’t make a riot. There was a study that 93% of protests have been peaceful, and it’s even more after considering.
And surprise, surprise – once again,unless someone is doing something it just goes ignored with policy. Shocker, just like no conservative cared when some psycho got a gun and murder 20 kindergardeners and the only thing you got out of the GOP was ‘thoughts and prayers.’ Or worse from the alt-right nutjobs who said they were crisis actors and harassed the families!
So don’t give me this God damn bullshit over ‘democratic cities.’ We know the Republicans line in the sand, none of you pieces of shit gave a crap when little kids waiting for Christmas were murdered in cold blood but you seem to care about a public garbage can catching on fire.
Fuck off with your whataboutisms. Less than three weeks and you braindead morons will be out off office – hopefully permanently.
1. “Fascism: a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society.” Historians have established 11 characteristics of fascism, if you care to evaluate them.
2. Fascism incorporates government control of the media, but the Democrats are not the government, and they don’t control the media. In fact, you could argue that this is as far opposed to fascism as possible, since the media most often criticizes the government. The major media outlets are independent. It so happens that at this moment in history, accurate reporting pretty much always opposes the Republican viewpoint, but that has not always been true. The newspapers regularly ripped FDR a new one.
3. Tearing down statues does not alter history in any way. History was what it was. The action just indicates that we should not have built statues glorifying the villains of history. There never should have been statues erected to racist traitors, for example, and they certainly should be torn down so that we do not hold them up to our children as role models. I don’t think, however, that they should be torn down by street mobs, but by official actions after reasoned discussion. Removing the statues to those who fought against the USA is an obvious move, and in my opinion we should obviously not be honoring the despicable Andrew Jackson on our currency, but people like Jefferson and Churchill need to be viewed in historical context, with an eye to nuance.
Then again, there’s the Murdoch Press…the WSJ, Fox News and the NYPost along with OAN, Sinclair Broadcasting etc. They might as well be the Ministry of Propaganda. Both FB and twitter have shown relatively little backbone wrt Trump. And the MSM is trapped in false equivalency. That started back with Hillary’s emails….
It’s time just to put the purpose into federal law and settle it that way. There should be a federal law that protects any ordinary citizen from state prosecution is a risk exists to their own life to protect another, or any unborn fetus.
That’s basically it. This debate becomes religious theocracy more than anything else. You’re not required to hold on to someone hanging from a cliff who could pull you down to your doom, and that’s an actual autonomous legally establish individual. But well, for women’s bodies and what can happen, the Republican mentality is fuck them right? Personal liberties when some racist old white guy has to wear a damn mask in a store, but hey, if a woman dies from complications then too bad.
And then they act so damn pious about it, when it’s clear NO Republican actually gives a flying fuck about what happens to any child (unless they come from a rich family.)
No living wage for the parents with a higher minimum wage, Trump’s stimulus “plan” ignores Earned Income Tax Credits for people with children, and trying to kill pre-existing conditions in court so parents may not even get care. It’s pretty clear outside of ‘this somehow was made up into my religion so I’m going to make it a law so I can feel pious!’ that any conservative or Republican actually doesn’t give a flying fuck about anyone actually.
Just for the record, Judge Barret never declared “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade.” She signed the following statement: ““We, the following citizens of Michigan, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” That statements was published on the first page of a 2 page advertisement by the St. Joseph County Right to Life organization. The “barbaric legacy” statement was on the opposite page and had not been signed by Barret. Now you may say that effectively the statements are the same. After all how can you be opposed to abortion without wanting Roe overturned? But there is a significant difference. While Barret is admittedly pro life, she maintains that her personal moral/religious views would not affect her judicial decisions. So a statement calling for Roe to be overturned might indicate her legal/judicial opinion.
