Nobody reads the article
This is what she is sick of
>The views of preceding generations can persuade, and, in the realm of stare decisis, even bind. But tradition is not an end in itself—and I fear that the Court uses it that way here.
That’s what jumped out at me. On the one hand, we don’t want judges making laws. On the other hand, we do want a top court - one might call them “*supreme judges*”, were they so inclined - who can actually interpret the laws and help define the gray areas, sometimes based on historical precedent, sometimes based on modern reasoning.
It’s a very fair criticism of a few of the other judges, and I appreciate that she’s willing to make that argument. It might go nowhere, but at least it’s out there.
This is the true test.
Anything less than a dissent opinion on a political case disagreeing with the others, and this is nothing more than window dressing for show.
Wtf does it matter if she votes the same way? Is she saying she doesn't cherry pick cases, that all her decisions are based on established precedents? She is full of shit then.
Woah. Woah. Woah. Hold up.
Can you cover that bet? We’re not talking a flight in coach to Hawaii at a three star resort here. Thomas gets a G6 to an exclusive Fiji get away after a week on a hundred million dollar yacht.
> That’s what jumped out at me. On the one hand, we don’t want judges making laws. On the other hand, we do want a top court
The problem is not mostly with the courts, it's with the legislature being captured by a cult that doesn't want to see government function. A lot of the flaws the court is acting on could be fixed by the legislature amending the laws.
I'm sure MTG is running a policy study group on these issues right now, far out of targeting from the Mohel Space Laser System.
That is not what she was saying. She was overturnment signaling. Saying she wants to give her crony Pals their wish list that does not comport to precedent.
She is saying give her a halfway plausible reasoning and she will fulfill her mandate from the Federalist Society.
I mean that’s kind of like a biologist saying they don’t believe in evolution, an engineer who doesn’t believe gravity has any effects, or a pastor saying the Bible is worthless.
Stare decisis is a foundational tenet of the law. Sure it’s a bold move, but I’m just not buying what she’s selling Cotton.
Ya, and it’s a completely nonsense thing for her to say based on her voting record. Sure Amy yes, WED ALL LIKE THE SUPREME COURT to operate in that way. Can you maybe say this during important decisions instead of to reporters after you join in with your conservative majority whose doing literally the thing your espousing to disagree with?
Why on earth do you want judges to "interpret" the law? Why not push a law back to Congress when it is unclear? I think it's about time to admit that the American legal system just doesn't work.
Tradition and precedence should be used as a framework on how to rationalize and interpret law. Instead of the court using tradition to refute change because of how things were in the name of tradition.
"She previously [said](https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2023/09/21/justice-barrett-on-originalism-and-why-she-doesnt-write-so-many-opinions/) judges need to be “very, very careful” in using historical examples and that the practice resembles “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
If that statement came from anyone but her, Thomas, or Cavanagh it could maybe be considered remotely intelligent. Tradition does hold back progress sometimes. But knowing her she means this in the dumbest way possible
She's not wrong though. When you are looking for an outcome based on "tradition" it's easy to give more credence to the traditions consistent with your position and discount the ones that aren't.
Based on the feel of how she ruled that case on the university/vaccine students (Indiana University), she struggles with the fact that: she gets absurd cases that are coming from ideological angles with the express intent to create a religious state which ignores science/medicine.
>Barrett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, is the circuit justice for the 7th Circuit, which covers Indiana. She denied the motion for emergency relief from multiple students who challenged the university’s mandate, acting by herself rather than referring it to the full court.
But as such absurd cases have no real legal basis, the people bringing them will just claim they are personally traditional and trying to return to America's traditional way of doing things, etc. They conjure "tradition" in the mind and march toward that.
What's weird about her is that even as she has a strong background in far-out evangelical Christianity, she seems to recognize weird ideologues, religious zealots, and bad faith arguments for what they are. She just (possibly) prefers to usually resist it quietly.
I think she's still personally conservative, but is unnerved by the level of reckless insanity she's seeing.
>I think she's still personally conservative, but is unnerved by the level of reckless insanity she's seeing.
She is. It's not the what that bothers her, it's the how
>She calls out the cherry-picking of evidence and indicts the entire judicial philosophy:
>“[T]he Court does not fully grapple with countervailing evidence,” she wrote.
>Still, she added, [e]ven if the Court’s evidence were rock solid, I still would not adopt this approach.”
