Female Supreme Court Nominee

[James_Gale]

Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might've wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but...

ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?

"Relatively inexperienced." In terms of judicial experience prior to appointment to the court, here's how it looks:

Sotomayor: 17 years
Alito: 16 years
Breyer: 14 years
Kavanaugh: 12 years
Gorsuch: 11 years
Roberts: 2 years
Thomas: 1 year
Kagan: 0 years

Obviously there are other kinds of experience that make for a good justice. But in terms of judicial experience, I don't think it would be unfair to say that she is "relatively inexperienced"--relative to the amount of judicial experience that the majority of the current justices had when they were appointed. (BTW, her judicial experience is actually closer to 3 years, so that puts her right about at the middle relative to the rest of the court.)

She will also be (if confirmed), with the exception of Thomas, the youngest appointee on the court. So "relatively inexperienced" in that sense as well.

If I were you, I'd just accept Pr. Austin's acknowledgement that he has no objection to her appointment, though he would prefer someone else. That's how it's supposed to be, isn't it?

One question bandied about is the impact on the Court of so little diversity of background. 


Four of the current justices graduated from Harvard Law School and the other four from Yale.  I am happy to see a nominee who would break that mold.  Judge Barrett graduated from Notre Dame.


Five of the eight justices were born in NY, NJ, or DC.  (Justice Breyer was born in California and spent most of his pre-DC professional life in Boston.  Justice Thomas was born in Georgia and has spent nearly all his professional life in DC.  Only Justice Gorsuch was born and worked extensively outside the Acela corridor (in Denver).)  Judge Barrett would add a bit of geographical diversity, having spent most of her adult life in the midwest.


Six of the eight justices served on Courts of Appeals in Acela corridor (Breyer in the First Circuit (Boston), Sotomayor in the Second Circuit (NYC), Alito in the Third Circuit (Philadelphia), and Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit (DC, obviously).  Justice Gorsuch served on the Tenth Circuit (Denver).  Justice Kagan had never been a judge, but by all accounts is an excellent jurist (setting aside whether someone agrees with a particular ruling).  Judge Barrett, from the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), would add a pinch of diversity on this front, but not much more.


All of the justices (and Judge Barrett) have spent the bulk of their careers in government (either as lawyers for the government or as judges), in academia, or both.  Judge Barrett would add no diversity on this front.


Some have pondered whether the Supreme Court would benefit from the appointment of a couple justices from a wider array of law schools and with at least a bit of variety in their professional backgrounds.  To be sure, academic or judicial experience equip a justice to consider and address the kind of arguments made by appellate advocates in a way that other professional experiences might not.  But might perspectives shaped by these other experiences help inform sound decision making?


I'm not certain but am inclined to think so.  Sadly, I don't expect to see any president break the mold any time soon.  The various interest groups likely would view such appointments as fraught with unacceptable uncertainty regarding how a prospective justice might rule.

[peter_speckhard]

I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.

[James_Gale]

I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.

This is only partly right.  Harvard and Yale indisputably boast two of the country's most prestigious law schools.  But Stanford, Chicago, and several other law schools are viewed within the profession as being very much at the same level.  And for what it's worth, Harvard and Yale also admit mediocrities.  I have encountered them in practice and during my time as one of the hiring partners for the NYC office of a national firm. 


I believe that the large number of Harvard and Yale grads reflects the impact of networks and connections.  The professors, judges, and leading government attorneys in the Acela corridor hire and promote from within their own networks. 

[John_Hannah]

Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN

If only there was a way to govern on the abortion issue without the Court rendering a "constitutional right" out of thin air on specious scientific and shoddy legal ground, perhaps we could avoid the trap.

You know the best way to get Republicans to stop voting Republican because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue?  Overturn Roe and return the issue to the several states where it belongs.  That's also the best way to get Democrats to stop voting Democrat because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue.  It's an interesting side effect of good law versus legislation by judicial fiat.  Back when the Court avoided "political questions," we didn't tend to worry so much about what a president might do in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy.  Back when they were all judges instead of activists, it didn't matter nearly as much.