Now I get that many do not believe her moral/religious views wouldn’t affect her decisions. I tend to believe her. But that is in large part because it is highly unlikely that an originalist/textualist would believe Roe was correctly decided. In other words her judicial philosophy would reach that decision regardless of her personal views. Therefore there wouldn’t be a conflict between her legal reasoning and her personal beliefs. There is a chance, though probably a small one, she would uphold Casey (the case that controls abortion rights) on stare decisis grounds. I watched one of her law school lectures on YouTube and in answer to a student question she predicted that Roe would survive albeit with greater restrictions. That prediction was made in 2016, when she probably expected Hillary Clinton to replace Scalia. So she might not have been picturing herself on the court, much less replacing RBG.
“Originalism” isn’t a philosophy. It is just an admission that she will rule as she pleases, then point at the Constitution. That’s all it’s ever been. A for instance…
Mikey said: “Judge Barret never declared ‘It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade.'”
No, she just agrees with people who do say that.
Mikey, the Republicans are trying to ram her through before they lose their majority in the Senate. They know she would have no chance otherwise, simply based on lack of knowledge and experience. Why should the majority of Americans support that?
Especially if they remember how adamant the Republicans were about not even giving a truly qualified candidate a hearing four years ago? Think maybe such blatant, on the record hypocrisy isn’t a good look for Republican Senators, and may be hurting their chances for re-election (e.g., Lindsay Graham)?
BTW, if you want to make more of an impact, cut down the word count. You’re kind of giving away the game if you have to go and on like that. It takes a lot of words to defend the indefensible, not nearly as many if you’re not tying cover up the obvious.
I’m sorry if I was too long winded. But I was trying to make a somewhat subtle but (in my opinion) significant distinction. Then I decided to anticipate arguments against my position.
I am not going to defend the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans, but I will note there is plenty of that to go around. The Republicans aren’t doing anything the Democrats wouldn’t do if the situations were reversed. But as for trying to confirm Judge Barret before they lose their majority (and probably the presidency), of course that is what they are trying to do. That is something that has happened almost since the adoption of the Constitution. John Adams nominated many judges, including Chief Justice John Marshall, just before he left office. Ironically, the incoming Jeffersonians would go on to become the modern Democrat party so in a sense the more things change the more things stay the same.
Yep, you have to make a REAL subtle distinction to pretend that ACB is being nominated for anything other than being a die-hard conservative woman. Her knowledge of the Constitution seems laughable for a Supreme Court justice.
The one thing that every person that knows her, on the left or the right, has said about her is that she is absolutely brilliant. She has been answering questions for two days without notes. While there are many things she has declined to discuss, there are other questions where she has pulled great detail from her memory.
So brilliant she couldn’t name the five freedoms guaranteed by the Fist Amendment. D’oh!
To be fair, I tried to do that off the top of my head and forgot one (the right to petition).
Make that FiRst Amendment. D’oh!
I believe the Fist Amendment was recently applied in the case of Hand v. Rectum. The court’s ruling marked the second time that Hand has won a Supreme Court verdict, the previous being the landmark education ruling in Hand v. Spicoli.
The only thing I wonder about Michael McChesney here is: is there a single person on the right who can string two coherent sentences together who he doesn’t think is ‘brilliant’?
There are many on the right that I don’t consider brilliant. Steve Bannon for instance. There are lots of GOP politicians that I hear spouting talking points that I agree with, but I can’t help feeling that the politician didn’t really understand the reasons for those policies. But some are clearly brilliant. Ted Cruz for instance. I dislike Cruz, but if Allan Dershowitz says he is one of the most brilliant students he’s ever taught I have to think he’s a bit smarter than the average bear. As for Barret it has been reported that several of her law school professors said she was the smartest student they had ever taught. So if someone on the internet says she is an idiot or doesn’t know the Constitution I am going to assume it’s an ad hominem attack without any factual basis to support it.
On the surface she is indeed hard to dislike. I am surprise she is not appalling to conservative women who criticize other successful business women for abandoning their families by trying to “have it all” She likely using nannies or, god forbid, supporting a house husband. I give her credit for managing it all but surprise the Right approves of this.
The American right is hypocritical to the max…the ends justify the means no matter what.
Politics aside. If you watched these hearings and didn’t come away completely impressed by ACB, then you are blinded by political posturing.
Amen!
She was impressive in her dishonesty and otherwise avoiding answering questions.
indeed…she’s an abomination. Midwest and David are two dyed in the wool fascists.
“I don’t know a lot about Amy Coney Barrett. But I know she’s accepting the nomination from a president actively trying to subvert a national election and threatening to hold onto power by force, an attack on the Constitution unparalleled in American history. Do I need to know more?”.
Bro. Seek help. Also look up the definition of fascism and then with an open mind (which clearly you’re not capable of) see which party that definition more closely identifies with it.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
Dictatorial power, like a president who says a vote is only valid if he wins.
Forcible suppression of opposition, like someone who sends unmarked vehicles to grab protesters off the street or calls for the arrest of former opposition party leaders (Obama, Clinton) and current political rivals (Biden).
Strong regimentation of society and economy, this often manifests as country/economy over individuals life or liberty. Much like calling for people to risk contracting a pandemic and death, so those in power can get back to making more money.
One canidate is clearly a far-right ultranationalist authoritarian, and it ain’t Biden.
I think Trump is an awful person and not a good president, but he is not a dictator. Arresting protestors, which may or may not have been justified, does not make Trump a dictator. Should the cars they were placed in have been marked? Probably. But in a fascist dictatorship the protestors would have disappeared as opposed to being arraigned and/or released. Trump SAYING votes against him may not turn out to be valid is NOT the same as using force to suppress votes. Don’t get me wrong, trying to undermine the people’s confidence in the fairness and honesty of the upcoming election is a terrible thing for the president to say and is a very good reason for voting against him. I think Trump will most likely lose the election. If that happens and he uses force to remain president on January 21st 2021, he will have proven me wrong. But if he leaves office on January 20th it will pretty much disprove the charge that he is a fascist dictator. We will know one way or the other in a little more than 3 months, unless he actually wins. I don’t think that will happen but it would be a very 2020 way to end the year.
There is a check list of 14 points that define fascism that is used by academics, and even before the election of Donald Trump, the Republican Party met every one of those points.
Of course, it is interesting to hear Republicans decry the use of the term ‘fascism’ on the one side when, according to them, every Democrat is a ‘socialist’ or even a ‘communist.’
I did not approve of labeling mainstream Democrats as socialists. But some Democrats (Bernie, AOC) are labeling THEMSELVES as Democratic Socialists. The question is whether they are in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. They are certainly left wing, but given the recent primaries Bernie apparently is now “mainstream.” To the extent that, in a bid to unite the party, Joe Biden agrees to try an enact much of Bernie’s agenda, I think using the word socialist to refer to Biden’s agenda is perfectly fair. But I wouldn’t call Biden himself a socialist. If Republicans start referring to themselves as “Republican Fascists” I think it would be fair to call them fascists. But absent that I think it’s wrong. If for no other reason, when you label mainstream politicians as fascists, you to some extent rehabilitate the reputation of actual fascists. As awful as Donald Trump is, he is nowhere close to the evil of the Nazis. As a former high school social studies teacher, I worry about how historically ignorant young people are these days.
As a present high school economics and history teacher, I can tell you that, as usual, you’re wrong on all counts.
1.Whatever people believe they are has no bearing on the meaning of the words, unless and until the words lose all meaning. North Korea calls itself ‘Democratic’ does that mean that it is?
The economic definition of a socialist is one who favors government ownership of key sectors of an economy. A ‘Democratic socialist’, as Bernie Sanders usually labels himself, is one who favors worker ownership of industry. In that case, as long as industries operate on, more or less, profit maximizing principles, they are still capitalist. So, based on these definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘democratic socialism’, socialism and capitalism co-exist.