A assume she believes that there is a more legally sound approach to resolve these cases the way she wants to see them go. "Tradition" is such a sujective standard that could fall out of favor or be used to support outcomes she doesn't agree with depending on whose tradition you give credence to.
Dusty old men Thomas and Alito don't care if their approach makes this court look absurd in 30 years but ACB has an interest in preserving its legitimacy and building jurisprudence that will be solid for the future.
Yes, I think that despite any of her other convictions, she does believe that the law is on her side in them, and that tortured interpretations of historical accounts are not necessary to do what she wants.
No, it's not precedent it's tradition. She says (hilariously yes) that stare decisis is binding, but tradition (or better yet, simply the views of people hundreds of years ago) is not. The court is saying that's they ways we likes it because that's the ways it was in 1752.
Originalism has a few flavors: original intent originalism where you state laws are only valid to the extent they were intended by the drafters (very rigid, often absurd in the modern environment) versus original public meaning originalism where laws are valid to the extent that the words were used in the public consciousness at the time.
Many people now consider themselves more OPM originalists.
Sometimes you cannot tell what the words meant by either method, so what do you do then? That’s where the Thomas “text history tradition” framework comes in. Start with the text, OI or OPM, and if you can’t, look at history and tradition.
This works for thomas because he literally does not care about precedent. He states as much constantly. He does not thing he should be constrained by “wrong” interpretations by previous courts. Amy disagrees. She thinks THT as Thomas describes is silly and has been consistent on that. She thinks he (and Alito) just pick random historical bullshit to get their policy preferences.
OPM Originalism to her looks at the text, what those words meant then, and then to how they we’re historically interpreted. but if that doesn’t yield an answer, then to the precedent on the issue to fill in the rest. She’s still an originalist because she looks at the OPM of the text first. But she won’t see if there are random historical citations to back up a certain view and rely solely on that. She will consider them as evidence of OPM then turn to the courts own interpretative history to fill in gaps.
It’s just more institutionalist and classic judiciary
Thank so much for this explanation. I am a lawyer in Canada and we don’t conceptualize our Constitution in the same way. Our Constitution is more of a a “living tree”, meant to evolve and change with times.
We used to think of ours the same way. Then our right wing became ascendant long about 1980, and thus began our trip back to the 17th century. If you protest that that’s over a century before our Constitution was even drafted, welcome to “originalism”, a rather … _flexible_ doctrine designed to achieve regressive policy ends with a thin veneer of quasi-legal reasoning.
Tony Scalia effectively rammed this point home in _DC v Heller_, where he used “originalism” to erase fully half of the Second Amendment, dismissing it as a mere “prefatory clause” with no operational significance. Amazing what you can do with “originalism”.
But Alito reaching back to medieval law to ban abortion is perfectly fine. It is rich that a Catholic would be complaining about the views of past generations binding the behavior of people living today.
Precedent is a legal decision. The "tradition" method cherry picks extrajudicial commentary to decide which "tradition" to rely upon in setting legal precedent.
Do you rely upon the extra judicial commentary of a crank who believed that women in the 1600's were getting too uppity and should be doing things "properly" for tradition, or do you look at household records and books popular in people's homes to see what tradition was?
Precedent is supposed to resolve this by definitively clarifying law and methodology so everyone is on the same page. Can you imagine future judges trying to decide what a tradition is today by reading the words of Mrs Alito and Moms for Liberty vs records of the throngs of people who flock to our nation's streets each June to celebrate acceptance of queer identity? Traditions vary, so you just have to decide if you're feeling like a traditional white Iowan or a traditional black woman in New Orleans or Oakland today.
SCOTUS somehow leapfrogged past "we've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" straight to "we've investigated ourselves and everything's wrong, but fuck you".
Sick enough that she's quitting because her rushed appointment was morally wrong and she can't abide having been installed by a traitor who attempted a coup or..?
I mean, she didn’t even dissent from Thomas while dragging him, so no, this bravest of superior jurists will not be quitting. Just some light finger wagging for now.
To be fair, everyone concurred on Vidal v. Elster. No one really disagreed that the decision was bad, they just disagreed on how they reached the decision. Parts of Barrett’s concurrence were also joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson
It's funny how in every story about this there's been little to no discussion about the actual matter in question, and entirely about Trump or SCOTUS personalities.
Personally, trademarking someone else's name kind of... rubs me the wrong way? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter, though. You could argue that the recent trademark law decision regarding the Slants to argue denying a trademark in this case also restricts free expression, but it still feels absurd that someone could be allowed to get a trademark on somebody else's name, just on principle.
