The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Stream to watch day 2 of the hearing: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/nomination-of-the-honorable-amy-coney-barrett-to-be-an-associate-justice-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-day-2

Agenda will be approximately 11 hours of questioning [30 minutes/senator]. We expect 30 minute breaks for lunch and dinner, so a 12 hour day.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So Graham's agenda is to remind the Senate of how a court works apparently.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Feinstein: Does federal law allow a president to delay an election?

Barrett: Takes 3 minutes to say "maybe".

Do we really want to put this potential democracy opponent on the Supreme Court, where she is not bound by precedent?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Props to Grassley for asking about the first step act. Her dissent is certainly concerning and needs to be carefully explained.

(Note: I'm not able to watch the hearing in real time, props to the Judiciary commitee as usual for letting me pause and resume the stream right where I was. Comments may be dated]

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/richburroughs/status/1316028015411826689

[lfromnj]

Unanimous decision btw although one by a senior Reagan judge and the other also a  Reagan Judge. Never realized how many R appointed judges are on the 7th fwiw. Why not actually read through the full opinion and facts of the case which these 3 judges actually did?
https://tinyurl.com/y5bck47d

According to the Department, Smith was far from a model employee.  Early  in  his  training,  one  of  his  supervisors  re-ported that he challenged the instructions that he was given, which created a “serious issue” for his training and develop-ment. Another supervisor said that Smith regularly “fail[ed] to  remember  info”  and  “ha[d]  a  very  hard  time  following  basic   instructions.”   Particularly   troubling,   however,   was   Smith’s  record  of  unsafe  conduct.  Once,  while  driving  in  an  express  lane  with  Marcello  Valle,  one  of  his  supervisors,  Smith approached a place where the lanes divided. Valle told him  to  pick  a  lane;  instead,  Smith  stopped  short  in  traffic—only thirty feet from the concrete pillar dividing the lanes. On another  occasion,  Smith  drove  away  from  a  gas  pump  with  the nozzle still inserted in the truck

On  January  3,  2014,  the  Department  sent  Smith  a  “State-ment of Charges,” which sought to fire him on the ground of his  unsatisfactory  work  performance.  On  January  16,  Smith  had  a  run-in  with  Colbert,  who  had  recently  learned  that  Smith had charged him, along with other supervisors, of ra-cial  discrimination  and  retaliation.  According  to  Smith,  Col-bert, who was also black, was “very angry” and made several confrontational  remarks:  that  there  would  be  “eighty-one  of  us  against  one  of  you  when  we  go  to  trial”;  that  Smith  was  going to lose everything that he owned, including his house and car; and that he was a “stupid ass ni[].”

There we go the supervisor was also black, it doesn't fully defend the claim of racial discrimination but it does give significant evidence that well perhaps it wasn't racial discrimination but just that Smith was a sh*t employee?

Other supervisors did use profanity against especially when he did stupid sh*t as outlined above and although that could be considered fireable in a workplace it does not amount to racial discrimination and that is an issue for the City of Chicago to solve.

[Skill and Chance]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Nope. If you have evidence of that from the hearing I'm happy to consider it though.

[lfromnj]

https://wgme.com/news/local/sen-collins-confirms-she-will-vote-against-judge-coney-barrett


Collins a no vote.

[Beet]

Unanimous decision btw although one by a senior Reagan judge and the other also a  Reagan Judge. Never realized how many R appointed judges are on the 7th fwiw. Why not actually read through the full opinion and facts of the case which these 3 judges actually did?
https://tinyurl.com/y5bck47d

According to the Department, Smith was far from a model employee.  Early  in  his  training,  one  of  his  supervisors  re-ported that he challenged the instructions that he was given, which created a “serious issue” for his training and develop-ment. Another supervisor said that Smith regularly “fail[ed] to  remember  info”  and  “ha[d]  a  very  hard  time  following  basic   instructions.”   Particularly   troubling,   however,   was   Smith’s  record  of  unsafe  conduct.  Once,  while  driving  in  an  express  lane  with  Marcello  Valle,  one  of  his  supervisors,  Smith approached a place where the lanes divided. Valle told him  to  pick  a  lane;  instead,  Smith  stopped  short  in  traffic—only thirty feet from the concrete pillar dividing the lanes. On another  occasion,  Smith  drove  away  from  a  gas  pump  with  the nozzle still inserted in the truck

