Amy Coney Barret confirmed and sworn in.

I loved watching the confirmation hearings while she took three days to calmly explain the difference in a legislature's job and a justice's job. It was like watching a high school government teacher explain the three branches and separation of power to a bunch of three-year-olds.
 
Last edited:
I think some of you guys would enjoy being on a government forum more than a hunting forum or a politics forum.

Just because you, or some are not interested about the subject does not mean it is inappropriate. Some folks enjoy being informed, involved, and heard. The justice appointment can, and probably will, have an impact on American sportsmen at some point. It's our choice to participate or not. Plenty of dead threads for that reason. IMO...
 
She did an excellent job during the hearings. She was assisted in this, by the fact that she had absolutely nothing to worry about. She was able to sidestep/not answer any potentially controversial questions and knew that the Republican Senators had her back no matter what.

It's hard to predict what a justice will do on every case. I'll reserve judgement, but honestly, I'm losing faith in the court's ability to do its job. I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests." You can like this current court, but you cannot pretend that the court's ideology is representative of our country (and you're kidding yourself if you think there's no ideology on the court).

 
I for one think the SCOTUS is the last bit of honor left in the American system. Both parties have done their best to sink their own ships. And while I find the politics around her confirmation gross and irresponsible I do believe she'll do her job, to the best of her ability. Even though I likely won't agree with much if it.
 
I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests."


Too bad the Democrats can't find a way to have them die off or retire when they have the Presidency... 😉
 
People always talk about Roe, Heller, and Citizens United getting overturned.
Is it often that SCOTUS revisits issues that have been ruled on previously?
@VikingsGuy probably knows.
90% of SCOTUS cases are narrow, specific, and draw little attention. If we look at the publicly prominent ones (abortion, marriage, 2A, political funding, civil rights, affirmative action, and the like) there has been a 70 year trend towards finding individual liberties and limiting government action/regulation in these areas. Along that path, in some cases they had to reverse prior cases (think, Plessy), but in others their rulings were new enough in nature to not require formal reversal of an earlier case, and in still others they were just tweaking (rather than reversing) earlier rulings.

What we have not seen in recent memory are many "backlash reversals". By this I mean reversing of ruling that expanded or granted individual liberties. Yet, both sides have such actions on their wish list (Roe/Cassey, Heller, CU, Obergefel, etc). I think the court is aware that reining in individual liberty is more difficult than extending it, so I am hopeful that they are very cautious and place a renewed value on stare decisis.

While the executive and legislative branches tend to swing wildly from election year to election year, the court has been on a more consistent, less volatile, cadence for decades. Congress should respond to the direct wishes of their constituents at that moment even if that means big swings in policy year on year, but I believe the courts need to play a much longer game. Our core constitutional liberties should not be on the table every two years. To swoop in over the course of a year or two and upset the current expectations for a large number of these liberties will set us on a course where SCOTUS joins the other branches in short-term political swings. - which in my opinion, regardless of my views on any particular issue, is not a good thing.
 
Last edited:
She did an excellent job during the hearings. She was assisted in this, by the fact that she had absolutely nothing to worry about. She was able to sidestep/not answer any potentially controversial questions and knew that the Republican Senators had her back no matter what.

It's hard to predict what a justice will do on every case. I'll reserve judgement, but honestly, I'm losing faith in the court's ability to do its job. I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests." You can like this current court, but you cannot pretend that the court's ideology is representative of our country (and you're kidding yourself if you think there's no ideology on the court).

Setting aside whether the court is "broken" or not, this proposed solution is so full of holes I don't even know where to start. But in brief, (i) a new court would also be politicized (Dems are already talking about "stacking the district and appellate courts" since "stacking SCOTUS" is not polling well) - the parties, pundits and power brokers on both side will figure out how to game a new court too; (ii) many matters have mixed statutory and constitutional elements - having to align the rulings of two different "supreme" courts is at best highly inefficient and at worst simply impossible; (iii) while Congress undoubtable can set up various courts and set various appellate rules, under Marbury v Madison SCOTUS declared itself the sole and final arbiter of the constitution - it would take decades of litigation and reversal of our oldest court precedent to entertain a congressional creation of a constitutional court above SCOTUS; (iv) and many more minor quibles.

Politics aside, this is a clueless suggestion by the author. If we want to change SCOTUS we either need to change our behaviors or we need to change our constitution. There is no free lunch on this one.
 
