ADVERTISEMENT

POLL: What Do You Like/Dislike About Amy Coney Barrett?

For each issue pair, indicate whether you tend to like or dislike Barrett's expected stance.


  • Total voters
    59
You forgot two important considerations as to your view of her:

Like because she's an extremely intelligent, strong, independent woman
Dislike because she's she's an extremely intelligent, strong, independent woman

and

Like because she values the Constitution
Dislike because she values the Constitution

You can't really keep to the value the constitution nonsense after this administration can you? How many cabinet members are currently in violation of it right now?
 
Now you are misrepresenting what I said.

Typical for you.

The only way your silly poll works is if you can predict what her rulings will be. The problem you have is that people from both sides of the aisle say she's brilliant and will apply the law as it is written. In the meantime, you are solely focused on your perception of her ideology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
Like the majority on here, I think she is the worst based on being chosen by a President from the other team
 
Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly join the Supreme Court. Likely before the election. Here are 5 positions she's predicted to take. Which do you like or dislike?

1. Environment
Expected to make it harder to enforce environmental protections and easier to pollute.

2. Health care
Expected to rule against Obamacare.

3. Abortion
Expected to be the final vote needed to eliminate or severely restrict abortion rights.

4. Religion (other than abortion)
Expected to allow more religion in government and schools, and to place "religious freedom" ahead of following our laws and equal rights.

5 Disputed election
Expected to support Trump if the 2020 election fight reaches the Supreme Court.

She's better looking than Ruth.
 
If all of these expectations are true, she is going to be bad for the nation. But I'm willing to hear her speak which is why we need a rigorous and full confirmation process, none of this corner cutting shit.
You should be able to get a very good idea of where she’s stands after just a couple of days of hearings. Much more than that is excessive.
 
The only way your silly poll works is if you can predict what her rulings will be. The problem you have is that people from both sides of the aisle say she's brilliant and will apply the law as it is written. In the meantime, you are solely focused on your perception of her ideology.
Boy, you are really going off the deep end.

It used to be possible to have a decent conversation with you.

Sad.
 
She is an originalist in the mold of Scalia. That is a very good thing IMO.
 
iu
 
In other words, someone who claims to be an originalist but then rules in ways that the founders clearly wouldn't have intended.

Yep, we need more of that nonsense.
You have some examples?

Plus...it really isn't about trying to discern what the founders intended, or how they might have thought about some nuance of today. It is about what they wrote down and ratified. They wrote it pretty clearly most of the time, and the notes surrounding the creation of the Constitution and BOR make it pretty clear. Left wing judges end up "out to sea" as Scalia would say, because they continually take on the task of interpreting what they wish the constitution would have said vs what it actually says and use the "but they couldn't have foreseen X when they wrote it" as a smoke screen. That just means that your rights end up at the whim of whoever happens to be on the court at any given time...which is why left wingers are so freaked out right now.

Left wing folks see the SC as a tool to advance their agenda, not as a body intended to simply ensure laws do not violate the constitution. And they know that any "right" achieved through judicial activism can simply be erased by more judicial activism and they assume that right-wing judges will act as their left-wing counterparts have been in a judicially activist style. Just like executive orders were awesome when Obama was getting things done they liked...and now it is terrible when DT has the power of his "pen and a phone".

The good news is that originalists are by definition not activist and are actually good for liberals too. They do not advance a "conservative" agenda, or whatever bastardized populism is en vogue with the right wing so much today...they just verify that a law or ruling brought before them does not contradict what is clearly written in the constitution and BOR, and if it does not then then they sustain it...if it does they strike it down and kick it back to the legislature to try again. Does this make it harder to take short-cuts toward progressive goals? Sure, which is a good thing IMO.
 
You have some examples?
I think the best examples of so-called originalists making shit up are the various pro-corporation rulings, like those that consider corporations to be persons, and those that consider money to be speech.

No way in hell the founders thought like that.

Sure, it might be interesting to know what the founders would have thought about those things, but we simply don't know.
 
I think the best examples of so-called originalists making shit up are the various pro-corporation rulings, like those that consider corporations to be persons, and those that consider money to be speech.

No way in hell the founders thought like that.

Sure, it might be interesting to know what the founders would have thought about those things, but we simply don't know.
We don't need to wonder. The framers explicitly believed corporations to be persons for most purposes, including speech rights. It is based on significant precedence of British common-law, and it was specifically cited on numerous occasions by people like Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and others. It was specifically annunciated in the Dictionary Act of 1871 where it states unequivocally "unless the context indicates otherwise," the "words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

Bad example.
 
We don't need to wonder. The framers explicitly believed corporations to be persons for most purposes, including speech rights. It is based on significant precedence of British common-law, and it was specifically cited on numerous occasions by people like Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and others. It was specifically annunciated in the Dictionary Act of 1871 where it states unequivocally "unless the context indicates otherwise," the "words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

Bad example.
Wow. Your evidence that the founders had today's pro-corporate personhood views is from nearly 100 years after we became a nation, when they were long dead.

Nice job.

Plus, even that reading is wrong.

It's important to note that corporations of the late 18th century were very different from those of today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Lol what a stupid poll. Get ready down the road for Trumps 4th pick.
 
Wow. Your evidence that the founders had today's pro-corporate personhood views is from nearly 100 years after we became a nation, when they were long dead.

Nice job.

Plus, even that reading is wrong.

