A Court Supreme

[blackchubby38]

Thanks, Blackchubby for your views -I don't know any of the candidates. My only additional point to yours, is to note Justice Amy Coney Barrett also did not graduate from an Ivy League law school, but you probaby knew that anyway.

I didn't know that about Amy Coney Barret. The only thing I remember about her confirmation process was the right wing bacchanal that became a super spreader event.

[Stavros]

There is a list of the law schools from which Supreme Court Justices have graduated, here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Court_justices

I looked into why the President chooses the Justices on the Court, though in practice it is a decision that we are told, the President makes after consulting others, and the process must involve the Senate, and thus the Senate Judiciary Committee becomes an important source of 'advice' on the selection. But it does mean two branches of Government choosing the Justices on the third, and I wonder if there should be a Constitutional amendment to change the way the Court is composed.

This is a very useful overview of the process from the Congressional Research Service, bang up to date, but doesn't query the process as it currently exists.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44235.pdf

[Stavros]

I have not followed the hearings in the Senate, which I assume were available live on tv and online. I have reached a point where, when I see names like Cruz and Cotton my mind tends to flip to something more important.

There are no surprises that the opposition to the appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson had nothing to do with the law or her ability to judge it, but were motivated by the single most obvious fact that the men -and in a few cases women- object to a Black person having any role in public life.

Tom Cotton, a graduate of Harvard Law School, stands out as a man so wilfully determined to ignore the law that he attempted to smear the reputation of Justice Jackson by making the now inevitable -for men of such limited intellect- comparison with the Nazis, his only nod to the present being the 'terrorists' in Guantanamo Bay. That Cotton was wrong on law and on legal procedure is not in fact a result of him graduating from Harvard, because it is a deliberate ruse on his part to make whatever attempt he can to deny a Black American a role in public life.

In 1770, an incident on King Street in Boston (Mass), resulted in British troops killing five local men, instantly dubbed by the terrorist Paul Revere as 'a Massacre', which is how Americans remember it. The furore led the acting Governor to initiate legal proceedings, through ten people were put on trial, eight of them Soldiers of the King. Two of those soldiers were defended by a lawyer called John Adams. 27 years later, he became President of the US.

Rather than reach back into a dark moment in European history, albeit one enlightened by Justice Jackson, Tom Cotton need only refer to the history of his own country to find an example where the Rule of Law was a substantial value in public affairs, even before the creation of the United States, but it seems, a value that conveyed then, and now, a meaning with which he has 'lost patience'.

Because it has created a process in which a Black woman must be humiliated in public, not because of her ability to judge the merits of a case in law, or because she too is a graduate of Harvard, but because she is Black.

The principles that led the other Justice Jackson to Nuremberg are noted in his own words, in this link-

Tom Cotton Says Ketanji Brown Jackson Would Represent Nazis at Nuremberg Trials (esquire.com)

[yodajazz]

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings were a lot more than "being mean" to Judge Jackson. It a carefully crafted show, before a national audience, to promote the right wing/republican talking points agenda. The over riding theme is to paint democrats, as evil people. So this is not as policies, as it is about this. This also harnesses the negative energies of the QAnon movement. this along with the 'end of times visions of many white evangelicals.  As long as it helps republicans, they no shame in harnessing that insanity.

So lets look at a specific questioning issue of Judge Kentanji Jackson. One purpose of the overall strategy is to use basic fear, to by pass higher brain functions. Thus they could also get an otherwise intelligent person to buy, with the messaging that "democrats are trying to destroy the nation". I heard this statement years ago from a radio talk host, while riding in a car. In terms of basic fear, consider Trump's Jan 6th speech, "You better fight like hell, or you won't have a country anymore". That is not related to any policy issues, it is just about instilling fear.

So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others.  It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.

I really admire Jackson for taking a case of defending a prisoner at Guantanamo prison. A have long felt that, holding someone without trial could create new enemies, because of it's obvious injustice. It seems to me, that the majority of people don't consider such things. However in that line of attack from the republicans, does seem to e more about a specific issue. So I consider that to be a more legitimate line of questioning, than some of the others. But it looks like I have sidetracked myself here, regarding the issue of the right's positioning strategies. There is some serious stuff going on. I see their world view as being fascist, and anti democracy,in general.

[broncofan]

If reports are true, Roe v. Wade is no longer current precedent on the question of whether the 14th amendment protects the right to an abortion. Horrifying if true. I'm completely at a loss. Just a very upsetting development that will have terrible consequences for women.

[filghy2]

So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others. It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.

Similar lines are being used on anti-LGBT legislation; eg anyone opposed to the "Don't say gay bill" must be a supporter of grooming. https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505...anic-explained

As you suggest, this demonisation of minority groups is pretty much straight from the fascist playbook.

