Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Amy Coney Barrett

You think Trump regrets appointing her?

We all regret it.

Yep

Say what you want but Trump is a poor judge of personnel and is easily swayed by others. He surrounded himself with deep state Rhinos and democrat plants in his first administration. He's only done marginally better in his second term. Problem with him picking SC justices and fed chairmen is that those are both very long term appointments, that cannot be removed. If they could be fired, it wouldn't be a big deal but bad decisions/choices there, create long lasting problems.

Probably does regret it but it is a problem of his own making. Just like was Powell at the FED.

I feel like she’s doing her job. Judges are supposed to be as impartial as humanly possible. Not devoted “loyal” followers of their appointers who just blindly do what they say. He still gets a lot of wins. For example, birthright citizenship stays how it always has (and an executive order should not be able to override a constitutional amendment that’s nuts) but in the bright side AIPAC can continue to buy all of our politicians.

She seems like a pretty thoughtful justice. I don't want a judge who is going to vote down the line for any president. Trump has swung for the fences with a lot of his executive orders. It is no surprise that he is going to strike out on some of them under judicial review.

Read Barrett's concurrence in the Hawaii gun control case for a good example of her thinking (she tears apart the dissent's reasoning).

This is correct. Yet he's too damn arrogant to ever admit it.

I can't believe I'm typing this.....but in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree with WolfDog.

First, let me start by saying I hate the way "birthright citizenship" works, currently. I would much rather it not be applicable if the parents are here illegally. Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment, to my knowledge, does not have any language to that effect. It simply states that anyone born here is a naturalized citizen. With that being the case, it shouldn't have been any surprise that any EO against it would be struck down. It SHOULDN'T be that easy to bypass or overrule a Constitutional Amendment. It should require Amending the Constitution....and that SHOULD be difficult, not something that can be done on a whim every time a different political party takes power.

Just think of the implications if the SCOTUS had ruled that the EO could legally overrule the 14th Amendment as it is currently written.....how many other Amendments could future (more liberal) presidents do the same thing to?

Upholding the authority of the Constitution isn't about your personal wants or desires on a particular subject...it's about preserving the authority of the constitution - and not just for the specific issue in question, but any other constitutional challenges in the future. Like I mentioned yesterday in a different post, the SCOTUS' job is not to write/modify law.....it's simply to interpret the Constitution and decide if something is legal or not, relative to the existing wording of the Constitution.

So with all of that being said, as much as I don't like what it means for this specific issue, I think they probably got this one right

Yep. Gorsuch, while better than Barrett was still a major step down from Scalia. Barrett and selecting Powell to head the FED, back during his first term were both terrible mistakes IMO.

I agree, but how many times has a liberal judge sided with a conservative? Seems like the conservative judges are always the ones being bipartisan.

liberal judges being "activist judges" shouldn't be a reason to criticize conservative ones for not being activist judges

I agree and wonder what our nation would be like if all the Justices decided the cases on actual law instead of political leanings? While we may not like it, her job is not to blindly follow Trump's wishes any more than Sotomayor's job is to automatically cast a vote against anything Trump wants. Fortunately, or unfortunately at times, I think Comey does her job and Sotomayor doesn't.

It's not perfect but it is still the best system of governance in the history of the World.

Gomer, with all due respect, based solely on your insanely great off road driving ability, I have to disagree. The constitution has not been interpreted literally as written, on any number of issues. Like this one for example: the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. When the 2nd was written, the most powerful weapons in the army were cannons and common folk could own and keep one at their house. As weapons advanced, it was determined that only the military could have certain ones. The supreme court upheld the federal ban on fully automatic weapons for civilian ownership that took effect on May 19, 1986. The SC saw no relevant use, for civilians to have full auto weapons, so they simply tightened up the definition of what the 2nd amendment actually meant. At the time the 14th was written, it was done solely to allow the freed slaves to obtain citizenship. At the time, you couldnt jump on a flight and be in the US from Europe, Africa, or Asia in a matter of hours. Birth tourism was not a thing and not even contemplated by the founding fathers. It was not ever even assumed, that people openly would violate immigration laws and come into the county illegally. Neither was it assumed that the US would ever have a completely open border and millions of people coming in each year, to have babies in the US as a way to almost guarantee their ability to get into the US themselves. This was a similar opportunity to tighten up exactly what the 14th means. They managed to do it for the 2nd but failed to do the same thing with the 14th. My issue is that they are free and loose as to when they interpret the constitution literally and when they feel it should not be interpreted exactly as it is written. One way or the other but not both and sometimes in between. It's either absolute or it is not. It's very clearly written.

