Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[Jape]

Very true - I think the question is whether in doing so you apply (a) the "plain meaning" vs. broader extension beyond simply the words; and (b) apply understand at the time of drafting vs modernized context. I favor plain meaning in modern context to the other 3 permutations, but I don't have a vote. Essentially a "textualist" goes with plain meaning in modern context and a "constructionist" goes with plain meaning at the time of drafting. The Warren Court is famous for broader extension beyond simply the words and under a modernized context. Not sure broader extension but at time of drafting shows up to much in the analysis.

Exactly, which is why Heller and McDonald were decided as they were, and coincidentally authored by Scalia. Honestly, I don't see that precedence changing anytime soon, so not sure having Barrett on the court would make much difference (beyond making it 6-3 instead of 5-4).

 

[VikingsGuy]

Exactly, which is why Heller and McDonald were decided as they were, and coincidentally authored by Scalia. Honestly, I don't see that precedence changing anytime soon, so not sure having Barrett on the court would make much difference (beyond making it 6-3 instead of 5-4).

There are a number of close watchers that think Roberts is backing away from Heller. Heller & McDonald were hanging by a thread in the summer of '20, Barrett would lock them in until Thomas leaves the court (oldest conservative vote).

 

[Randi]

Exactly, which is why Heller and McDonald were decided as they were, and coincidentally authored by Scalia. Honestly, I don't see that precedence changing anytime soon, so not sure having Barrett on the court would make much difference (beyond making it 6-3 instead of 5-4).

mtnhuntr and vikings guy This is what we had also thought, as the question about treaty rights came up. We have not found anything she has ruled on in that regard.

During that conversation, the majority here thought she might rule more toward "plain meaning" but time will tell

We also think that if Trump is reelected, Thomas will retire in the next 4 years

and, thank you gentlemen for your comments above. Very kind.

 

[Jape]

There are a number of close watchers that think Roberts is backing away from Heller. Heller & McDonald were hanging by a thread in the summer of '20, Barrett would lock them in until Thomas leaves the court (oldest conservative vote).

I've occasionally heard that but don't believe it considering Robert's reverence for stare decisis, and the fact he was fully with Alito on McDonald. Certainly, there is still room for interpretation of regulations since there have been no significant USSC decisions on the 2A since McDonald (Scalia even said " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"), but I just don't see Heller/McDonald being overturned without Barrett (even though I support her as the nominee).

 

[VikingsGuy]

I've occasionally heard that but don't believe it considering Robert's reverence for stare decisis, and the fact he was fully with Alito on McDonald. Certainly, there is still room for interpretation of regulations since there have been no significant USSC decisions on the 2A since McDonald (Scalia even said " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"), but I just don't see Heller/McDonald being overturned without Barrett (even though I support her as the nominee).

Would not be a clean over-rule, it would be a practical gutting of the right by being very open to more and more onerous regulations. Already Heller and McDonald are partially crippled via lowest threshold of review (see Thomas' frustrated concurrences) to get Kennedy & Roberts on board in the first place. I don't know anyone close to the court that views Roberts as a strong 2A vote, would be interested if you have info to the contrary.

As a dangerous aside, there is a parallel here for Roe. First of all, Roe was significantly modified by O'Connor under Webster - so in practice Webster is really the law of the land not Roe. Webster creates a balancing act between the woman and "the state". I don't think Barret will vote to overtly overturn Webster/Roe (because of the societal disrupt factor) but will instead be a vote very understanding of the state's interest and the broad basket of a woman's rights under Webster will be whittled away. Such is the future of these two topics - muddy but undeniable movement towards state authority - both sides have become too comfortable regulating their interests - and there are few who really consistently champion the individual these days (but I am hopeful for Gorsuch).

