Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Political discussions
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17815
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

89Hen wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:12 am
Ibanez wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:03 am


Are you shocked? The Right and Left have dialed up their rhetoric in the past decade or 2 to create such a divisive and nasty political atmosphere that permeates ordinary, daily human interactions. You can't buy a can of beans or get a coffee w/o it saying something about your political affiliations. MSNBC or CNN not covering news b/c of whatever reasons is on them. News agencies have a strong biased and i'm not shocked they refuse to cover basic, important events in our government.

I simply asked why her confirmation was history making. Honestly, the ONLY way I knew it was happening was from pulling up Drudge Report. I noticed it wasn't on CNNs front page - which is stupid b/c it is news. It's important news. I just don't think it's "history in the making" news.
Shocked isn't the right word, but certainly disappointed. If roles were reversed you can bet your 401k that Fox would have shown it. As right as Fox is, it really is the most fair and balanced like their claim. I watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN regularly and I know I'm biased to view them differently, but Fox will always have 2-3 Dems on a big panel during debates, election night, etc... the other two might have one RINO on once in a while.

You talking about the network that says there was nothing turned up in the "Biden investigation"? That Fox news? :rofl:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 36603
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by 89Hen »

houndawg wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:18 am
89Hen wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:12 am


Shocked isn't the right word, but certainly disappointed. If roles were reversed you can bet your 401k that Fox would have shown it. As right as Fox is, it really is the most fair and balanced like their claim. I watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN regularly and I know I'm biased to view them differently, but Fox will always have 2-3 Dems on a big panel during debates, election night, etc... the other two might have one RINO on once in a while.

You talking about the network that says there was nothing turned up in the "Biden investigation"? That Fox news? :rofl:
Not following you there dawg.
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54280
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by AZGrizFan »

Has ACB imploded the SC yet?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14678
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

Finally read up on the case the SCOTUS is going to hear today regarding the ACA. I have to say, I'm amazed that this case was given as much press coverage as it did in the leadup to Barrett's nomination given how weak the case actually is. I don't think there's really any chance that the Court pulls down the entirety of the ACA over this act. Heck, I think Trump could appoint 9 all new justices to the Court and that group wouldn't invalidate all of the ACA based on this case. The media doesn't really do themselves or the public any justice when they blatantly use their biases to cover a story as they did on this prior to Barrett's nomination (as in saying that she's being put on the Court to rule in this case to pull the ACA down) when the reality is much different. I wouldn't be shocked if just Alito and Thomas are the only dissenters in this particular case, and possibly Gorsuch, but I'm sure he would likely write his own dissent rather than joining theirs. I think this is what they call a nothingburger.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/93244133 ... as-enacted
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55380
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:03 am
Finally read up on the case the SCOTUS is going to hear today regarding the ACA. I have to say, I'm amazed that this case was given as much press coverage as it did in the leadup to Barrett's nomination given how weak the case actually is. I don't think there's really any chance that the Court pulls down the entirety of the ACA over this act. Heck, I think Trump could appoint 9 all new justices to the Court and that group wouldn't invalidate all of the ACA based on this case. The media doesn't really do themselves or the public any justice when they blatantly use their biases to cover a story as they did on this prior to Barrett's nomination (as in saying that she's being put on the Court to rule in this case to pull the ACA down) when the reality is much different. I wouldn't be shocked if just Alito and Thomas are the only dissenters in this particular case, and possibly Gorsuch, but I'm sure he would likely write his own dissent rather than joining theirs. I think this is what they call a nothingburger.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/93244133 ... as-enacted
I agree. Roberts and Kavanaugh are sounding supportive of the law. Very interesting. :coffee:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
Winterborn
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by Winterborn »

Ibanez wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:22 am
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:03 am
Finally read up on the case the SCOTUS is going to hear today regarding the ACA. I have to say, I'm amazed that this case was given as much press coverage as it did in the leadup to Barrett's nomination given how weak the case actually is. I don't think there's really any chance that the Court pulls down the entirety of the ACA over this act. Heck, I think Trump could appoint 9 all new justices to the Court and that group wouldn't invalidate all of the ACA based on this case. The media doesn't really do themselves or the public any justice when they blatantly use their biases to cover a story as they did on this prior to Barrett's nomination (as in saying that she's being put on the Court to rule in this case to pull the ACA down) when the reality is much different. I wouldn't be shocked if just Alito and Thomas are the only dissenters in this particular case, and possibly Gorsuch, but I'm sure he would likely write his own dissent rather than joining theirs. I think this is what they call a nothingburger.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/93244133 ... as-enacted
I agree. Roberts and Kavanaugh are sounding supportive of the law. Very interesting. :coffee:
To Ganny's point. It was a extremely weak and stretched challenge to the ACA in the first place. Surprised it even got to them in the first place (it shouldn't have IMHO but I am just a armchair lawyer :D )
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17815
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