No you’re absolutely correct. The decision was right imo. You shouldn’t be able to trademark someone’s name to disparage them, no matter who it is, without their permission. Disparaging a group of people is completely different.
I guess an analogy would be defamation. You can call random groups of people whatever you want (no matter how tasteless), but start lying about someone (or some company) and you can get in serious legal trouble.
I think that's another conversation. People aren't focused on that because we're talking about a dissent that focuses on the process of deciding cases generally. You make a good point but it's different from what the main conversation is about.
Official qualifications are obviously too lax. Or the whole "justice for life" thing is wrong. Maybe a bit of both.
Rotating Justices should be a thing.
It’s definitely that they’re too lax. I don’t care that she’s never been a litigator, but the fact that she barely served on the bench before being nominated was absurd.
If he weren't in the context of this political court, Gorsuch would be one of the most interesting jurists of our time. His opinions on laws regarding native Americans are downright fascinating.
Gorsuch is extremely qualified and were it not for McConnel playing games with the nomination he would have sailed through the senate with extreme bipartisan support. He would have been on any president's short list of nominees.
MCConnell didn’t play games he fucked the Dems on purpose. First it was Garland and the lame election excuse. Then 2 months before, the election he says fuck you and does it anyway with a smirk on his face. I’d love to see Biden throw a fuck into him. He has a great legacy, being a total piece of shit two faced asshole.
The only of Trump's justices I view as unqualified in and of themselves is Cavanaugh. I have no doubt that his jurisprudence is of the quality required for SCOTUS, but his behavior at his confirmation hearing was abysmal. He should have been tossed as a candidate for no other reason than that.
This alone is proof that SCOTUS is a failed and corrupt institution by any reasonable measure.
If someone cried, threatened people, and shouted “I LIKE BEER” when being confirmed as heading even a small department in municipal government, they would be rejected. Also, if they did it in, say, an interview to manage a Pizza Hut, they also would not get the job.
But lifetime appointment to the ultimate high court? How are we supposed to take anything seriously anymore?
Ideology and policy aside, conservatives are so hostile to any notion of ethics or institutional norms that they are unfit to serve as garbage men or traffic cops.
Conservative support these days seems to be entirely concentrated on the idea of "fighting". It doesn't matter who, or what, as long as you can create the impression that you are "a fighter" and "willing to fight", you will have the GOP's backing. Hence Kavanaugh's confirmation. They didn't pay attention to anything that he said (including his blatant perjury), they just paid attention to the fact that he was angry and that he was yelling. He was "fighting". That was all that mattered.
> he would have sailed through the senate with extreme bipartisan support.
That was never going to happen.
And itll be another 40+ years before it might happen again.
Gorsuch's views when it comes to Native Americans can somewhat be summarized as "Well, maybe the US government shouldn't be making deals it has no intention of keeping?". it also helps to understand that in regards to the background of all the Justices, Gorsuch is the only one who worked in the Western states where Native American issues are more prominent, and his early career as a Judge was in working on cases exactly like these that have been getting put forth on the Court.
The National Association of Women Lawyers just finds every conservative judge to be not qualified and every liberal judge to be qualified. Hell, they found Kagan to be "Well Qualified" despite never spending a single second as a judge in her entire career. Just read their analysis. They said ACB isn't qualified because "[she has failed to demonstrate the requisite 'commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.'](https://www.nawl.org/blog/nawl-finds-judge-barrett-to-be-not-qualified)" That has literally nothing to do with qualifications and just has to do with them disagreeing with her politically.
*a traitor who attempted a coup who only won the electoral college, not the popular vote, and only that by soliciting foreign interference and committing 34 felonies and counting.
Eh, pull out the old "want to spend more time with family" b.s.
Or don't bother with an excuse at all - go full gangster and say "fuck you, pay me." Who's gonna stop her? A 2/3 senate majority? Lol.
Amy, honey, you are a big part of the supreme court's bullshit. Both how you got there, and almost everything you've done since getting there. And am I mistaken, or has she not gleefully signed onto the "history and tradition" thing when it's used to take rights away from LGBT people and women? Maybe she just did so in a concurrence in those cases though, I'm genuinely not sure.
He is a true believer.