The galling thing is that the Republican Party doesn't seem to be paying a political price for this kind of extremism. It's as if moderate or uncommitted voters just don't pay attention to this stuff or don't care about it.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=yodajazz;2052074]


So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others.  It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.
-As I have argued in other threads, it is hypocritical of the 'QAnon' lunatics to bang on about paedophiles in Govt when they often live in States where a 74-year old man can legally marry a 14-year old girl, or an 11-year old raped and made pregnant be forced to marry her rapist, as happened in Florida. Just as the aborted foetus causes outrage but not the aborted life of an adult on death row. And yet in his First Draft, Justice Alito in the Notes refers to numerous laws that outlawed abortion using words such as 'using poison' to 'intentionally' cause death -which sounds to me like the chemical route to death in some US Prisons.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.
-Maybe she should have asked 'Does the US Constitution define what a woman is?'

I really admire Jackson for taking a case of defending a prisoner at Guantanamo prison. A have long felt that, holding someone without trial could create new enemies, because of it's obvious injustice. It seems to me, that the majority of people don't consider such things. However in that line of attack from the republicans, does seem to e more about a specific issue. So I consider that to be a more legitimate line of questioning, than some of the others. But it looks like I have sidetracked myself here, regarding the issue of the right's positioning strategies. There is some serious stuff going on. I see their world view as being fascist, and anti democracy,in general.
--A few years ago there was a documentary on US crime and a case in Jacksonville in Florida in which a 12-year old living rough on the streets was arrested and charged with the murder of a homeless man. He was sent to an adult prison -at the age of 12!- and aged 14 sentenced to life in prison, even though apart from his confession, there was no murder weapon, no motive, and in fact no explanation. Maybe in this case Florida is just not a decent place in which to be accused of murder, at any age.

[broncofan]

Similar lines are being used on anti-LGBT legislation; eg anyone opposed to the "Don't say gay bill" must be a supporter of grooming. https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505...anic-explained

As you suggest, this demonisation of minority groups is pretty much straight from the fascist playbook.

The galling thing is that the Republican Party doesn't seem to be paying a political price for this kind of extremism. It's as if moderate or uncommitted voters just don't pay attention to this stuff or don't care about it.

What I'm saying here will dominate the news for months if you guys don't know about it.

The Court is set to overturn Roe and apparently Alito has already written the majority opinion which has been leaked. This will create a wave of protests and public life is going to be toxic for many months. But the excerpt of Alito's decision I saw also criticized Obergefell (gay marriage case) and Lawrence v. Texas (which made banning sodomy between consenting adults unconstitutional). If they really want to overturn all of these precedents, we're in a world of trouble. It remains to be seen whether this will hurt them in the midterms.

Yes, the don't say gay bill is designed to attack all lgbt as potential groomers, to instill the idea that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices, and to put defenders of gay rights on the defensive as well.

[Stavros]

The leaked draft of Alito's opinion is in the Politico link. I have read some of it, and while I am not an expert in law, least of all US law, there are a number of issues which I think are contentious.

First, the argument is that Roe-v-Wade was bad law from the start, and it may be that its language and reasoning was flawed, and that Casey attempted to deal with this -I really don't know. The argument that because Abortion had in fact been illegal in US history works against Roe-v-Wade for overturning the concept of precedent in Stare Decisis, but surely this means that if a legal matter has never been cited in the Constitution then it cannot be introduced? Moreover, if Slavery was legal then the Constitutional Amendment that made it illegal took State Decisis and flipped it. If one law can be flipped then can another?

Second, Alito says the decision must be returned to the 'Elected Representatives' of the People -but it seems this does not refer to the House of Representatives, or the Senate of the United States. It means, also, that the decision is being 'returned' to individual States, where the Elected Representatives have been elected on a minority vote, in a country where the polls indicate that less than 30% of the US public think Roe-v-Wade should be repealed. This undermines democracy, as it means that a party with the largest seats in the State House but a minority of the vote can make decisions that affect all.

Third, when I put in the words 'Rape' and 'Incest' into the search box, it did not return any results.

Fourth if as Alito's document states "The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" (pag3 24) -well, the same argument could be made for same-sex marriage. Add voting rights for Black people and the trajectory of this Draft ruling suggests the US Supreme Court believes that the best way forward is to take ten steps back.

A lot more to come I expect. There is a note that makes the point that as most abortions are carried out on Black women, abortion has reduced the size of the Black American population -I can't find it but it might be a note from a comment made in 1925. I am also not sure what this ruling means with regard to Women's Rights, other than the prospect that such Rights are not written in to the Constitution. ??

The document can be found here-
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

[filghy2]

This article argues that the reasoning in the draft decision could indeed be used to overturn other rights. Essentially it says that constitutional rights do not exist if they are not mentioned specifically in the document and there has been a tradition of the state restricting such rights.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...dents-00029625

Assurances that it is not intended to apply to anything else are meaningless. I seem to recall that the recent appointees apparently supporting this decision were asked about Roe vs Wade in their confirmation hearings and gave the impression they would respect the precedent.

I'm sceptical that this will have a big effect on the mid-terms. I think elections are generally determined by disengaged voters who care mostly about their personal situation. Such people don't care much for nuances about causation and whether the other side has a better solution. If they feel worse off they won't vote for the incumbent. Most of them may support abortion rights if asked, but it's probably not going to change their vote. The return of inflation, which isn't likely to go away in 6 months, is probably going to dominate other issues.