Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Jaguar]

Supreme Court confirmation fight: No nominee yet, but McConnell already on the cusp of having the votes - CNNPolitics

Thank you for posting what I already know. Btw, I have a computer w/ internet access and a TV.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1309969668480708608?s=09

"With Kennedy, the vacancy did not arrive in the presidential election year. It arose the year before, in June, when Justice Powell retired. Kennedy was nominated in November, -[...] but the existence of the open spot existed a long time before that. Kennedy is a moderate Republican and he replaced a moderate Republican. We're talking about Scalia, the staunchest Republican on the Court, and we're talking about someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the Court. It's not a lateral move."

And yet I guess it's okay to "dramatically flip the balance of power" on the Court with a presidential election year opening when it flips the power in her direction.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It seems like Franken was fishing for some explicit denouncement of the group (and *kinda* implying that no explicit denouncement was tantamount to support), but the fact that she didn't denounce them at all does kinda say something.

 

[The Cat]

It seems like Franken was fishing for some explicit denouncement of the group (and *kinda* implying that no explicit denouncement was tantamount to support), but the fact that she didn't denounce them at all does kinda say something.

Vetting is the process of performing a background check on someone before offering them employment, conferring an award, or doing fact-checking prior to making any decision. ... so she does not seem to vett. At best her clarifications confirm she vetts poorly.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Here is the whole interview, of that clip posted above. The soundbite Newsom posted is a bit misleading; she didn't express a clear opinion one way or the other. But there is an implied leaning in one direction with her comment about how the nomination of a candidate to replace one of an opposing party (especially strongly so) would "dramatically flip the balance of power" and should give pause.

 

[Totenkindly]

No, but I’d support a rewriting of it every generation or so, like Jefferson himself favored.

It's a nice idea in order to ensure relevance; but at this point Congress can't even agree on a budget to keep the government running and the government can't even agree on gerrymandering and a host of topics ... let alone rewriting the Constitution.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's a nice idea in order to ensure relevance; but at this point Congress can't even agree on a budget to keep the government running and the government can't even agree on gerrymandering and a host of topics ... let alone rewriting the Constitution.

We need a revolution to reset the system at this point. Then we can proceed with writing and re-writing it

 

[The Cat]

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Looking forward to Susan Collins backpedaling on her position when the Senate falls one vote short (thanks to R Senators getting covid).

It would be totally metal karmic justice if too many were incapacitated and they weren't able to rush ACB's confirmation through in time.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues

October 10, 2020

Dear Judge Barrett,

We write to you as fellow faculty members at the University of Notre Dame.

We congratulate you on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court. An appointment to the Court is the crowning achievement of a legal career and speaks to the commitments you have made throughout your life. And while we are not pundits, from what we read your confirmation is all but assured.

That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.

We ask that you take this unprecedented step for three reasons.

First, voting for the next president is already underway. According to the United States Election Project (2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics), more than seven million people have already cast their ballots, and millions more are likely to vote before election day. The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice. You are not, of course, responsible for the anti-democratic machinations driving your nomination. Nor are you complicit in the Republican hypocrisy of fast-tracking your nomination weeks before a presidential election when many of the same senators refused to grant Merrick Garland so much as a hearing a full year before the last election. However, you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice. Following the election, your nomination would proceed, or not, in accordance with the wishes of the winning candidate.

Next, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that her seat on the court remain open until a new president was installed. At your nomination ceremony at the White House, you praised Justice Ginsburg as “a woman of enormous talent and consequence, whose life of public service serves as an example to us all.” Your nomination just days after Ginsburg’s death was unseemly and a repudiation of her legacy. Given your admiration for Justice Ginsburg, we ask that you repair the injury to her memory by calling for a pause in the nomination until the next president is seated.

Finally, your nomination comes at a treacherous moment in the United States. Our politics are consumed by polarization, mistrust, and fevered conspiracy theories. Our country is shaken by pandemic and economic suffering. There is violence in the streets of American cities. The politics of your nomination, as you surely understand, will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens, especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and congress. You have the opportunity to offer an alternative to all that by demanding that your nomination be suspended until after the election. We implore you to take that step.

We’re asking a lot, we know. Should Vice-President Biden be elected, your seat on the court will almost certainly be lost. That would be painful, surely. Yet there is much to be gained in risking your seat. You would earn the respect of fair-minded people everywhere. You would provide a model of civic selflessness. And you might well inspire Americans of different beliefs toward a renewed commitment to the common good.

We wish you well and trust you will make the right decision for our nation.

Yours in Notre Dame,

(88 Notre Dame colleagues)
​

 

[ceecee]

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues

October 10, 2020

Dear Judge Barrett,

We write to you as fellow faculty members at the University of Notre Dame.

We congratulate you on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court. An appointment to the Court is the crowning achievement of a legal career and speaks to the commitments you have made throughout your life. And while we are not pundits, from what we read your confirmation is all but assured.

That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.