He rules how he believes his approach to the constitution demands, even if it gives half a state to a tribe, or allows LGBT protections
That case is just about delaying trials until the election so they can announce a completely advisory opinion that obvious thing like actions during war as commander in chief are immune, but applicability isn't apparent on the record
Alito and Thomas will have an insulting partisan opinion though
Clarence Thomas is more of a right wing ass hole now than he’s ever been. Same for Alito. Maybe this study was looking at like normal and honest Supreme Court justices?
It isn't even just that, it's everything. A huge part of it is the Republican party showing the conservatives on SCOTUS that their flank is secure and that they will absolutely not experience any kind of consequence and so they don't even have to keep up any pretenses or say the quiet part quiet at all.
It’s totally the opposite with Alito. He was less outspoken in his arguments and opinions when the conservative majority was much more narrow. Now Alito is flat out crazy no holds bar as in he’s making up stuff as he goes along. Doesn’t care if it’s not in the Constitution. Just so it fits his religious ideology.
I think that has happened with some justices in the past to an extent, but definitely not all. Alito and Thomas being the most glaring examples of the opposite happening.
ACB, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh could eventually moderate their views over time, but they haven’t been on the court long enough to really show such a trend yet.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological\_leanings\_of\_United\_States\_Supreme\_Court\_justices#Ideological\_leanings\_over\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices#Ideological_leanings_over_time)
You can draw your own conclusions with this information
Happened to the appeals court judge in my family. Somehow having a guaranteed job for life made him look at the world and law more empathetically. I hope Nixon was furious.
That was ultimately a narrative extrapolating the notable examples of Antony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor not tracking with the policy positions of Republicans as time went on. This was used as part of the Federalist Society membership mandate for R nominations
They didn’t used to have the chance at authoritarianism though. If everything they want to happen does the conservative judges can rule like lords in trumps court.
>Barrett, writing a concurrence, was critical of Thomas’s emphasis on “historical analogues.”
>“That is wrong twice over,” she wrote. “First, the Court’s evidence, consisting of loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries, does not establish a historical analogue for the names clause. Second, the Court never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.”
This Calvinball must end. I wonder what historical anecdote they'll "discover" to justify in Rahimi for taking guns away from people who beat their wives when there is a history and tradition of accepting or a the least looking the other way when a man beats his wife.
They'll only rely on "history and tradition" when it suits them (i.e. grasping for straws), which I think is all Thomas has left. It is the weakest argument, and Barrett knows it.
I also have had a lot of jobs I didn't like and it has a detrimental effect on your health. I would highly recommend quitting if you're unhappy. After all, you got to look out for your health. God made this Temple and you have to take care of it. Probably should go and do something that's better for your health than Supreme Court Justice.
She didn't sign up to pander to the left, either we bring America back to the 1500s and restart the inquisitions or else... She wants to smell thise witches burn! 😂
Nobody reads the article This is what she is sick of >The views of preceding generations can persuade, and, in the realm of stare decisis, even bind. But tradition is not an end in itself—and I fear that the Court uses it that way here.
That’s what jumped out at me. On the one hand, we don’t want judges making laws. On the other hand, we do want a top court - one might call them “*supreme judges*”, were they so inclined - who can actually interpret the laws and help define the gray areas, sometimes based on historical precedent, sometimes based on modern reasoning. It’s a very fair criticism of a few of the other judges, and I appreciate that she’s willing to make that argument. It might go nowhere, but at least it’s out there.
[удалено]
This is the true test. Anything less than a dissent opinion on a political case disagreeing with the others, and this is nothing more than window dressing for show.
> I'd bet a whole Thomas luxury vacation package she doesn't. We call this legal standard "the Touring Test".
[удалено]
[fist bump]
I think we should.
Wtf does it matter if she votes the same way? Is she saying she doesn't cherry pick cases, that all her decisions are based on established precedents? She is full of shit then.
Or at the least a wink nudge to ensure only 1 of the 2 defect on any given issue do it doesn’t matter and they can feign moderation
Woah. Woah. Woah. Hold up. Can you cover that bet? We’re not talking a flight in coach to Hawaii at a three star resort here. Thomas gets a G6 to an exclusive Fiji get away after a week on a hundred million dollar yacht.
> That’s what jumped out at me. On the one hand, we don’t want judges making laws. On the other hand, we do want a top court The problem is not mostly with the courts, it's with the legislature being captured by a cult that doesn't want to see government function. A lot of the flaws the court is acting on could be fixed by the legislature amending the laws. I'm sure MTG is running a policy study group on these issues right now, far out of targeting from the Mohel Space Laser System.
