I believe she thinks that her morality is beyond reproach and therefore her decisions cannot be subject to moral questioning by others. In other words, we have finally found The One; a Jurist whose morality is absolute.
Also, I think @Temporary_Name posted with tongue firmly in cheek. …Right?
I’m at a loss for how a woman could possibly call herself an “originalist” while auditioning for a role in government that she originally was excluded from.
I presume this is asked of my post above; forgive me if that is incorrect.
She is emphasizing her moral and impartial view of the world and her insistence that her personal views will in no way, shape, or form influence her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice. My sense is that however moral her intents might be – all of her findings will be perfectly exactly what is being predicted before hand.
Of course she would never allow political considerations to be any part of any decision – but in practice I believe she is far more predictable than she is suggesting.
Precisely!
Her morality and impartiality will surely inspire a new, New Testament.
OK - sorry, I did not get the snark.
In my personal opinion, many/most of the people I’ve encountered who make a point out of presenting themselves as extremely moral, impress me as the least so. That is especially true of people whose morality derives from an intolerant and judgmental religion such as RC.
May I ask what exactly Barrett opponents want her to say?
Do they want her to give a verbal guarantee - “if confirmed, I pledge not to overturn any prior Supreme Court rulings?” That would protect Roe, but you’d also have a justice who refuses to overturn prior rulings that deserve to be overturned (if any exist,) even bad ones.
What’s with all the questions about her faith? What does that have to deal with constitutional and legal issues?
They are trying to see if she can separate church and state. I, for one, very much doubt she can.
I’d want any SCOTUS nominee to say that Roe and Oberfell are settled law.
This doesn’t really matter because I wouldn’t believe her based on past statements/actions, and at any rate I already am against confirming her no matter what she says this week.
The Democrats have also turned it into a political arm. It’s an unfortunate reality that both sides look at the court as a way to further their agenda.
I’m assuming she’d say that the 19th amendment overrides the original intent of leaving women out.
You can clearly see they haven’t.
If you want to bothsideism and declare hypocrisy for what you think that they might do, go ahead, but you would be pretty hard pressed to find examples of them actually doing so.
Well, we can start with FDR and his intent to pack the court to further his agenda. Then take a look at the list of most recent votes for the SC: Why The Supreme Court’s Reputation Is At Stake | FiveThirtyEight
The Democrats are the ones who started fighting against the opposite judges. If you want, we can spin this to say that it was the Democrats who first realized how important the courts were.
Lastly, if the current political situation was reversed my guess is that Dopers would want the Democrats to sneak in an abortion friendly judge before losing the senate and presidency.
Barrett apparently didn’t answer if she’d recuse from a court case that came out of the 2020 election:
Considering her vote as a SCOTUS justice could be pivotal in election outcomes, it would have been reckless for her to recuse herself in advance.
Slight aside. All these issues we’re discussing seem to be a rehash of the same legal and constitutional concerns expressed when Kavanaugh was the nominee, and Gorsuch before that. It’s a well warn path we’re on. Is this just performative art and is Barrett’s nomination a fait accompli? I mean, is there even a path to blocking her selection to the SC?
Sure, if being the deciding vote is more important to her than avoiding the appearance of blatant corruption and destroying the remaining shreds of credibility left for the court. But if she’s honorable and patriotic, then it wouldn’t be.
Nice spin.
When a president who was elected with massive support signs bills passed with bipartisan congressional support, and those are overturned, it’s not turning SCOTUS into a democratic political arm to try to get them to stop blocking legislation that has very widespread support among both parties.
I assume that you are talking about Bork. The fact that there were Democratic senators that recognized that Bork was being put on for the purposes of politicizing the court and voted against him to prevent it from becoming so doesn’t mean that they politized it, only that they recognized the dangers of it becoming a political arm of either party. This was even recognized by 6 members of the Republican party who voted against him.
When Reagan then nominated a less partisan individual, Kennedy was confirmed unanimously.
It was not blocking a president’s nomination, but against a partisan SCOTUS nominee that the Democrats acted against.
Ah, the 'ol, “I guess that you would be hypocritical, therefore you are.” charge.
First of all, if it’s essential that she not recuse herself, she should clarify that. If you don’t want her to recuse herself, don’t let her off the hook - you need her to prevent a deadlock.
Second of all, if she does recuse herself, a deadlock would still allow something to happen. It would mean that a lower court ruling would stand. Of course this calls the legitimacy of the decision into question, but the outcome is more delegitimized if the Trump and the GOP can appoint the tiebreaking vote on an election that directly affects their time in office three weeks before the decision.
No, there is no path. This is all performative to try to rile up the base. It’s even more set in stone than past nominations because the timeline is so short. With most nominations, there was a possibility of the President pulling a controversial nominee and nominating a new one, but there likely isn’t time to do that now. The GOP has decided to fill the seat before election day and they now have no choice. If 4 senators were really unwilling to confirm Barrett, they would have informed Trump before the nomination.
An originalist isn’t someone that necessarily agrees with the prevailing wisdom/attitudes at the time when the law was drafted, just someone that thinks that those those prevailing attitudes need to be taken into account when deciphering intent of a law, when the interpretation of the law is unclear.
An originalist may think that a law is unfair or immoral, but may also think that it is not their job to fix it by squinting at it real hard with a modern lens and trying to back themselves into the “right” result for society. Fixing the law is the job of the legislature.