Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Hearings

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
15,268
5,544
1,743
Katy, TX
Roe v. Wade actually was decided by a conservative leaning SC, right?
That court had 6 justices appointed by Republican Presidents; Blackmun (Nixon), Burger (Eisenhower), Brennan (Eisenhower), Stewart (Eisenhower), and Powell (Nixon) were the Republican appointments that voted in favor of RvW.

But, Justices change opinions over time, just as the rest of us do. Using the chart provided by @LS1 Z28 you can see how those judges changed throughout the course of their tenure.

1603897658555.png
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,242
10,124
1,743
Earth
@ODMcB, explain to me why you disagreed with the overall gist of the post above about the fact that we should be more concerned with local elections than national ones and that we should "trust our system" and chill? Are you going to protest if/when Trump is re-elected?
 

ODMcB

Sheriff
Jun 20, 2012
2,573
942
743
@ODMcB, explain to me why you disagreed with the overall gist of the post above about the fact that we should be more concerned with local elections than national ones and that we should "trust our system" and chill? Are you going to protest if/when Trump is re-elected?
Rack-
Understanding the difference between opinion, notion, and fact is where you’ll find your answer. You mentioned zero fact. Here’s a fact: Federal Law supersedes all others of the Land. Opinion: local elections are more important than National Elections. Notion: our democracy is so grossly damaged you imagine the other political party members protesting and rioting, yet see nothing from your own. Two of those thoughts are foolish. Disagreeing with stupid statements usually doesn’t need explanation, but there you go.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,490
4,169
743
People on both sides act like ACB will go in on day one and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade
Of course they are, they're both pandering to their base just before the election. Even if it were overturned, which is doubtful any time soon, all that would do is let the states decide....it will still be legal in many places. I swear, some Dems I've spoken to think overturning it would make abortion illegal under federal law.

Maybe just the threat of it will remind people that state and local elections are important.

Edit: What will happen I believe is several states will pass anti abortion laws for the very purpose that they will bring a legal challenge...be something to keep an eye on.
I mean, abortion was legal before RvW. It's like the idea of back alley abortions. Liberals somehow think that meant all abortions were performed in alleys. Most abortions were in hospitals, and the term came from women trying to hide their abortions, going into dr. offices in the evening through the door in back to avoid being seen. This avoided their names being on hospital admission records is what I heard one person say.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,592
3,759
1,743
It appears that the SCOTUS will sever the individual mandate from the ACA without striking down the full law. This is just further proof that the world isn't going to end with a conservative majority.

 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,672
4,703
1,743
33
Keller, Texas
It appears that the SCOTUS will sever the individual mandate from the ACA without striking down the full law. This is just further proof that the world isn't going to end with a conservative majority.

The judges shouldn't be striking down the law, congress needs to do that but they won't because, just as in passing the law, it would take a super majority. Took it to ram it down our throats and will take it to remove it.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,311
949
743
Edmond
What job, specifically, are you referring to? I was rather clear in this post. It is indeed the job of the president to nominate people to the supreme court.
But it is not the job of the senate to confirm just because the person was nominated. I thought this had been hashed out a lot months ago.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
What job, specifically, are you referring to? I was rather clear in this post. It is indeed the job of the president to nominate people to the supreme court.
But it is not the job of the senate to confirm just because the person was nominated. I thought this had been hashed out a lot months ago.
Their role is to have confirmation hearings, not to push through every nominee, but to hold hearings to determine if that person should be a justice. Their job isn’t to refuse to hold a hearing because they don’t like the president or his politics
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,220
41,059
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
The judges shouldn't be striking down the law, congress needs to do that but they won't because, just as in passing the law, it would take a super majority. Took it to ram it down our throats and will take it to remove it.
That's exactly backwards. If the watch is flawed you send it back to the watchmaker. Instead, the court has been tinkering with it.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,311
949
743
Edmond
Their role is to have confirmation hearings, not to push through every nominee, but to hold hearings to determine if that person should be a justice. Their job isn’t to refuse to hold a hearing because they don’t like the president or his politics
Merick Garland was never going to get the votes for confirmation, from the republican controlled senate. Hence why chuckles never put him on the floor.

This is why the 2 parties cannot work together. They are working off revenge from years past.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
Merick Garland was never going to get the votes for confirmation, from the republican controlled senate. Hence why chuckles never put him on the floor.

This is why the 2 parties cannot work together. They are working off revenge from years past.
I too have a memory, i recall when this happened and it was just as stupid then as it sounds today. You have the hearings because that's what you do, that's your job. As it's the president's job to nominate. Your feelings are not relevant. It doesnt matter if you dont like the potus. You hold the hearing, and then you vote no if that's how you feel. but this shouldnt be political.
 