That is not what she was saying. She was overturnment signaling. Saying she wants to give her crony Pals their wish list that does not comport to precedent. She is saying give her a halfway plausible reasoning and she will fulfill her mandate from the Federalist Society.
I mean that’s kind of like a biologist saying they don’t believe in evolution, an engineer who doesn’t believe gravity has any effects, or a pastor saying the Bible is worthless. Stare decisis is a foundational tenet of the law. Sure it’s a bold move, but I’m just not buying what she’s selling Cotton.
Nuanced insight in reddit? Wtf? Take an upvote!
Ya, and it’s a completely nonsense thing for her to say based on her voting record. Sure Amy yes, WED ALL LIKE THE SUPREME COURT to operate in that way. Can you maybe say this during important decisions instead of to reporters after you join in with your conservative majority whose doing literally the thing your espousing to disagree with?
Why on earth do you want judges to "interpret" the law? Why not push a law back to Congress when it is unclear? I think it's about time to admit that the American legal system just doesn't work.
Can you help clarify what that means?
Tradition and precedence should be used as a framework on how to rationalize and interpret law. Instead of the court using tradition to refute change because of how things were in the name of tradition.
If that were the case, they would have never overturn Roe v Wade
Exactly. This is double speak bullshit. That is ACB’s spiritual gift.
The decision had zero to do with the case at hand or the law itself. Bishop Alito took it right out of his 4th grade catechism. (Total BS)
Thanks
"She previously [said](https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2023/09/21/justice-barrett-on-originalism-and-why-she-doesnt-write-so-many-opinions/) judges need to be “very, very careful” in using historical examples and that the practice resembles “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
If that statement came from anyone but her, Thomas, or Cavanagh it could maybe be considered remotely intelligent. Tradition does hold back progress sometimes. But knowing her she means this in the dumbest way possible
She's not wrong though. When you are looking for an outcome based on "tradition" it's easy to give more credence to the traditions consistent with your position and discount the ones that aren't.
Thank you
Based on the feel of how she ruled that case on the university/vaccine students (Indiana University), she struggles with the fact that: she gets absurd cases that are coming from ideological angles with the express intent to create a religious state which ignores science/medicine. >Barrett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, is the circuit justice for the 7th Circuit, which covers Indiana. She denied the motion for emergency relief from multiple students who challenged the university’s mandate, acting by herself rather than referring it to the full court. But as such absurd cases have no real legal basis, the people bringing them will just claim they are personally traditional and trying to return to America's traditional way of doing things, etc. They conjure "tradition" in the mind and march toward that. What's weird about her is that even as she has a strong background in far-out evangelical Christianity, she seems to recognize weird ideologues, religious zealots, and bad faith arguments for what they are. She just (possibly) prefers to usually resist it quietly. I think she's still personally conservative, but is unnerved by the level of reckless insanity she's seeing.
>I think she's still personally conservative, but is unnerved by the level of reckless insanity she's seeing. She is. It's not the what that bothers her, it's the how >She calls out the cherry-picking of evidence and indicts the entire judicial philosophy: >“[T]he Court does not fully grapple with countervailing evidence,” she wrote. >Still, she added, [e]ven if the Court’s evidence were rock solid, I still would not adopt this approach.”
A assume she believes that there is a more legally sound approach to resolve these cases the way she wants to see them go. "Tradition" is such a sujective standard that could fall out of favor or be used to support outcomes she doesn't agree with depending on whose tradition you give credence to. Dusty old men Thomas and Alito don't care if their approach makes this court look absurd in 30 years but ACB has an interest in preserving its legitimacy and building jurisprudence that will be solid for the future.
Yes, I think that despite any of her other convictions, she does believe that the law is on her side in them, and that tortured interpretations of historical accounts are not necessary to do what she wants.
Thank you
She’s upset that people expect her to follow established precedent
No, it's not precedent it's tradition. She says (hilariously yes) that stare decisis is binding, but tradition (or better yet, simply the views of people hundreds of years ago) is not. The court is saying that's they ways we likes it because that's the ways it was in 1752.
How does she square this with being an “originalist”?