However, there is a looser definition of socialism, which is through either regulations where the government essentially manage private companies or through taxation to the point of virtual confiscation, the government is the dominant force in the economy. These are looser and more subjective definitions of socialism, but were Bernie Sanders’ agenda fully implemented, it certainly could be argued he is a de-facto socialist.
However, it is not correct that Joe Biden has promised to implement most of Bernie Sanders’ agenda. Biden favors a ‘public option’ for health care, not Sanders health care plan. Biden favors an incremental approach on addressing global warming and not the ‘green new deal.’ The most agreement is that Biden would attempt to implement free college education.
So, no Biden is not a socialist and nor is the mainstream Democratic Party. The mainstream of the Democratic Party are adherents of neo-classical economics, not even Post-Keynesian economics.
2.You’ve thrown out the old canard of ‘cheapening the use of the word fascism’ at the same time as you casually throw out the word ‘socialism’ thereby cheapening its use.
The Nazis were fascists, but they were even more extreme and they had a weird occultism that were part of their beliefs that justified to them their world domination and genocidal ideologies. So, even among fascists, the Nazis were extremists. If you check the policies and aims the fascists like Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain, you’ll find there is very little difference between their policies, and the policies of the Republican Party, even before Trump. The only thing constraining Trump and the Republicans are the so-called ‘swamp’ and they’re steadily eroding that.
David said: “Bro. Seek help.”
We are seeking help, David. From Joe Biden and wide variety of Democratic candidates for Senate seats. Unfortunately, that help cannot possibly arrive until after the election, and the Republicans seem desperate to confirm ACB before then. Why is that, David? Shouldn’t four years of Trump and a Republican Senate (two of those years with a Republican House) mean the Republicans are sure winners this November? If not, why?
Looking forward to your clear and direct answers, just like ACB’s!
I see you don’t own a dictionary. Let me help.
“Fascism: a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society.”
Gee, I wonder who that sounds like.
Historians have a formula to calculate the 11 attributes of fascism. You can take a quick look at it here.
This is the generally used list in academia for the 14 characteristics of fascism, even more than the 11 attributes from that article.
This list originates long before Trump and, I believe, it originates even before George W Bush.
One thing about this list is that it’s argued that every politician would meet all the characteristics at some time, and there is probably some truth to that. The significance is that the items on this list dominate the activities of the politician or the party in power. There has to be a consistent pattern of implementation of the items on this list.
Obviously that is somewhat subjective, but I certainly believe that the Republican Party has devolved to being a fascist party.
This is the list 🙂
I have a few minutes, and for anybody interested, there is a ‘teachable moment’ I’d like to get to here, in regards to government addressing global warming and ‘interfering’ in the economy to do so, and therefore potentially being ‘socialist.’
The greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming are referred to by economists as an ‘externality’ (or, to be precise a ‘negative production externality.’) A negative externality simply means a cost imposed on a third party (i.e a person not involved in the transanction between two people/groups.)
When costs are downloaded onto third parties, including the taxpayers and citizens more generally, there is a general expectation that the government has a role to play in terms of seeking a balance between the parties involved in the transaction and the parties effected not involved in the transaction. ‘Balancing rights’ is one of the main purposes of the law and questions in these regards are often adjudicated by the courts. So, in no way is government involvement in addressing global warming inherently socialist.
The other interesting thing in this regard for me, is the people who attempt to deny the existence of negative externalities (or more generally denying the existence of what economists refer to as ‘market failures’) are libertarians. To the degree they acknowledge that ‘market failures’ exist, they believe that individuals, having good will, can work these things out by themselves without the need for a government.
This utopian fantasy is the exact same language Marx used when describing his final stage of economic development: communism. Other than libertarians believe in property rights and Marxists believe all property should be held in common, they have remarkably similar assumptions behind their world view.
pity the fool…
Just to point one thing out: the author of that list, Lawrence Britt, is neither a PhD nor a political scientist, he is a retired businessman and author. However, he read widely in history and his list is combined from a number of other lists of the characteristics of fascism, including a more philosophical and abstract list from Umberto Eco.
