True

If you don't know and haven't followed and are admittedly not familiar with the case, then you are ignorant of the subject being discussed, ergo your comment just became the opinion of someone who knows jack shit of the subject.

Why refer to Justice Ginsberg's wish that her seat not be hurriedly filled as a raw political power play? How is that "illegitimate"? It's certainly no more illegitimate than the hypocrisy by which Mitch McConnell holds open a seat for 9 months, denying President Obama's nominee even the courtesy of a hearing, but rams through Trump's nominee in less than 9 weeks. Why is Justice Ginsberg's personal wish less legitimate than Donald Trump's and Mitch McConnell's? I would say hers is far more legitimate, seeing as she had no partisan axe to grind; rather, she didn't want to see the Supreme Court become yet another political football to be punted around for party advantage.

The law is supposed to be above partisan considerations, but in my lifetime it has become the avenue by which the minority party (the Republicans) have sought to undo the will of the majority of the people and preserve their outdated, right-wing religious agenda, when the tide of history is clearly against them. Not since Roger B. Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision has a Supreme Court been poised to stand so utterly against the principles of freedom.

@Mofo1953 Your words " knows jack shit ", didn't further my understanding of the other case and how her position she takes here relates to it. It would be really nice to keep focused on the subject, not inaccurate personal opinion.

@Paul4747 Here is how it works "The Supreme Court consists of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The president has the power to nominate the justices and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate" Where are we told that justice's opinion on their replacements matter? Her opinion does surely hold weight, but not inside this process.

@Flowerwall I'm not here to teach or to further the understanding of anything, I prefer to point out the inconsistency of arguments.

@Flowerwall Claptrap. Again, you're deliberately ignoring the overt politicizing of the entire process by the Republican Senate leadership.

Trump boasts about how many Federal judges he's installed and says Pres. Obama "failed" because he "left those seats open". "You don't leave all those seats open." The fact is that McConnell blocked hearings on over 200 Federal judicial appointments, along with a Supreme Court Justice, during Pres. Obama's terms. Obama deliberately nominated center of the road, nonpartisan judges who follow the Constitution, respect stare decisis, and particularly respect the principle embodied in 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Hence the right of privacy, the foundation of Roe v Wade, which the Republicans have been trying to overturn for 40 years.

The Senate was never given an opportunity to consent to the nomination of Merrick Garland, nor were they able to consent or deny hundreds of other nominees, because they were denied a hearing for narrow partisan reasons. The Senate never advised on Barrett's nomination; their advice was never sought. If Trump truly wanted the advice and consent of the Senate, he would have consulted both parties' leadership, rather than cram this nomination down the nation's throat. Knowing the history of these appointments, Justice Ginsberg was well aware of what would likely follow her death. Her wish was that America not be subjected to another partisan battle, where the stakes are so unimaginably high.

Justice Ginsberg was a giant of the justice system. Her words have weight, as much as Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex or Lincoln's words at Gettysburg. It's ill-advised to simply brush aside the opinion of someone who spent their adult life thinking about the role of the courts in America.

@Paul4747 I never said brush her words aside. She was not in charge of selecting her replacement, so in that sense it cannot be a deciding factor. Unless all politicians and judges will now capitulate to the opposing viewpoint, I don't expect it from anyone. I will not attempt to defend the words and actions of two politicians, McConnell and Trump. These words of Trump's that you quoted are very typical of his style. His frequent attacks on Pres. Obama do come across very negatively to me. Trump seems to want to undo everything Pres. Obama accomplished. But if they are successful in undoing ACA, (I am starting to feel strongly they will NOT be) and this goes back to Barrett, it may be their own undoing ultimately. The American people do not want that, and it is our government afterall and should reflect that.

I am not knowledgeable in the various schools of thought in constitutional interpretation. Originalism and textualism are new terms to me. It is quite the time to delve into these topics though, isn't it? The right to privacy is a very important one in this day age and especially when you consider the (once again!) flagrant breach of public privacy voters have just undergone as of this most recent cyberhack of registered voters. Now is most definately the time to think about those initial views on what our rights were at the founding, how they have changed over time, and what they are now. This is discussion you never hear. I wonder, if you review the entirety of the confirmation hearings does any of this ever even get discussed? Maybe noone ultimately cares about this most fundamental idea and the difficulties posed in this 21st century of overreaching technology, but I say let's hear from the constitutional originalists here! Maybe Barrett is exactly what we need then.