Last edited:
Feb 11, 2007
4,652
2,040
1,743
Oklahoma City
Their role is to have confirmation hearings, not to push through every nominee, but to hold hearings to determine if that person should be a justice. Their job isn’t to refuse to hold a hearing because they don’t like the president or his politics
In times past the nomination and approval process was routine without argument because both parties agreed that their sole duty was to only judge the law. Times have changed....now mainly the Democratic party believes that judges should judge the effect of the law. They call the Constitution a "living document". This means that the intrepretation can vary depend upon a judges view of how it affects our modern society making it another legislative body.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
In times past the nomination and approval process was routine without argument because both parties agreed that their sole duty was to only judge the law. Times have changed....now mainly the Democratic party believes that judges should judge the effect of the law. They call the Constitution a "living document". This means that the intrepretation can vary depend upon a judges view of how it affects our modern society making it another legislative body.
I'm no democrat but the concept of the constitution being a living document doesnt bother me so much. Otherwise we wouldn't have 27 amendments and a lot of people wouldnt be able to vote. It's intentionally difficult to amend for good reason, but is amendable all the same. There's just no way they could have thought of everything in the 1780's that may impact future generations. They knew this and it's why it's amendable which makes it a living document.

I also like the idea of judges applying the law in terms of what the framers had in mind at the time, to how it it applies today. Although at the end of the day it's an opinion of the judge. But, It's not a document we abide by word for word, there must be wiggle room for interpretation in the changing values and circumstances of modern culture.. i.e. Constitution grants the congress to raise and support the army and the navy. No mention of air force, space force, coast guard, or some other branch of the military that doesnt exist yet. But we can still interpret the intent behind the words in the constitution to meaning the military as it was understood then and applies today. A problem with originalism though is that some people think differently about it- i.e. is it the intend behind the authors? the ratifiers at the 1st convention? Perhaps the public that elected those ratifiers? or just the understanding of a reasonably educated reader?

One thing we dont have- any law that dictates how the constitution must be interpreted. One can be an originalist, or one can be otherwise. There's no impetus to be one way or the other. Me, personally, i do prefer a pragmatic approach, giving weight to precedence and consequence.

And another thing to consider- were the framers of the constitution originalists themselves?
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,311
949
743
Edmond
I too have a memory, i recall when this happened and it was just as stupid then as it sounds today. You have the hearings because that's what you do, that's your job. As it's the president's job to nominate. Your feelings are not relevant. It doesnt matter if you dont like the potus. You hold the hearing, and then you vote no if that's how you feel. but this shouldnt be political.
rabitt hole upcoming.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/new...epublicans-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-2020
  • May 10, 2016, in a Medium post on “Debunking SCOTUS Myths”: “In 2012, the American people re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States. In 2014, the American people elected their respective members of Congress, handing over control of the United States Senate to Republicans. . . . Nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year, particularly under divided government, would be unprecedented in modern American history. It has been 128 years since a Supreme Court justice was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year while the president’s opposing party controlled the Senate (1888, President Grover Cleveland, Justice Melville Fuller).”
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
rabitt hole upcoming.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/new...epublicans-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-2020
  • May 10, 2016, in a Medium post on “Debunking SCOTUS Myths”: “In 2012, the American people re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States. In 2014, the American people elected their respective members of Congress, handing over control of the United States Senate to Republicans. . . . Nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year, particularly under divided government, would be unprecedented in modern American history. It has been 128 years since a Supreme Court justice was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year while the president’s opposing party controlled the Senate (1888, President Grover Cleveland, Justice Melville Fuller).”
We've burned through a few precedents over the last few years though, haven't we? The current administration is not respectful of tact, or precedence.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,592
3,759
1,743
I'm no democrat but the concept of the constitution being a living document doesnt bother me so much. Otherwise we wouldn't have 27 amendments and a lot of people wouldnt be able to vote. It's intentionally difficult to amend for good reason, but is amendable all the same. There's just no way they could have thought of everything in the 1780's that may impact future generations. They knew this and it's why it's amendable which makes it a living document.

I also like the idea of judges applying the law in terms of what the framers had in mind at the time, to how it it applies today. Although at the end of the day it's an opinion of the judge. But, It's not a document we abide by word for word, there must be wiggle room for interpretation in the changing values and circumstances of modern culture.. i.e. Constitution grants the congress to raise and support the army and the navy. No mention of air force, space force, coast guard, or some other branch of the military that doesnt exist yet. But we can still interpret the intent behind the words in the constitution to meaning the military as it was understood then and applies today. A problem with originalism though is that some people think differently about it- i.e. is it the intend behind the authors? the ratifiers at the 1st convention? Perhaps the public that elected those ratifiers? or just the understanding of a reasonably educated reader?

One thing we dont have- any law that dictates how the constitution must be interpreted. One can be an originalist, or one can be otherwise. There's no impetus to be one way or the other. Me, personally, i do prefer a pragmatic approach, giving weight to precedence and consequence.

And another thing to consider- were the framers of the constitution originalists themselves?
I agree with you that the Constitution should be a living document that can be amended, but I disagree beyond that. The separations of power are clear. The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch carries them out, and the judicial branch interprets them. Judicial interpretations shouldn't change with time. If a law becomes outdated, it should be amended or repealed by Congress. It shouldn't be "reinterpreted" by an activist judge.
 
Last edited: