General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmy Coney Barrett's first decision as a justice was a wrong one
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/amy-coney-barrett-s-first-decision-justice-was-wrong-one-n1244892Amy Coney Barrett's first decision as a justice was a wrong one
Barrett didn't have to participate in a prime-time political spectacle at the White House, just eight days before Election Day. But she did.
Oct. 27, 2020, 8:00 AM EDT
By Steve Benen
snip//
Last night, the former reality-show personality turned the dial to 11, hosting a prime-time spectacle at the White House. It was, for all intents and purposes, a campaign celebration, held for the cameras, just eight days before Election Day.
The merriment had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: Barrett stood in the spotlight, on a White House balcony in front of the presidential seal, alongside Trump who beamed with pride before an applauding audience, which included Republican senators who spent last week pretending they have no idea how the far-right ideologue will rule on cases of lasting import.
Barrett was then ceremonially sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas -- arguably the high court's most reactionary conservative -- as if to drive home the point that the right had taken over the judiciary.
Barrett had a choice. She does not serve at the pleasure of the president. The Supreme Court's newest member could've told the White House, "No, I'm not comfortable with this. I'm not a trophy to be shown off during a re-election campaign." On the show last night, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) described the event as "the latest episode of the Trump reality-TV show, 'Re-Election Theater.'"
And therein lies the point: Barrett's first decision as a confirmed Supreme Court justice was to agree to participate in this political spectacle. She knew about the electoral context; she knew this prime-time program would give the appearance of a political victory party; and she chose to do this anyway.
CNN's Jake Tapper heard from a Republican consultant last night who said in reference to the White House show, "If I'm [Amy Coney Barrett], I don't go to this." The consultant added that it "looks bad."
Her apparent indifference to the damage all of this does to her credibility and the legitimacy of her institution speaks volumes about Barrett and the indefensible process that concluded with such a brazenly political coda.
BusyBeingBest
(8,052 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Its the only way to end this nonsense. SOCTUS Justices are SUPPOSED to be a-political. The first thing that the Handmaiden does is BLATANTLY political. Save the Court. De-politicize it by expanding it ... massively.
-Laelth
CincyDem
(6,338 posts)this was the rationale for expanding from 7 to 9, when the judicial system expanded from 7 to 9 circuits.
No packing, no expanding...just right sizing it. Citizens in each circuit are entitled to having an associate justice that is individually focused on their circuit. The current system of 4 doing "double duty" is depriving those citizens of equal justice under the law.
BTW: I'm no lawyer (not even f'ing close) but this still seems like a rational argument, and a principled approach, to me.
Karma13612
(4,545 posts)IANAL either.
But your proposal seems logical.
We need to do a lot of public selling of the idea to expand the court. Using terms and logic that the common voter can understand.
This is well thought out, and people can relate to increasing man power to cover increased work load.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I dont mind your marketing strategy, either. Right-sizing works fine, but I am done with being a principled Democrat. The nation is in a world of hurt. Its past time for the left to play hardballprinciples be damned.
-Laelth
Rabrrrrrr
(58,347 posts)CincyDem
(6,338 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)calimary
(81,139 posts)Because the root word "balance" has a positive connotation. In other words, it's a good thing.
And to rebalance is to RETURN to BALANCE.
After all, aren't the scales of justice depicted as balanced?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Sort of a 'legal' button-man, with a list of hits to be executed.
Nothing more.
TwilightZone
(25,431 posts)and she clearly had no trouble accepting the first one.
Midnight Writer
(21,720 posts)What's more important, the Law of Man or the Law of God?
malaise
(268,732 posts)the Merrick Garland hearing.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)Karma13612
(4,545 posts)She expects to be dominated by a man. It is in her DNA from long ago.
If he says, come to this gala, she will go.
And she did.
She is not going to think on her own. She will think and agree with the dominant Conservative male. And will affirm with all the Conserva-premes. She will not rock the boat until, well, ever.
We are going to have a LOT of 6-3 decisions going forward. Once in awhile you might see a 5-4 which will still go to the Conservatives, but it will make Roberts appear like he is trying to be balanced. With no loss for the monied interests who brought the case. If it is ruling against one of Americans rights, then he will just claim he is following the originalist/textualist philosophy.
We now have 6 pretzels on the court. Ive never been fond of pretzels, the sharp edges tend to scratch my mouth.
struggle4progress
(118,237 posts)torius
(1,652 posts)the same room with her unless Mother is there. But Barrett cannot disobey a man. This could be a sitcom.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,271 posts)Sinister Corrupt Reich Of The U.S.
lastlib
(23,171 posts)Supreme Court of the GOPee....
spooky3
(34,409 posts)that she had no ethical concerns about participating in that spectacle.
jaxexpat
(6,805 posts)The concept of "person of character" has no context for these cretins except that of "cartoon character". And what a good little Minnie Mouse we have here, eh?
TimeToGo
(1,366 posts)Thought it clearly was. It is a clear representative anecdote of how she sees her job and who she works for (it ain't the people). Do you remember when Nunes said something like -- when the boss calls you have to go? Without seemingly realizing that as a congressional representative the president isn't his boss. The Supreme Court only works if it isn't beholden to the president who puts in the justices. She is and will be. Which will carry over even after he is gone. The "party" she attended should be grounds for impeachment.
Illumination
(2,458 posts)Ligyron
(7,622 posts)Her and a few others.
Illumination
(2,458 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,678 posts)Heres Mitch McConnell on Fox News saying he thinks Amy Coney Barrett will be a political asset for Republican candidates
An asset for republicans, more important than an asset for our country.
Link to tweet
demosincebirth
(12,530 posts)blm
(113,019 posts)alwaysinasnit
(5,062 posts)tanyev
(42,527 posts)colorado_ufo
(5,730 posts)with poor judgment.
NoRoadUntravelled
(2,626 posts)I would be surprised if she even questioned the wisdom of her decision to go along with the reality show charade. She doesn't question authoritarian men. It's how she was raised. It's who she is.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)onenote
(42,614 posts)Cause "we" can't remove her without significant Republican support.
Maybe you just forgot the sarcasm thingy.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Turbineguy
(37,296 posts)For now.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,104 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2020, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)
And have politicized the judiciary in direct conflict with their accusations of liberal activism from the bench.
They have single-handedly devastated our democracy in ways only Democrats can fix. Give us 20 years of leadership. We'll need every last one of them.
littlemissmartypants
(22,600 posts)after all she lives to serve at the mercy of the men in her orbit.
Gawd forbid she even has a fleeting thought about
being anything else but a slave to the misogyny she lives to support. As such she's like a newborn baby and not a grown woman, living at the mercy of all the men who plan only to abuse her.
The evidence is clear that she does indeed serve at the pleasure of the biggest, fattest misogynist of all. Was there ever any doubt?
I'm disgusted. I hope they ruin her, in not only her judgeship but in her personal life as well.
ThreeGs
(17 posts)Regarding her from this point on will only reference her as "Justice *". She is illegitimate and not worthy of the title.
dixiechiken1
(2,113 posts)Blue Owl
(50,291 posts)n/t