(10-13-2020, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe Ginsberg herself stated that it was wholly inappropriate for a nominee to entertain those types of hypothetical "how would you rule" answers.  I also think your supposition, while not entirely untrue, ignores the extreme differences in potential cases that may come before SCOTUS that deal with the same core issue.

(10-13-2020, 01:51 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Dems making themselves look pretty petty and stupid in these hearings.

Sen. Whitehouse going full crazy.

(10-13-2020, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Listened in the background at work today and watched some snippets this evening.

Seems the Dems only objection to her qualifications is that she may rule opposite of what they want.

I thought she did well continuing to remind the Senate that it's their job to make laws not SCOTUS

(10-14-2020, 12:48 AM)Benton Wrote: From the bits I've heard she sounds fairly open minded. Which is a relief after Kavanaugh, which was a pretty ^$#@ing low point in American politics. He's the Artie Ziff of the SCOTUS.

(10-14-2020, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Kavs definitely came out hot. But the knives were out. 

(10-14-2020, 01:36 AM)Benton Wrote: So we're the nearly triple digit ethics complaints, multiple sexual harassment/assault complaints, statements of how he would adjudicate before ever hearing a case, etc.

Out of all the candidates, he was the slimiest. But the party stuck with him ... So... Win?

(10-14-2020, 07:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think one of my biggest issues with her is the one I have with Kagan: a lack of experience. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see justices with a pretty healthy resume of experience on the bench.

Quote:Amy Coney Barrett ruled using the n-word does not make a work environment hostile

Ms Barrett ruled the plaintiff needed more evidence to prove the workplace was hostile



US Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett's discernment is being questioned after her views on the use of the n-word in the workplace resurfaced.  

The Associated Press published a report on Ms Barrett's most notable judicial opinions, which included a 2019 workplace discrimination case in which she penned the opinion that the use of the n-word in the workplace had not "created a hostile or abusive working environment."  

Ms Barrett wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued the ruling.  

In the ruling, Ms Barrett said that while she found the use of the word abhorrent, the plaintiff in the case had not made a strong enough case that harassment was occurring.  

"The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can't win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment," she wrote.  

• Barrett hearing turns to discussion of few high court cases
  

Jason Wincuinas, the editor at the Economist's Intelligence Unit, pointed out on Twitter that even Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with her ruling on the matter.  

"[Justice Kavanaugh] wrote. "No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country's long and brutal struggle to overcome racism ... a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment."  
YOUR DAILY US POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Many users on social media pointed out that Ms Barrett has two adopted black children, and asked whether she would feel the same if the word was used against them when they enter the working world.  

Ms Barrett's confirmation hearings began on Monday.

On Tuesday, Ms Barrett was pressed on her stance on a number of major Supreme Court cases and asked whether she would support overturning establishing the legality of gay marriage, abortion services and of the Affordable Care Act.  


Though she would not fully commit to an action one way or the other, she frequently reassured the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would issue rulings based on precedent and not her personal views or possible agendas.  

She would not commit to recusing herself from a ruling where she might have a conflict of interest. Some Democrats have demanded that Ms Barrett recuse herself from any Supreme Court rulings regarding the results of the upcoming 2020 US election. 

Quote:Amy Coney Barrett Forgets Right To Protest Is A First Amendment Freedom


Nicholas ReimannForbes Staff
Business
I'm a news reporter for Forbes, primarily covering the U.S. South.





TOPLINE
 
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was unable to name all of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing Wednesday, forgetting the right to protest when a senator asked her to name the five freedoms Wednesday afternoon.


Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the ... [+]
 GETTY IMAGES
KEY FACTS
When asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) what the five freedoms are, Barrett was able to name freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly, before looking puzzled and saying, “What else am I missing?”
Sasse then told Barrett she had forgotten “redress or protest.”

The question, like essentially all that have come from Republican senators, seemed to be asked so that Barrett would be able to answer without much effort.

Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t know the five freedoms guaranteed in First Amendment.pic.twitter.com/w8XfKOvMVy

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) October 14, 2020

 

KEY BACKGROUND
Wednesday is the third day in Barrett’s confirmation hearings, after President Donald Trump nominated her to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The hearings over the past three days have largely followed the same theme—Democrats pressing Barrett on how she would rule on challenges to abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, questions Barrett for the most part has declined to answer, with Republicans asking softer questions meant to back up Barrett’s judicial qualifications.

