Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed to Supreme Court as Susan Collins is Lone Republican to Oppose

Discussion in 'Present & Current Events' started by August, Oct 26, 2020.

  1. August

    August Metanoia

    Messages:
    5,537
    [​IMG]

    Collins is one of Republicans' most endangered members this Fall, as election forecasters say Democrats are likely to flip the seat.


    Although initially signaling she would oppose Barrett and voted against proceeding to the final vote during a procedural measure over the weekend, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) ultimately flipped her stance and backed the nominee.

    Democrats have decried the breakneck pace as "illegitimate" and hypocritical in an election year. Republicans blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016, citing the proximity to Election Day. Obama nominated Garland 237 days before the election. Barrett was nominated by Trump just 38 days before this year's contest.

    "Today, Monday, October 26, 2020, will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech. "You may win this vote, and Amy Coney Barrett may become the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. But you will never—never—get your credibility back."

    Barrett's confirmation to the high court marks the closest to an election—eight days—that the upper chamber has ever placed a new justice on the Supreme Court and will cement a 6-3 conservative slant for likely years to come. Barrett is the third Trump nominee to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    21,003
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    21,003
    I think she will make a fine Constitutional Justice, you're never going to find a judge that all parties like, she is a good choice overall IMO...The President did his duty, if the roles were reversed Biden would have picked a Justice too...The only beef I have with this nomination is they should have got a covid stimulus bill passed first, keep the fraking pork out of it and get help to the American people first...

    ...
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  4. August

    August Metanoia

    Messages:
    5,537
    I am glad she is in. I think she is fabulous.
     
  5. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,351
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Captain Tinkle

    Captain Tinkle Honorable

    Messages:
    239
    Forgive me, my knowledge on the United States political system is limited.

    The way I understand it is that if the President wishes to enact an act of law, it is then voted on in Congress. If said law is passed then the Supreme Court who are lifetime members have the final say?

    Surely if this is the case the system is broken? I am again of the understanding that the Supreme Court is now very Republican leaning in nature. In such a case if a Democrat government was to get into power, then how on Earth are they going to pass any laws?

    Here the House of Lords work on a similuar basis to how I have suggested to the above but except for special circumstances they cannot reject any new bills, only request they be amended and delay said bills.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    Thankfully no. My understanding is that it's only when laws are challenged in lower courts, and the lower courts decisions are appealed, do they have the chance of being escalated to the Supreme Court - if the court chooses to take them.

    What this does mean is it opens a path for existing rights to be wiped out.
    Say a state decided that it is now illegal to be gay. Of course this goes against existing rulings on things like Lawrence vs Texas, so that law would be challenged in court, and the court will almost certainly strike the law down. The state could then appeal that ruling and it gets elevated into the Supreme Court.
    With a right wing majority, there is a very real risk they'll overrule the lower court, removing the effects of Lawrence vs Texas, and suddenly states are allowed to make it illegal to be gay.

    I'm not American either, so parts might be slightly off. But as you pointed out, this isn't something to cheer about. Putting essentially a handmaiden with only 3 years of federal judge experience to the highest court in the country with a life time term is idiocy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    It sounds farfetched in my example, but it isn't. Don't forget it was illegal to be gay in a dozen states as late as 2003. It took the Supreme Court originally ruling that those rules were in violation of the Constitution for them to be struct down. There is still states who are likely to push to reinstate those rules.

    This is why many of my American friends are concerned. Even in cases less severe than criminalising a sexuality, it can be harmful.
    It opens a rule for Roe vs Wade to be struct down and bring back backstreet illegal abortions and the deaths associated.
    It brings back the likelihood that Obergefell v. Hodges will be overturned, and within months nearly a million marriages could be ruled unlawful.

    From the outside looking in, it feels like many people are partisanly cheering this on instead of taking time to think about how these decisions will affect those around them, their loved ones, and themselves in the long term.
    As trends show, the right wing is in perpetual decline as the younger generations are more and more left. Now we have their highest court populated by elderly people who's views are fundamentally incompatible with the majority of the people they represent.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    Outside of the edit time, but something I forgot to add.
    The SCOTUS overruling a law does not mean something like abortions would become illegal federally, instead it would remove the federal block on making them illegal and it'd fall back to how it was before where its a state decision. Liberal states like California and New York will not be affected in that case, but the regressive mid-states will slide back 50 years.

    They can take out federal level laws like the ACA entirely though.

    So worse than out House of Lords in that they can actually prevent things. But not as bad in that they can't prevent laws from Congress. Unless of course they get challenged - which is a big concern.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page