On  January  3,  2014,  the  Department  sent  Smith  a  “State-ment of Charges,” which sought to fire him on the ground of his  unsatisfactory  work  performance.  On  January  16,  Smith  had  a  run-in  with  Colbert,  who  had  recently  learned  that  Smith had charged him, along with other supervisors, of ra-cial  discrimination  and  retaliation.  According  to  Smith,  Col-bert, who was also black, was “very angry” and made several confrontational  remarks:  that  there  would  be  “eighty-one  of  us  against  one  of  you  when  we  go  to  trial”;  that  Smith  was  going to lose everything that he owned, including his house and car; and that he was a “stupid ass ni[].”

There we go the supervisor was also black, it doesn't fully defend the claim of racial discrimination but it does give significant evidence that well perhaps it wasn't racial discrimination but just that Smith was a sh*t employee?

Other supervisors did use profanity against especially when he did stupid sh*t as outlined above and although that could be considered fireable in a workplace it does not amount to racial discrimination and that is an issue for the City of Chicago to solve.

That will not be reassuring to black workers who get called the n word by white supervisors, because she explicitly put it in her ruling that being called that epithet by your employer does not change your subjective experience in the workplace. Had she said this only applied when the supervisor was black, that would have been one thing, but she didn't. Her defenders are making up arguments that she didn't use to try and justify her reasoning.

Also, when did you become a Tiki Torcher? You used to be a reasonable libertarian.

[Beet]

Judge Barrett’s Record: Siding With Businesses Over Workers

In the August case, the issue before Barrett -- which she could ultimately end up adjudicating at the Supreme Court -- revolved around Grubhub delivery drivers’ allegations that the company had violated federal law by not paying them overtime. It also involved the company’s effort to deny workers an impartial forum to adjudicate the dispute through mandatory arbitration agreements. in Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., she instead forcefully sided with Grubhub. Barrett held that the drivers were not “a class of workers” who typically engage in interstate commerce and therefore are not protected by labor law for transportation workers.

Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

[lfromnj]

Unanimous decision btw although one by a senior Reagan judge and the other also a  Reagan Judge. Never realized how many R appointed judges are on the 7th fwiw. Why not actually read through the full opinion and facts of the case which these 3 judges actually did?
https://tinyurl.com/y5bck47d

According to the Department, Smith was far from a model employee.  Early  in  his  training,  one  of  his  supervisors  re-ported that he challenged the instructions that he was given, which created a “serious issue” for his training and develop-ment. Another supervisor said that Smith regularly “fail[ed] to  remember  info”  and  “ha[d]  a  very  hard  time  following  basic   instructions.”   Particularly   troubling,   however,   was   Smith’s  record  of  unsafe  conduct.  Once,  while  driving  in  an  express  lane  with  Marcello  Valle,  one  of  his  supervisors,  Smith approached a place where the lanes divided. Valle told him  to  pick  a  lane;  instead,  Smith  stopped  short  in  traffic—only thirty feet from the concrete pillar dividing the lanes. On another  occasion,  Smith  drove  away  from  a  gas  pump  with  the nozzle still inserted in the truck

On  January  3,  2014,  the  Department  sent  Smith  a  “State-ment of Charges,” which sought to fire him on the ground of his  unsatisfactory  work  performance.  On  January  16,  Smith  had  a  run-in  with  Colbert,  who  had  recently  learned  that  Smith had charged him, along with other supervisors, of ra-cial  discrimination  and  retaliation.  According  to  Smith,  Col-bert, who was also black, was “very angry” and made several confrontational  remarks:  that  there  would  be  “eighty-one  of  us  against  one  of  you  when  we  go  to  trial”;  that  Smith  was  going to lose everything that he owned, including his house and car; and that he was a “stupid ass ni[].”

