- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Barrett joins liberal justices on Trump ballot ban ruling going too far
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:37 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:37 am
LINK
quote:
Former President Trump pulled out an unanimous victory at the Supreme Court on Monday in his historic ballot ban case that invoked the 14th Amendment, but a 5-4 division among the justices emerged beneath the surface — joined by one of his own nominees.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court’s three liberals criticized their five conservative colleagues for going further than they needed to in resolving Trump’s case by also determining that the only way for the 14th Amendment to be enforced is through a statute by Congress.
quote:
“This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,” Barrett, Trump’s last appointee to the high court, wrote in a concurring opinion.
“The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond,” Barrett continued. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”
18
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:39 am to WPBTiger
Typical female. Let's manage feeeeeelings.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:40 am to WPBTiger
quote:
Barrett joins liberal justices on Trump ballot ban ruling going too far
She didn't like when the media was mean to hear. She can suck a fat dick with the liberals.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 11:41 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:41 am to WPBTiger
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of her response. Mind you, I'm not a huge fan of hers, but in this case she seems pretty harmless.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:41 am to WPBTiger
The court should not be preoccupied with the political temperature. It should be focused on the Constitution. Her focus on politics is just weakness, seeping through.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:41 am to WPBTiger
quote:
“The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Your job is to rule based on the constutition, not based on your personal feelings or the "political temperature". Yet another failure from Barrett.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:44 am to POTUS2024
quote:
The court should not be preoccupied with the political temperature. It should be focused on the Constitution.
This x1000
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:45 am to Longhorn Actual
"Typical female. Let's manage feeeeeelings."
Not a fair critique of ACB here. She felt that the majority had gone too far in setting out what Congress could do under Sec. 3 of the 14th Am when doing so was not, in her estimation, necessary to resolve the case. This is, at the least, an arguable point. ACB also made clear that the other concurring justices said more than needed to say that the majority had gone further than required to make the decision.
Not a fair critique of ACB here. She felt that the majority had gone too far in setting out what Congress could do under Sec. 3 of the 14th Am when doing so was not, in her estimation, necessary to resolve the case. This is, at the least, an arguable point. ACB also made clear that the other concurring justices said more than needed to say that the majority had gone further than required to make the decision.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:46 am to POTUS2024
quote:
The court should not be preoccupied with the political temperature. It should be focused on the Constitution. Her focus on politics is just weakness, seeping through.
Exactly. Supreme Court Justice, in theory, should be the easiest job there is.
"Wait one, while I check the United States Constitution to see what it says...
A) Yes, it explicitly permits that
B) No, it explicitly prohibits that
C) It doesn't say specifically, so it's up for the States to decide
Anything else we can help you with while I have the Constitution in front of me? No? Cool, let's go to lunch."
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:49 am to WPBTiger
She voted with the liberals 49 times in the last term.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:50 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
"Typical female. Let's manage feeeeeelings."
Not a fair critique of ACB here. She felt that the majority had gone too far in setting out what Congress could do under Sec. 3 of the 14th Am when doing so was not, in her estimation, necessary to resolve the case. This is, at the least, an arguable point. ACB also made clear that the other concurring justices said more than needed to say that the majority had gone further than required to make the decision.
The "conservative" justices (there shouldn't be any type of Justice, but that's another topic) ruled and then slammed the door on future bullshite. They basically said, "No, and also don't pull this bullshite again because X, Y, Z."
If they didn't, they'd have to deal with it again and again.
She didn't want to do that because she said it's a politically charged situation that should be managed with regard to controlling "the national temperature." Managing people's feelings.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:51 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Not a fair critique of ACB here. She felt that the majority had gone too far in setting out what Congress could do under Sec. 3 of the 14th Am when doing so was not, in her estimation, necessary to resolve the case. This is, at the least, an arguable point. ACB also made clear that the other concurring justices said more than needed to say that the majority had gone further than required to make the decision.
Considering the left set up a shite-show congressional committee to pave the road for a 14th amendment play and multiple states quickly went there, I think addressing the issue concretely was completely logical and necessary, especially in an election year. Barrett has played dodgeball since joining the court. Glad she stood up on something, I guess.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:51 am to WPBTiger
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:51 am to BugAC
"Your job is to rule based on the constutition, not based on your personal feelings or the "political temperature". Yet another failure from Barrett."
What ACB is saying is that the majority decided issues unnecessary to the resolution of the case and that the liberal justices' concurrence went further than needed in pointing out the perceived excessiveness of the majority opinion. In other words, she (politely) pointed out that it was the majority and the liberals who may be letting the politics influence their decision making, particularly given the political conflict surrounding this legal issue.
I am not even sure I agree with ACB on the legal basis for her concurrence, but there's no reasoned basis for the vitriol directed at her for her brief, measured concurrence.
What ACB is saying is that the majority decided issues unnecessary to the resolution of the case and that the liberal justices' concurrence went further than needed in pointing out the perceived excessiveness of the majority opinion. In other words, she (politely) pointed out that it was the majority and the liberals who may be letting the politics influence their decision making, particularly given the political conflict surrounding this legal issue.
I am not even sure I agree with ACB on the legal basis for her concurrence, but there's no reasoned basis for the vitriol directed at her for her brief, measured concurrence.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:51 am to WPBTiger
quote:
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court’s three liberals criticized their five conservative colleagues
we are supposed to thank Mitch for this?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:52 am to Longhorn Actual
Except so much of their high profile rulings are inherently political.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:53 am to WPBTiger
I know it may be an unpopular opinion on this board, but she was a poor choice.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:53 am to anc
quote:
She voted with the liberals 49 times in the last term.
Considering that almost half of the cases last term were unanimous, and a considerable amount beyond that were 8-1 or 7-2, I'm not sure this is the point you think it is.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 11:53 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:53 am to WPBTiger
It was a 9-0 ruling.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:54 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
What ACB is saying is that the majority decided issues unnecessary to the resolution of the case and that the liberal justices' concurrence went further than needed in pointing out the perceived excessiveness of the majority opinion.
That is how I read it. She thought the per curiam and the concurrence went too far, or at least farther than necessary to solve the specific case at issue.
One can disagree, but I don't see it as something to attack her for.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News