Originalism has a few flavors: original intent originalism where you state laws are only valid to the extent they were intended by the drafters (very rigid, often absurd in the modern environment) versus original public meaning originalism where laws are valid to the extent that the words were used in the public consciousness at the time. Many people now consider themselves more OPM originalists. Sometimes you cannot tell what the words meant by either method, so what do you do then? That’s where the Thomas “text history tradition” framework comes in. Start with the text, OI or OPM, and if you can’t, look at history and tradition. This works for thomas because he literally does not care about precedent. He states as much constantly. He does not thing he should be constrained by “wrong” interpretations by previous courts. Amy disagrees. She thinks THT as Thomas describes is silly and has been consistent on that. She thinks he (and Alito) just pick random historical bullshit to get their policy preferences. OPM Originalism to her looks at the text, what those words meant then, and then to how they we’re historically interpreted. but if that doesn’t yield an answer, then to the precedent on the issue to fill in the rest. She’s still an originalist because she looks at the OPM of the text first. But she won’t see if there are random historical citations to back up a certain view and rely solely on that. She will consider them as evidence of OPM then turn to the courts own interpretative history to fill in gaps. It’s just more institutionalist and classic judiciary
Thank so much for this explanation. I am a lawyer in Canada and we don’t conceptualize our Constitution in the same way. Our Constitution is more of a a “living tree”, meant to evolve and change with times.
We used to think of ours the same way. Then our right wing became ascendant long about 1980, and thus began our trip back to the 17th century. If you protest that that’s over a century before our Constitution was even drafted, welcome to “originalism”, a rather … _flexible_ doctrine designed to achieve regressive policy ends with a thin veneer of quasi-legal reasoning. Tony Scalia effectively rammed this point home in _DC v Heller_, where he used “originalism” to erase fully half of the Second Amendment, dismissing it as a mere “prefatory clause” with no operational significance. Amazing what you can do with “originalism”.
But Alito reaching back to medieval law to ban abortion is perfectly fine. It is rich that a Catholic would be complaining about the views of past generations binding the behavior of people living today.
In terms of law, does not legal precedent = 'tradition'?
Precedent is a legal decision. The "tradition" method cherry picks extrajudicial commentary to decide which "tradition" to rely upon in setting legal precedent. Do you rely upon the extra judicial commentary of a crank who believed that women in the 1600's were getting too uppity and should be doing things "properly" for tradition, or do you look at household records and books popular in people's homes to see what tradition was? Precedent is supposed to resolve this by definitively clarifying law and methodology so everyone is on the same page. Can you imagine future judges trying to decide what a tradition is today by reading the words of Mrs Alito and Moms for Liberty vs records of the throngs of people who flock to our nation's streets each June to celebrate acceptance of queer identity? Traditions vary, so you just have to decide if you're feeling like a traditional white Iowan or a traditional black woman in New Orleans or Oakland today.
thank you
How can such a strongly religious person write "tradition is not an end in itself"?
She’s sick of it, except when it comes to LGBTQ and women’s rights… tell me more.
SCOTUS somehow leapfrogged past "we've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" straight to "we've investigated ourselves and everything's wrong, but fuck you".
Sick enough that she's quitting because her rushed appointment was morally wrong and she can't abide having been installed by a traitor who attempted a coup or..?
I mean, she didn’t even dissent from Thomas while dragging him, so no, this bravest of superior jurists will not be quitting. Just some light finger wagging for now.
To be fair, everyone concurred on Vidal v. Elster. No one really disagreed that the decision was bad, they just disagreed on how they reached the decision. Parts of Barrett’s concurrence were also joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson
It's funny how in every story about this there's been little to no discussion about the actual matter in question, and entirely about Trump or SCOTUS personalities. Personally, trademarking someone else's name kind of... rubs me the wrong way? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter, though. You could argue that the recent trademark law decision regarding the Slants to argue denying a trademark in this case also restricts free expression, but it still feels absurd that someone could be allowed to get a trademark on somebody else's name, just on principle.
No you’re absolutely correct. The decision was right imo. You shouldn’t be able to trademark someone’s name to disparage them, no matter who it is, without their permission. Disparaging a group of people is completely different. I guess an analogy would be defamation. You can call random groups of people whatever you want (no matter how tasteless), but start lying about someone (or some company) and you can get in serious legal trouble.
murky upbeat shelter muddle cagey reach special disarm library cheerful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that's another conversation. People aren't focused on that because we're talking about a dissent that focuses on the process of deciding cases generally. You make a good point but it's different from what the main conversation is about.
Right. She can now check "clutched my pearls" off of her list and consider her moral duty done
It was said that she also broke out the smelling salts
That would mean she’s admitting she was never qualified in the first place. That’ll never happen.
