What about Trump v. United States? That’s the text book example of “made up” law that has absolutely no basis in the Constitution. If one of the Founders had said, “Oh, by the way, while the proposed constitution says nothing about this, nevertheless we intend that the President will be immune from civil and criminal liability for acts he takes while President,” does anyone seriously think for a minute that the Constitution would have been ratified? Of course not! Not an ice cube’s chance in hell! Barrett favored that nonsense. Thus, I cannot accept Will’s fanboy review.
That's fine, you don't have to accept it, but it's worth noting that Justice Barrett had her own separate opinion in that case and did not join all of the majority opinion.
Typical liberal response that can't see through one's hate. You're very similar to the two morons that were standing holding signs on Monroe Street calling her a fascist and scum. The best part is one of the morons was wearing a bicycle helmet and goggles as if he were getting ready for a battle. Most Americans believe in the rule of law which is our constitution and that judges rule with law. Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices need to follow the constitution on how it's written and not try to change what the constitution says because a justice thinks they have that power. Amy Comey Barrett does exactly what the constitution says. If you don't agree with the Constitution, vote so your Senator and Representative can vote to bring out a Constitutional Ammendment and then, she will follow that Ammendment as law, just like she does now. There are three equal branches of government and none are stronger than they are so quit acting like that's not the case and she and the Conservative judges are running screens for Trump. Stating that is a very ignorant, weak and divisive take, although after reading your comments, I believe that's what you want.
Mr. Walsh, thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. I apologize for taking so long to respond to you.
As I read your response, I see that you assert five substantive propositions:
First, that “most Americans believe in the rule of law.” I agree with you on that proposition.
Second, that the rule of law “is our constitution.” I agree with you that the Constitution is a cornerstone to the American concept of the rule of law.
Third, that “judges rule with law.” I agree that “ruling with the law” is the standard that all judges should strive for. Whether or not any particular judge ruling in any particular case has actually ruled “with the law,” as you put it, is open to debate.
Fourth, that “judges, especially Supreme Court Justices need to follow the constitution on how it's written and not try to change what the constitution says because a justice thinks they have that power.” I absolutely agree with you on that very important proposition.
Fifth, that “Amy Comey Barrett does exactly what the constitution says.” On this proposition, I must respectfully disagree with you.
But perhaps you can set me straight.
Please tell me exactly what the Constitution says about the President having immunity from prosecution for acts or failures to act that might result in criminal prosecution. Please direct me to the Article and Paragraph in the Constitution that you claim grants Presidential immunity. Please quote the very words to me so that I may understand how in her concurring opinion in Trump v. United States, Justice Barrett did "exactly what the Constitution says."
I wondered if you'd be so kind to elaborate on a couple of points in your article:
1. If "...Roe had to be overturned...", then don't Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell have to be overturned? Maybe Miranda?
2. "...Justices aren’t allowed to indulge their personal or political beliefs..." Do you think it's unreasonable that some of us believe that judicial philosophy is to some extent a get out of jail free card for indulging your personal or political beliefs in judging. As just one example, as I understand it, Alito has never ruled against a sincerely held religious liberty claim. And after Dobbs, he gives the speech in Rome where he laments that the world is not more religious. So we are to believe his personal beliefs about the importance of religion in no way affect his rulings related to religious liberty claims? Consider me skeptical.
But Justice Alito has voted in favor of religious liberty claims by non-Catholics of various faiths. On this theory, does Justice Alito have a "personal belief" in favor of all sorts of faiths that he rejects? Wouldn't it be simpler to believe he thinks the Constitution protects religious liberty of various stripes?
Based on his post Dobbs Rome speech, it seems reasonable to assume Alito thinks religion is an important part of our society and he wishes the world were more, and not less, religious. Yes, that encompasses faiths that he is not part of.
Sure, it would be simpler to believe Alito thinks the Constitution protects religious liberty of various stripes. I'm not sure what that proves though. Nor does that make it true. One could argue it's simpler to believe that vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat.
It seems contrary to human psychology that a justice can completely divorce their desired outcomes, personal beliefs and political beliefs from their rulings. I would find it more intellectually honest and credible if the justices admitted their biases come into play.
Are we to believe that neither ACB's political nor religious beliefs had anything to do with why she overturned "Roe v. Wade"? Why do you think pro-choice advocates and so many women were against her appointment? She has done exactly what she was appointed to do. She may say that the Supreme Court decisions are not a public opinion poll but she herself uses public opinion in the 70s as one of the justifications for overturning Roe. She is quoted in saying - "Roe did not reflect public will: The 1973 ruling was not supported by a broad, traditional consensus of the American people that abortion was a fundamental liberty." So which is it? Are these cases decided by law or by the public opinion - and not even the public opinion of today, the public will of when the cases were decided? It seems to me that that justification is extremely dangerous when looking at whether a decision should hold. Should we also go back to segregated schools, as so much public opinion - especially in the southern US - was against desegregation at the time. It sounds like you had a lovely conversation.....but to say she's better than we deserve is a bit insulting to those of us who still believe we should have autonomy over our own bodies.
I’ve got a home library of SCOTUS books, the best being by the justices themselves.
I might have read hers but now I won’t.
You make her sound disingenuous which is a human trait like a “child care crisis”. Of course, her crisis does not reach the level of those harmed by her great supporter donald trump and the wrongs she supports.
