web analytics

Justice ACB in a nutshell

By Patrick Van Roy On October 14th, 2020

74 Responses to “Justice ACB in a nutshell”

  1. She wrote down as much as she said as well.

  2. she’s bought and sold doesn’t need to take notes or speak
    from my POV this creature in front of us is an immature women
    its like she has stayed a child all her life and never grown up
    infantile responses and demeanor .
    she’s never broken the mould into adulthood
    you get that with cult types – scary ..
    they do anything their masters ask , however revolting with a smile on their face

  3. She is intelligent and authentic.

    The process has been corrupt, as organized by a an anti constitutional president and Senate cabal, but there appears to be zero reason to criticize her as a person or as a thinker.

  4. a decent person, a free thinker would just simply say
    Its not the right time to be doing this
    voting is under way,
    there’s a pandemic costing the same amount of lives lost in USA as WW2 by Xmas
    and the senate needs to pass a stimulus package
    that’s the right way of thinking .

    so no she’s not intelligent or authentic, she’s a stooge
    bought and sold already , fancy not taking notes , its an insult, arrogance.
    she’s been told to sit there like a dummy and do say nothing, as the votes are there to confirm her
    its puppetry in action
    just call it as it is phantom

  5. I think you are being a bit harsh on her kurt. Obviously the militant Christian right want her to be the Supreme warrior for imposing religous morality through law and rolling back women’s reproductive rights and same sex civil marraige among other egalitarian freedoms but you never know, she might prove to be surprisingly independent and not be the dog that barks when ordered to. 🙂

  6. // right want her to be the Supreme warrior for imposing religous morality through law and rolling back women’s reproductive rights and same sex civil marraige among other egalitarian freedoms //

    I think with these people it isn’t so much individual causes like abortion or gay marriage, but rather a sense that the world is changing too rapidly and a lot of the old traditions that served so well in the past are being dropped or destroyed. Abortion and gay marriage are just battlefields.

    I’m guessing here, but I think in general it’s an unarticulated loss of control that scares them, as it would scare anybody. They feel that a self-annointed group, or at least a movement, within US politics is frantically pushing America in a certain direction, irrespective of what the people think or want, and that there’s more sensitivity to the needs of minority groups – whether gays, blacks or anything else – than the needs of the people they believe built the country in the first place.

    I think the conservative in all of us will find at least something in that. In that sense it has a lot of similarities to Brexit, or even to Unionism in NI.

    The weird part is why they chose as leader of the crusade for traditional values a serial philanderer, a guy who was having sex with a “porn hooker”(according to the First Lady) while his wife was having their baby.

    Another weird part is why the Dems, in full knowledge of the people’s wish for a fresh face, choose a lifelong politician and DC insider.

  7. I think the fact that she belongs to a weird cult where her title is ‘handmaid’ pretty much tells you what she is

  8. In the old days, the ” power brokers ” in both parties had real power, which wasn’t always a bad thing.

    I don’t think that those savvy pols would have wanted the ruinous choice that we are faced with on November 3.

  9. And we got yet another reminder of that fact when the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the “unmasking probe” Barr commissioned to root around in the Obama-era decision-making process that led to the Russia investigation basically came up with nothing untoward. In the face of the damning—but somehow not politically fatal—revelations of the Mueller report, Trump and his allies began repurposing the fact that he was somehow still president as evidence of not only his innocence but a grand, sinister conspiracy against him. Enter the accusation of “unmasking,” a not-out-of-the-ordinary process where, when conducted in good faith, government officials request names be unredacted in order to gain more insight into intelligence gathered about American citizens in foreign intelligence reports. U.S. Attorney John Bash, whom Barr entrusted with the review—which overlapped with other investigations—found no “substantive wrongdoing,” the Post reports. Bash will not file any charges and will not even issue a public report of the findings. Bash announced last week he was resigning from the Department of Justice and has since left his post.

  10. I mentioned that yesterday, and Patrick said fake news.

    All that Tick Tock stuff is a bunch of god damned conspiracy bullshit, 100 times sillier than anything that Alex Jones ever said.

