Jump to content
OneHallyu Will Be Closing End Of 2023 ×
OneHallyu

Senate Confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court


KoreaxxLove

Recommended Posts

The US Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett as an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48. 

From Fox News: 

Quote

The Senate voted 52-48 on Monday night to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in a move that makes the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and Notre Dame law professor the third appointment to the high court by President Trump, solidifying his administration's legacy even further just a week before Election Day as he seeks a second term. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-amy-coney-barrett-vote

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shalnark said:

I'm not american and I have no idea about american politician, is this bad?

ACB is really highly qualified and by all accounts a very brilliant legal scholar. She's pledged to be an impartial judge who decides cases not on her own personal views/religion, but on the text of the Constitution. By all means, that sounds like a great choice for the Supreme Court. 

Her confirmation was a bit controversial because Republicans denied Obama's appointee in 2016 a hearing because they said the voters should decide in the election. Obama nominated Garland in February. The election was in November, so there was plenty of time, but the Senate is the body of Congress to vote on confirming Supreme Court justices, and the Senate was Republican, and Obama was a Democrat, so basically the Senate played politics and kept Obama's appointee from being nominated. Fast forward four years and RGB unfortunately passed away and the same Republican senate pushed through Trump's appointee very quickly, which made the left understandably mad. 

All that said ,some on the left have taken this as an excuse to bash ACB for her religion, etc. when there's no evidence to suggest that she's going to decide cases based on her religious leanings. She served as a clerk under a previous Supreme Court justice and has been widely praised as a Constitutional scholar who had bipartisan support when she was confirmed to a lower court. 

  • Dislike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jikrytae said:

She's a weird ultra-conservative cultist, so yes, it's very bad. And I don't mean that in the wider "The Republican Party has turned into a cult" sense. I mean she's literally a member of a religious cult.

One of the Supreme Court's biggest responsibilities is to essentially create laws where necessary, based on the Constitution and any other previous precedent. The problem is, there's really no one to stop them from just deciding however they please once they're on the bench. They can only be vetoed by a majority vote of their fellow justices, and a majority of the justices are now conservatives, who've shown a penchant for completely ignoring the Constitution's authority. 

The job of the judiciary is not to create laws. That's the job of the legislative branch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jikrytae said:

As usual, you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as precedent. What do you think happens when a case goes before the Supreme Court and a judgment is made? Do you think everything stays the same as before, just because they aren't part of the legislative branch? If there's already a concrete law for everything, why do we even need the Supreme Court to decide anything? Why not just remind everyone of the law and tell them to be on their merry way without the need for a court case? I guess Supreme Court judgments never led to the legalization of abortion or gay marriage, so you conservatives can just stop worrying about those. They aren't real laws, right? 🤦‍♂️

Lol, I understand precedent. That's not the same thing as creating laws. The Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. It doesn't create laws. 

The Supreme Court never created a law legalizing gay marriage or abortion. I'm gay and married, so I'm more than happy they ruled that we have the right to marry, but they didn't create a law to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jikrytae said:

You're grasping at straws. Those laws never would have gone into effect without the Supreme Court deciding they should. But it's nice to know you're able to take one of their past decisions for granted while most people on your side of the political aisle would love nothing more than to see it overturned and your rights denied. 

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm literally telling you how the system works. It's your failure to understand basic civics that the legislative branch creates laws and the judiciary either upholds or doesn't uphold them based on the Constitution and past precedent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jikrytae said:

You know what I said, regardless of whether you choose to face it or ignore it at your own convenience. That's all that matters.

I know that I didn't deflect from anything and know that you know I didn't and that's why you can't be specific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Back to Top