Just as only Nixon could go to China, only another woman, ACB could take out the can of whoopass and use it on KJB. Of course, it still leaves the "RAYCISS!" dodge, which could have been avoided by allowing Thomas to take a whack at her, but then, he would have been called a "SEXIST!" Besides, Thomas is too much the Southern Gentleman to insult a woman, even if that woman can't define the term.
Although some of her decisions are still suspect, it’s a shame that Barrett has to share the stigma of being a DEI hire with that communist nitwit. At least they share only one of two DEI attributes – although the other justice says she doesn't know what it is.
I get your point, but I don't think Barrett was a DEI hire.
She was first in her class at Notre Dame Law School, which is ranked about 20th -- well ahead of many Ivy League law schools. Law school grading is anonymous, so there's no possibility that she benefited from being a woman. I'm guessing she was accepted at the Ivy law schools but chose Notre Dame because she is devoutly Catholic.
She clerked for a renowned federal judge, then clerked for Justice Scalia (a person not known for making DEI hires).
She was a visiting prof at UVa Law School, which is ranked in the top 5 nationwide, and then became a full prof at Notre Dame where she was named Distinguished Professor of the Year three times. She then became a judge on the 7th Circuit before being nominated to the Supreme Court.
To me, this illustrates one of the many pernicious aspects of affirmative action. Namely, that all women and minorities are assumed to be quota hires when in fact some are not. Those who are not are unfairly stigmatized.
I don't see her as a DEI hire either, but many do. As you say, that's the problem with promotion based on anything other than merit; even if you were the best, people will always wonder. Certainly ACB is highly qualified, but would she have been confirmed if she were a man - especially if a woman were in the running also? Probably not.
Ask me sometime about the "transplant surgeon" making the rounds when I was in medical school.
And by the way: I live about 50 miles from Charlottesville. UVA Law ain't what it used to be.
Justice "Affirmative Action" Jackson is on the court for one reason and one reason only: DEI. She is intellectually deficient and an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Sotomayer isn't much better but at least she isn't completely ignorant. She's just wrong and highly prejudiced. Jackson is simply way over her skiis.
I am so relieved that Biden only got one nomination, and it was to replace another liberal. This also made me reflect on what a different world in which we would be living in terms of SCOTUS appointments had Hillary managed to get in. It truly makes me sick to think about that. I heard someone in the media talking about the takedown by Barrett and noted these two women are relatively young and have a long time to serve together. It should get interesting. It is becoming more and more apparent that Ketanji is way out in front of her skis.
Yes, Jackson is much more focused on extreme language than on careful analysis. I personally could have written a more persuasive dissent than hers. But, alas, persuading seems not to be her objective.
'JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary" which says it all in Justice Barrett's writing about Jackson's dissent.
If you were sitting in judgement of whether Brown deserved a seat on the Supreme Court, and she lacked the ability to define a woman, (for whatever reason), how could anyone possibly consider that she qualified? It’s just as frightening to know they did.
Yes. And the main reason is that she was outright lying to Congress. She knows what a woman is, but can't say it in the face of the radical left (of which it seems she's a big part).
Democrats never stop to think that they may LOVE this ruling the next time a Democrat is in the White House. If Kamala Harris were President(thank God she's not!) they would be cheering this ruling.
A very thorough, clear, trenchant discussion of the matter. Thanks. Now I’d like to know why you think Trump will likely not prevail on the 14th Amendment challenge.
Nearly all real scholars agree with me. Moreover, the Justices themselves (and not just the three libs) suggested in their tone at oral argument on the universal injunction issue that they were skeptical of the birthright argument (though it wasn't technically at issue).
Finally, if the conservatives were convinced by Trump's birthright argument, they could have simply decided that issue, too, rather than reserving it for another day.
Trump will lose on the birthright argument in every court (as he has so far) and the matter will ultimately wind up at the Supremes (or maybe they won't even accept it, and instead just let the lower court decisions stand). If they do accept the case, the decision is apt to be about 7-2 or maybe even 9-0 against Trump.
I know this view make our tribe hate me. And I wish I were wrong -- birthright citizenship is a bad thing, especially when we have 20 million illegals in the country. But I'm trying to make predictions, not lead cheers.