 

[Randi]

Would not be a clean over-rule, it would be a practical gutting of the right by being very open to more and more onerous regulations. Already Heller and McDonald are partially crippled via lowest threshold of review (see Thomas' frustrated concurrences) to get Kennedy & Roberts on board in the first place. I don't know anyone close to the court that views Roberts as a strong 2A vote, would be interested if you have info to the contrary.

As a dangerous aside, there is a parallel here for Roe. First of all, Roe was significantly modified by O'Connor under Webster - so in practice Webster is really the law of the land not Roe. Webster creates a balancing act between the woman and "the state". I don't think Barret will vote to overtly overturn Webster/Roe (because of the societal disrupt factor) but will instead be a vote very understanding of the state's interest and the broad basket of a woman's rights under Webster will be whittled away. Such is the future of these two topics - muddy but undeniable movement towards state authority - both sides have become too comfortable regulating their interests - and there are few who really consistently champion the individual these days (but I am hopeful for Gorsuch).

Webster/ Roe Exactly ! this is what I referred to earlier but unfortunately not as eloquently . Barrett could very definitely have an influence here on this one

Roberts, a 2A vote. I think Bush thought he was. I wonder about him and wonder sometimes if he isn't swayed more by the other jurists on the bench than by his beliefs ?

 

[Jape]

Would not be a clean over-rule, it would be a practical gutting of the right by being very open to more and more onerous regulations. Already Heller and McDonald are partially crippled via lowest threshold of review (see Thomas' frustrated concurrences) to get Kennedy & Roberts on board in the first place. I don't know anyone close to the court that views Roberts as a strong 2A vote, would be interested if you have info to the contrary.

As a dangerous aside, there is a parallel here for Roe. First of all, Roe was significantly modified by O'Connor under Webster - so in practice Webster is really the law of the land not Roe. Webster creates a balancing act between the woman and "the state". I don't think Barret will vote to overtly overturn Webster/Roe (because of the societal disrupt factor) but will instead be a vote very understanding of the state's interest and the broad basket of a woman's rights under Webster will be whittled away. Such is the future of these two topics - muddy but undeniable movement towards state authority - both sides have become too comfortable regulating their interests - and there are few who really consistently champion the individual these days (but I am hopeful for Gorsuch).

I can see where you are going, and as I recall there was a New York case last year that was supposed to be reviewed under strict scrutiny, which would have been a win, but I think the legislature changed the law making the issue moot, which we both know the USSC punts on whenever they can! Will the recent social pressure surrounding mass shootings, etc..., "pressure" Roberts into watering down Heller/McDonald in favor of more restrictive gun rights? Perhaps, but I think those cases are more robust than that. I met with Robert Levy when we had him out for a Federalist Society event several years ago. Following those cases he thinks there are only two areas for the USSC (and circuit courts) to still carve out: (1) how far outside the home does the right extend, and (2) what restrictions can we still place on firearms (such as restricting felon ownership). So, yes there is still some work to do but I think the foundation is solid. I don't have any insider information, but even if I did not sure how valuable it would be. I remember talking to Mike Lee years ago just before the Sebelius (Obamacare) case was decided and he was convinced based on his appellate connections (which are many) that Roberts would vote against it. We now know how wrong he was.

The Roe issue is an interesting one, and you hit on the central issue: individual rights v. state interests. While I am certainly a proponent of individual rights, especially those espoused in our constitution/bill of rights, I fear that sometimes individual rights go too far in the USA. For example, no-fault divorces have been adopted in every state, and I think most of us would say they are a good thing (advance women's rights, simplified the divorce process, etc), however without the court's ability to enforce wedding vows couples now have a greater tendency to view marriage as having less societal value and marriage exclusively as a source of personal fulfillment. It’s often hard to tell when the law causes social change and when the law simply reflects social change. This is going down a rabbit hole, but I think we need to think about both holistically before we keep riding the ever expanding individual rights train.

 

[Sytes]

It’s often hard to tell when the law causes social change and when the law simply reflects social change.