As ever, Scalia put it best.  Ever a master of rhetoric, he cited to Dred Scott as an example of bad precedent which ought be overturned, and to the dissent by Justice Curtis predicting the very errors the Casey Court was making at the time of this dissent.  At the end of the dissent, he wrote the following:

"There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. 'It is the dimension' of authority, they say, to 'cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.' Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case -- its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself 'call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.'

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be 'speedily and finally settled' by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Indeed.  Would that even one of the plurality have listened back then.

The quest for the villain never ends. Who is the villain in the abortion permission? President? Judges? Democrats? Mainline churches? Liberal Catholics? Liberal Lutherans? Many are worthy of suspicion. The real villain is half of the American people who approve and strongly resist change to the status quo.

The Dred Scott comparison is indeed apt. In time it will be decided to reverse the 1973 decision. Let us hope that it is not as wrenching as when in the 19th century we had the Civil War and the aftermath of unrest that lingers to this day. Of course, there are those who relish the idea of war. I am retired Army and hardly am willing to join them.

Best wishes to Judge Coney Barrett.

Peace, JOHN

[David Garner]

The quest for the villain never ends. Who is the villain in the abortion permission? President? Judges? Democrats? Mainline churches? Liberal Catholics? Liberal Lutherans? Many are worthy of suspicion. The real villain is half of the American people who approve and strongly resist change to the status quo.

The Dred Scott comparison is indeed apt. In time it will be decided to reverse the 1973 decision. Let us hope that it is not as wrenching as when in the 19th century we had the Civil War and the aftermath of unrest that lingers to this day. Of course, there are those who relish the idea of war. I am retired Army and hardly am willing to join them.

Agree on all counts.  Especially war.

But that's where I think Justice Scalia truly hit the nail on the head.  The reason people lose their minds over Supreme Court nominations right now is the "balance of the Court" -- that is, it is very important to get like-minded people on the Court because the Court can rule the entire country from the bench.

The question is, why should it?  And don't we want justices like Judge Comey-Barrett who respect the Constitution enough to limit their own power, and the Court's own power?  Who leave political questions to the people instead of 9 unelected black-robed tyrants?  Scalia's entire point was that the Court meddling in these areas leaves the victor with a tenuous victory and the loser feeling cheated.  That is a better prescription for war than simply repealing Roe and returning the matter to the states.  Why?  Because there are elected representatives in each state who may be persuaded to the right cause, and failing that, voted out should the electorate so decide.  Which cause you think is right matters little.  In a democracy, the right to self-government is paramount.  When that fails, you see the vitriol and lying and cheating and so forth we have right now with Supreme Court appointments.

It shouldn't matter this much.  It only does because judges do whatever they want to get the outcome they desire.  May soon-to-be Justice Comey-Barrett rectify that with all due haste.

[Pr. Luke Zimmerman]

I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.

This is only partly right.  Harvard and Yale indisputably boast two of the country's most prestigious law schools.  But Stanford, Chicago, and several other law schools are viewed within the profession as being very much at the same level.  And for what it's worth, Harvard and Yale also admit mediocrities.  I have encountered them in practice and during my time as one of the hiring partners for the NYC office of a national firm. 


I believe that the large number of Harvard and Yale grads reflects the impact of networks and connections.  The professors, judges, and leading government attorneys in the Acela corridor hire and promote from within their own networks.

I think that it’s interesting that President Trump’s “short list” of potential Supreme Court appointees includes numerous graduates from law schools other than Harvard or Yale. Some examples include the following Federal Appeals Court judges:
- Britt Grant (Stanford)
- James Ho (Chicago)
- Allison Jones Rushing (Duke)
- Amal Thapar (California-Berkeley)

Though basically a layman when it comes to legal matters, I do like seeing other law schools represented on that list. I would think/hope that a Democratic Party President could find potential appointees with a similar variety of law school training.

[Richard Johnson]

In terms of diversity, it's also interesting to note that, if ACB is confirmed, the Supreme Court will consist of six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and then Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and may still consider himself Catholic, though he attends an Episcopal church. That would have been unthinkable 25 years ago.

[peter_speckhard]

In terms of diversity, it's also interesting to note that, if ACB is confirmed, the Supreme Court will consist of six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and then Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and may still consider himself Catholic, though he attends an Episcopal church. That would have been unthinkable 25 years ago.