You may be right, but I think there are good reasons why you may be wrong. I don’t know how anyone can make good sense of the “under the jurisdiction of” clause, without making it redundant, except to mean that birthright citizenship only applies to those born to legal residents of the USA. Hopefully at least five of the judges will have the courage to not ignore the obvious meaning of this clause in their interpretation of the 14th amendment.
As for the meaning of the "under the jurisdiction" clause:
That clause was clearly intended to cover babies born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats -- who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they have diplomatic immunity.
So a baby born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomat is not a U.S. citizen, because that baby, as a family member of a diplomat, is not subject to our jurisdiction -- the baby has diplomatic immunity.
One can argue that the same clause excludes babies born to illegals, but it's a harder argument, since illegals and their babies ARE subject to our jurisdiction -- that's how we deport them, after all.
The plain meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment are thus contrary to Trump's position. He may still win, and I hope he does, but I doubt it.
The point of the walk down memory lane was that the judiciary derives it's authority from the Constitution and that there was no authority for national injunctions therein and that 200 years of precedent substantiates that. Not only did it take out the Plaintiffs argument and Justice Brown's opinion, it has ramifications for other hot topics like the 2nd Amendment. It is clear that for the majority of this Court it is not about policy whims rather it is about law, some if it very old. It also puts the impetus to make policy changes squarely on Congress. Where it belongs.
In general, federal judges selected and approved by Democrats interpret the U.S. Constitution not by what it says but by what they say it says. The right to abortions on demand is not in the Constitution, but that didn’t stop judges from saying it was in Roe versus Wade. And judges blocking executive orders issued by Trump do so, not because they’re illegal, but because they don’t align with Democratic Party values and policies (open borders, climate regulations, admissions and hiring based on skin color, abortion on demand, restrictions on freed speech except when the speech is directed at Israel, etc. and so forth).
Just as only Nixon could go to China, only another woman, ACB could take out the can of whoopass and use it on KJB. Of course, it still leaves the "RAYCISS!" dodge, which could have been avoided by allowing Thomas to take a whack at her, but then, he would have been called a "SEXIST!" Besides, Thomas is too much the Southern Gentleman to insult a woman, even if that woman can't define the term.
Although some of her decisions are still suspect, it’s a shame that Barrett has to share the stigma of being a DEI hire with that communist nitwit. At least they share only one of two DEI attributes – although the other justice says she doesn't know what it is.
I get your point, but I don't think Barrett was a DEI hire.
She was first in her class at Notre Dame Law School, which is ranked about 20th -- well ahead of many Ivy League law schools. Law school grading is anonymous, so there's no possibility that she benefited from being a woman. I'm guessing she was accepted at the Ivy law schools but chose Notre Dame because she is devoutly Catholic.
She clerked for a renowned federal judge, then clerked for Justice Scalia (a person not known for making DEI hires).
She was a visiting prof at UVa Law School, which is ranked in the top 5 nationwide, and then became a full prof at Notre Dame where she was named Distinguished Professor of the Year three times. She then became a judge on the 7th Circuit before being nominated to the Supreme Court.
To me, this illustrates one of the many pernicious aspects of affirmative action. Namely, that all women and minorities are assumed to be quota hires when in fact some are not. Those who are not are unfairly stigmatized.
I don't see her as a DEI hire either, but many do. As you say, that's the problem with promotion based on anything other than merit; even if you were the best, people will always wonder. Certainly ACB is highly qualified, but would she have been confirmed if she were a man - especially if a woman were in the running also? Probably not.
Ask me sometime about the "transplant surgeon" making the rounds when I was in medical school.
And by the way: I live about 50 miles from Charlottesville. UVA Law ain't what it used to be.
Justice "Affirmative Action" Jackson is on the court for one reason and one reason only: DEI. She is intellectually deficient and an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Sotomayer isn't much better but at least she isn't completely ignorant. She's just wrong and highly prejudiced. Jackson is simply way over her skiis.
I am so relieved that Biden only got one nomination, and it was to replace another liberal. This also made me reflect on what a different world in which we would be living in terms of SCOTUS appointments had Hillary managed to get in. It truly makes me sick to think about that. I heard someone in the media talking about the takedown by Barrett and noted these two women are relatively young and have a long time to serve together. It should get interesting. It is becoming more and more apparent that Ketanji is way out in front of her skis.