And, his list is widely used in academia, especially in history courses, maybe not at 400 or graduate level, but certainly among 100 and 200 level students.
I’ve seen many of your comments in the past and you are clearly biased, but what questions did she avoid exactly?
On the two main issues,
1.She denied being aware that Donald Trump has said that he sought out justices who would overturn Obamacare.
2.She would not address her long standing anti abortion activism and either downplayed it or lied about it.
If you aren’t aware that she, at best, avoided answering these questions, and, at worst, outright lied, then you are also clearly biased.
Beyond that, these hearings are generally useless now anyway, with all of the nominees being thoroughly coached on how to give non-answers to questions. The main non-answer, of course, being to refer to any issue as a hypothetical question that may come up on the courts and therefore can’t be answered.
I think I pay more attention to judicial nominations than the average person and I don’t recall hearing Trump saying anything about appointing a judge who would overturn Obamacare until after Trump had nominated Judge Barret and the media began playing clips of Trump saying that. So I don’t find it that hard to believe she wasn’t aware of such a statement before the Senate Dems brought it up. That would be especially true if she were avoiding media coverage of her nomination. She did say she was aware Trump opposed the ACA, but everyone knows that. As for her anti-abortion “activism,” she said that her personal views would not affect her legal analysis and refused to discuss them. I can certainly understand why she might want to avoid arguing about her abortion views. Her personal views are known, she says they don’t matter and they were not going to be able to get her to say otherwise.
But you’re not a front-running candidate for a Supreme court nomination. I have to think she would be aware of the requirements for the job she interviewed for, just like any other candidate for any important position.
If you’re saying it is possible she didn’t know, I’d have to agree because almost anything is possible. But if you want to establish a likelihood of that possibility, I’d say it’s just about the same probability as my upcoming marriage to Daddario.
I really wanted one of the Dem senators to ask my question. “OK, we know that you not only oppose abortion, but you consider it barbaric, sinful and murderous. Fair enough. Many people hold that belief. Given that, do you still think you could rule fairly on a statute that resulted in more abortions if such a resulting increase in abortions was the proper application of the law? In other words, could you in conscience ever rule to allow more of something you consider murder, no matter how sound the legal justification?” (Follow up: Would you recuse yourself in such a case?)
Frankly, I am totally uninterested in this discussion. She is in. End of story. Move on. For this game, it’s checkmate. Republicans have the power and they are not hesitant to use it. If the Democrats get the power back, they need to start wielding it ruthlessly, just as the Republicans do now. Add four justices to the court. Impeach some of the existing justices. Whatever it takes. Think, “What would Trump do if he were on our side?”
As I’ve mentioned previously in these comments, if I had been in charge of a large PAC, or if I had Bloomberg’s money to spend as I chose in service of the Democrats, Biden would now be up by 30 points. I would have pulled off what that GOP tried to do with Kanye. Two years ago, I would have developed a nationally important candidate far to the right of Trump who would have said out loud all the things that Trump only says in code. Let’s call him Racist Perot. I would have gotten him on the ballot in every state and would have put money behind him in the swing states. The source of backing for that candidate would have been known only to me, so that nobody could possibly reveal, including the candidate himself, that he was a political gambit rather than a true populist. It is possible that if the Dems could have pulled that off, Biden could have won every single state in the electoral college. But I am a pragmatist and think like a Republican, and the Dems are not ruthless like that. They are a bunch of namby-pamby wimps, and guys like McConnell and Trump eat such wusses for breakfast.
Scoop, I have no way of knowing what Barret heard or was told prior to the hearing. I think I heard her say something about avoiding media coverage. I wouldn’t be surprised if she avoided coverage of Trump as well just so she could deny having heard whatever wacky deranged ramblings Trump was liable to make. She could probably rely on her husband to tell her anything she needed to know from that coverage. She seems like a really decent and clearly brilliant woman. I have listened to some of her lectures and read some of her writings. She has written that if a judge’s religious beliefs would not allow her to follow the law, she has a duty to recuse herself. Would she do that if she felt following her beliefs over the law would save unborn lives? I don’t know. But as I’ve said, I can’t see a judge with her judicial philosophy agreeing with the reasoning in Roe (what there is of it) or Casey. But just because she was nominated by a slimeball doesn’t mean she isn’t an honorable woman.
