Skip to main content

@flwino posted:

Totally unqualified!  Court packing the donald style.

She was not picked because of her brilliant legal acumen or noted scholarly decisions. She was picked because she gave a few lectures years ago that fit into the ultra-right's viewpoint. If she is somehow able to acknowledge that truth,  then shame on her for accepting the nomination. She will always be a lesser justice because of it.  Just look at Justice Kavanaugh as a prime example. They are both solidly in the pocket of Trump, should any of his cases reach them. God forbid the election results reach the SCOTUS.

Kavanaugh - like him or not and his shady past and insanely conservative judicial philosophy - was far more qualified.  Two Circuit court clerkships, lengthy careert where he actually did legal work (even if a lot of it was BS for Ken Starr), thirteen or 14 years as a judge.  I do not like him but in terms of experience, at least he had some meaningful experience

what about her ruling on Kanter vs Barr?  The law says felons don't get to own guns, she interprets that as, noooo that's not necessarily true, only the type of violent felons I think shouldn't get to own guns.  I'd hate her to consider a misdemeanor like domestic violence as not violent enough to ban these folks from owning guns considering the stats are overwhelming that domestic violence abusers are one of the worst offenders of gun crime.

Makes me wonder if she'd rule the same way when it comes to felons and their right to vote.  Sadly, I don't think so.

@flwino posted:

For the lawyers here.

Should she vote on any case where she did not sit in on the pleadings?  If so it would appear that she did not catch all the issues, nuansiances [sp??] etc. of the case.  seems a bit unfair to both parties in the case.

You mean if she doesn’t sit in on the arguments.   She probably won’t but we will see her participating shortly In matters that she has the same exposure to as the others

@irwin posted:

You mean if she doesn’t sit in on the arguments.   She probably won’t but we will see her participating shortly In matters that she has the same exposure to as the others

On appeals, it is far less important anyway - they have the briefs, the arguments can be listened to  - of course, she is outcome driven rather than principled - so it is largely irrelevant.

Originalists are only originalist when it supports their position - they are happy to ignore that when it does not suit their purposes.  Otherwise Bush v. Gore would never happened because that decision was (and remains) a farce  And yes I worked on the matter and am still peeved 20 years later.

@patespo1 posted:

As an Ohioan the Nicklaus thing hurt deeply, as he has been a long time sports hero.  Now he's just another rich white guy that values money over people.

Imagine how it feels being the biggest Bruins fan on earth after Bobby Orr took out a full page ad in support of Trump. I met Orr a few times. He was one of my childhood heroes. And to think he was born and raised Canadian!  He isn't very Canadian any more, it seems.....

Last edited by bman

Fascism 101:

"This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election, frankly we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation, this is a very big moment. This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in the proper manner.

“So we will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK? It’s a very sad, it’s a very sad moment. To me, this is a very sad moment, and we will win this, and as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.”

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.