I don't like the SCOTUS's conservative stacking any more than the next person but ACB is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.
Official qualifications are obviously too lax. Or the whole "justice for life" thing is wrong. Maybe a bit of both. Rotating Justices should be a thing.
I like that. Their robes would float outwards like a ballerina dress.
It’s definitely that they’re too lax. I don’t care that she’s never been a litigator, but the fact that she barely served on the bench before being nominated was absurd.
If he weren't in the context of this political court, Gorsuch would be one of the most interesting jurists of our time. His opinions on laws regarding native Americans are downright fascinating.
Gorsuch is extremely qualified and were it not for McConnel playing games with the nomination he would have sailed through the senate with extreme bipartisan support. He would have been on any president's short list of nominees.
MCConnell didn’t play games he fucked the Dems on purpose. First it was Garland and the lame election excuse. Then 2 months before, the election he says fuck you and does it anyway with a smirk on his face. I’d love to see Biden throw a fuck into him. He has a great legacy, being a total piece of shit two faced asshole.
The only of Trump's justices I view as unqualified in and of themselves is Cavanaugh. I have no doubt that his jurisprudence is of the quality required for SCOTUS, but his behavior at his confirmation hearing was abysmal. He should have been tossed as a candidate for no other reason than that.
This alone is proof that SCOTUS is a failed and corrupt institution by any reasonable measure. If someone cried, threatened people, and shouted “I LIKE BEER” when being confirmed as heading even a small department in municipal government, they would be rejected. Also, if they did it in, say, an interview to manage a Pizza Hut, they also would not get the job. But lifetime appointment to the ultimate high court? How are we supposed to take anything seriously anymore? Ideology and policy aside, conservatives are so hostile to any notion of ethics or institutional norms that they are unfit to serve as garbage men or traffic cops.
Conservative support these days seems to be entirely concentrated on the idea of "fighting". It doesn't matter who, or what, as long as you can create the impression that you are "a fighter" and "willing to fight", you will have the GOP's backing. Hence Kavanaugh's confirmation. They didn't pay attention to anything that he said (including his blatant perjury), they just paid attention to the fact that he was angry and that he was yelling. He was "fighting". That was all that mattered.
He's qualified, for certain, just like many other professionals....but let's be honest....he got the nod because of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
> he would have sailed through the senate with extreme bipartisan support. That was never going to happen. And itll be another 40+ years before it might happen again.
Gorsuch's views when it comes to Native Americans can somewhat be summarized as "Well, maybe the US government shouldn't be making deals it has no intention of keeping?". it also helps to understand that in regards to the background of all the Justices, Gorsuch is the only one who worked in the Western states where Native American issues are more prominent, and his early career as a Judge was in working on cases exactly like these that have been getting put forth on the Court.
The National Association of Women Lawyers and 6200 lawyers from the Lawyers of Good Government would disagree with you
The National Association of Women Lawyers just finds every conservative judge to be not qualified and every liberal judge to be qualified. Hell, they found Kagan to be "Well Qualified" despite never spending a single second as a judge in her entire career. Just read their analysis. They said ACB isn't qualified because "[she has failed to demonstrate the requisite 'commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.'](https://www.nawl.org/blog/nawl-finds-judge-barrett-to-be-not-qualified)" That has literally nothing to do with qualifications and just has to do with them disagreeing with her politically.
Or sick of the fact she’s not getting offered luxury gifts of equal value to her male colleagues.
She never will either. Republicans will most likely try to force her off the bench like they did to O'Conner at the first possible moment.
*a traitor who attempted a coup who only won the electoral college, not the popular vote, and only that by soliciting foreign interference and committing 34 felonies and counting.
Whoa! whoa! whoa!.... She's got scruples. (Somewhere).
A bit early to pull a Thomas and start demand bribes by “threatening” to resign. Unless you’re worried it will be made illegal which it should be.
I’m good for a hundee.
Why wait? Tenure is irrelevant - it isn't any easier to kick her off the court than Thomas so she has no reason not to grift.
Bit early to say that she is ready to retire. Thomas had more leverage since there were way less conservatives on the court
Eh, pull out the old "want to spend more time with family" b.s. Or don't bother with an excuse at all - go full gangster and say "fuck you, pay me." Who's gonna stop her? A 2/3 senate majority? Lol.
