straightUp Loc: California

I really don't see anything in Amy Barrett that concerns me. She seems level headed to me. I don't agree with her ideology but I think she has integrity and that means she won't allow her ideology to interfere with her judgement. (So don't count on her "overturning Roe v Wade". )

What I think will happen is that her visibility will get conservatives to realize the futility of putting conservatives on the bench when it comes to the direction of our democracy. Already, the first two conservative judges appointed by Trump have decided against the presidents interests and now it's happening again with the "Pennsylvania Decision" where the conservative PA Supreme Court allowed a three-day extension for counting absentee ballots, and AGAIN, when the conservative-majority SCOTUS refused to fast-track the GOP request to overrule the state's decision. (Gee, conservatives... overreach much?)

The problem (well, a problem at least for the Republicans who obviously don't want to count all the votes in PA) is that appointing conservative judges doesn't mean they're going to help you cheat.

As a liberal who favors most of the American progressive agenda, I have faith in the U.S. Constitution and I believe everything we want to achieve is constitutionally permissible. That's why I don't have a problem with judicial appointees as long as they do their job. They can be liberal, conservative or fruit-flavored for all I care.

What matters to me is their constitutional integrity, which I think Amy Barrett has.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Lonewolf

Airforceone

Amy Barrett hasn’t made one vote yet so there’s no way we can be making those statements at this time.

She is going to be a problem because she refused to answer questions on collective bargaining, environmental regulations, and the ACA and one question that concerned me the most was she was asked if she believed if Social Security Was constitutional she refused to answer. She dodged every question by democrats and she knew she did not have to answer because the committee hearings was a joke she was going to get appointed no matter what she said.

Justice Roberts is the only conservative Judge that understands the the constitution. Kavanaugh Gorsuch and Barrette are political appointees. They got on the SCOTUS with 51 Republican votes thru the nuclear option. That simply put are there to protect the Republican agenda.
Gorsuch did get 2 democratic votes but the Gorsuch nomination was when McCONNELL invoked the Nuclear option for SC nominees.

Cuda2020

If Barrett practices without bias and listens to evidence first as she says, then she will be a respectable asset to the Supreme Court, but if she instead follows an agenda, then she dishonors herself, an as it's been said we will have to wait and see. For now I give her the benefit of the doubt that she will take the opportunity to be an Honorable Judge.

Tug484

I'm definitely disappointed in Kavanaugh.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Why???

He has done well so far...

Tug484

He has made a couple of decisions that shocked me, but it was a while back and I can't remember what they were.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

He seems non partisan to me... That is to be desired, no???

straightUp Loc: California

Bear in mind I wasn't stating any facts about her future record, only my opinion of her character at a point where Congress had to decide if she qualifies.


Good point... She *did* refuse to answer a lot of questions and I'm not so happy with that. But I already know I disagree with her personal views and whether or not we like it, she did get confirmed. At this point I am looking at the record for conservative appointees and finding some hope in pattern where by conservatives appointees don't always decide in favor of their own personal views but rather by the limitations of the Constitution. I am hoping Amy Barrett will at least maintain that integrity.

I am also hopeful that Democrats will take over Congress, so if the conservative bench DOES bend the Constitution toward their personal views, Congress, which is the more powerful institution CAN legislate a way to counter it, even if it means adding 3 more seats to the bench for Biden to appoint.


And that's the difference I am trying to point out... the difference between WHY these judges were appointed (and I have no doubt, Trump and the Republicans chose them to protect their partisan agenda) and the reality of their assigned jobs according to the Constitution.

Time will tell.

straightUp Loc: California

Tug484

He is coming across that way.

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not sure what you're basing your disappointment on, Tug... Is it the decisions that you can't remember or is it that he is appearing to be nonpartisan?

Tug484

It was his first decision that shocked me, but it must have not been too important to me because I've forgotten what he did.
I didn't see that it fit the Constitution.