There we go the supervisor was also black, it doesn't fully defend the claim of racial discrimination but it does give significant evidence that well perhaps it wasn't racial discrimination but just that Smith was a sh*t employee?

Other supervisors did use profanity against especially when he did stupid sh*t as outlined above and although that could be considered fireable in a workplace it does not amount to racial discrimination and that is an issue for the City of Chicago to solve.

That will not be reassuring to black workers who get called the n word by white supervisors, because she explicitly put it in her ruling that being called that epithet by your employer does not change your subjective experience in the workplace. Had she said this only applied when the supervisor was black, that would have been one thing, but she didn't. Her defenders are making up arguments that she didn't use to try and justify her reasoning.

Also, when did you become a Tiki Torcher? You used to be a reasonable libertarian.

The point was this case was specific, there wasn't any broad ruling here, it was just a narrow ruling based on specific instances that happened here. Overall the employee mostly just faced generic abuse for being a bad employee.

Click my signature for the second question.

[Beet]

Unanimous decision btw although one by a senior Reagan judge and the other also a  Reagan Judge. Never realized how many R appointed judges are on the 7th fwiw. Why not actually read through the full opinion and facts of the case which these 3 judges actually did?
https://tinyurl.com/y5bck47d

According to the Department, Smith was far from a model employee.  Early  in  his  training,  one  of  his  supervisors  re-ported that he challenged the instructions that he was given, which created a “serious issue” for his training and develop-ment. Another supervisor said that Smith regularly “fail[ed] to  remember  info”  and  “ha[d]  a  very  hard  time  following  basic   instructions.”   Particularly   troubling,   however,   was   Smith’s  record  of  unsafe  conduct.  Once,  while  driving  in  an  express  lane  with  Marcello  Valle,  one  of  his  supervisors,  Smith approached a place where the lanes divided. Valle told him  to  pick  a  lane;  instead,  Smith  stopped  short  in  traffic—only thirty feet from the concrete pillar dividing the lanes. On another  occasion,  Smith  drove  away  from  a  gas  pump  with  the nozzle still inserted in the truck

On  January  3,  2014,  the  Department  sent  Smith  a  “State-ment of Charges,” which sought to fire him on the ground of his  unsatisfactory  work  performance.  On  January  16,  Smith  had  a  run-in  with  Colbert,  who  had  recently  learned  that  Smith had charged him, along with other supervisors, of ra-cial  discrimination  and  retaliation.  According  to  Smith,  Col-bert, who was also black, was “very angry” and made several confrontational  remarks:  that  there  would  be  “eighty-one  of  us  against  one  of  you  when  we  go  to  trial”;  that  Smith  was  going to lose everything that he owned, including his house and car; and that he was a “stupid ass ni[].”

There we go the supervisor was also black, it doesn't fully defend the claim of racial discrimination but it does give significant evidence that well perhaps it wasn't racial discrimination but just that Smith was a sh*t employee?

Other supervisors did use profanity against especially when he did stupid sh*t as outlined above and although that could be considered fireable in a workplace it does not amount to racial discrimination and that is an issue for the City of Chicago to solve.

That will not be reassuring to black workers who get called the n word by white supervisors, because she explicitly put it in her ruling that being called that epithet by your employer does not change your subjective experience in the workplace. Had she said this only applied when the supervisor was black, that would have been one thing, but she didn't. Her defenders are making up arguments that she didn't use to try and justify her reasoning.

Also, when did you become a Tiki Torcher? You used to be a reasonable libertarian.

The point was this case was specific, there wasn't any broad ruling here, it was just a narrow ruling based on specific instances that happened here. Overall the employee mostly just faced generic abuse for being a bad employee.