It's important to note that corporations of the late 18th century were very different from those of today.
That was an act clarifying previous precedent to ensure folks wouldn't do what you are trying to do today. But, you ignore the part that it was established by framers, such as Hamilton (who was essentially our first president) who explicitly adopted British Common Law in respect to corporations, which is unambiguously laid out in extensive detail in "Commentaries on the Laws of England" by William Blackstone, which was referenced extensively by the framers. Hamilton himself said to ""erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." Meaning, when you create a corporation, you are creating an artificial "person" and the rights of a person convey, such as property rights, due process, equal protections, and yes, speech.

Again. Bad example.
 
All opinions don't translate because circumstances change.

Like, "she hates the environment". How do we know that? Because she ruled against the EPA one time? Perhaps in that case the EPA did something procedurally wrong, or acted unconstitutionally against a citizen.

Then there's the Schumer and Pelosi talking points about health care. No Justice will be voting against health care. They will only be voting on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress. It's up to Congress to get it right.

I think that's slightly naive. It pretends that judges don't come to the conclusions that the parties that appoint them want. Quite frankly they do for both sides IMO.
 
Are you one of those who thinks ruling on constitutionality is the only thing - or even the main thing - the Supreme Court does?

Plus, several of the things listed are constitutional issues.

Of course ruling on constitutionality is the main thing the SUpreme Court does.

The Constitution expressly guarantees of individual liberty, provides mechanisms to preserve limited government whose role is to create and maintain an environment for the free and just pursuit of happiness. The problem is that every time one gets the ‘‘good parts’’ of the text, we then read a Supreme Court opinion that explained why it did not really mean what it clearly meant.

Abortion could be considered a constitutional issue based on what constitutes a person, but the other topics you've (mis) identified clearly do not.

Par for the course!
 
You have some examples?

Plus...it really isn't about trying to discern what the founders intended, or how they might have thought about some nuance of today. It is about what they wrote down and ratified. They wrote it pretty clearly most of the time, and the notes surrounding the creation of the Constitution and BOR make it pretty clear. Left wing judges end up "out to sea" as Scalia would say, because they continually take on the task of interpreting what they wish the constitution would have said vs what it actually says and use the "but they couldn't have foreseen X when they wrote it" as a smoke screen. That just means that your rights end up at the whim of whoever happens to be on the court at any given time...which is why left wingers are so freaked out right now.

Left wing folks see the SC as a tool to advance their agenda, not as a body intended to simply ensure laws do not violate the constitution. And they know that any "right" achieved through judicial activism can simply be erased by more judicial activism and they assume that right-wing judges will act as their left-wing counterparts have been in a judicially activist style. Just like executive orders were awesome when Obama was getting things done they liked...and now it is terrible when DT has the power of his "pen and a phone".

The good news is that originalists are by definition not activist and are actually good for liberals too. They do not advance a "conservative" agenda, or whatever bastardized populism is en vogue with the right wing so much today...they just verify that a law or ruling brought before them does not contradict what is clearly written in the constitution and BOR, and if it does not then then they sustain it...if it does they strike it down and kick it back to the legislature to try again. Does this make it harder to take short-cuts toward progressive goals? Sure, which is a good thing IMO.
Ugh. The Constitution did not and does not address every aspect of our lives. Expecting what was written 200+ years ago to do so without regard to the changes in our country is ludicrous and dangerous. The basic philosophy is flawed which is why we have seen so many "conservative" judges become more moderate in their terms. Their views mature and evolve. We can only hope that happens with this next one.
 
We don't need to wonder. The framers explicitly believed corporations to be persons for most purposes, including speech rights. It is based on significant precedence of British common-law, and it was specifically cited on numerous occasions by people like Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and others. It was specifically annunciated in the Dictionary Act of 1871 where it states unequivocally "unless the context indicates otherwise," the "words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

Bad example.
Well, given that corporations didn't start in the US until the 1790s the decisions on their standing came after the Constitution was written. In other words, an interpretation was made rather than it being specifically cited in the Constitution.
 
Well, given that corporations didn't start in the US until the 1790s the decisions on their standing came after the Constitution was written. In other words, an interpretation was made rather than it being specifically cited in the Constitution.
If you google cod's words, you can see the types of organizations he's cutting-and-pasting from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
I don't feel like there is a lot on her. I naturally distrust Trump but outside of that as far as the indvidiual I would like to see someone cite opinions of note she has written or at the very least signed onto.
 
I don't feel like there is a lot on her. I naturally distrust Trump but outside of that as far as the indvidiual I would like to see someone cite opinions of note she has written or at the very least signed onto.
A few have been mentioned but it's more the comments outside the court that make her look bad.

Remember, up to the Supreme Court, judges are required to follow precedent. Apparently she did so. But her outside-the-court comments make it unusually clear that she will feel free to trash precedent once she's a Justice. Unlike Roberts, for example, who made a big point of saying he would just call balls and strikes, not legislate from the bench. Of course he lied.

Don't get me wrong, I don't object to someone expressing a willingness to correct bad court decisions. Good ways to fix things like Dred Scott and Plessey. It's just that the decisions she seems to see as bad, aren't. And she's expected to strengthen those that actually are bad.

It looks like the Rs want to get her on the Court fast- to vote out Obamacare, to squash environmentalists, and maybe to help keep Trump in office. So we're likely to find out very soon.

It should be interesting.
 
If appointed, she would become the first Supreme Court Justice that I would be willing to do,.. that's worth something..
 
I dislike that the C in her initials comes before the B. If she were ABC, she could use a Jackson 5 song as her theme song.
 
ADVERTISEMENT