TANGENT
The U.S. racial reckoning following the death of George Floyd in May led to protests in cities across the United States. Recently, some Republicans, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have called for new laws to crack down on protests that are viewed as disorderly. Critics have called those proposals unconstitutional, meaning there could be court challenges if anti-protesting laws are passed.

SURPRISING FACT
The five freedoms of the First Amendment are usually among the first lessons taught in civics classes in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recommends those applying for U.S. citizenship study the five freedoms in order to pass a citizenship test for naturalization.

(10-14-2020, 07:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, from what I've seen, she's handled herself very well.  She certainly hasn't given any reason to vote no on her for reasons specific to her.  This is coming from someone who wasn't thrilled by the pick btw.

(10-15-2020, 09:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Remember that one time Amy Coney Barrett argued against the same circumstances that surround her appointment to SCOTUS?pic.twitter.com/VoiuNYzAFw

— ? ??????? ? (@vegix) October 12, 2020

 

(10-15-2020, 09:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll let someone else explain this to you

Quote:When a coroner arrived on the scene, he saw no visible signs of trauma but when he saw the handcuffs still on Day, he immediately knew what had happened. The autopsy report verified it. Eighteen-year-old Terrell Day’s official cause of death was listed as “Sudden Cardiac Death.” But it wasn’t just a heart attack.


“Listed as a contributing cause,” writes the Indianapolis Star’s Crystal Hill, “was Day’s hands being cuffed behind his back.”

In May 2019, a federal District Court agreed that Terrell Day’s mother, Shanika Day, had the right to sue Franklin Wooten, ruling that “reasonable officers would know they were violating an established right by leaving Day’s hands cuffed behind his back after he complained of difficulty breathing.”



But then Wooten appealed and Amy stepped up.



The most conservative judge on the most conservative court.

Amy Coney Barrett is a right-wing radical.



Looking at Barrett’s judicial record, Five Thirty-Eight didn’t just categorize her as a right-leaning justice on one of America’s most conservative courts. They concluded that “Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative.”



And considering the other judges, that’s quite a statement.



When Franklin Wooten appealed to Barrett’s court, the Supreme Court nominee was flanked by two Reagan appointees who are still the greatest examples for packing the court with unqualified, conservative judges:

• Daniel Anthony Manion: Like Barrett, Manion is a Notre Dame alumnus who is notorious for his inability to write, spell or quote the Constitution. Manion was a supporter of the radical, right-wing John Birch Society which, among other things, alleged Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist who wanted to institute a “Soviet Negro Republic.” At the time of Manion’s nomination, he received one of the lowest American Bar Association judgeship rankings in history.
• Frank H. Easterbrook: His ABA ranking was even worse than Manion’s because some members said was outright “unqualified.” The Chicago Council of Lawyers called him an “arrogant and intolerant” judge who “disregards the facts or the law.”
  
  
  

But according to the data, Barrett is more of a right-wing radical than either of these mediocre white men. And it’s not just abortion rights. Barrett has displayed the most far-right ideology in the areas of civil rights, criminal rights and discrimination suits. So when Wooten appealed to the Seventh Circuit, Coney and her unqualified justices reached an astonishing conclusion:

Terrell Day didn’t have the right to breathe.



The court accepted every fact of the case but determined that Wooten shouldn’t even stand trial. They essentially ruled that Wooten was immune from the consequences of his actions because “the only right [Day] can assert would be the right of an out-of-breath arrestee to not have his hands cuffed behind his back after he complains of difficulty breathing.” However, the judges woefully admitted that they could “find no Seventh Circuit precedent clearly establishing such a right.”

They wrote that down on paper.



One of Shanika Day’s attorneys called it a “radical departure” from prior cases while co-counsel Faith Alvarez said the ruling put the burden of proof “on the person who’s dying. It’s no longer on the police to be trained.”

(10-22-2020, 03:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly the way this immunity is decided on fascinates me.

If there isn't a very specific example of the incident then the officer gets immunity...but it seems it very hard to get a new example of the immunity because there isn't already an example of it.

Still the article stretches a bit with a "constitutional right to breath" I think despite being accurate in it's coverage of the story and Barrett's part in it.



Much more at the link and it's a sad, difficult story.


Plus there are link to some of her other more interesting decisions.