Why is a block of the SCOTUS demanding they wait until Barrett can rules also on an abortion case? Hugs
Why is a block of the SCOTUS demanding they wait until Barrett can rules also on an abortion case? Hugs
The Washington Post reports:
Barrett said Wednesday that she believed two Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination were correctly decided but declined to say the same for other landmark opinions involving gay rights and access to contraceptives. Those responses came under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who asked her whether Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed the “separate but equal” doctrine, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, were correctly decided.
Then Blumenthal pressed Barrett on Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed married couples to use birth control, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. “Again, I’ve said throughout the hearing, I can’t grade precedent,” Barrett said. “I can’t give a yes or a no, and my declining to give an answer doesn’t suggest disagreement or an agreement.”
More at the link above. Hugs
She also declined to say whether she thought it was wrong to separate migrant children from their parents to deter immigration to the United States. “That’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge,” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
Barrett said Wednesday that she believed two Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination were correctly decided but declined to say the same for other landmark opinions involving gay rights and access to contraceptives.
Those responses came under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who asked her whether Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed the “separate but equal” doctrine, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, were correctly decided.
Brown, in 1954, was “correctly decided, yes, I’ve said that,” Barrett said. As for Loving, that 1967 decision “follows directly from Brown, and Brown was correctly decided. Loving, as well.”
Then Blumenthal pressed Barrett on Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed married couples to use birth control, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.
“Again, I’ve said throughout the hearing, I can’t grade precedent,” Barrett said. “I can’t give a yes or a no, and my declining to give an answer doesn’t suggest disagreement or an agreement.”
She added: “You’re pushing me to try to violate the judicial canon of ethics … and I won’t do that.”
Blumenthal appeared frustrated at Barrett’s non-answers, noting that her predecessors, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., were able to say in their confirmation hearings that Griswold was correctly decided.
But as Blumenthal painted a portrait of America where people could face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, Barrett pushed back.
“To suggest that’s the kind of America that I want to create” is not based on any facts in her record, Barrett said.
There is no doubt if she could give her opinion on a race issue decided by the court, she could have given her opinion on same gender marriage issues the court ruled on. But she wouldn’t. It has become clear she is going to decide cases not on the law but on her religious biases. She belongs to a cult that wants the US returned to the 1850’s as far as minority rights are concerned. She has made it clear her religion is paramount in her views, and she has said she can not and shouldn’t separate her faith from her decisions. She belongs to a cult that feels some people have the right to tell other people how to live and what to do including personal choices in life. The higher levels of the cult assigns people to tell their adult charges what do to. WTF. She is clearly OK with telling consensual adults what sex they can have or not have. She is OK with denying two same gender people the right to have consensual sexual relationships, she would vote to make it illegal. She like the entire Republican party is a journey backward, to the past, regressive and restrictive. Hugs
The Constitution doesn’t stipulate how many justices should serve on the Court—in fact, that number fluctuated until 1869.
Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside…”).
It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
Why six? Because Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789, one for each state. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices.
“They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” says Marcus. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”
The Federalist’s grip on power didn’t last, however, prompting the very first political controversy over Supreme Court nominations. In 1800, incumbent John Adams, a Federalist, lost the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.
In those days, the post-election “lame duck” session of Congress lasted until the following March, says Marcus, and Adams and his Federalists in Congress wanted to do everything in their power to deny Jefferson a Supreme Court pick.
While there’s a lot of controversy today around replacing a Supreme Court justice in an election year, Adams had no such qualms. In 1800, a month before the presidential election, Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth resigned from the Court because of illness. Adams nominated and Congress confirmed Ellsworth’s successor, John Marshall, on February 4, 1801 during the lame duck session of Congress.
Adams and the Federalists then went a step further. They passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 which decreased the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, further lowering the odds that Jefferson would get to nominate a new justice during his term in office.
In response, Jefferson and his new Congress quickly repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, bringing the number of justices officially back to six. And since no justice had died in the interim, the number of seated justices never actually dropped to five
By the start of the Civil War, the number of Supreme Court justices had increased to nine in order to cover additional circuit courts in the expanding American West. But Abraham Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott and wanting to cement an anti-slavery majority on the Court, added a 10th justice in 1863.
After the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination, Congress clashed with Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, who was rapidly undoing the “Radical Republicans’” plan for Reconstruction. To limit Johnson’s power, Congress passed legislation in 1866 that cut the number of Supreme Court justices back to seven, all but assuring that Johnson wouldn’t have the opportunity to fill a vacant seat.
The last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1869, again to meet a political end. Ulysses S. Grant was elected president in 1868 with the backing of the congressional Republicans who had hated Johnson. As a gift to Grant, Congress increased the number of justices from seven back to nine, and Grant gamely used those picks.
