re: Amy Coney Barrett = Trump’s biggest mistake

quote:

---

Dodged again. I asked YOU the question, frito. Now answer it. BTW, judges are supposed to act in the best interest of the citizenry. In so doing, they invariably fashion the legal justification for their decision after they’ve decided. Surely your extensive legal experience has taught you this, frito.

---

Does anyone else find it richer than Elon, someone goes ham in a thread about the feels of ACB and makes a wholly emotional argument. I assume he has a Y chromosome but I assume he is fertilizing it because it's growing a 4th limb.

What you are asking for is for the court to legislate from the bench, is that really what you want?

The problem with Trump v Barbara is the right judicial decision is bad for the country. I suppose the court could fix it but it would require several of them to abandon their strict constructionist/textualist philosophy. Whether majority or minority I really want Thomas to write and opinion in Barbara because I really want to see how he philosophically handles it, it will be great insight for people that bring matters before the court. If I had to bet, I think it will be 7-2 and I really want to hear Thomas' curated thoughts.

quote:

---

What if this comes down 7-2 or worse?

---

First it was 9-0, or maybe 8-1. Now it's "what if this comes down 7-2."

... Do I hear a 6-3 in the offing?

All is lost, then.

I might as well just give up on life.

The birthright citizenship thing is a mess and should be fixed. But it's a constitutional issue and not something that can be fixed with an Executive Order. I am not even sure Congress could fix it. I think the Constitution has to be fixed and that's some heavy lifting. I don't think it is used as the 14th intended but there are lots of things that needed fixing that's why we have so many amendments. I don't see this coming down to an Amy Coney Barrett. The most conservative judges were asking questions that sounded as though they would go against the EO. Just my opinion who can look at something objectively and not through the lens of political slant. I wish it could be fixed but I think it has to go the amendment route. Not happening in my lifetime.

Women should not be in positions of authority

quote:

---

The birth right citizenship is quite literally the decision of whether America is a country and Americans are a people.

---

This is just another example of MAGA becoming judicial activists just like the lefties. Birthright citizenship is an easily winnable issue for republicans. Campaign on it, win with it, and then change the constitution.

quote:

---

Birthright citizenship is an easily winnable issue for republicans.

---

There is absolutely NOTHING requiring a 2/3rds vote in the House and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, followed by required approval by 3/4ths of the states that is an "easily winnable" issue in this environment for either side. What an unbelievable assertion.

quote:

---

meant that this is an issue that will help us win elections.

---

This is an issue that will help us win elections... and lose the country.

quote:

---

No there isn’t you fricking hack.

---

While you can't judge everything via oral arguments, Gorsuch and Kavabaw did not seem too particularly impressed with the government's argument.

Alito was more even-handed but he started it off with a Scalia quote that the government tried to dismiss. That's not a good thing.

I've said for a long while this will be an interesting test for Thomas and his legacy. He's been a huge proponent of textualism for his career, following in the steps of Scalia, and the textual argument for this case leans heavily against the government (Who has to rely primarily on select legislative intent, which Thomas has dismissed historically). However, he's moved into more of a partisan mindset the past few years. If it is 8 on one side, it would be pretty amazing to see Thomas go on his own and reject textualism. Multiple books will be written if that happens. It would be fascinating.