You kinda just proved my point though....you criticized the SC for "tightening" what they thought the 2A meant instead of simply ratifying what it actually SAID.......then in the very next sentence criticized the current SC for not doing that very same thing.

I 100% agree that lack of consistency and judges taking political sides is a problem....but the answer to that problem isn't "well their team judged politically in the past, so "our team" should judge politically now". That is absolutely NOT a precedent we want to set, even if it might benefit us in the short term. The answer is to insist that judges rule impartially and uphold what the Constitution SAYS, not what we wish it said. There is a totally different procedure for making it say what you want it to say (and it is difficult, and for good reason)

Ammendment needs to be updated to reflect the current climate. Would have to first be proposed by 2/3 of congress. Good luck with those asshats stepping up.

Imo, No matter how the 14th Amendment is worded, children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals should face exorbitant hospital bills, just as American citizens endure astronomical medical costs in our broken healthcare system.

Any bikini pics of Justess Barrett?

I wonder if the liberals still think they need to pack the court?

I can agree with that to some extent and yes that was my point too. Rulings should all be impartial and made to uphold the constitution, as written. Constitutionally, Barrett's is a correct interpretation but it is not correct for today's political situation. Impartial, non-political rulings appear to be a thing of the past, and almost every time there is one that obviously goes against the framer's intent, it is happening in the liberal's favor. Only one side seems to be doing it. Same with the house and senate. Dems get control and ram everything they want through. Republicans get control and say, "well the rules of order say we cant do this and the democrats dont want us to, so it'll make them mad, so we'd better not push this through". What you're saying correct but you're also not correct in my opinion. Liberal justices are going to continue to make liberal rulings to undermine or revise the original intents of the founders and shape the constitution, through their rulings on it, into their liberal view, no matter what the constitution says or how explicitly it is written. If they are the only ones that are ruling to move the interpretation of the constitution in their favor, then we have a major issue that simply must be addressed. The more conservative justices (I'm not sure there is a true conservative justice currently on the bench) can either do the same, to shape rulings to favor a more conservative interpretation, similar to the original intent, or they can allow it to continue for years and years until they are fully consumed and all the standing rulings favor more liberal viewpoints and interpretations. The democrats play the long game and they are eating that elephant one piece at a time, over years and years. The blacks have finally wised up and are leaving the democrat party at a steady pace. The democrats see the hispanics and other illegals as their next voting base, and key to power, which is why they fight so hard to keep them here and having babies which coincidentally are US citizens. Small victories end up winning major battles. It will continue until one day we realize, hey, we're done. It's over, the constitution no longer resembles what was written and I'm not sure how but they won the battle and I didnt realize it when it was happening, but they did it one tiny ruling, one tiny new law, and one tiny little piece of the puzzle at a time. If conservatives and republicans fought and played the game like current liberals and democrats, they wouldnt exist. It's not hard to win when you dont follow the rules or laws, or you just bend them to your favor. The game is being played and it's the fourth quarter and conservatives are still sitting in the locker room, looking at a set of rules that were written 100 yrs ago and not realizing that the rulebook they are holding has been re-written and changed 50 times since then. Then again, maybe they do and they are just part of the uni-party. America will not ever be defeated militarily, it will be brought down, slowly, one piece at a time, from within.

I agree with everything you said....I just don't know how you fix it. I don't think "throwing out the rules" and "beating them at their own game" is the answer. If you do that, then you have legitimized their tactics and then all bets are off.

It's a terrible situation. We've painted ourselves into a corner by allowing it for this long, now you're damned if you do damned if you don't.