Same sentiment.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well said: https://www.startribune.com/amy-con...ed-for-the-high-court/572568482/?refresh=true

 

[Sytes]

Well said: https://www.startribune.com/amy-con...ed-for-the-high-court/572568482/?refresh=true

Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can't be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

agree... Though does legitimate professional references such as the above hold any relevance to Democrat rhino splattered college beer drinking allegations? I think not...

 

[Randi]

Well said: https://www.startribune.com/amy-con...ed-for-the-high-court/572568482/?refresh=true

Excellent read from someone who knows her, as a person. Not just from her rulings, or that she is a Catholic or Conservative, but as a person.

In our discussion last evening, Barrett fits the view of many young females today. Many of us were fortunate enough to have mothers and grandmothers who had already shown us that it is possible to "have it all" so to speak.

But Barrett is a prime example for those of us who have never subscribed to the old school feminist playbook. We "females" were forced to chose between a career or being a wife and mother and somehow it became the fault of the male population that we had to make that choice.

Barrett married the man of her dreams in her twenties, had 5 children, adopted two and could be our next Supreme Court Justice. Not a bad role model for younger females who also believe it is possible to have a husband, children and a career.

As an aside, i have no desire to have 7 however

 

[VikingsGuy]

As an aside, i have no desire to have 7 however

8 it is . . .

 

[Deleted member 28227]

But Barrett is a prime example for those of us who have never subscribed to the old school feminist playbook. We "females" were forced to chose between a career or being a wife and mother and somehow it became the fault of the male population that we had to make that choice.

Though to be fair to old school feminists, if not for them you literally wouldn't be allowed to vote, own property, have a credit card/bank account, make decisions about your body, etc. Those parts specifically were the fault of the male population.

There are still vestiges of the "you must choose" inherent in the system. One of our friends got pregnant during medical school, had the baby on Thursday and was told she was expected in class on Monday or would have to retake the year, she was allowed to bring her child to class. I think that sort of systemic issue is what those old school feminists are alluding to, it's not a you can't, it's that men designed the system not taking into consideration women and therefore the system can seem to force women to have to choose. She could have taken a year but that's a serious financial hit, and adds time to an already ridiculously long road, no man is forced to make that choice. That specific individual is a bad ass and brought her child to class and became a surgeon.

I agree though heck of a role model for anyone, talk about tenacity.

 

[88man]

Sure it is. You cite R reasonings for which there is little economic theory to support for the general view. Kennedy cut top tax rate from 90% to 65%- Laffer curve WORKs when you make huge changes in tax rates. Unfortunately it doesn't work all the time, as we have discovered since. Reagan comes into office in the middle of hyper inflation. Government raises interest rates and causes a recession. Reagan cuts taxes and government collections plummet, so he then reverses some of those cuts. What drove the economy in the 80's was 1) there was pent up demand caused by ridiculously high interest rates in the late 70s 2) the recession brought inflation under control and allowed rates to return to "reasonable" levels, 3) cutting taxes gave people more money to spend on pent up demand and 4) Reagan significantly increased military spending to win the cold war. Counter argument- Clinton raised taxes and cut military spending and we had an economic boom.

The sample size on any economic idea is pretty small, especially tax cuts. This stuff is complicated with lots of moving pieces. The general consensus on the most recent tax cuts is there was no broad long term economic impact. Sure, people will say it helped business spend and grow and hire. The data says there was no change from trend of the previous 8yrs. That tax cut had the same impact as unicorns that crap rainbows.

I do push back on the last sentence. The "theory" that individuals know how to spend their money better than the government is not an economic thing. There is no measure of "spending efficiency" in GDP. Some people have tried to back into it such a measure but it is iffy at best. What we know is that every dollar the government collects get recirculated back into the economy (actually, every dollar plus more because the government has net borrowed since WWII). Every dollar kept in the hands of citizens is parsed - A % gets spent and a % get saved. In recent years savings has increased, as demonstrated by the drop in money spending velocity. The paradox of thrift would suggest the economy as a whole is better off with the government collecting and spending money. Although it stinks for the individual earner. So the argument is purely emotional. There is no economic basis to it at all, but it sounds good.

