• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
I suggest you re-read Heller.

Scalia explains why the prefatory language doesn’t create a collective right. The issue isn’t how sounds to our ears today. It’s what would it have been understood to mean at the time it was adopted. Scalia makes a compelling case that it means what he says it means.

In any event, at least we know what we are arguing about. I have no idea if the sweet mystery of life means abortion is protected or not.
Click to expand...

wakephan09 said:
And that's the problem with originalism right there: it's political just like any other hermeneutic. You can just pick and choose what you want to read and ignore the rest.

That only becomes problematic because many so-called originalists refuse to acknowledge that bias.
Click to expand...

Well that’s a freebie.
 
Junebug said:
My prediction is that, because of the remand order, the case won’t even get cert granted. It happens thousands of times a year.

More importantly, keep in mind that just because Democrats argue for something doesn’t mean that a SCOTUS rejection of it is based on politics. I know that all of your media sources are telling you the sky is falling on our republic, but take a step back and breathe.
Click to expand...

The GOP is currently voting to bar any witnesses or documents from an impeachment trial. The republic is definitely in jeopardy.
 
Junebug said:
I suggest you re-read Heller.

Scalia explains why the prefatory language doesn’t create a collective right. The issue isn’t how sounds to our ears today. It’s what would it have been understood to mean at the time it was adopted. Scalia makes a compelling case that it means what he says it means.

In any event, at least we know what we are arguing about. I have no idea if the sweet mystery of life means abortion is protected or not.
Click to expand...

If you want to read a much more compelling historical argument, one that was representative of the views of conservative justices like Burger and conservative pols at the time, and if you are interested in actual common sense, read Steven's dissent in Heller instead. Don't read Scalia's activist bullshit that flipped decades of state decisis on its head.
 
Junebug said:
The funny thing is, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever come across a federal judge you'd classify as a bootlicker?

But don't let me being right get in the way of your fun.
Click to expand...

The federal judges you know weren’t rated unqualified because of their complete lack of experience. They must have been nominated for SOME reason.
 
Junebug said:
The funny thing is, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Have you ever come across a federal judge you'd classify as a bootlicker?

But don't let me being right get in the way of your fun.
Click to expand...

Trump and McConnell radically changed the judiciary. Government norms are out the window.
 
So Obama is just as bad because he floated, but didn’t nominate.

And even if he wasn’t, more of Trump’s are “highly qualified.”

Speaking of Obama, I can’t find the list of all of the judges Obama nominated who were “not qualified.”
 
And how do Trump’s nominees compare to other presidents’ as “unanimously not qualified?”
 
Junebug said:
So far as I can tell, Trump has nominated 9 judges who were rated "not qualified." I haven't researched the reasons why for all of them, but at least one of them that I know of (NB: not "who I know") was rated "not qualified" because the ABA deemed her views on abortion too extreme. She was also a Kavanaugh clerk, which likely didn't help her.
.
Click to expand...

Really?

“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,” Hubbard wrote. “She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”
 
Junebug said:
Yeah.

n a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) questioned just how evenhanded Pitlyk would be.
“Pitlyk’s record is extremely troubling and raises a number of questions about her ability to be a fair and impartial judge,” Feinstein said. Pointing to dubious claims about abortion, the senator added: “It is disqualifying for any judicial nominee to make unfounded and unsupported claims, especially in a court of law.”

Her critics have highlighted inflammatory declarations such as the one she made in an amicus brief opposing California’s protections of assisted reproduction technology, noted Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. In the filing, Pitlyk asserted that “the practice of surrogacy has grave effects on society, such as diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother-child bond.”

She has also argued that surrogacy “is harmful to mothers and children” and is a “practice society should not be enforcing.” Her position — that states should treat embryos like humans — would likely outlaw abortion, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, Stern wrote. Vanita Gupta, a former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said Pitlyk’s confirmation “is deeply disturbing. She is exactly the type of judicial nominee that Trump promised to fill the courts with: an individual who threatens reproductive rights and access to abortion,” Gupta, now the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “With Pitlyk’s confirmation, the administration is betting on her to carry out their agenda for decades to come.”
Click to expand...


Feinstein is part of the ABA rating committee?
 
That was the ABA statement?
 
Junebug said:
Yeah.

n a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) questioned just how evenhanded Pitlyk would be.
“Pitlyk’s record is extremely troubling and raises a number of questions about her ability to be a fair and impartial judge,” Feinstein said. Pointing to dubious claims about abortion, the senator added: “It is disqualifying for any judicial nominee to make unfounded and unsupported claims, especially in a court of law.”

Her critics have highlighted inflammatory declarations such as the one she made in an amicus brief opposing California’s protections of assisted reproduction technology, noted Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. In the filing, Pitlyk asserted that “the practice of surrogacy has grave effects on society, such as diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother-child bond.”

She has also argued that surrogacy “is harmful to mothers and children” and is a “practice society should not be enforcing.” Her position — that states should treat embryos like humans — would likely outlaw abortion, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, Stern wrote. Vanita Gupta, a former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said Pitlyk’s confirmation “is deeply disturbing. She is exactly the type of judicial nominee that Trump promised to fill the courts with: an individual who threatens reproductive rights and access to abortion,” Gupta, now the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “With Pitlyk’s confirmation, the administration is betting on her to carry out their agenda for decades to come.”
Click to expand...


Do you not think that her level of inexperience should have disqualified her regardless of her views?
 
Junebug said:
Yeah, the ABA is going to come out and say “We reject this nominee because she is too conservative.”

Such liberal privilege on this thread.
Click to expand...

Do you think a candidate with such limited experience is suited for a lifetime appointment as a judge?
 
Junebug said:
Yeah, the ABA is going to come out and say “We reject this nominee because she is too conservative.”

Such liberal privilege on this thread.
Click to expand...

So when the conservative court makes a ruling, it’s not necessarily political. But when the ABA rejects says an unqualified candidate is unqualified, it’s political. Gotcha.
 
Well that and you added a lot more flowery language for how smart the conservative candidate is, and you threw in the line about kids.
 
Junebug said:
Here’s a link to her judicial questionnaire:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sarah Pitlyk Senate Questionnaire - PUBLIC.pdf

She went to Yale law. After her clerkship with Kavanaugh, she did regulatory / compliance work in pharma for a Biglaw firm for about 3-4 years. That’s an advice-based practice; you aren’t taking any depos there. She had 2 kids. Then she went to work for what looks like a now-defunct public interest firm and then Thomas Moore. It looks like she has lots of brief writing experience, which isn’t surprising given her background and given the nature of public interest work. She advocated hard for Kavanaugh’s elevation. She’s taken some pretty extreme right positions. She’s obviously very smart and she would be underutilized taking depositions vs writing briefs and strategizing on how to frame arguments. I would like to see a trial or two and and a few depositions under her belt, but federal civil case rarely go to trial, and Magistrate Judges handle discovery anyway. All in all it’s a solid resume, albeit thin in the trenches. She’s probably smarter than over 75% of the federal judges out there.
Click to expand...

“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,” Hubbard wrote. “She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top