RIP RBG

[ursus arctos]

Unless you are Chuck Grassley and have been exposed to multiple colleagues who tested positive and just don't give a shit (lest you might not be able to vote for a reactionary Justice).

[San Bernardhinault]

Hearing started today. I couldn't face watching any of it, but apparently Mike Lee, who is probably still infectious with covid, was speaking maskless. For political reasons, I hope the Democrats just go with this to demonstrate how ridiculously reckless the Republicans are being, and how this is being forced through without any of the normal consideration and process.

If they do have to ask Barrett any questions, I'd like them to ask fairly simply: "What should the consequences be for a supreme court justice who doesn't tell the truth during their hearing?", and then follow that up by asking if Trump asked her for any loyalty, and if Trump made any reference to potential election related court cases.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1315659965865103360

Ted Cruz appeared remotely, as he is in self-isolation due to having come into contact with Lee.

[Hot Pepsi]

As I’ve said before, if she is what counts as a great legal mind - and she may be, for all I know - than being a great legal mind isn’t worth much. If the right answer to the question is “make millions miserable to enrich a few,” then you’re asking the wrong question. It doesn’t take a philosopher to see that.

She supposedly said that the law should be what is written, not what judges believe it means. If that’s the case, then why do we need judges at all? If he wins, Biden should call the bluff on the “originalists” and point out that judicial review is not in the constitution so the Supreme Court can go fuck itself. See how that goes.

[Sporting]

Unfortunately - but fortunately for lawyers - the written law is often open to myriad interpretations.

[Hot Pepsi]

But the whole conservative schtick is that it isn’t.

[WOM]

Whoever is doing the closed captioning for ACB's confirmation hearing isn't familiar with legal terminology. They just keep typing out whatever is phonetically closest; 'on bond' for 'en banc' is the latest.

[ursus arctos]

I'm assuming that it is automated

[WOM]

I thought it might be, but there's a pronounced pause right before questionable words, like they're doing a 5-sec rewind to hear it again before typing.

[WOM]

Now they've changed a whole word: statute to legislation.

[ad hoc]

What does this mean? (in a nutshell, I don't want whoever answers to have to waste time on my limited understanding of key legal / constitutional areas)

https://twitter.com/J_Pettie/status/1316005467328569345

[San Bernardhinault]

I didn't hear what she said. So this is my guess: Brown vs Board banned segregation in education. My assumption is that if - say - Alabama decided that black kids would get "better" educations for doing black people stuff without the distraction of white kids wanting to learn academic stuff, and a court case was brought because that's patently illegal, she would say that the original constitution never said anything about segregation in education, and therefore she thinks it should be down to the state, and nothing to do with federal government.

[ursus arctos]

She isn't willing to declare Brown to be correctly decided, and given her "originalist" take on a number of other issues, there is genuine doubt as to how she would vote were it to come up again.

[ad hoc]

Thanks both

Fucking hell

[ursus arctos]

I'm afraid that this isn't surprising in the least, given her public record on race

https://twitter.com/jillfilipovic/status/1316015142828556301

[Satchmo Distel]

She isn't willing to declare Brown to be correctly decided, and given her "originalist" take on a number of other issues, there is genuine doubt as to how she would vote were it to come up again.

Has anyone asked her about Loving v Virginia or other 14th Amendment decisions? I'm guessing that she supports the right to discriminate because it wasn't in the original document. Are "originalists" basically arguing that all Amendents are invalid (except the 2nd of course)?

In the N-word case, I infer that she has parsed the word "created" in a way that was not intended by the framers of the law. She seems to be arguing that you can be inherently abusive towards a black person provided the environment was already "hostile" due to their alleged poor work record.

So if I want to call my colleague a N*****, I just need to pick someone whose work has already gotten them into a negative disciplinary position.

It's like she's in Mississippi circa 1954 around the time of Emmett Till's murder.

[anton pulisov]

Wow, the end of that ruling reads like, "lazy n***** should have just worked harder and there would have been no issues between him and his colleagues"

it's astounding

[ursus arctos]

I don't think that anyone has asked her about Loving (which struck down anti-miscegenation laws), but many commentators think it is an an open question as to how she would rule.

She is extreme even by Federalist Society standards

[anton pulisov]

Originalism:

[Nefertiti2]

If as an Originalist she believes that she has to apply the laws as the Founders conceived it, how can she be a judge? The Founders wouldn't have accepted a woman as a judge, and sure as hell not on the Supreme Court.

[Incandenza]

She's even worse than I thought

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316132838010486785

[Hot Pepsi]

WTF? Why have a constitution at all?

[anton pulisov]

I call Georgia for Trump

https://twitter.com/clairecmc/status/1315691917817139206

[Hot Pepsi]

On the other hand, those people are waiting in the line. Shows commitment.

[San Bernardhinault]

That was yesterday - the first day of early voting. I'd be interested to see what it looks like in a couple of days time.