In what way is Barrett
Extreme?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/19/20 at 17:54:44:


She said in her confirmation hearing that the law that makes it legal for married couples to purchase contraception, is not a 'super precedent' and is open to being reversed.

That's just one off the top of my head that comes to mind.

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/19/20 at 18:01:43:


When you change the meaning of words and phrases, we’re not talking about the same thing. Biden wants to pack the court. Trump doesn’t. End. Full stop.

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/19/20 at 18:10:23:


You didn’t watch the hearing did you? You watched clips on the news or CNN or MSNBC right?

No, you didn’t watch the hearings and certainly not with a discerning ear.

The super-precedent is a scholarly approach others agree with and is certainly based on common sense. And had you listened to the hearings and other witnesses, you would have heard that. And you would have heard part of that definition is based upon the fact that some legislative body would have to debate and pass legislation going against established principles from one of these super precedents.

For example a legislative body would have to pass legislation overturning the foundational principles behind Brown versus the Board of Education. After that, an injured party would file suit and a lower court would need to rule in favor of the legislation. That would need to repeat itself as the process moved upwards through the system, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. The likelihood of that happening is beyond the description of unlikely. For that to happen, the nation would be in such disarray, we would have long since ceased being the United States of America. There is wide consensus on five or six of these super-precedents and she listed them all. Go look it up.

Roe v. Wade is precedent , and strong precedent , but it’s not a super precedent . The fact that there are court cases constantly, protest, elections are won or loss based upon someone’s abortion view, clearly and without question defines Roe v. Wade as less than a super precedent.

But, it’s unlikely that that would be overturned without dozens and dozens of states passing state laws outlawing abortion as provided by Roe v. Wade.  Now there will likely be further restrictions. I think a lot of people would agree with certain parental consent laws and restrictions on late term. But Roe v. Wade as it originally was written is not going anywhere.

There was a discussion during Neil Gorsuch’s hearing on the topic. It’s an established legal topic of debate. Again, if your video is claiming this is not a thing or something she made up, like I said, you didn’t watch the hearings, you watched a few clips.

Great article in the WaPo on Biden's alternatives to 'court packing' as it were.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/20/biden-court-packing-altern...

There is, however, a better way for Democrats to achieve their policy goals without responding to Republican court-packing with court-packing of their own.

For if Democrats are able to expand the Supreme Court, then they could just as well use the same legislative power to overturn many of the worst decisions of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts over the last 30 years and stymie a new conservative majority on the court in its quest to dismantle the regulatory state.

Again, you’ve simply wrong. Super-precedent is an accepted line of thinking when the topic is stari decisive.

Yeah well it's not up to you to declare whatever you want to be true by unilateral decision with absolutely nothing to back you up.

I won't bother quoting from this 2005 article on the origins of 'super precedent' but you'll see that it means whatever an ideological judge wants it to mean. For some 'Roe v Wade' is 'super precedent' for others like Barrett, it is not. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/so-do-you-believe-in-superpre...

Super precedent, ostensibly is a form of an untouchable stare decisis. But if what is untouchable is simply a matter of opinion then there is effectively no such thing as 'super precedent' that has any meaning. This is why we have 4/4 decisions in some cases.

But this article may interest you, or at least keep you awake at night, it contains a bewildering array of heavy weapons other than so called 'court packing', that a Democratic congress can use to address a rogue Supreme Court. https://www.vox.com/21514454/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-packing-voting-r...

Let's hope the Democrats use their time wisely.