As far as Roe, I don't know exactly what Barrett has stated in that regard, I find it hard to believe that some of the ideas suggested by Dems would ever even be up for consideration. The other landmark case frequently sited, Griswold, well, it's not the 1800s anymore and I think everyone knows that. It feels like some of the questioning on Dems side of Barrett was so far detached from reality, it once again made the Dems look like they are trying very hard, TOO hard to make her look bad. It reflects poorly on the party. (On the contrary to that idea, the clip I posted above felt like a very positive exchange and I give both credit for that). I personally feel the more I hear of her, I cannot find much to criticize. I also think she's not there to just do what Trump wants and to suggest that she is is an insult. Additionally with regard to reproductive/ pro- choice rights, Barrett IS a female. She can view the issues from that perspective and that should give Dems some level of peace of mind.

@Flowerwall Barrett has gone out of her way to avoid giving answers about her legal views now that she's in hearings for a seat on the high court, but her speeches in the past (from what I've read) suggest that she considers Roe "ripe for review", as opposed to settled precedent. And I am very troubled by her speech saying that a lawyer's primary job is "building the Kingdom of God", or words to that effect.

The problem with trying to divine the founders' intent is, what sources do you use? The Constitution, as it's written down? The Federalist Papers? Their diaries and correspondence? And how much of that is relevant 250 years later, in any case? Whatever the founders may have intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, for example, they wound up writing "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"- comma problems and references to militias aside. So we're left trying to divine whether it's merely an introductory phrase, or the entire reason for individual ownership of firearms. Does the 10th reserve all the non-enumerated powers to the states first, and whatever's left over to the people, or do the people have all rights not specifically granted as a power of the state? That's the heart of the right to privacy. The founders could never have foreseen cell phones and computers, not to mention electronic transmissions, so the court had to decide if the protection from unreasonable search and seizure applies to them or not.

That's why it's utterly ridiculous claiming to be an "originalist". One might as well be saying they're only prepared to judge for a world where the horse and buggy is the pinnacle of technology. The world has moved on. The Constitution is a living document, and we need judges who can interpret it for the world as it is, not as they wish it was.

@Paul4747 From all of the explanations I have heard Barrett give she is bound by procedure to NOT give specific opinions. So WHAT exactly is expected of her in terms of response? No matter WHAT she says it will be torn apart and sharply criticised. I mean look she uses the phrase "building the Kingdom of God", and ppl are "troubled" by it, criticising it. She did not say something about furthering the cause of evil, so why are ppl acting as though she did? Ppl ARE allowed to believe in God in the US in 2020, right? Or does that freedom no longer exist in non-believers' minds?

This is the problem with "living document" ideas. Next thing you know all of these basic rights will not exist and there will be plenty of justifications and reasons why doing so was actually a good idea, kind of like when antifa wants everyone else to just shut up. It's being done for everyone's good, right? NO. The originalist perspective certainly IS important. It is a very valid pov. KNOW your history. "What sources do you use? The constirution...." To all the sourced you listed "Yes". Understanding the times, the thoughts, the challenges how it all related, it can give us some level of guidance and perspective in our current day. Why wouldn't it? Do you think this knowledge of history gives us nothing?

I'm not aware enough of the constitutional issues and where we stand right now with technology. Exactly where the issues are. I don't know enough about the newest technological advancements, I don't know what the precedent says, but I have a huge problem with these ongoing successful cyber attacks. "We don't want ppl to lose confidence in the integrity of the voting process" they say. But how do they think confidence has not already been lost? This is certainly not the first time it's happened, though it probably is the worst time. Where is the right to privacy? Aren't states and localities hugely violating ppl's rights with each data breach? Why doesn't this get fixed?

At this point in time I think a horse and buggy, and regular mail, and offline voter records, and getting as much personal info off line as possible would be a much better option than doing nothing or feeling confident in the current system. The systen as it currently exists seems almost as though it's designed to completely destroy the idea of privacy altogether.