Yes, Jackson is much more focused on extreme language than on careful analysis. I personally could have written a more persuasive dissent than hers. But, alas, persuading seems not to be her objective.
I savor judicial opinions that make me smile.
'JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary" which says it all in Justice Barrett's writing about Jackson's dissent.
If you were sitting in judgement of whether Brown deserved a seat on the Supreme Court, and she lacked the ability to define a woman, (for whatever reason), how could anyone possibly consider that she qualified? It’s just as frightening to know they did.
Yes. And the main reason is that she was outright lying to Congress. She knows what a woman is, but can't say it in the face of the radical left (of which it seems she's a big part).
Democrats never stop to think that they may LOVE this ruling the next time a Democrat is in the White House. If Kamala Harris were President(thank God she's not!) they would be cheering this ruling.
A very thorough, clear, trenchant discussion of the matter. Thanks. Now I’d like to know why you think Trump will likely not prevail on the 14th Amendment challenge.
See https://glennkbeaton.substack.com/p/i-wish-trump-were-right-about-birthright?utm_source=publication-search
Nearly all real scholars agree with me. Moreover, the Justices themselves (and not just the three libs) suggested in their tone at oral argument on the universal injunction issue that they were skeptical of the birthright argument (though it wasn't technically at issue).
Finally, if the conservatives were convinced by Trump's birthright argument, they could have simply decided that issue, too, rather than reserving it for another day.
Trump will lose on the birthright argument in every court (as he has so far) and the matter will ultimately wind up at the Supremes (or maybe they won't even accept it, and instead just let the lower court decisions stand). If they do accept the case, the decision is apt to be about 7-2 or maybe even 9-0 against Trump.
I know this view make our tribe hate me. And I wish I were wrong -- birthright citizenship is a bad thing, especially when we have 20 million illegals in the country. But I'm trying to make predictions, not lead cheers.
No hate here! But I do still think you're wrong. The amendment already comes with exceptions, and has a built-in exception, at that.
I hope you're right. But I don't think so.
Thanks, again. I recall now your prior post on the subject , but probably didn’t want to, ‘cuz, you know, it’s depressing.
You may be right, but I think there are good reasons why you may be wrong. I don’t know how anyone can make good sense of the “under the jurisdiction of” clause, without making it redundant, except to mean that birthright citizenship only applies to those born to legal residents of the USA. Hopefully at least five of the judges will have the courage to not ignore the obvious meaning of this clause in their interpretation of the 14th amendment.
As for the meaning of the "under the jurisdiction" clause:
That clause was clearly intended to cover babies born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats -- who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they have diplomatic immunity.
So a baby born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomat is not a U.S. citizen, because that baby, as a family member of a diplomat, is not subject to our jurisdiction -- the baby has diplomatic immunity.
One can argue that the same clause excludes babies born to illegals, but it's a harder argument, since illegals and their babies ARE subject to our jurisdiction -- that's how we deport them, after all.
The plain meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment are thus contrary to Trump's position. He may still win, and I hope he does, but I doubt it.
You can see more on this at the piece I did at https://glennkbeaton.substack.com/p/i-wish-trump-were-right-about-birthright?utm_source=publication-search
There is this thing called the peter principle...
The point of the walk down memory lane was that the judiciary derives it's authority from the Constitution and that there was no authority for national injunctions therein and that 200 years of precedent substantiates that. Not only did it take out the Plaintiffs argument and Justice Brown's opinion, it has ramifications for other hot topics like the 2nd Amendment. It is clear that for the majority of this Court it is not about policy whims rather it is about law, some if it very old. It also puts the impetus to make policy changes squarely on Congress. Where it belongs.
Did Barrett tear off the token’s weave?
affirmative
Do cat fights include DEI hires or is it just correcting stupidity?
In general, federal judges selected and approved by Democrats interpret the U.S. Constitution not by what it says but by what they say it says. The right to abortions on demand is not in the Constitution, but that didn’t stop judges from saying it was in Roe versus Wade. And judges blocking executive orders issued by Trump do so, not because they’re illegal, but because they don’t align with Democratic Party values and policies (open borders, climate regulations, admissions and hiring based on skin color, abortion on demand, restrictions on freed speech except when the speech is directed at Israel, etc. and so forth).
No cat fight. Fight between intelligent woman and ghetto gutter rat