  11. yeah I am a bit colm,
    the whole thing just reminds me of the stitch up over the impeachment clearance.
    all GOP senators need to leave the field
    and there’s evidence of just how much this is hurting their re-election chances.

    7 senate seats are now in play

    Spiro Agnew’s Ghost
    @SpiroAgnewGhost

    Biden 57%
    Trump 39%

    Electoral vote 390-148

    Senate 52-48 Dems

    House +15 more seats to Dems

    this pundit with 100k followers is very very close to the mark
    I’ll bookmark it and compare notes in a couple weeks

  12. so she’s going squash women’s rights, bring the values of a nun to the court etc etc etc

    Why then would I say she’s the best pick in my lifetime ? I’m pro-choice, and as much as I’m a true believer I would never push my beliefs on another…. yet I stand with her 100%…

    Maybe just maybe because she’s the real article…. a judge that understands the actual role of a judge on the Supreme Court. A Judge that doesn’t care about what the Law or the Case is about, but ONLY if it passes Constitutional Muster.

    oh and EP if you like phantom want to believe what Barr is doing as told by the people he’s investigating and expect honest answers I have more than one bridge for sale.

  13. Patrick

    All Judges on the Supreme Court base their decisions on whether it passes Constitutional Muster. That is their sole role. Of course laymen like yourself and other politicians will make their own decisions on what you think is Constitutional but its the Supremes, all of them from all backgrounds who decide these things, and only their decisions are the legitimate authorities on what is Constitutional.

  14. Colm that’s pure nonsense.

  15. Well you are half right. My comment is pure but its not nonsense 🙂

  16. He still believes in Tick-Tockism!

  17. what’s not to believe……? WaPo lied for 4 years, but them you believe…. that’s your decision.

  18. Please link to one of the lies on this. From BBC or WP or NYT.

    There have been many requests for this.

  19. Tick tockism is a variation of the theorists ‘the sky’s going to fall in…..tomorrow’

    I just completely ignore those firehosing vids now.

  20. When she is confirmed this woman will ensure a 6-3 “conservative” majority on SCOTUS. It’s possible this majority could be called to the colours as soon as next month if Trump challenges his defeat if it’s anywhere near close. But even if that doesn’t happen, it’s quite possible that in 2021 the SCOTUS will:

    1. Strike down Roe v Wade – there are at least three challenge cases currently just one level below.
    2. Strike down the Affordable Care Act leaving millions without health cover.
    3. Strike down Equal Marriage, probably with retrospective effect.

    This woman’s past statements make her a cert to vote as above, and that’s why the GOP is gagging to get her in post before the election. And let’s not forget that they denied to hold confirmation hearings on Obama’s pick in 2016, for 11 months. This is banana republic stuff.

  21. peter, the bit i can’t understand is the ACA
    it seems to be the equivalent of having party in UK which has a policy
    ” we’re closing the NHS ”
    how many votes would they get ?

    How can you be a republican in the states and think striking down ACA is
    a) a good thing
    b) agree and say yep , that sure is gonna pull the votes in that one

    Its doesn’t make any sense

  22. Kurt

    Patrick will tell you that the ACA is both communism and a terrible deal for 90% of Americans. That’s always been the GOP line and we know Patrick never deviates from the party line, not by a single inch, not ever, not even once.

  23. wonder what the actual experience of people is who have been helped by ACA
    the reality not the rhetoric ..

  24. AFAIK, many millions who never had medical cover before obtained it through the ACA. Trump promised to replace it with something better, but that was just one of his more shameless lies in 2016.

    There is a SCOTUS hearing on ACA scheduled for the week after the election which makes it a very live issue, especially in the middle of the Trump pandemic.

  25. ACB was great. She sat for hours, without notes, and schooled the committee.

    She revealed herself to be an originalist and absolutely against judicial activism. No wonder the commies hate her.

  26. Colm –

    Obviously the militant Christian right want her to be the Supreme warrior for imposing religous morality through law ..

    If true they might be disappointed. ACB couldn’t have been more clear that the job of a judge is to apply the law and not bend it to their preferences.

