Barrett Answers Questions With No Notes - She Is Rocking Awesome

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Indeed, FDR's move was so ham fisted saying it was about helping older judges that he even lost significant support in his own party.


If one looks to the Marshall - Jefferson conflict, the political nature of the court was inherent early on.

Marshall outplayed randy slave loving Jefferson however almost at every turn.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Indeed, FDR's move was so ham fisted saying it was about helping older judges that he even lost significant support in his own party.


If one looks to the Marshall - Jefferson conflict, the political nature of the court was inherent early on.

Marshall outplayed randy slave loving Jefferson however almost at every turn.

Robert Bork gives Marshall credit...but to many people think Marbury v. Madison was somehow binding which it wasn't.

Jefferson hated the idea of a powerful court. He could see happening....what is happening now.

Just get it through to the SCOUTUS and you have your best chance of getting what you want in spite of congress.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

It was never challenged because courts were not a big deal at the time.

Bork says that Marshall kept things centered and allowed the government to function.

I doubt Marshall ever envisioned the SCOTUS as the lightning rod it was today.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Marbury v. Madison is the foundation stone ruling that has kept the court from being a complete political plaything of the ever changing political fashions of Presidents and congresses from all parties.

Most courts have relied heavily on that initial premise, conservative and liberal.

That the court does indeed have the power of "judicial review" and can strike down acts by the other two branches of the government.

It was never challenged because courts were not a big deal at the time.

Bork says that Marshall kept things centered and allowed the government to function.

I doubt Marshall ever envisioned the SCOTUS as the lightning rod it was today.

It was not challenged because Marshall outplayed Jefferson, he gave Jefferson what he wanted, the nullification of the midnight judicial appointments by the Federalists, Marshall stated even though Jefferson was wrong to do so the Federalists were unconstitutional with the judiciary act in which they appointed so there was no judicial remedy, and Jefferson took the bait.

It set the precedent of judicial review, that the court can in fact strike down acts by Congress or a President if deemed unconstitutional.


The court has never looked back.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

"Judge Barrett, can I waste your time trying to make myself feel smart without having to actually be smart?"

 

[hadit]

"Ms. Barrett, like most superstitious people you believe in a primitive Sky God that does not exist, is this proof you are not rational enough to be a Supreme Court judge?"

I am completely irreligious, yet I consider her a viable nominee.

It would be better if the nomination process wasn't so freaking political.

All nominations are political, it has been ever thus since John Marshall.

Because how one defines a constitution that was often intentionally written to be some what vague in many areas so it would not crack before time has political consequences.

Roe vs Wade is the huge political dividing line here.

Now a legitimate question to have asked her is "will any judgement you be required to make be solely based on the constitution with your religious beliefs having no relevance, can you do that?"

Roe vs Wade is founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action concerning an implied right of privacy. Now the ruling conceded this is not an absolute right but as a pregnancy is one of the most fundamental privacy issues, a woman's control of her own health and body it did apply to abortions up to a certain time.

So to overturn this ruling one cannot rely on religious notions of when a person becomes a person or the sanctity of life, the thinking has to be totally focused on the constitution and the implied right concerning privacy.

As far as I know no Senator on the panel was bright enough to ask her about her views on the constitution, implied rights and privacy.

So you're saying that the Senators are not qualified to question her understanding of the law because they didn't ask the questions you wanted them to ask? Interesting.

As we have all known since RBG went through this process, it is simply not right to insist a nominee has to indicate how he/she will rule on a case, since each case has differing characteristics that must be considered against the actual text of the Constitution. It doesn't matter how popular the law might be.