We ask that you take this unprecedented step for three reasons.

First, voting for the next president is already underway. According to the United States Election Project (2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics), more than seven million people have already cast their ballots, and millions more are likely to vote before election day. The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice. You are not, of course, responsible for the anti-democratic machinations driving your nomination. Nor are you complicit in the Republican hypocrisy of fast-tracking your nomination weeks before a presidential election when many of the same senators refused to grant Merrick Garland so much as a hearing a full year before the last election. However, you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice. Following the election, your nomination would proceed, or not, in accordance with the wishes of the winning candidate.

Next, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that her seat on the court remain open until a new president was installed. At your nomination ceremony at the White House, you praised Justice Ginsburg as “a woman of enormous talent and consequence, whose life of public service serves as an example to us all.” Your nomination just days after Ginsburg’s death was unseemly and a repudiation of her legacy. Given your admiration for Justice Ginsburg, we ask that you repair the injury to her memory by calling for a pause in the nomination until the next president is seated.

Finally, your nomination comes at a treacherous moment in the United States. Our politics are consumed by polarization, mistrust, and fevered conspiracy theories. Our country is shaken by pandemic and economic suffering. There is violence in the streets of American cities. The politics of your nomination, as you surely understand, will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens, especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and congress. You have the opportunity to offer an alternative to all that by demanding that your nomination be suspended until after the election. We implore you to take that step.

We’re asking a lot, we know. Should Vice-President Biden be elected, your seat on the court will almost certainly be lost. That would be painful, surely. Yet there is much to be gained in risking your seat. You would earn the respect of fair-minded people everywhere. You would provide a model of civic selflessness. And you might well inspire Americans of different beliefs toward a renewed commitment to the common good.

We wish you well and trust you will make the right decision for our nation.

Yours in Notre Dame,

(88 Notre Dame colleagues)
​

I truly don't understand why a group would write this letter. These conservative Republicans are not honorable people, they're wretched, barely human with no regard for any life other than their own and people like them. Why would anyone treat them otherwise? They operate on fear and hatred, their aim is to collect as much as they can for their kind and the remainder of Americans can, hopefully, find some way to not consume anything this county could possible give them, not be seen, not demand the same as everyone else or drain on resources of any kind. Die in other words.

Perhaps some of the letter writers could run for office in the state of Indiana - they could use non-religious, non-insane state legislature.

 

[The Cat]

I truly don't understand why a group would write this letter. These conservative Republicans are not honorable people, they're wretched, barely human with no regard for any life other than their own and people like them. Why would anyone treat them otherwise? They operate on fear and hatred, their aim is to collect as much as they can for their kind and the remainder of Americans can, hopefully, find some way to not consume anything this county could possible give them, not be seen, not demand the same as everyone else or drain on resources of any kind. Die in other words.

Perhaps some of the letter writers could run for office in the state of Indiana - they could use non-religious, non-insane state legislature.

Hope springs eternal I suppose...

 

[ceecee]

Hope springs eternal I suppose...

Not giving the extremist right any hope is the first step.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I can't help but think it's a bit of theatre, to either express "this is where we stand as her former colleagues" for the record, publicly discredit her judgement (here is how she can keep her nomination while respecting the opinion of the people she will serve - just to show there *is* a respectful approach to being nominated under these peculiar conditions - she's heard it and she's choosing not to do it), or both. At any rate, things like this (publicly expressed opinions by esteemed people) will help pave the way for adding Justices next year.

 

[The Cat]

Coney is another name for Rabbit. So I'm watching the confirmation hearing and in my head I see her name as Amy Rabbit Barrett...

 

[Jaguar]

My name is Amy Coney Barrett.

I can't answer a question. But I want to be a judge.

 

[The Cat]

My name is Amy Coney Barrett.

I can't answer a question. But I want to be a judge.

But will she be a carrot judge or a lettuce judge? Will Trix still only be for kids or is this the justice that will give all rabbits the freedom to consume sugary cereals?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'd love to hear how ACB reconciles her nomination with "originalism."

The concept of "originalism" kinda grosses me out. Expecting everyone to live by text written by a handful of men who died hundreds of years ago seems like a stone's throw from authoritarianism. Defining justice is a never-ending process that must actively engage the people directly involved. This isn't to say that ideas from the past mustn't be used; it's to say that the ideas must only be used if they pass scrutiny in the here and now.

 

[The Cat]

I'd love to hear how ACB reconciles her nomination with "originalism."

The concept of "originalism" kinda grosses me out. Expecting everyone to live by text written by a handful of men who died hundreds of years ago seems like a stone's throw from authoritarianism. Defining justice is a never-ending process that must actively engage the people directly involved. This isn't to say that ideas from the past mustn't be used; it's to say that the ideas must only be used if they pass scrutiny in the here and now.

She couldnt answer that...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

She couldnt answer that...

Did they ask her? I haven't watched any of it. (I'm not sleeping as it is). If yes, who? So I can search for it.