  27. Pete

    In the famous words of Mandy Rice-Davies “Well she would say that wouldn’t she”

  28. Done a great post ? called “Faith in the ballot”

    Pat you got mail

    I’d send it to petem , but I haven’t got his email !!

    colm you’re right, and its wrong ..lol

    no-one has the right to impose their faith values on a secular society
    you keep that between you , the almighty and for sunday services

    even if it means you walk around smugly, regarding the great unwashed sea of heathens as you catch your train
    Its a no-go area , thems the roolez
    and the constitution of USA agrees with me

  29. She revealed herself to be an originalist and absolutely against judicial activism.

    Surely you mean a Creationist and absolutely in favour of judicial activism, as long as it’s “conservative” judicial activism. Because that’s what she’s being put there to do and you know that you will be cheering her on when she does it.

  30. she’s being put there to enforce constitutional rule….. plain and simple

  31. Peter –

    Surely you mean a Creationist and absolutely in favour of judicial activism, as long as it’s “conservative” judicial activism.

    Your narrow-minded atheist bigotry is showing. I bet you think you are tolerant.

    Again, ACB was clear that “policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People.” She went on to state that judges interpret and do not make law.

  32. Your narrow-minded atheist bigotry is showing. I bet you think you are tolerant.

    Yes Pete I am tolerant of all sky-god religions and would never dream of repressing any of them. But I totally reserve the right to mock them in the name of free speech, which you often claim to be very keen on.

    You and me both know that my 8.15 pm comment is exactly where it’s at, so quit with the high-minded stuff. This is all about power and winning battles in the culture war.

  33. she’s being put there to enforce constitutional rule….. plain and simple

    So Patrick, is my 8.15 pm on the money or not?

  34. This is all about power and winning battles in the culture war

    which the left has done immense damage to….. they’ve lost the culture war due to there own excess

  35. they’ve lost the culture war due to there own excess

    And is Roe v Wade part of that excess? It was 50 years ago.

  36. actually i’m not worried , roe vs wade and the other one about gay marriage cannot be overturned – those rights are enshrined in the constitution and will be protected , can’t see ACA being over-turned either .. There’s nothing to replace it ..

    Its all flailing around by silling old white men, a poor excuse at caring about something, giving the appearance of import, but in reality its just a right-wing fantasy to over-turn these “settled matters”.

  37. no pat the left has won the culture war, you ain’t turning back the clock
    this is about power nothing else
    old men with more money than sense, using dark money to buy court influence
    sex is unappealing to them anymore, so they seek the porn adventure of subjugating everyone to their own faith fantasies of what is right and wrong
    Its belongs in the bedroom not in a court – that’s in the constitution
    USA is not a theocracy like Iran, church / state are separate
    you and petem may act like the tyrant mullahs and clerics, posing as libertarians when the fancy takes you , but its a waste of your time ..lol
    impotent men , bored — bout sums it up eh ..

  38. There’s nothing to replace ACA..

    After all these years, the Republicans still don’t have a plan.

    Which is fairly astonishing.

    The ACA is not perfect by any means was a step forward in many ways. Which is why most of America supports it.

  39. This is all about power and winning battles in the culture war.

    I doubt that in the case of ACB. She’s too studious for the culture war stuff.

    But’s it’s a cheek for the left to complain about conservatives joining battle. It’s a war which only the left has been fighting for decades. You can’t complain when conservatives walk onto the battle ground which the left chose.

  40. That’s not wrong.

    You may think that Roe vs Wade is the cat’s pajamas, but it wasn’t based even remotely on precedent or anything that was in the Constitution.

  41. lol the war against progress , i love it
    there are gay people in the world, they want to get married
    and some people are threatened / upset by that, red-faced-slapped-arse raging
    .. its too funny 😉 its 2020
    dear oh dear

  42. it wasn’t based even remotely on precedent or anything that was in the Constitution

    The constitution said nothing about slavery. It took the 13th amendment to abolish that in 1865, after Pete’s good guys had lost the Civil War.

  43. “You may think that Roe vs Wade is the cat’s pajamas, but it wasn’t based even remotely on precedent or anything that was in the Constitution.”

    Well to be fair it broadly was, just a precedent set recently before Roe v. Wade.

    Griswold v. Connecticut, which was decided in 1965, found the right to privacy existed in the constitution.