She did an excellent job during the hearings. She was assisted in this, by the fact that she had absolutely nothing to worry about. She was able to sidestep/not answer any potentially controversial questions and knew that the Republican Senators had her back no matter what.

It's hard to predict what a justice will do on every case. I'll reserve judgement, but honestly, I'm losing faith in the court's ability to do its job. I think this quote from the below article basically sums it up: "With President Trump’s third appointment to the court, Republican presidents have picked 16 out of the last 20 justices though the Democrats have won more votes in six of the last seven presidential contests." You can like this current court, but you cannot pretend that the court's ideology is representative of our country (and you're kidding yourself if you think there's no ideology on the court).

More insightful opinion coming from the View than the NYT these days.😉
 
Easy solution to court packing; just let Trump be reelected and drop a trial balloon that maybe the Dems were right. 🤣
 
90% of SCOTUS cases are narrow, specific, and draw little attention. If we look at the publically prominent ones (abortion, marriage, 2A, political funding, civil rights, affirmative action, and the like) there has been a 70 year trend towards finding individual liberties and limiting government action/regulation in these areas. Along that path in some cases, they had to reverse prior cases (think, Plessy), but in others their rulings were new enough in nature to not require formal reversal of an earlier case, and in still others they were just tweaking (rather than reversing) earlier rulings.

What we have not seen in recent memory are many "backlash reversals". By this I mean reversing of ruling that expanded or granted individual liberties. Yet, both sides have such actions on their wish list (Roe/Cassey, Heller, CU, Obergefel, etc). I think the court is aware that reining in individual liberty is more difficult than extending it, so I am hopeful that they are very cautious and place a renewed value on stare decisis.

While the executive and legislative branches tend to swing wildly from election year to election year, the court has been on a more consistent, less volatile, cadence for decades. Congress should respond to the direct wishes of their constituents at that moment even if that means big swings in policy year on year, but I believe the courts need to play a much longer game. Our core constitutional liberties should not be on the table every two years. To swoop in over the course of a year or two and upset the current expectations for a large number of these liberties will set us on a course where SCOTUS joins the other branches in short-term political swings. - which in my opinion, regardless of my views on any particular issue, is not a good thing.
I agree. And with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and now Barrett on the court together, this is what I fear is about to happen. I fear that Roberts and Gorsuch will both have to be playing the long game at the same time, or we'll get some pretty radical rulings. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Setting aside whether the court is "broken" or not, this proposed solution is so full of holes I don't even know where to start. But in brief, (i) a new court would also be politicized (Dems are already talking about "stacking the district and appellate courts" since "stacking SCOTUS" is not polling well) - the parties, pundits and power brokers on both side will figure out how to game a new court too; (ii) many matters have mixed statutory and constitutional elements - having to align the rulings of two different "supreme" courts is at best highly inefficient and at worst simply impossible; (iii) while Congress undoubtable can set up various courts and set various appellate rules, under Marbury v Madison SCOTUS declared itself the sole and final arbiter of the constitution - it would take decades of litigation and reversal of our oldest court precedent to entertain a congressional creation of a constitutional court above SCOTUS; (iv) and many more minor quibles.

Politics aside, this is a clueless suggestion by the author. If we want to change SCOTUS we either need to change our behaviors or we need to change our constitution. There is no free lunch on this one.
I more or less agree with this too, but I think he's accurately pointing out some of the problems we have now and that opening quote is pretty striking. Really, it's just another example of progressively minded people getting more and more frustrated with the ways in which our country was set up to give a political leg-up to rural folks.
 
I recall 'discussion' during Prez Obama's second term regarding RBG retiring while her post could be ideologically filled, but the prevailing winds suggested the new progressive lords were here to stay....to the point Madame Clinton would seamlessly continue running the table.

..but that electoral referendum thing.
 
I recall 'discussion' during Prez Obama's second term regarding RBG retiring while her post could be ideologically filled, but the prevailing winds suggested the new progressive lords were here to stay....to the point Madame Clinton would seamlessly continue running the table.

..but that electoral referendum thing.
My understanding is that RBG made her own decisions, despite what others may have talked about... no argument on the arrogance of the Clinton ascendancy though.
 
The courts ‘ideology’ is supposed to be a constitutional one, not one that changes based on the public’s feelings.
Judge Barrett tried to explain this over and over, apparently to no avail. The whole "packing the court" issue is the attempt to create another political entity. That's the whole point of originalism; what did the founders mean at the time? If you don't adhere to that, better get your muskets handy, because, as we all know, that's the position of many on the left on the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top