Ibanez wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:22 am
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:03 am
Finally read up on the case the SCOTUS is going to hear today regarding the ACA. I have to say, I'm amazed that this case was given as much press coverage as it did in the leadup to Barrett's nomination given how weak the case actually is. I don't think there's really any chance that the Court pulls down the entirety of the ACA over this act. Heck, I think Trump could appoint 9 all new justices to the Court and that group wouldn't invalidate all of the ACA based on this case. The media doesn't really do themselves or the public any justice when they blatantly use their biases to cover a story as they did on this prior to Barrett's nomination (as in saying that she's being put on the Court to rule in this case to pull the ACA down) when the reality is much different. I wouldn't be shocked if just Alito and Thomas are the only dissenters in this particular case, and possibly Gorsuch, but I'm sure he would likely write his own dissent rather than joining theirs. I think this is what they call a nothingburger.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/93244133 ... as-enacted
I agree. Roberts and Kavanaugh are sounding supportive of the law. Very interesting. :coffee:
They're working on their image - they want to appear as moderate before Roe v Wade gets heard
Subvert the dominant paradigm

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by JoltinJoe »

GannonFan wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:03 am
Finally read up on the case the SCOTUS is going to hear today regarding the ACA. I have to say, I'm amazed that this case was given as much press coverage as it did in the leadup to Barrett's nomination given how weak the case actually is. I don't think there's really any chance that the Court pulls down the entirety of the ACA over this act. Heck, I think Trump could appoint 9 all new justices to the Court and that group wouldn't invalidate all of the ACA based on this case. The media doesn't really do themselves or the public any justice when they blatantly use their biases to cover a story as they did on this prior to Barrett's nomination (as in saying that she's being put on the Court to rule in this case to pull the ACA down) when the reality is much different. I wouldn't be shocked if just Alito and Thomas are the only dissenters in this particular case, and possibly Gorsuch, but I'm sure he would likely write his own dissent rather than joining theirs. I think this is what they call a nothingburger.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/93244133 ... as-enacted
You are 100% spot on.The ONLY reason this case is before the Supreme Court is because the Fifth Circuit, quite remarkably, bought into these arguments and purported to invalidate the whole of the ACA. This case isn't before the Supreme Court because the court members had any inclination to revisit the decision Court's prior decision in Sebelius. But the Fifth Circuit forced the Supreme Court's hand by invalidating the ACA.

Gorsuch will not be a dissenter in this case. My bet is that Gorsuch -- who has previously expressed concerns about state AG standing to bring lawsuits like this one -- will conclude that the state AGs who attacked the law do not have standing to do so; and that the individual plaintiffs lack standing because they have no "injury in fact," that being that they were not harmed when congress fixed the individual mandate at $0. How can you be harmed if you have to pay nothing?

A number of the members of this Court, including Roberts, have expressed concerns about liberal applications of "standing" rules which allow for special interest groups and/or state AGs, to create largely theoretical reasons to attack legislative acts. A number of the court members are concerned that the federal courts are increasingly being drawn into political disputes as a result of litigation commenced by parties which "go out of their way" to incur injury simply so that they can attack legislation.

These court members believe that the federal judiciary should get back into the business of adjudicating genuine cases in controversy arising naturally, in the ordinary course of events, brought by a plaintiff who has, unwillingly, suffered an injury as a result of a legislative act. They want to limit special interest groups from fabricating "controversies" that allow these groups to appoint themselves as roving monitors of Congress or the Executive.

These court members have likewise expressed concerns over partisan motivations of state AGs who have appointed themselves roving monitors of Congress or the Executive.

Gorsuch believes that proper challenges to federal legislation, or executive orders, should be brought by persons genuinely affected by the laws being challenged -- not by persons who have "volunteered" to claim otherwise avoidable injury. Not by special interest groups motivated by politics. Not by state AGs motivated by politics. By entertaining these "manufactured" claims, Gorsuch contends that the federal judiciary is allowing itself to become an extension of politics, and a tool of the politically motivated. He further contends that law evolves and grows in a more orderly and reasoned fashion when it is the result of adjudicating genuine cases in controversy.

This case is the worst of political litigation. In fact, the standing assertions of the Texas AG are pretty flimsy. But the California AG and others AG who intervened to defend the law didn't even question the standing of the Texas AG -- because these defending AGs, themselves, rely on such flimsy claims all the time.

I'm with Gorsuch on this one. Lack of standing.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14678
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by GannonFan »

I think Barrett may go with the Gorsuch line of thinking and also rule based on lack of standing (seriously, when JJ talks about anything other than baseball he's normally spot on). Like I said, worst case this case goes 6-3 in favor of keeping the ACA - they could sever the individual mandate totally, but I don't think they even do that - and likely this is a 7-2 case. A whole lot of drama in the leadup to Barrett's nomination over this and in the end there was never anything there anyway. Some media still use the talking points when covering this story that the ACA is perilously in the balance, but that's just clickbait.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

Post by JoltinJoe »

houndawg wrote:
Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:58 am
Ibanez wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:22 am


I agree. Roberts and Kavanaugh are sounding supportive of the law. Very interesting. :coffee:
They're working on their image - they want to appear as moderate before Roe v Wade gets heard
:chair:

Roe v. Wade was effectively overruled in 1992 by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This Court may define the "undue burden" test, announced in Casey, in a way that allows for more abortion restrictions to be upheld than the Casey plurality may have intended. But the Court is never going to undo Casey; and to extent that people believe that Casey "affirmed" Roe, so be it. This Court will do nothing to correct that (mistaken) belief.

Post Reply