That may well be the case, DrDeth, but I am truly only asking someone to explain the difference between intent and meaning.
This is not what textualists/originalists profess to believe.
I will say that what they profess to believe is mostly irrelevant, because like all conservatives, they follow their dogma when it benefits them and discard it when it doesn’t. “Situationalism” might be a better descriptor.
Originalists are like a lot of liberal/conservative Christians when it comes to the Bible’s vague parts: They can make it into whatever they want.
Except, as I pointed out, she’s not well qualified “based on the other qualifications” of justices “in the past.” (I assume you meant justices, since we’re talking SCOTUS. If not, I apologize for the change.) No other justice on the court has such scanty qualifications.
Barrett said she submitted 1,800 pages of documentation on her decisions. Sounds like a lot, right? But Roberts submitted 75,000 pages. Kagan submitted 170,00. Gorush submitted 180,000 pages. And Kavanaugh submitted over 1,000,000 pages. Why so little for Barrett? Because she has so little experience to document.
Please don’t assume that if she weren’t as qualified as other justices, she wouldn’t have been nominated. That’s absolutely not the case.
Thanks for those numbers, they certainly put it in stark terms that the other justices you mention had lots more judicial experience. But that is far from the only qualification, and who is to say what most prepares you for SCOTUS?
Btw, no need to make assumptions about what I would assume. I know how political all things are in Washington DC, and I remember Harriet Miers.
That’s standard procedure for any nominee. Judges are not supposed to comment on legal issues which may come before them. Her statement on one of them that she would need to receive briefs and arguments before deciding is exactly what a judge should say about a potential legal issue.
What is unusual is that such basic questions like the President delaying an election are actually being asked in the political arena, because of the President himself raising it. The times we live in. 
There’s nothing that mandates a judge can’t explain what issues might arise and what theories she might apply. Absolutely nothing. It’s reasonable to hedge that the specifics of the case are definitely important, but nobody’s asking her to pre-judge a case she’s never seen. We should have a chance to hear from her a little about her jurisprudence and legal theories. Especially since she’s only been on the bench for 2 years and doesn’t have much record to judge.
The only reason we’re now expected to name blank-slate nobodies to SCOTUS is that Robert Bork was a little too transparent about being Nixon’s hatchet-man. This gave 5 Republicans (iirc) an excuse to defect, so the Republicans definitely don’t want to see that happen again.
I’m not happy that the Democrats are doing the same thing, but this is the game until it gets changed. I hope this election will pave the way for those changes.
Someone made the point years ago in an article I read that until the advent of televised hearings for the nominations, thereby giving every politician in existence the chance to come out and bloviate for hours on end, that the nominees were pretty much approved as a matter of course no matter the party in power. Surely one of the reasons that “blank-slate nobodies” such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, and John Jay were, are nominated today is because they are as free from controversy as possible, reducing the ammo that can be used against them. But as you say, it’s wrong, whether Democrats or Republicans do it.
It’s SOP based on the assumption that saying anything could hurt a nominee’s chances of confirmation. In her case it really can’t have anything to do with statements affecting her impartiality because prior to being nominated she’s made some very specific legal opinions very clear on cases that more routinely get heard by the SCOTUS.
Here’s my prediction: a Senate majority party will not vote to confirm a SC nominee from an opposite-party President again in my lifetime.
I don’t know if TV was the reason, but Scalia and Ginsburg were approved 98-0 and 96-0, respectively. It wasn’t all that long ago that the default vote for a nominee was yes unless there was some compelling reason to vote no. Now it’s the other way around; a Democrat needs a really good reason to vote for a Republican-appointed nominee.
The reason the gentleman’s agreement was that Republicans started nominating ideologue hacks. There’s no point in continuing the rubber-stamp regime under those conditions.
And it scarcely bears mentioning, but Merrick Garland didn’t even get a vote. None whatsoever. Kind of hard for anyone to cross party lines under those conditions.
The other thing was that the battle used to be decided before the final vote and that vote was basically a formality, and if a president didn’t think he’d be able to confirm an appointee, he’d pull the nomination. Whatever misgivings the opposition party had to a nominee, if they made it to a final vote, both parties would basically treat it as a formality. Most of the fight would be trying to win some kind of optics battle in the confirmation, and then filibustering or preventing the nominee from getting out of committee. Once it had become clear which side was out ahead in public opinion, either the opposition would let the candidate through the process and everyone would get behind the final vote, or the president would pull it and make another nomination.
BTW, my pet theory is that Kavanaugh was supposed to be the nominee that doesn’t get through so Trump could pull him and nominate ACB for Kennedy’s seat, but Trump was too much of an idiot to get the timing right.
No, it’s not just confirmations. It’s a general principle of judicial ethics: a judge should never comment on the possible outcome of a case that might come before that judge. If they do, and the case does come up, then they’ve prejudged the issue and may have to recuse themselves.
Suppose a trial judge is at the country club with some buddies after a round of golf and Bill Smith’s name comes up, and the judge says “I’ve always thought Bill Smith is a congenital liar.”
And then next week, Bill Smith is called as a witness in a trial in front of that judge. The judge should recuse himself, because he’s pre-judged the credibility of a witness in front of him.
Or suppose it’s a legal issue. The loose-lipped judge comments that he thinks that the law on a particular issue is X. And then next week, in a case in front of him, counsel is arguing strongly that the law is not-X, and that Y is the correct interpretation of the law. The judge has pre-judged and should withdraw.
The confirmation hearings are just one of the starkest, most public examples of why a judge should not comment.
That is one of the most ridiculous things posted today.
Agreed. This is exactly what I was saying. A president got the justices he wanted, no fuss, no muss…
When I mentioned TV hearings, the idea is that no one ever knew what the fuck was going on with the nominations, etc. and didn’t care, because it wasn’t front page news.
So it’s all the fault of the Republicans? Is that what you are saying? No self-respecting Democrat would ever do such a thing? I truly don’t know the answer to this, nor what you are getting at, but I myself would be wary of attributing such behavior to the other side simply because they are of a different political party. I am not saying you are doing this, but it occurs to me now, and has occurred to me often in the past few years, that we all need to stop assuming the worst from an opposing party, and assuming the best from our own party, without considering all viewpoints.
Not even close. Opposing the vote and voting when it is held over your opposition is not the same thing.
Say your boss wants you to hold a meeting with your clients and you say, “I oppose that. It is too early in the process to meet with them.” Your boss says too bad, I’ve already scheduled the meeting. You going to the meeting means you approved of having the meeting?
except she doesn’t have a boss. she’s supposed to be independent.
Precisely. I meant to make the same point yesterday, and even tried to.