The Clinton BOOM was fueled by a new industry that we are using right now. Computers/Internet/hardware/software/training/cable/fiber and the changes it brought on.
Your what we know about every dollar getting circulated back into the economy is not true or you are leaving out the world economy. It is not spent and circulated in the USA. Its a globalist expression and not American.

 

[ignorethefringes]

Though to be fair to old school feminists, if not for them you literally wouldn't be allowed to vote, own property, have a credit card/bank account, make decisions about your body, etc. Those parts specifically were the fault of the male population.

There are still vestiges of the "you must choose" inherent in the system. One of our friends got pregnant during medical school, had the baby on Thursday and was told she was expected in class on Monday or would have to retake the year, she was allowed to bring her child to class. I think that sort of systemic issue is what those old school feminists are alluding to, it's not a you can't, it's that men designed the system not taking into consideration women and therefore the system can seem to force women to have to choose. She could have taken a year but that's a serious financial hit, and adds time to an already ridiculously long road, no man is forced to make that choice. That specific individual is a bad ass and brought her child to class and became a surgeon.

I agree though heck of a role model for anyone, talk about tenacity.

Just to have fun and think a little:

Men also have to make the choice to leave the kid(s) with someone else and head into to work on Monday. I would actually assume that it's just expected, not even presented as a option considering how far behind the rest of the world we are in term paternity leave. It's just that men are expected to have a significant other to take care of the kid(s). But, in theory, women have the same choice as men in that regard. If a man or woman as a significant other they can agree which one will take care of the kid, either one of them or pay someone. If that same man or woman is single but has a kid the option is the same for both, stay home or hire a caretaker.

Now, three days to recover from the birthing process/surgery before heading back to work is a whole 'nother can of worms. I'm genuinely surprised she couldn't get a doctor's note giving her a few extra days/weeks.

 

[Europe]

Though to be fair to old school feminists, if not for them you literally wouldn't be allowed to vote, own property, have a credit card/bank account, make decisions about your body, etc. Those parts specifically were the fault of the male population.

Yes my old friend and fishing buddy Susan Anthony was one of those women who certainly made a difference ( several here like to tease me, in a good way, about my age (-; )

And I remember Gloria posing as a playboy bunny and discovering that sex sells. That was a revelation

But I suspect Randi is referring to how far the envelope has been pushed by so called "feminists" in recent years. I would not be a male teacher today without a camera in my classroom 24/7. God forbid a young coed doesn't like their grade and no one believes him. Since this is a Supreme Court thread, it doesnt matter whether or not I liked him as a Supreme Court choice, but, what happened to Gorsuch was just wrong. I was also not impressed with Hill's accusation against Thomas.

And the one that always confuses me is how is it a mans fault that you were born a female. Change what you can, accept what you can not change and have the wisdom to know the difference. But some things you can not change and the quicker you realize that and get on down the road the better

And speaking now only from personal experience. I dont remember one time that the children ever took their case to their father in an attempt to get the verdict changed when I told them no. Thinking back I dont remember anything in my lifetime I wanted to do, I did not do. And thinking about the women on this forum. Anyone want to tell Hunting wife what she can and cant do. How about Panda Bear. Randi is young but she seems to be headed in a direction that leads me to believe she will be just fine. And I wish I knew Mkelkhuntress better so as to make a more knowledgable statement about her. But she is another one who doesn't appear to be afraid to converse with a group of men.

IMHO in many ways women have it better than men. Without a doubt it was true in my mothers case and mine.