    In addition the mechanism used to find a right to privacy, substantive due process, has been used for the majority of the existance of the United States, as early as the controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857.

  44. It’s quite clear that not a single word of the Constitution was written in reference to abortion. Only fanatics and zealots say so.

  45. There’s not a word about slavery either. This was re-affirmed by SCOTUS judges before 1860 when they upheld the right to own slaves. It took a civil war to change that.

  46. “It’s quite clear that not a single word of the Constitution was written in reference to abortion. Only fanatics and zealots say so.”

    There isn’t a single word. And for what it is worth I am one of the few consistently pro-life people here. However there are many things not explicitly in the constitution that are treated as if they are in the constitution.

    For example the constitution doesn’t mention ‘separation of powers’. Does that mean that the separation of powers is not in the constitution? Of course not.

    “There’s not a word about slavery either.”

    Well there is. There wasn’t originally. But there is now.

  47. So slavery wasn’t unconstitutional.

  48. “There’s not a word about slavery either. This was re-affirmed by SCOTUS judges before 1860 when they upheld the right to own slaves. It took a civil war to change that.”

    It actually took an amendment to the constitution, brought through both houses of Congress, before ratification by the states. So why should abortion not go through that process?

  49. So slavery wasn’t unconstitutional.

    Of course not Pete. It was upheld by SCOTUS before the Civil War. The 13th amendment abolished it, after your guys lost.

  50. Law doesn’t reduce abortion
    In democratic states where citizens have good healthcare
    Guess what abortion rates go down
    Ergo you want less abortions vote Biden
    Case solved

  51. angels on the heads of pins……

    you talk slavery, you talk this you talk that I talk Marbury vs Maddison… all of it is irrelevant.

    Abortion is never going away whether it is federal law or not, gays won equal rights but demanded it be called a marriage, Marriage is religious not constitutional…. nothing of consequence is going to change. What her appointment does is solidify the rule of Law not rule by man.

  52. Marriage is religious and or civil

    Plenty of atheists and agnostics get married

  53. So why should abortion not go through that process?

    Probably because abortion rules and regulations are so detailed and cumbersome that they could never be part of an amendment to the constitution. Eg the time limit alone could be the subject of endless debate – how many weeks? Should late abortion be allowed in any circumstances? What about rape and incest? Etc etc etc. The lawyers would have a field decade.

    That’s why Roe v Wade was an elegant decision. It laid down the principle and left the details to each state. But it has been increasingly undermined in the Confederate and Bible Belt states to such an extent that abortion is de-facto illegal in many of the 50 states. Eg. some Dixie states want to limit it to one clinic per state etc. And Trumpist judges are facilitating that 100%. On present trends abortion will be barred for tens of millions of US women within a decade, unless they are prepared to travel hundreds of miles and incur the expense and stress of that.

  54. “Probably because abortion rules and regulations are so detailed and cumbersome that they could never be part of an amendment to the constitution. Eg the time limit alone could be the subject of endless debate – how many weeks? Should late abortion be allowed in any circumstances? What about rape and incest? Etc etc etc. The lawyers would have a field decade.”

    So why not leave it up to political representatives to decide these things? Why hand all that power to set all those things to nine unelected people?

    “Marriage is religious not constitutional”

    Would that not invalidate all civil marriage under the First Amendment?

  55. “Guess what abortion rates go down”

    And yet the abortion rate in blue states is almost universally higher than in red states.

  56. Abortion is never going away whether it is federal law or not

    That’s a cop-out and you know it. Your party is active in every single state in campaigning to reduce abortion by closing clinics and reducing time limits. For someone who claims to be pro-choice you are remarkably complacent about your party’s decades long campaign to restrict choice on a state by state basis and finally remove it by a SCOTUS decision against Roe v Wade. And you know very well that’s been the GOP plan since Reagan was POTUS.

  57. So why not leave it up to political representatives to decide these things?

    That would work if there was consensus. But there is no consensus, so there would be the prospect of abortion laws changing every time the state changed from GOP to Dem or vice-versa. And given that there are three branches plus supreme court in each state that would be a recipe for chaos. A woman might need to get her abortion done before an election for governor, or state house, or state senate, or state judges. Or maybe hold off until after. The anti-choice brigade would have won, which is why Roe v Wade matters so much.