As far as Barrett's views on Roe, I do not know exactly where she stands. She has a duty to decide cases using all the knowledge she has gained and using her very best judgement; religious belief cannot cloud that view. Discussions and decisions on abortion must always be predicated by the harsh realities of unwanted pregnancies, as human beings are not like animals that deposit young in the wild and leave them to fend for themselves as other animal species do. I pasted a list here that enumerated some of the issues that occur in these situations, then deleted, because this response has just grown too long. Secondly, as long as the list was it doesn't include everything and it could never fully quantify the exact level of human suffering that exists related to this issue. And let's not forget the cultural and societal norms that create these situations in the first place. If we are to progress as a society it must be done in the right order, and those who have the highest power have the highest responsibility to bring us there. Barrett has to know that.

@Paul4747 And it looks like she will likely be confirmed tomorrow.

@Flowerwall There was never a doubt that the Republicans could ram through the nomination; the rush is to get it done before Trump becomes a lame duck. The hypocrisy of reversing their position of 4 years ago, when McConnell held a seat open for 8 months, compared to now when they rush to fill one in 8 weeks, is vile. Their claim that "the voters should have a say in who chooses the next Justice" should be sticking in their throats. Lindsey Graham said, "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Unfortunately, they have not a shred of self-respect. They've sold their souls to the Trump movement. I can only hope enough voters are as pissed about it as I am and make them pay.

The goal here is that by stacking the courts with conservatives, Republicans will block any Democratic initiatives for the next 30 years (an end to gerrymandering, universal health care, voting rights) by taking it to the courts. That's why they're so desperate to give Trump just one more Justice, and why they blocked Obama's moderate and somewhat liberal nominees; not only the high court, but all through the federal courts. Now the bench is filled with right wing religious conservatives, hand-picked by the Federalist Society.

Despicable.

@Flowerwall If you're asking, "Would the party in power take advantage of having that power?" In general, yes.
If you're asking me, "Do I think a Democrat-controlled Senate would have held up a Republican Supreme Court nomination for 8 months, announcing a principle that 'the next President should choose the next Justice', and then turn around and push through a nominee in 8 weeks, precisely contrary to that principle"; no, I honestly don't think so. I don't think they would have held up the nomination in the first place.

The Republicans controlled the Senate. They had 54 seats in 2016. If they didn't want Merrick Garland to be on the Supreme Court, he would not have been. The issue was that there was no basis for turning him down, other than the simple fact that he was an Obama nominee and therefore insufficiently conservative. To avoid his caucas being seen voting down a perfectly well-qualified, moderate nominee, Mcconnell simply denied him a hearing, period.

Perhaps I'm utterly naive, but I don't think the Democrats are that ideologically driven as to deny a nominee even a hearing.

@Paul4747 I don't know for certain what would have happened either, but it's just hypothetical now. It is what it is now. And soon there will be an election that could change things dramatically again.

Agreed.

Well it really doesn’t matter because IMO they are all fake, corrupting and full of shit.

@SeaRay215ex Perhaps not to you and me, but it matters to them, and some of them are friends and family.

@p-nullifidian I relate, because I have family members who are Catholics and attend church.

That’s how it works on the state level. At least in some states. But not sure of all f them. In Wisconsin judges are elected to 10 year terms. Members of US Congress, US senate are elected to 2 and 6 years and President for 4. Similiary at the state level, here in NY at least, State Assembly and Senate members are elected to 2 year terms and Governor 4 years. All states are different with these numbers. In NY a Governor can run as long as he keeps getting elected where in New Jersey and Ohio the Governor is limited to two 4 year terms. So mostly things will have to change at the state level. But it makes no sense to have a far right US Supreme Court while most of the US is becoming lesser Conservative, especially Gen. Z and Millenials.

Will it be bigger than, or merely add to, the backlash against pedophile priests

That depends on how far the Supreme Court goes. If they did overturn Roe, the ACA, and LBGTx unions, then yes. As more people grasp that they are negatively affected, the backlash will be bigger. Also, if they continue to obstruct access to birth control.