I think that is because Judaism and Roman Catholicism seek to harmonize the faith with Reason more than do Protestants. That means they have more experience with moral reasoning that doesn't depend on revelation.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

But that's where I think Justice Scalia truly hit the nail on the head.  The reason people lose their minds over Supreme Court nominations right now is the "balance of the Court" -- that is, it is very important to get like-minded people on the Court because the Court can rule the entire country from the bench.

The question is, why should it?  And don't we want justices like Judge Comey-Barrett who respect the Constitution enough to limit their own power, and the Court's own power?  Who leave political questions to the people instead of 9 unelected black-robed tyrants?  Scalia's entire point was that the Court meddling in these areas leaves the victor with a tenuous victory and the loser feeling cheated.  That is a better prescription for war than simply repealing Roe and returning the matter to the states.  Why?  Because there are elected representatives in each state who may be persuaded to the right cause, and failing that, voted out should the electorate so decide.  Which cause you think is right matters little.  In a democracy, the right to self-government is paramount.  When that fails, you see the vitriol and lying and cheating and so forth we have right now with Supreme Court appointments.

It shouldn't matter this much.  It only does because judges do whatever they want to get the outcome they desire.  May soon-to-be Justice Comey-Barrett rectify that with all due haste.

231 years after ratifying the Constitution, and 155 years after Appomattox we are still trying to figure out whether the United States of America is Republic in its own right or an amalgamation of semi-autonomous States.

Social Justice Warriors of all stripes have figured out that it is generally easier, quicker, and cheaper to enact a single "law of the land" either by Judicial fiat (usually but not always SCOTUS) or by leveraging (I call it, extorting) Federal funding to States adopting some type of legislation; ie, the nationwide 0.08 DUI standard, the nationwide age 21 drinking age, etc, etc.

So to return abortion regulation to the states would be to increase their work fifty-fold.

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

More difficult, more time consuming, more costly...that is the way that we must go if we are to have any semblance of national unity.

Which should never be confused with uniformity.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

[Dan Fienen]

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.

[B Hughes]

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics

[James_Gale]

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.

I think that you may be missing his point?  I think that he's asking whether the electoral college treats all of New York as if it is the same, all of California if it is the same, etc.  If that is his question, the answer is that neither the Constitution nor any federal law envisions an electoral college that necessarily does any such thing.   The Constitution does not tell any state how to select its electors.  That is left to state legislatures.  And indeed, although none does so, a state legislature could decide to appoint electors directly rather than basing the appointment on the results of an election.  Moreover, and this gets to Pr. Stoffregen's question, state legislatures choosing to use elections to select electors do not need to award those electors on a winner-take-all basis.  Indeed, two states--Maine and Nebraska--do not award electors this way.  The statewide winner in those states gets two electors (corresponding to the state's two Senate seats) and the winner in each Congressional district wins the elector corresponding to the single representative serving that district.  Another alternative, not used anywhere, would be for a state to allocate its electors in direct proportion to the results of the popular vote within the state.  None does.  The fact that all of California is treated the same therefore is not an inherent feature of the electoral college.  Rather, it reflects a choice made by California's state legislature.  The same is true in the District of Columbia and in every state aside from Maine and Nebraska.

[James J Eivan]

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics

Sounds more like systemic racism (assuming it really exists).  The vast majority of civilization knows that parents who adopt accept challenges that natural parents do not face ... creating a mixed race family has its special set of additional and unique challenges ... Apparently ACB is so far above reproach that in desperation the proverbial race card is pulled ... how far has the nation declined.

[Jim Butler]

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

I'm not sure of your point.

What does the electoral college have to do with COVID standards?

I'm one of those people who believes that the best government is local government: the local town/city council is better than state government and the state is better than Federal.

In terms of COVID, Massachusetts is one of the hardest hit states in the country, yet we have counties that have had very few cases. At the same time, cities like Everett were hit hard and are still struggling to get their caseload down. While the commonwealth will allow for greater numbers in restaurants and eating at bars as of Sept. 28, many towns and cities are not. So the argument that one size does not fit all makes perfect sense.

But I have no idea what this to with the electoral college.