ACB Hearings

[LDAHL]

One of the few times she actually said something at the hearing she was clear that discrimination on the base of race was wrong. She most pointedly was not willing to extend that view to sexual orientation. It won’t be loving that she overturns, but Obgerfell.

I think that is where the conflict comes. Between those who want judges to be arbiters of right and wrong and those who assign them the much humbler role of determining whether a particular law is consistent with the Constitution. The first group demands a sort of campaign promise from nominees on how they would rule in a particular instance, and the second group is more interested in a more general judicial philosophy.

[bae]

There was a hilarious series of ads of various celebrities sneering “Hey Amy, if you’re an originalist why do you vote?”. In fact the original mechanics set in place by the founders provided the process to legalize women’s suffrage.

I think people who blather about "originalist" in that fashion have likely not read the Constitution, or examined the history of the text at all.

See Article V of the text, for example.

I also note 27 amendments to the text, the last one in 1992.

[Alan]

I also note 27 amendments to the text, the last one in 1992.

And interestingly enough, it took that last one 203 years to make it through the state ratification process. I like it when government is deliberative.

[bae]

And interestingly enough, it took that last one 203 years to make it through the state ratification process. I like it when government is deliberative.

It took my County 7 years to craft a dangerous dog control ordinance, which by comparison seems a positively dizzying pace.

[frugal-one]

One of the few times she actually said something at the hearing she was clear that discrimination on the base of race was wrong. She most pointedly was not willing to extend that view to sexual orientation. It won’t be loving that she overturns, but Obgerfell.

Did you see the Pope's stance on LGBT? Perhaps, all is not lost.

[jp1]

I think that is where the conflict comes. Between those who want judges to be arbiters of right and wrong and those who assign them the much humbler role of determining whether a particular law is consistent with the Constitution. The first group demands a sort of campaign promise from nominees on how they would rule in a particular instance, and the second group is more interested in a more general judicial philosophy.

Actually I think the conflict comes when people try to claim the wordy high ground as if reasonable people can't disagree on the meaning of something. It's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that not discriminating based on sex would also mean not discriminating based on sexual orientation because the two are inextricably linked. The fact that Barrett doesn't seem to agree with that doesn't make her smarter or more constitutiony.

[jp1]

Did you see the Pope's stance on LGBT? Perhaps, all is not lost.

Plenty of conservative catholics have spoken out against that. I would fully expect Barrett shares their feelings on the matter.

[LDAHL]

Actually I think the conflict comes when people try to claim the wordy high ground as if reasonable people can't disagree on the meaning of something. It's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that not discriminating based on sex would also mean not discriminating based on sexual orientation because the two are inextricably linked. The fact that Barrett doesn't seem to agree with that doesn't make her smarter or more constitutiony.

It is not the job of referees to move the ball down the field. It is not the job of the courts to advance some favored social cause. The people demanding ideological litmus tests want advocates or legislators, in the place of judges.

[Tybee]

Maybe the new justice will listen to the Pope now on LGTBQ issues. Maybe being a practicing Catholic will be a good thing!

[jp1]

Perhaps it's time to re-open the discussion on what exactly the definition of "packing the courts" is. Apparently now we've gone from "eight months before an election is too close for us to be confirming judges in case the incumbent party loses" to "even though our president lost the election we're going to jam through as many judges as we can".

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...medium=lawdesk