As for court packing, there is a chance concern over that might prevent the Dems from taking control of the Senate. If I were running in a red or purple state I’d be running ads talking about how Biden won’t say what he’d do if he wins so we can’t allow him a Dem controlled Senate.
I think you know my position on this. I still think like a Republican: When you have power legally, wield it.
If I were consulting to the blue team on Democratic strategy, assuming control of the White House and both houses, I would advise them to pack the living fuck out of it. There’s no constitutional reason why the court can’t have 99 judges. Let’s get 90 new liberal ones in there and make the conservatives totally irrelevant, outnumbered 93-6.
I’m kidding, of course, but not completely. Not about the main principle: When you have the power legally, wield it. As the knights of Camelot vowed, “Might for right.”
Of course, I’m not actually an ideologue, so I don’t really want that to happen. Unlike some of the commenters here, I actually don’t care about liberals and conservatives – I just would like leadership that consists of decent human beings who respect the fundamental rights of man, base their decisions on reality, and tell us the truth..
Yes, you are right that you have no way of knowing, and neither do I, but I stand by my statement that the odds that she is telling the truth on that matter are just about identical to my chances of marrying Daddario.
But I don’t care. There is no cause to fight for. She is in. End of story. (Not to mention that I didn’t oppose her in the first place, as long as she is telling the truth about placing the 21st century law and science above her 13th century religious beliefs.)
Frankly, as I observed her, I saw that she’s not a hothead buffoon like Kavanaugh, but seems to have a judicial temperament. And her references are great, so …
You’re in severe denial..
An impressive number of children. More than Scalia!
get a clue. Barrett said she would “need to hear arguments” about whether President Trump can postpone the election.
see the 20th Amendment: The 20th Amendment to the Constitution requires: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January … and the terms of their successors shall then begin.”
of course fascists like you see the Constitution as irrelevant except for the Second Amendment …
The 20th doesn’t address whether the President can delay the election. It simply means that if there is no election held, or president determined, before January 20th, that somebody else would have to be inaugurated.
The date of the election is set by law, however, and can only be changed by law. Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the President, to choose the timing of the general election. An 1845 federal law fixed the date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
But I think she is basically correct. It is not clear whether the President could have some latitude to postpone elections if, for example, the nation were under nuclear attack just before or actually on election day, or there was some other such true emergency that prevented the Congress and courts from convening, and/or absolutely prevented people from going out in public. The President’s emergency powers in such a case could reasonably be considered disputable.
If all national elections were somehow postponed, including Congressional races, then the Chief Justice would swear in the President Pro Tempore of the remaining Senate as the acting President on January 20th, until a President was determined. (That would be the only choice. There would be no President or Vice-President. There would be no House of Representatives in that case, since all of their terms expire in early January. There would still be a diminished Senate consisting of at least those 66 or 67 senators whose terms had not expired.)
Regarding the Senate. I recall that a vacant senate seat can be filled in some states by the governor or state legislature which might result in more than 67 senators. I think the Dems have a slight edge in sitting senators assuming that 2/3 remain.
Yup. That’s why I said “at least.”
What’s clear is that the US is rapidly devolving into a failed nation state due to an absence of representative democracy.
Fifteen red states with a population of under 35 million have 30 Senators and California (a blue state) with a population of 39.5 million has 2 Senators.
Wyoming with a population of 579,000 has the same amount of political power in the Senate as California with a population of 39.5 million: each Wyoming resident has as much representation in the Senate as 68 Californians.