The Supreme Court had just ruled that paper money was unconstitutional, which would have “wreaked havoc” with the U.S. Treasury, says Marcus. But Grant and Congress quickly confirmed two new justices who reversed the Court’s decision in the earlier case, saving the Republicans from having to undo the nation’s entire system of legal tender.
There is more at the link above. By the usual one justice for each circuit court, we ought to have thirteen—one for each circuit and one more for the DC Federal Court of Appeals. The Biden administration must consider doing this to save the nation from the take over attempt by far right conservative religious extremists Hugs
To these people somehow my marriage keeps them from worshiping their god. My right to equal status under secular laws for marriage benefits violates their religious freedom while they can still go to their churches, do their rituals, pray their prayers, preach their myths, wear their religious symbols, and force their doctrines on the rest of us on medical decisions. They are so filled with hate, with Christian privilege that not being able to deny me public services, to not be able to deny me equal rights under the laws, to not have the right to discriminate openly loudly, to not be able to oppress those they do not like is discrimination to them, and denying their rights. This was a secular country, but those who want it run by their religion have worked very hard over the last few decades to turn it into a theocracy. Ask yourself if any country that is a theocracy, that has forced religion with no dissent, ruled by the leaders of one sect of one religion is a country where the people have rights? Look at the islamic countries, just replace Islam with Christianity. Now replace Obergefell with Loving v. Virginia, is this still OK. If you replace same sex marriage with different race marriage is it still religious freedom to deny the right to that marriage? Or is it bigotry? Clarence Thomas wants to overturn Obergefell based on religious grounds, but his marriage to a white woman was opposed by major religious groups based on their religious freedom. Is his marriage going to be nullified to grant the bigots the right to deny him and his wife the right to marry. If you replace denying public services based on religious freedom rights against LGBTQ+ with the words black or jewish would it still be OK? What about those who claim it is their religious right not to let black people eat at the lunch counter or ride in the front of the bus? What is eating at me is how much these people have managed to do to chip away at women’s right, my rights, LGBTQ+ rights. Nothing matters to them but their right to force all of us to obey their church doctrines. Not the right to do them themselves their religious doctrines but the right to force the rest of us to live by them. Their church forbids them from eating ice cream so I can not eat ice cream either? Kim Davis was not asked to affirm the same sex marriage, not asked to go to the marriage, not asked to deny her god she was asked to do her job that she was paid to do for everyone one equally. She has several marriages and committed adultery, would it be OK for someone like her to deny her a marriage licence because her lifestyle is against their religious beliefs? If not, then it is not right to do so to same sex couples. Hugs
Via email from hate group leader Mat Staver:
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to grant review of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and regarding the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, Justices Thomas and Alito appear to invite future challenges to the 2015 Obergefell marriage case.
Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) wrote that the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Obergefell v. Hodges caused a collision with religious liberty and the Court must fix it. Four justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, strongly dissented in Obergefell. Justice Alito predicted the opinion would cause significant problems for religious freedom.
Davis has continued to argue that she is not liable for damages because she was entitled to a religious accommodation (which former Governor Bevin and the legislature granted), and that her actions did not violate clearly established rights.
In 2016, Kentucky unanimously passed legislation to provide religious liberty accommodation for Kim Davis and other Kentucky clerks.
There has been no final ruling on whether Davis is liable for damages. Depending on how the case finally concludes at the lower court, Liberty Counsel will then file a petition to present the opportunity for the Supreme Court to address Obergefell.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Even though the High Court declined to take up qualified immunity, Justices Thomas and Alito are inviting future challenges regarding Obergefell and to fix the mess the Court created.”
tRump’s new SCOTUS nomination is a firm believer in a theocracy. She is a firm believer in ruling based on her religion, not secular laws. Like Clarence Thomas she doesn’t believe equal treatment under the law applies to everyone, and would gladly deny equality to women and LGBTQ+. I listened to a breakdown of her beliefs and legal writings yesterday. Remember she has only been a judge for three years. Only three years, and now going to be on the highest court in the land making rulings the rest of us must live by. This is what the goal of the religious fanatics have been for decades. <blockquote>
The tweet’s mention of “build a ‘Kingdom of God’ in the United States” is an allusion to comments Barrett made in a 2006 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame Law School where Barrett was a faculty member from 2002 until 2017. Barrett told the graduating class:
“I’m just going to identify one way in which I hope that you, as graduates of Notre Dame, will fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer. And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” </blockquote> https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/does-amy-coney-barrett-want-to-end
In four years tRump and McConnell have managed to fill the courts with people like her at all levels. The only check was the SCOTUS. Seems not for long. Hugs