As Supreme Court Justice she will be setting precedent, which is rather the point. Potential plaintiffs will look at the reasoning she has written and be dissuaded from even bringing cases based on what she has written. In any case, I would suggest you go and talk to black employees potentially suing for racial discrimination relief that all this doesn't matter.

Click my signature for the second question.

I have signature turned off because they are deeply distracting and repetitive. Could you just provide a link?

[lfromnj]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiPdd-bfNc

My sig.

Again if this case went to SCOTUS it would be about as precedent setting as the Colorado Bakery case.

[KaiserDave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiPdd-bfNc

My sig.

Again if this case went to SCOTUS it would be about as precedent setting as the Colorado Bakery case.

You support Affirmative Action in government contracts?

[Blue3]

So she said today she’s fine with overruling Roe v Wade, that sexual orientation doesn’t exist and is just preference, and a fly landed on her.

[Calthrina950]

https://wgme.com/news/local/sen-collins-confirms-she-will-vote-against-judge-coney-barrett


Collins a no vote.

This isn't going to make any difference. Collins knows that her vote is not needed to confirm Barrett-very much unlike Kavanaugh, where her vote was critical in deciding his fate. Moreover, her constituents aren't going to forgive her for that Kavanaugh vote or for her acquittal of Trump, so she'll derive no electoral benefit from it at this juncture. Most people see it as a ploy on her part to win reelection.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1316131227204755456

[Frodo]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Absolutely not. 

[Calthrina950]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Absolutely not. 

If anything, Barrett looks like she will be to the right of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, placing her in the Court's most conservative wing, where Thomas and Alito are located. This will be the largest ideological shift in the Court's history since Thomas himself replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

[Frodo]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Absolutely not.  

If anything, Barrett looks like she will be to the right of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, placing her in the Court's most conservative wing, where Thomas and Alito are located. This will be the largest ideological shift in the Court's history since Thomas himself replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

Forget all that right-left nonsense -the fact she refused to commit to what were democratic norms like a peaceful transition of power is by itself disqualifying regardless of what else she says.  My question is are we going to evolve into an illiberal democracy like Hungary by the time she is all settled in to the Supreme Court?   

[freepcrusher]

I hope some dem senators will look at her in the eyes and say: "you think we're going to let you sit on this court for 30-40 years? You thought wrong. We will remove you from this court somehow some way".

[Xeuma]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Absolutely not.  

If anything, Barrett looks like she will be to the right of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, placing her in the Court's most conservative wing, where Thomas and Alito are located. This will be the largest ideological shift in the Court's history since Thomas himself replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

Forget all that right-left nonsense -the fact she refused to commit to what were democratic norms like a peaceful transition of power is by itself disqualifying regardless of what else she says.  My question is are we going to evolve into an illiberal democracy like Hungary by the time she is all settled in to the Supreme Court?   

Has a justice ever committed to anything while being questioned by the committee?

[Frodo]

Anyone else think ACB has serious Souter or at least Roberts potential down the line?

Absolutely not.  

If anything, Barrett looks like she will be to the right of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, placing her in the Court's most conservative wing, where Thomas and Alito are located. This will be the largest ideological shift in the Court's history since Thomas himself replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

Forget all that right-left nonsense -the fact she refused to commit to what were democratic norms like a peaceful transition of power is by itself disqualifying regardless of what else she says.  My question is are we going to evolve into an illiberal democracy like Hungary by the time she is all settled in to the Supreme Court?  

Has a justice ever committed to anything while being questioned by the committee?

Clearly a Supreme Court nominee who doesn't commit to protecting the very norms that make us a democracy doesn't bother you in the least.  These are no-brainer questions that normally would elicit a 'Yes, of course I do.  What the hell kind of question is that?'

[tmthforu94]

Today has been a constructive hearing where all sides have been respectful and many views discussed. Thankfully Senate Democrats didnt act like Atlas/Twitter Democrats. Too many politically charged questions though which would be inappropriate for her to answer, and thankfully she held firm to both sides doing it.