What about Trump v. United States? That’s the text book example of “made up” law that has absolutely no basis in the Constitution. If one of the Founders had said, “Oh, by the way, while the proposed constitution says nothing about this, nevertheless we intend that the President will be immune from civil and criminal liability for acts he takes while President,” does anyone seriously think for a minute that the Constitution would have been ratified? Of course not! Not an ice cube’s chance in hell! Barrett favored that nonsense. Thus, I cannot accept Will’s fanboy review.
That's fine, you don't have to accept it, but it's worth noting that Justice Barrett had her own separate opinion in that case and did not join all of the majority opinion.
One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. “
Typical liberal response that can't see through one's hate. You're very similar to the two morons that were standing holding signs on Monroe Street calling her a fascist and scum. The best part is one of the morons was wearing a bicycle helmet and goggles as if he were getting ready for a battle. Most Americans believe in the rule of law which is our constitution and that judges rule with law. Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices need to follow the constitution on how it's written and not try to change what the constitution says because a justice thinks they have that power. Amy Comey Barrett does exactly what the constitution says. If you don't agree with the Constitution, vote so your Senator and Representative can vote to bring out a Constitutional Ammendment and then, she will follow that Ammendment as law, just like she does now. There are three equal branches of government and none are stronger than they are so quit acting like that's not the case and she and the Conservative judges are running screens for Trump. Stating that is a very ignorant, weak and divisive take, although after reading your comments, I believe that's what you want.
Mr. Walsh, thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. I apologize for taking so long to respond to you.
As I read your response, I see that you assert five substantive propositions:
First, that “most Americans believe in the rule of law.” I agree with you on that proposition.
Second, that the rule of law “is our constitution.” I agree with you that the Constitution is a cornerstone to the American concept of the rule of law.
Third, that “judges rule with law.” I agree that “ruling with the law” is the standard that all judges should strive for. Whether or not any particular judge ruling in any particular case has actually ruled “with the law,” as you put it, is open to debate.
Fourth, that “judges, especially Supreme Court Justices need to follow the constitution on how it's written and not try to change what the constitution says because a justice thinks they have that power.” I absolutely agree with you on that very important proposition.
Fifth, that “Amy Comey Barrett does exactly what the constitution says.” On this proposition, I must respectfully disagree with you.
But perhaps you can set me straight.
Please tell me exactly what the Constitution says about the President having immunity from prosecution for acts or failures to act that might result in criminal prosecution. Please direct me to the Article and Paragraph in the Constitution that you claim grants Presidential immunity. Please quote the very words to me so that I may understand how in her concurring opinion in Trump v. United States, Justice Barrett did "exactly what the Constitution says."
I look forward to hearing from you.
I wondered if you'd be so kind to elaborate on a couple of points in your article:
1. If "...Roe had to be overturned...", then don't Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell have to be overturned? Maybe Miranda?
2. "...Justices aren’t allowed to indulge their personal or political beliefs..." Do you think it's unreasonable that some of us believe that judicial philosophy is to some extent a get out of jail free card for indulging your personal or political beliefs in judging. As just one example, as I understand it, Alito has never ruled against a sincerely held religious liberty claim. And after Dobbs, he gives the speech in Rome where he laments that the world is not more religious. So we are to believe his personal beliefs about the importance of religion in no way affect his rulings related to religious liberty claims? Consider me skeptical.
But Justice Alito has voted in favor of religious liberty claims by non-Catholics of various faiths. On this theory, does Justice Alito have a "personal belief" in favor of all sorts of faiths that he rejects? Wouldn't it be simpler to believe he thinks the Constitution protects religious liberty of various stripes?
Based on his post Dobbs Rome speech, it seems reasonable to assume Alito thinks religion is an important part of our society and he wishes the world were more, and not less, religious. Yes, that encompasses faiths that he is not part of.
Sure, it would be simpler to believe Alito thinks the Constitution protects religious liberty of various stripes. I'm not sure what that proves though. Nor does that make it true. One could argue it's simpler to believe that vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat.
It seems contrary to human psychology that a justice can completely divorce their desired outcomes, personal beliefs and political beliefs from their rulings. I would find it more intellectually honest and credible if the justices admitted their biases come into play.
Are we to believe that neither ACB's political nor religious beliefs had anything to do with why she overturned "Roe v. Wade"? Why do you think pro-choice advocates and so many women were against her appointment? She has done exactly what she was appointed to do. She may say that the Supreme Court decisions are not a public opinion poll but she herself uses public opinion in the 70s as one of the justifications for overturning Roe. She is quoted in saying - "Roe did not reflect public will: The 1973 ruling was not supported by a broad, traditional consensus of the American people that abortion was a fundamental liberty." So which is it? Are these cases decided by law or by the public opinion - and not even the public opinion of today, the public will of when the cases were decided? It seems to me that that justification is extremely dangerous when looking at whether a decision should hold. Should we also go back to segregated schools, as so much public opinion - especially in the southern US - was against desegregation at the time. It sounds like you had a lovely conversation.....but to say she's better than we deserve is a bit insulting to those of us who still believe we should have autonomy over our own bodies.
I’ve got a home library of SCOTUS books, the best being by the justices themselves.
I might have read hers but now I won’t.
You make her sound disingenuous which is a human trait like a “child care crisis”. Of course, her crisis does not reach the level of those harmed by her great supporter donald trump and the wrongs she supports.
Did you invite Justice Barrett to the next episode of Divided Argument? It would be fascinating to listen to her conversation with you and Dan.
"For instance: her account and defense of why the Supreme Court law clerks who recent graduates rather than experienced lawyers"
Should "who" be "are?"