When the Constitution was approved, no state had more than 10 times the population of any other (and certainly not 68 times the population). The idea that the smaller states should have equal power to the larger states in the Senate made some sense. Today, it is a blight on American Democracy to give the citizens of several states 60+ times more representation in the Senate than the citizens of California, for example.
You are quite right, tanner, and we need Constitutional reform to make the Senate at least somewhat proportional to population. Unfortunately, the fractures in the country make the present seem to me like a very bad time to attempt Constitutional reform.
Just a footnote to Roger C’s comment that we need to attempt “Constitutional reform” in order to make the Senate somewhat more proportional to population. Sadly, that’s not possible given the terms of the Constitution. Article V makes it clear that the equal representation of the States in the Senate can never be taken away by Constitutional reform. It is simply the one provision of the Constitution that can never be amended out of the document. You might say that equal representation in the Senate is the single highest principle of our government since it is the one principle that we are stuck with for as long as the Constitution is in effect. Yep, it is only through revolution, or other kind of downfall of the government which would permit us to start over with a new Constitution that we can get to the kind of proportional representation that you are seeking.
That would not be the way to go about it. Here is what I would propose, speaking only slightly tongue in cheek, if the Democrats asked me what they should do.
According to Article IV, section 3, new states can be formed from existing states with the consent of the state legislature and the U.S. Congress. Once that is done, I don’t think there is any way for a state to be de-stated. If the Democrats get control of both houses, it would be a good time to split California into about 51 states, all of them larger than Wyoming. That would give the country a nice, even 100 states. They should be able to gerrymander California so that only a very small number of those new states are red. Wyoming would still have its proportional representation as required in Article V.
That should also give the Democrats enough votes in the Senate to impeach all of the conservative justices one by one.
Is that an obviously immoral and unethical exercise of power? Of course. It’s also what Trump and McConnell would do if they were Democrats in that situation. Following the McConnell Rule, he who holds the power must wield it. The existence of Trump has changed the rules. Maybe politics was never a gentlemen’s game, but it certainly is not one now.
I’m kidding about MOST of that, of course, but I think you can find the basic ideas there, within the hyperbole. The Dems could split California into several states, maybe eight, gerrymandered into seven blue, one red. They could also approve statehood for Puerto Rico, DC and the Virgin Islands.
The Constitution is a law, david hilton. It is a document of rules we created for ourselves. It is subject to our alteration if we want it enough. If you think lawyers cannot come up with passable legal fiction to allow it to be altered with regard to state representation in the Senate, you have don’t know much about lawyers. Sure, people will denounce the fiction and claim the alteration is illegal. And if the alterations are successful and make the public happy, those people will not matter any more than the “sovereign citizens”, or the people who say judge’s rulings are illegal if the flag in the courtroom has a gold fringe, or something to do with the admission of Ohio to the Union.
We make our rules, and we can alter our rules. If the rule about altering the rules is inadequate, it can also be changed. It only results in chaos or violence and chaos if enough people resist change fanatically enough, as in the case of the Civil War. Do you think that would be the case on this issue?
Realistically, I don’t think that can be changed. The Constitution basically says “The future can change anything but this. It is the foundational principle of America.”
But the Constitution sets no limit on the number of States. If Democrats control both houses, they can split any states where they also control the state legislature. I joked above that California could be split into 51 states and they would all be larger than Wyoming. That’s kind of silly, but California could be split into many states. If it were eight states, for example, it easily could be gerrymandered so that seven are blue, one red. And then, of course, they can approve statehood for any territories that are likely to vote blue. Puerto Rico and DC are no-brainers, but there are others as well. The Virgin Islands only contain 100,000 inhabitants. Is that too small to be a state? Hell, no. The Nebraska Territory only contained something like 30,000 people – and that became six states, the same six rinky-dink states that still wield a ridiculously disproportionate amount of power because of those long-ago squabbles about empty pieces of Native American land.
Those moves would give the USA 60 states, and would give the Democrats about a 65-55 lead in the Senate, based on the existing split.