  58. Peter I’m pro-choice, always have been always will be and I’m the most conservative american you’ll ever meet. It’s an issue you fail to grasp and view from an entirely emotional standard. Roe v Wade is bad Law, bu that doesn’t and will never stop legal abortion nor should it. Will it be harder in some states than others… yes, but so what. It will still be legal and available.

    Phantom, on October 14th, 2020 at 11:58 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Marriage is religious and or civil

    Plenty of atheists and agnostics get married

    Unless the ceremony took place in a church and is recognized by a church the “Marriage Certificate” thy have is a legal certification of a civil union.

  59. “That would work if there was consensus. But there is no consensus, so there would be the prospect of abortion laws changing every time the state changed from GOP to Dem or vice-versa. And given that there are three branches plus supreme court in each state that would be a recipe for chaos. A woman might need to get her abortion done before an election for governor, or state house, or state senate, or state judges. Or maybe hold off until after. The anti-choice brigade would have won, which is why Roe v Wade matters so much.”

    Which is true of a broad range of public policy. Should all public policy, or at least all controversial or difficult public policy, be decided by unelected people?

  60. “Unless the ceremony took place in a church and is recognized by a church the “Marriage Certificate” thy have is a legal certification of a civil union.”

    So the civil marriage certificate of someone married in a church is different from the marriage certificate of someone married in a registrars office (or whatever the American equivalent is)?

  61. Marriage existed / exists in the atheist USSR / North Korea , it exists in the very largely non religious Japan and Scandinavia

  62. Will it be harder in some states than others… yes, but so what. It will still be legal and available.

    No Patrick. If Roe v Wade is struck down the path will be open to Dixie and Bible Belt states to ban abortion totally. And many of them have draft legislation ready to do just that as soon a SCOTUS gives them the all-clear. Which could be as soon as 2021. So you could easily have a situation where abortion is illegal in maybe 20 out of 50 states by 2022.

  63. “No Patrick. If Roe v Wade is struck down the path will be open to Dixie and Bible Belt states to ban abortion totally. And many of them have draft legislation ready to do just that as soon a SCOTUS gives them the all-clear. Which could be as soon as 2021. So you could easily have a situation where abortion is illegal in maybe 20 out of 50 states by 2022.”

    Then the voters in those states should choose different represenatives.

  64. Which is true of a broad range of public policy. Should all public policy, or at least all controversial or difficult public policy, be decided by unelected people?

    That is surely preferable to endless chaos in at least 20 out of 50 states in a very important public health matter. Even if you are anti-choice you surely don’t want the law changing every few years and being a constant battle ground in state elections for house and senate and governor. Or maybe you do?

    And it’s worth noting that the anti-choice brigade aren’t asking for a constitutional amendment, they just want the right to ban abortion on a state by state basis and they have legislation primed and ready to go as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned next year. Watch out.

  65. “That is surely preferable to endless chaos in at least 20 out of 50 states in a very important public health matter. Even if you are anti-choice you surely don’t want the law changing every few years and being a constant battle ground in state elections for house and senate and governor. Or maybe you do?”

    I would prefer if everywhere banned abortion. However I am also a democrat who recognises that these issues should be decided by the public elected representatives. Why should democracy be suspended when things get difficult?

  66. So chaos it is then, understood.

    What if the same rules applied to alcohol and tobacco and waccy baccie, i.e. their legality comes and goes every three or so years? Is social stability not worth sacrificing a bit of Robbespierre democracy for?

    Nah, thought not.

  67. “What if the same rules applied to alcohol and tobacco and waccy baccie, i.e. their legality comes and goes every three or so years? Is social stability not worth sacrificing a bit of Robbespierre democracy for?”

    The same rules do apply. These laws can be changed at any time.

    Why not go the whole hog and abolish democracy? Just have a dictatorship in the interest of ‘social stability’?

    And you aren’t sacrificing a bit of democracy. You are sacrificing democracy. You are saying that the people and their representatives can’t be trusted to make the decision. So unelected people should make it for them (as long as those unelected people agreed with you). I’m sure if the Supreme Court ruled that it wouldn’t return to the states, and would instead just be flat out illegal, to have an abortion, then you would change your tune very fast.