Back to Barrett. I like her but before giving her my endorsement, Harley could you find out what her music preferences are ?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Just to have fun and think a little:

Men also have to make the choice to leave the kid(s) with someone else and head into to work on Monday. I would actually assume that it's just expected, not even presented as a option considering how far behind the rest of the world we are in term paternity leave. It's just that men are expected to have a significant other to take care of the kid(s). But, in theory, women have the same choice as men in that regard. If a man or woman as a significant other they can agree which one will take care of the kid, either one of them or pay someone. If that same man or woman is single but has a kid the option is the same for both, stay home or hire a caretaker.

Now, three days to recover from the birthing process/surgery before heading back to work is a whole 'nother can of worms. I'm genuinely surprised she couldn't get a doctor's note giving her a few extra days/weeks.

Different side of the same coin, men are assumed to not have that choice, same system is creating the issue. It's not a who has it worse conversation as a problematic system conversation.

 

[Jape]

Yes my old friend and fishing buddy Susan Anthony was one of those women who certainly made a difference ( several here like to tease me, in a good way, about my age (-; )

And I remember Gloria posing as a playboy bunny and discovering that sex sells. That was a revelation

But I suspect Randi is referring to how far the envelope has been pushed by so called "feminists" in recent years. I would not be a male teacher today without a camera in my classroom 24/7. God forbid a young coed doesn't like their grade and no one believes him. Since this is a Supreme Court thread, it doesnt matter whether or not I liked him as a Supreme Court choice, but, what happened to Gorsuch was just wrong. I was also not impressed with Hill's accusation against Thomas.

And the one that always confuses me is how is it a mans fault that you were born a female. Change what you can, accept what you can not change and have the wisdom to know the difference. But some things you can not change and the quicker you realize that and get on down the road the better

And speaking now only from personal experience. I dont remember one time that the children ever took their case to their father in an attempt to get the verdict changed when I told them no. Thinking back I dont remember anything in my lifetime I wanted to do, I did not do. And thinking about the women on this forum. Anyone want to tell Hunting wife what she can and cant do. How about Panda Bear. Randi is young but she seems to be headed in a direction that leads me to believe she will be just fine. And I wish I knew Mkelkhuntress better so as to make a more knowledgable statement about her. But she is another one who doesn't appear to be afraid to converse with a group of men.

IMHO in many ways women have it better than men. Without a doubt it was true in my mothers case and mine.

Back to Barrett. I like her but before giving her my endorsement, Harley could you find out what her music preferences are ?

Really great to get your perspective @Europe since most of us haven't learned as much as you've forgotten.

To the article @VikingsGuy posted, I agree that Barrett would be an excellent justice. That article means a lot coming from Feldman.

 

[SAJ-99]

The Clinton BOOM was fueled by a new industry that we are using right now. Computers/Internet/hardware/software/training/cable/fiber and the changes it brought on.
Your what we know about every dollar getting circulated back into the economy is not true or you are leaving out the world economy. It is not spent and circulated in the USA. Its a globalist expression and not American.

No argument here on the Clinton economic era. It just supports my point that there are a lot of things other than taxes that drive an economy. In fact, small changes in taxes have shown to have little impact on the overall economy.

I need clarification of the second sentence and what part is untruthful. Just because a dollar is used to purchase something from another country, doesn't change the fact it is in circulation. Dollars don't "leave" or "stay" in US. It is the world's reserve currency. Over 50% of all international transactions/settlements are done in dollars.

Just to clarify for this thread, I agree it goes a little off course. However, Barrett will have a larger impact on America through decisions on corporate law than on Roe v. Wade. The country has tilted largely toward corporations and capital over the last 30 years while the worker has been told to take a seat in the back of the bus. That is the Reagan Revolution and it is solidified by SCOTUS. Expect more of the same.

 

[SAJ-99]

however without the court's ability to enforce wedding vows couples now have a greater tendency to view marriage as having less societal value and marriage exclusively as a source of personal fulfillment.

I guess I'll bite. How exactly would you like SCOTUS to enforce wedding vows? You want people to stay married even though they are miserable and create an unhealthy family environment?