In

[woodchip]

"The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty. The rule of law must always control. My fellow Americans, even though we judges don't face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial Independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it." ACB

Can't see why the Dems were in such a lather to keep her off bench

[TheWhat]

I have more faith in the judicial branch than the other 2 so I'm not worried about their decisions (anti-trust cases I worry about). People always freak out about abortion and gun rights but that is really a tiny sliver of what the SCOTUS deals with on a day to day basis. That being said, the 2020 republicans are complete hypocrites and no one should ever trust them (if they ever did). Short memories indeed. That doesn't mean the court is going to go all cowboy - their track record indicates they won't.

[Vander]

You're going to see non-delegation become a thing again, which will make our form of government basically unmanageable.

[woodchip]

I have more faith in the judicial branch than the other 2 so I'm not worried about their decisions (anti-trust cases I worry about). People always freak out about abortion and gun rights but that is really a tiny sliver of what the SCOTUS deals with on a day to day basis. That being said, the 2020 republicans are complete hypocrites and no one should ever trust them (if they ever did). Short memories indeed. That doesn't mean the court is going to go all cowboy - their track record indicates they won't.

And the Dems wanting to pack the courts are a group we should trust?

[TheWhat]

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," he said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

Piece of ★■◆●. Saying you might want to attempt to change the court is not the same as doing the exact opposite the next time the opportunity arose. Deceitful Scumbags and not an equal whataboutism

[Top Gun]

All woody has are whataboutisms because the Republican Party has absolutely zero ethical or moral standing left.

[Ferno]

It's going to be absolutely hilarious if a case involving Trump makes it to the supreme court and Barrett rules against him.

[vision]

What's wrong with Liberals.

[Vander]

The video really succinctly illustrates many of the things that are maddeningly frustrating about the dynamics of our politics. I'd say my only hope is that the rise of small dollar crowdfunding can produce Democrats that actually fight for popular things instead of protecting the flanks for their high dollar donor base, but we needed that like 20 years ago.

[Tunnelcat]

Given that Barrett is an "Originalist" when it comes to the Constitution, she's probably against the more modern interpretations, revisions and Amendments of the Constitution. That means we're probably going back to the past with her decision as she tries to get into the mindset what the Founding Fathers assumed and intended to be the truth about the law and society back in the 1700's when they wrote the Constitution. Remember, slavery was the norm back then (blacks were considered subhuman property), women were considered second class citizens too stupid to vote or hold political office and thus possessions of their husbands, most of the colonial population that migrated from England were Protestants who hated Catholics and many criminal punishments were commonly meted out by using pillorying and/or hanging in the public square as entertainment. I'd love to have her explain how she's now able to become a member of SCOTUS, as a woman, being an "Originalist". In other words, she's an oxymoron herself just by becoming a Federal Judge if she adheres to Originalist thought, which I'd LOVE to hear her to explain. She would've been laughed at for even considering herself worthy of being a judge in the 1700's. I'm also sure her religion will definitely frame her decisions as well because her religion is just as in the past as her interpretation of the Constitution. The Protestant side of Christianity has no love loss for Catholicism, nor it's laws and doctrine.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-c ... -over-time

[Ferno]

It's going to be absolutely hilarious if a case involving Trump makes it to the supreme court and Barrett rules against him.

OMFG I completely forgot about this and it turned out to be true. Aged like ★■◆●ing wine.

[Tunnelcat]

Poetic justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... nd-picked/

[Ferno]

Can you either find a different source or copy/paste the article? That ones' paywalled.

[Tunnelcat]

Too bad, they had the best synopsis. But here's another couple of pretty good lists, including the second link showing his own appointed judges performing their legal duty without bias or favor.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 130307001/

https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/ ... n-election

But his legal problems are only going to get worse now that he's no longer president. Poor baby.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lawsuit ... 020-9?op=1

A selfish little arrogant sore loser prick who couldn't even show a half an ounce of respect to the incoming administration by politely conceding the election and at least attending the Inauguration with grace like every president has done before him. He deserves every legal difficulty he's going to face, on top of impeachment...again. Once an ★■◆●, always an ★■◆●.