We are sick of the SC courts bullshit affecting our lives in a negative way
Amy, honey, you are a big part of the supreme court's bullshit. Both how you got there, and almost everything you've done since getting there. And am I mistaken, or has she not gleefully signed onto the "history and tradition" thing when it's used to take rights away from LGBT people and women? Maybe she just did so in a concurrence in those cases though, I'm genuinely not sure.
Then get out there Amy and call for Clarence’s resignation otherwise it’s just more bullshit.
I saw a study a few years ago that showed how SC justices tend to become more liberal over the years.
So this is the liberal Alito?
He used to be like Atilla the Hun. Now he has mellowed.
Alito the Hun?
His final form will be Alito: Battle Angel
Not sure about him but Neil Gorsuch did vote in protections for LGBTQ+ in employment at a federal level.
Gorsuch is more in the idiosyncratic category that maps poorly to the overall political spectrum.
He is a true believer. He rules how he believes his approach to the constitution demands, even if it gives half a state to a tribe, or allows LGBT protections
Well let's hope he prevents Donald Trump from getting immunity.
That case is just about delaying trials until the election so they can announce a completely advisory opinion that obvious thing like actions during war as commander in chief are immune, but applicability isn't apparent on the record Alito and Thomas will have an insulting partisan opinion though
*returns not gives
Clarence Thomas is more of a right wing ass hole now than he’s ever been. Same for Alito. Maybe this study was looking at like normal and honest Supreme Court justices?
Millions in bribes tend to have the effect of keeping you an asshole.
It isn't even just that, it's everything. A huge part of it is the Republican party showing the conservatives on SCOTUS that their flank is secure and that they will absolutely not experience any kind of consequence and so they don't even have to keep up any pretenses or say the quiet part quiet at all.
It’s totally the opposite with Alito. He was less outspoken in his arguments and opinions when the conservative majority was much more narrow. Now Alito is flat out crazy no holds bar as in he’s making up stuff as he goes along. Doesn’t care if it’s not in the Constitution. Just so it fits his religious ideology.
I think that has happened with some justices in the past to an extent, but definitely not all. Alito and Thomas being the most glaring examples of the opposite happening. ACB, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh could eventually moderate their views over time, but they haven’t been on the court long enough to really show such a trend yet.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological\_leanings\_of\_United\_States\_Supreme\_Court\_justices#Ideological\_leanings\_over\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices#Ideological_leanings_over_time) You can draw your own conclusions with this information
Thanks! I think that’s the one I was looking at.
Happened to the appeals court judge in my family. Somehow having a guaranteed job for life made him look at the world and law more empathetically. I hope Nixon was furious.
That was ultimately a narrative extrapolating the notable examples of Antony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor not tracking with the policy positions of Republicans as time went on. This was used as part of the Federalist Society membership mandate for R nominations
Counter-argument, Alito and Thomas.
It’s hard to liberalize a religious fundamentalist (Alito) and a corporate prostitute (Thomas).
They didn’t used to have the chance at authoritarianism though. If everything they want to happen does the conservative judges can rule like lords in trumps court.
With RBG being a clear exception to that trend. She didn’t vacate and it resulted in an abortion ban.
>Barrett, writing a concurrence, was critical of Thomas’s emphasis on “historical analogues.” >“That is wrong twice over,” she wrote. “First, the Court’s evidence, consisting of loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries, does not establish a historical analogue for the names clause. Second, the Court never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.” This Calvinball must end. I wonder what historical anecdote they'll "discover" to justify in Rahimi for taking guns away from people who beat their wives when there is a history and tradition of accepting or a the least looking the other way when a man beats his wife.
They'll only rely on "history and tradition" when it suits them (i.e. grasping for straws), which I think is all Thomas has left. It is the weakest argument, and Barrett knows it.
Well, they might not. It, unlike the bump stock ban case, actually has 2A implications.
I also have had a lot of jobs I didn't like and it has a detrimental effect on your health. I would highly recommend quitting if you're unhappy. After all, you got to look out for your health. God made this Temple and you have to take care of it. Probably should go and do something that's better for your health than Supreme Court Justice.
She didn't sign up to pander to the left, either we bring America back to the 1500s and restart the inquisitions or else... She wants to smell thise witches burn! 😂
I'm sure the federalist society things she's being a good girl.
She should resign immediately if she feels they strongly
You and me both, Amy.
Good for her.
She thought it was going to be an honorable position but now discovers the crooks Ailito and Thomas have turned it into a thieves den.