    You dislike democracy in this case because it will give an answer you don’t want.

  68. The same rules do apply. These laws can be changed at any time.

    Waccy baccie has been legalised by referendums in at least a dozen states and will be legalised in many more next month.

    Why not go the whole hog and abolish democracy? Just have a dictatorship in the interest of ‘social stability’?

    Straw man argument, you’re better than that, usually.

    You dislike democracy in this case because it will give an answer you don’t want.

    No, I just dislike the idea of many women’s lives being potentially upended every three years. Abortion is a settled issue all over the world, but maybe the US answer is a state by state referendum every ten years? That would give voters a choice and also some social stability. Would you settle for that? Nah, thought not.

  69. “Waccy baccie has been legalised by referendums in at least a dozen states and will be legalised in many more next month.”

    Indeed. It is legal in some states, illegal on others and that status can change depending on democracy. Why do you not support that?

    “Straw man argument, you’re better than that, usually.”

    It isn’t a straw man. Either you support democracy or you don’t support democracy. The supporting democracy when it gives you the right answer is not supporting democracy.

    “No, I just dislike the idea of many women’s lives being potentially upended every three years. Abortion is a settled issue all over the world, but maybe the US answer is a state by state referendum every ten years? That would give voters a choice and also some social stability. Would you settle for that? Nah, thought not.”

    No but then I have consistently opposed referendums. As you note above these issues can be complex and multifaceted. How do you have a binary choice referendum in that case?

    The obvious solution is to have the democratically elected representatives of the people decide these things. And if people don’t like the outcome they can change their representatives.

  70. It is legal in some states, illegal on others and that status can change depending on democracy. Why do you not support that?

    I do. Should there be annual votes? That would be democratic surely?

    Either you support democracy or you don’t support democracy.

    I do, but our definitions of democracy are not the same. The Chartists wanted annual elections to parliament. That was a version of democracy but the UK settled on five years as a better solution. In Australia it’s three years and it’s not clear that Australia is better off as a result. Many states have four years, but by your definition one year would be more democratic?

    No but then I have consistently opposed referendums.

    And that makes you a superior democrat to me? So presumably you agree with “Boris” that there should be no second referendum on Scotland independence until 2034? Despite the Brexit vote which took place two years after the first one?

  71. “I do. Should there be annual votes? That would be democratic surely?”

    If the representatives want to change the law then they should be enabled to. I imagine if they changed it all the time then the public would get annoyed.

    “I do, but our definitions of democracy are not the same. The Chartists wanted annual elections to parliament. That was a version of democracy but the UK settled on five years as a better solution. In Australia it’s three years and it’s not clear that Australia is better off as a result. Many states have four years, but by your definition one year woule be more democratic?”

    No. I don’t think I’ve ever stated that there should be yearly elections. I think 4-5 years is the best option. Gives the public a regular say while giving representatives room to govern.

    My argument isn’t about frequency of elections. It is that public representatives rather than unelected judges should make the laws.

    “And that makes you a superior democrat to me? “”

    No, it makes me a more consistent democrat than you. I have my beliefs around democracy and don’t abandon them when inconvenient.

    “So presumably you agree with “Boris” that there should be no second referendum on Scotland independence until 2034?”

    Again my opposition to referendums has nothing to do with frequency. But frankly I would have no problem with the Scottish Parliament deciding the issue.

  72. If Scotland independence wins by one vote some day, will that settle the matter for all time?

  73. this election is already a cesspit of hate

    this is the kind of America that endures
    and i can’t wait to wake up and see it happen

    Vote for America.

    https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1316513615373987840

  74. “If Scotland independence wins by one vote some day, will that settle the matter for all time?”

    Hard to tell. Certainly unionism in the south of Ireland collapsed after the formation of the Free State, but then unionism in the south of Ireland was tiny (pretty much some support in Donegal, Monaghan and some middle class suburbs of Dublin). There is no precedent to go by for Scottish independence. My gut feeling is that yes, once Scottish independence happens then it will cause a decline in Scottish unionism (and Scottish nationalism for that matter).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.