I don’t agree with that, but I think a substantive response would further this hijack. Let’s stop here.
~Max
I appreciate that. At the end of the day what really matters is how voters respond to what their elected officials do. Everyone directly involved in this nomination has already made their decision this time. Hopefully next time they are more worried about their own voters.
Has anybody heard of this “shadow docket” before?
~Max
I don’t see how Trump’s Supreme Court nominee’s position on one of the most private and fundamental issues is a hijack on a thread talking about the qualifications and character of said nominee, but if you don’t think that can explain how allowing the government to intrude upon the private activities of consenting adults is a conservative principle that you are supporting, then I’ll let you drop it.
I think this is dangerously close to a hijack, is all. I don’t think “allowing the government to intrude upon the private activities of consenting adults” is a conservative principle, or even a relevant question to ask. Whether the state government should or should not intrude on private activities is, I think, off-topic.
I do think a textualist (read: conservative) approach to the Constitution implies that the federal government cannot necessarily intervene when state governments intrude on private activities of consenting adults. Presumably Judge Barrett takes this approach. (We recently had a GD topic where I defended my personal view on unenumerated rights such as the right to privacy.)
~Max
I think that whether or not ACB will uphold this or overturn it is pretty relevant. I mean, the senators in her confirmation hearing thought so, even you seemed to think so, when you brought it up.
I’m also not sure what it is that would be preventing the federal government from banning birth control, other than Griswold itself.
If the US government passed a law banning contraceptives throughout the country, do you think that ACB would vote to uphold it?
I assume that this means that you think that ACB would be against the Heller decision as well?
And sometimes the state government is just plain wrong. Hence the appeal process and the Supremacy Clause.
Presumably she agrees with Scalia, seeing how he is her hero and the author of that opinion. I personally don’t see any contradiction between textualism and federal enforcement of enumerated rights. (In the case of D.C., the Congress has plenary legislative power much like a state legislature.) I just heard Judge Barrett cite Heller with approval, over the radio, about fifteen seconds ago.
~Max
So, they care what you do under your covers, but not what you keep under your pillow.
Sounds about right, nothing about consistency or integrity, just about having ad hoc justifications for what they want right now.
If we had an amendment that enumerates the right to privacy, such as we have in the Constitution of Florida, things would be different.
~Max
Hence the state judiciary, you mean?
Article III courts and the supremacy clause only come into play when a federal question is raised.
~Max
Man, if i believed in the term “mansplaining” I’d say there has been tons of it. Good, for me, it just people being annoying.
Also, the whole “sexual preference is a slur” got me by surpise. Booker had to say that sexual orientation is immutable, something which even I can understand to be false. Faux outrage if there ever was one. Even here it has been used over and over again and never been even hinted, on itself, as even remotely as slur or even not-quite-appropriate.
I would say that the Fourth Amendment enumerates that right as well, or even better, than the Second enumerates a right to individual ownership of firearms.
But, as all “textualists” will do, they will find an excuse to come to the conclusions that they have already decided.
Well, to an extent, I’ll agree with you.
~Max
Kamala Harris refered only to women when mentioning abortions.
So, she said, by extension, that men cannot get pregnant.
Does this make her a transphobe now?
No. Is that a real question?
Taking this as just one example from your post, I do not see how this alone address whether she has “moral character” or not. For decades now, nominees have refused to answer questions in this vein, that are hypothetical in nature. Kagan dodged, Sotomayor dodged, certainly Kavanaugh dodged, but everyone for a very long time has dodged such questions. Did everyone who has done such a thing since Bork turn out to have no moral character? So again, for me, I can’t make this decision on Barrett based on exchanges like this. I instead would consider other reasons why nominees don’t want to go down this road, such as having a case come up after they are confirmed, and having made statements that could be used to unfairly attack her decision from the bench.
She just flat out and out lied when questioned by Harris, saying she had no idea trump was after the ACA.
Either she is stupid and she lied. She isnt stupid.
You are seriously suggesting that the Court will be hearing a case on the constitutionality of committing voter intimidation?
If Amy Coney Barrett believes that the Constitution contains protections for those who would knowingly and deliberately take actions designed to keep people from voting, then she does not, factually, know what’s in the US Constitution. And that’s a problem.
It may be the case that she is ignorant of this. She has provided some evidence supporting that view. Today, for example, she was not able to name the Five Freedoms contained in the 1st Amendment:
No, nothing of the kind. I’m saying that if a nominee, any nominee, answers one question like this, they will be expected to answer many like this, and that’s why they all refuse to answer. It’s not about moral character. The fact that she didn’t answer is for this reason, and does not mean she doesn’t know what’s in the Constitution. To be clear, I’m not saying dodging like this is necessarily fine, but it’s political in nature, not moral.