• 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!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Hey Brad and Shorty and other conservatives, just curious, what gets you the most excited about the conservative court? I'm serious. You sold out your party to Trump and have had to deal with it being run by him even though you *cough* didn't vote for him, you've forgotten all about deficits and you don't seem to mind despots and dictators any more - all for these judges.

Now you have them, so what makes you really warm and fuzzy about the upcoming court?
 
 
 
If the answer to the question “Does the Constitution allow X?” always comes down to who is asking and answering the questions, we don’t have laws. We only have opinions. And our “legal” system simply comes down to whose opinions matter and whose opinions don’t matter.
 
PhDeac said:
If the answer to the question “Does the Constitution allow X?” always comes down to who is asking and answering the questions, we don’t have laws. We only have opinions. And our “legal” system simply comes down to whose opinions matter and whose opinions don’t matter.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I’ve tried to mostly bite my tongue on Barrett because her confirmation seems like a foregone conclusion at this point but man her refusal to answer some of these questions is chilling.
 
PhDeac said:
If the answer to the question “Does the Constitution allow X?” always comes down to who is asking and answering the questions, we don’t have laws. We only have opinions. And our “legal” system simply comes down to whose opinions matter and whose opinions don’t matter.
Click to expand...

Particularly for an “originalist”.

Well, what does the text say?
 
None of the questions matter anyway, so you might as well use them as campaign opportunities. She could literally come into the chamber and rip beer bongs with Squee and Brett Kavanaugh’s frat bros while flicking everyone off, and she’s going to be a SCOTUS justice. Her confirmation was a done deal when RBG died.
 
This AP article has a pretty good summary of Barrett's opinions and and votes in various cases. It makes it pretty clear that she is definitely hard-right on almost every possible issue. One of the notable parts of the article concerns a decision she made regarding a case of racial discrimination in Illinois, in which a black transportation employee filed a workplace discrimination lawsuit. A three-judge panel (including Barrett) unanimously dismissed the lawsuit.

What's notable is what Barrett wrote about her decision: "“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “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." The article goes on to note that even Brett Kavanaugh, her future fellow SC justice, ruled in a similar case in 2013 as an appeals court judge that "in my view, being called the n-word by a supervisor...suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment...In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment actionable” under federal anti-discrimination laws.

So, having your work supervisor call you the n-word doesn't prove by itself that you're working in a hostile or abusive environment. Right.

Link: https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-discrimination-amy-coney-barrett-4380ef16b3da79836151bcaaa7eda224
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top